Comment Log Display

We are pleased that advocacy efforts of those of us in California’s
urban forestry community resulted in a significant role for urban
forestry in the State’s Cap-and-Trade expenditure plan for 2014/15
and beyond. We do have some comments regarding implementation.

Of the options proposed for identifying disadvantaged communities,
we urge that methods 1, 4, 5, and 6 be given the greatest
consideration.  These address the intent, requirements and spirit
of SB 535.  We do not believe that methods 2 and 3 meet the
statutory requirements of SB 535.

We also believe that the Air Resources Board suggestion that $10.5
million (or 55%) of the Urban Forestry funds be dedicated to
disadvantaged communities would allow CalFire to meet or exceed the
requirements of SB 535. 

As for the percentage of the funds that could be spent on projects
that “benefit disadvantaged communities,” we encourage you to
thoughtfully consider the broad array of benefits that are not
specific to a narrowly-defined geographic area. 

Finally, in consideration of the magnitude of work done by trees in
existing canopy, we believe it is important to include funding in
the Urban Forestry program guidelines for management and
maintenance of standing urban trees. 

California needs both new trees and our existing canopy to reach
our AB 32 goals. 

Original File Name:

Date and Time Comment Was Submitted: 2014-09-12 15:57:02