FROM: Ostroff Associates

DATE: December 17, 2020

RE: Climate Action Council Land Use and Local Government Advisory Panel

Chair

• Sarah Crowell, Director of the Office of Planning Development and Community

Infrastructure

Members

• Mark Lowery, Assistant Director, Office of Climate Change, New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
• Jessica Bacher, Managing Director, Pace University School of Law, Land Use Law Center
• Jayme Breschard-Thomann, Senior Project Manager, Bergmann PC
• Kevin Law, President and Chief Executive Officer, Long Island Association
• Katie Malinowski, Executive Director, New York State Tug Hill Commission
• Ed Marx, Former Commissioner of Planning, Tompkins County Department of Planning and
Sustainability
• Kathy Moser, Chief Conservation Officer, Open Space Institute
• Priya Mulgaonkar, Resiliency Planner, New York City Environmental Justice Alliance
• Gita Nandan, Co-founder and Board Chair, Resilience, Education, and Training Innovation
(RETI) Center
• Juan Camilo Osorio, Assistant Professor, Pratt Institute, School of Architecture
• Eric Walker, Climate and Clean Energy Strategist

1
2
Crowell: There was much more feedback in the Local Officials Roundtable than shown here but
these were the main points. We were lucky to get broad representation.

3
4
Gita Nandan: I think we had a lot of great representation across the state, but not quite
enough from the urban perspectives. I think we can gather those voices as well to have
equal representation from all areas.

Crowell: I know we had some upstate cities represented like Albany and Rochester. There is
an upstate/downstate divide and an urban/rural divide that we should recognize.

5
Mark Lowery: On the opportunity to reimagine dying big box and malls for compact mixed uses - As
we come out of the pandemic with less office space being used downtown, we may have to apply
the same thinking to a large amount of vacant office space downtown.

Crowell: Again, creating a mix of uses just like the mall is reusing infrastructure and also creating
the kind of dense smart growth development that we want so people don’t have to drive. We have
not scheduled a second roundtable with the local government group yet, but we can engage these
folks and invite them to small group discussions. They want to stay involved going forward and we
hope to continue to engage them in some way.

Kathy Moser: I think it would be a good idea to send them some of our recommendations with a
deadline for some feedback.

Ed Marx: We might ask for their feedback on how these things roll out in terms of timing. I’m sure
municipalities won’t be able to react to everything at the same time if there are too many
recommendations. There might be a lot of phases to this. There might be phases to this in the near
term what might work. If they’re faced with a host of new programs that they’re asked to engage
with, then most will be overwhelmed trying to respond to so many opportunities if they are all
coming out at the same time. We should prioritize which programs are most practical and have the
most impact we might be able to have some of these things phased in over time.

Crowell: Let’s think about what drafts we want to share and at what time.

6
7
Crowell: Cross-panel collaborations are starting to pick up. The main suggestions were about the
importance of engaging communities in developing power plants and moving away from fossil
fuels. We have a lot to work on with them going forward.

Juan Camilo Osorio: It was excellent to hear from them, it's useful to have those community leaders
for guidance and to hold accountable for some of the environmental justice provisions in the
legislation. I would emphasize identifying, learning, and reflecting on land use planning models
from the grassroots that we can use to inform on what the committee will propose down the road.

Paul Beyer: The transportation panel is supportive of what we’re doing with land use and Smart
Growth. There are two main goals we want to focus on. First, commitments to doubling the
transportation capacity and service upstate by 2035 and significantly increasing MTA service by
2035. Second, is a commitment to mode-shifting to “complete streets” (walking, biking, and micro
transit). They have committed to taking those two main categories and aligning them with our
Smart Growth strategies and recommendations.

8
Camilo Osorio: This could be an opportunity to collaborate. Has Value Capture been discussed as a
public financing strategy? I know this is a controversial strategy that the environmental justice
movement has been careful with.

Beyer: Yes, various forms of financing including Value Capture were discussed.

Camilo Osorio: I think we should bring that into our agenda as well.

Beyer: We need to identify priority growth areas. They are committed to transportation-oriented
development, focusing on brown fields, and defining “disadvantaged communities.” We can target
everything we do but particularly those public transportation investments.

Eric Walker: On the Complete Streets work has there been any statewide analysis of where cities
are adopting or prioritizing those efforts? I'm concerned that as municipalities take on the policy
frameworks, they will be drawn to existing commercial districts areas that are generally not in EAG
communities. There is conversation here in Buffalo for example on Complete Streets, but there is a
lack of connection in terms of public transportation. As a result, we are not getting granular enough
about how the policy is being implemented to help support the goals.

Beyer: I have never asked them about that analysis, so I will ask.

Crowell: These are some of the issues we will get into as we start developing our recommendations
in conjunction with the transportation panel.

Katie Malinowski: I sat in on a recent meeting for the forestry advisory panel that spoke on tax
incentives for land owners and 4ADA was mentioned quite a bit.
Moser: A number of members on the forestry panel have reached out to me. Our adaptation and
resiliency subgroup may have a joint opportunity to fill potential gaps in our proposals.

Crowell: We will probably have a joint meeting with them on the siting of renewables and continue
working closely with them.

9
Connor Hilby: California’s SB375 aims to cut greenhouse gas emissions on a regional basis. The bill
uses the regional transportation planning process to achieve CO2 reductions consistent with
California’s Global Working Solutions Act of 2006. The Sustainable Community Strategy and CEQA
credits for incentives that can be implemented into the CEQRA process can be used as a model for
New York. The goal of the Sustainable Communities Strategy is to align the general housing and
land use decisions to hit that goal of greenhouse gas emissions reduction. One way they do this is
through reductions in vehicle miles traveled. Requires cooperation from various players because
looking from a higher level of metropolitan planning organizations. This is not as easy as it looks on
paper and California has struggled a bit with this in practice. In terms of applicability there are
some notable differences. California has 18 MPO areas, and New York only has 14. California has
large coverage throughout the State including rural areas which is why it has been successful. New
York currently has areas that aren’t covered by MPOs, which could be an issue with implementing
the California plan. The bill mainly works through incentives rather than enforcement, so
accountability and market force barriers are potential issues.

10
11
12
Walker: Have you looked at the larger Climate California Investment portfolio and other programs
like the Sustainable Transportation Equity Program as a way to cover the gaps between the
coverage and authority of the MPOs?

Hilby: That’s something we will look more into. The breach in the gap between areas is a red flag.

Nandan: Going around the CEQA requirement makes me nervous. Are there are any case studies on
the implementation side? If there are projects that have already gone through the implementation
phase that we can look at, then we will better understand the implications on the environment. In
terms of circumnavigating the CEQA process there is a time issue but there are reasons why it is in
place. The methods used on the fast track should be equally as effective as those going through the
entire CEQA process. California has strict guidelines.

Hilby: The requirements for the exemption in the bill are extensive. Environmental concerns are
taken into consideration, it’s just a matter of quicker loans. I can look into the case study
implications.

Camilo Osorio: Have you found anything in the CEQA process that could leverage provisions for
affordable housing that we could use to avoid potential displacement and climate gentrification in
the implementation? Also, important that any streamlining or discussions on CEQA do not reduce
the restrictions on processes of implementation or reduce opportunities for public education and
input. The question of using a benchmarking mechanism to identify projects that don’t just meet the
requirements but actually accomplish greater impacts should be encouraged.

13
Hilby: There is an entire section dedicated to affordable housing provisions provision in SB375. I
think using the benchmarking system to incentivize and reward projects that go above and beyond
is an interesting way to go.

Bacher: At the Land Use Law Center in White Plains, we have a program we developed called the
Mayors’ Redevelopment Roundtable. Involves working with mayors in the mid-Hudson region to
identify common issues and provide resources to create a regional economic assessment of their
needs. The idea is that if they collaborate and take collective actions there is an opportunity to grow
the region more broadly. Involved streamlining processes to be redevelopment ready. Part of that is
related to updating zoning, which can be done using a general Environmental Impact Statement.
The evaluation of the impacts of the project are done at the zoning change level then the
supplemental process, which can be much more streamlined to decrease the cost, is then done
project-by-project. There are opportunities at the local level as well where they could streamline
CEQA issues by engaging the community up-front on a regional basis. There is real opportunity to
operate through organizations to collaborate and create these regional models. Education of the
communities and early engagement are major aspects of this and other models we have used. Have
to be out ahead of growth plans for support and to get funding.

Crowell: That speaks to the shortcomings of SB375 implementation relating to local outreach and
engagement.

Beyer: They have in many ways avoided the traditional issues of development competition among
cities. Regional planning is about economic development. They are all in the same boat and
collaborate as a region.

Marx: In evaluating this, it seems that we need to understand the significant differences in planning
laws and framework between California and New York. Counties play a much bigger role in
California and they do not have the proliferation of municipal zoning. MPOs have more power in
California. We should understand the significant differences between states that might determine if
this is even applicable at all in New York. There is no regional planning in New York as far as I am
aware that could make this type of plan effective. There are many cases in which municipalities are
restricted by their boundaries to other regions with entirely different economic environments.
Without regional coordination or enforcement, it could be difficult panning out how we hoped.

Lowery: California has not had success in stopping sprawl or reducing its transportation emissions
because of a lack of enforcement authority, so they are not much better off than New York in that
regard. They set decisions on rule, so the incentives are there but it’s not enough to overcome the
tendency to build more cheaply in a sprawling way. I am unclear on what exactly is meant by
“incentives” in relation to the exceptions and whether municipalities have similar powers under
New York State law? How do those exemptions differ and is there anything holding us back from a
state perspective to try this?

Hilby: The actual incentives include hitting certain requirements that then act as a go-around for the
CEQA review process. It includes a public approval process but beyond the language of the bill I’m
not sure what other incentives are involved. There are also limited CEQA incentives. Municipalities
that hit some of the requirements can receive exemptions or a limited CEQA review.

Bacher: The idea is thinking about how to incorporate a regional approach to planning through
mandates and incentives and streamlining it. Must understand the components of that approach
and how they work. From what I can see the models clearly would have to be adapted. They could

14
be adapted significantly from the model we have from California, but we have to at least start there
to understand what can be done and what can be done differently. It might not be perfect but the
idea is to determine where those opportunities are in existing frameworks, what the mandates and
incentives are, and what new frameworks need to be created to make it work.

Lowery: Whatever we’re doing now isn’t working in terms of reducing DMTs, so more of the same
won’t solve anything.

Walker: Is there a visualization of the process flow for the work you did with the Mayors’
Roundtables? What is the engagement and coordination of that work? Particularly on creating a
fabric between regional organizations and local municipal actors?

Bacher: In general, it involved regular meetings with the mayors with agendas based on their needs
and getting them resources. We identified resources and brought technical assistance to create
models like an Economic Development Component for Comprehensive Plans that can be utilized
and streamline the adoption of best practices at the local level.

Malinowski: I still think there will need to be some hand-holding to balance those two ideas.

Marx: There’s a provision in the law that could potentially do much of what we’re talking about
called Generic Environmental Impact Statements on Comprehensive Plans. If there was something
in state law that stipulates in order to do a statement and to adopt a plan and streamlined CEQA
review there would have to be a Smart Growth component with regional relevance aspect. That’s
not the way New York is set up now, and that’s likely why it doesn’t work so well. Statewide-
mandated county plans for municipal plans to follow Smart Growth would get as close as feasible to
that in New York.

Bacher: We adopted that for our re-zoning for downtown. There needs to be a revolving fund for
the GIS that can then be billed back to developers as projects come online. Sometimes
municipalities or counties aren’t equipped to do that planning and that level of review without the
necessary funding, so they need resources earlier in the process for studies and preparation.

Crowell: Market forces are a major challenge to overcome. If sprawl is cheaper it will be hard to stop
no matter what we do to stop that. There are external costs, so must consider how we can make
Smart Growth not just the way that our plans direct development but that it’s also a practical way to
develop.

15
Crowell: This is our last look at mitigation strategies before we go into recommendations. Doesn’t
include adaptation and resilience, because we are going to be taking those up with other panels on
an extended timeline. We will get back on track with those in the New Year. For now, just looking at
high-level mitigation strategies.

Lowery: We need to interact with the other advisory panels to generate proposals independent of
what the other advisory panels generate in the context of the mitigation strategies they are
considering. For our mitigation recommendations there is a mid-march deadline because of the
integration analysis that has to be done by a consultant for NYSERDA. The extension for mitigation
strategies is to put that together so it makes sense. This gives more breathing space to hone into
those areas.

Camilo Osorio: Missing is the idea of using Smart Growth with shared ownership.

16
Beyer: On the Smart Growth subgroup of Transportation the discussion is well beyond walking and
biking, it’s transit at-large like ride sharing services. Public health securities are also part of the
analysis and will be imbedded in all of these strategies.

Camilo Osorio: Should include strengthening the availability of data for municipalities to do the
work. Localities need that and sometimes don’t know where to start.

17
18
Brad Tito: The Clean Energy component includes policies for local governments to engage with to
reduce the energy use of CO2 emissions of new development to promote energy efficiency retrofits.
Geared toward avoiding the patchwork of policies where communities feel they are at a competitive
disadvantage to other communities. There is data that exists and technology provides opportunities
to create community profiles and expand beyond energy to a range of other issues. Critical for
communities to do the proactive planning and identify sites that make sense for installation.
Looking to expand participation. The core is looking at things like tracking, recovery, and other
opportunities. We can go beyond local government to groups like schools that have assets to
collaborate in a meaningful way and play their part.

19
Crowell: The Just Transition Group is looking for our input for their Power Plant Transition
subgroup. That is in January, but no date has been scheduled. The other opportunity is for the
Energy Efficiency Advisory panel on building codes and decarbonization laws and services. That is
scheduled for early January.

20
21