Attachment H

 

From:    Mark Graham 

Sent:    Friday, June 10, 2005 8:35 AM

To:        Sally Thomas; Scott Clark; Board of Supervisors members; Bob Tucker

Cc:       Ella Carey

Subject:            RE: Feedback on Natural Heritage Committee

 

Sally,

I believe what I said was the time for getting comments from the committees and other departments did not slow down the review process. At least, that is what I was trying to say.  I anticipate we will be able to receive biodiversity committee comments in a timely fashion. However, I believe I also said the complexity of issues and levels of detail considered with reviews were among the primary causes of delay with legislative reviews. That is also stated in the executive summary. In that regard, reviewing for biodiversity does add another parameter to the project review and this will increase the complexity of reviews. Whether the level of detail required to analyze biodiversity affects the time to approvals cannot be determined until the biodiversity committee develops its guidance and we understand how they plan to implement that guidance.  For that reason, we recommended delaying implementation of project review for biodiversity until everyone understood what that review would involve.  This will give the committee a chance to get established, to understand development review processes, and to develop their guidance before attempting to start reviewing projects.  Also, I believe it is important to recognize that few, if any, people on the biodiversity committee will start with a good understanding of development review processes or the Board’s desire to streamline review processes.   As such, I believe it is appropriate for the County Board to look at their guidance and advise the committee before starting to review projects for biodiversity.   

 

 

Go to Attachment I
Return to executive summary