Wednesday was an astounding day. Herons Forever received the Hearing
Examiner's decision regarding the proposed development of 65 houses
directly adjacent to the Black River heron colony. He reversed the City
of Renton's preliminary approval of the project, replacing it with a
Determination of Significance, and requiring that an environmental impact
statement (EIS) be prepared.

We hoped that our appeal would be successful. We even dared to hope that
an EIS may be required. But we didn't dare to expect it. In order to
prevail, we needed to present an iron-clad case showing that impacts to
the heron colony had not been fully considered and that those impacts
could be severe. The burden of proof was 100% in our court. According to
state law, the City's original decision to approve the project is
entitled to substantial weight. Therefore, their approval was entitled to
be maintained unless the appellant (Herons Forever) clearly demonstrated
that the decision was "clearly erroneous." Friends, the examiner
determined exactly that.

What makes this decision all the more remarkable is that City of Renton
administrators have -- for years -- taken the position that no EIS would
ever again be conducted in this city. It was part of their "streamlining"
process. If this EIS is done, it will be the first in many years.

This decision is simply remarkable. It was one heck of an effort with a
top notch team. This truly was the equivalent of scaling Mt. Everest.

Here are some points the Examiner makes (the numbers correspond to the
list in his decision):

"21. While development of private property is essential and the
development of additional housing in the City is encourage, not every
development plan serves the public use and interest, a prime component of
the review criteria for a plat. It would appear that the City and other
governmental agencies expended a large sum of money not merely to protect
a riparian forest, but a heron colony -- an ecosystem. It would appear
reasonable to take some additional measures to analyze the impacts and
possible alternatives to protect that unique resource. (page 59)

23. The reviewing body should not substitute its judgement for that of
the original body with expertise in the matter, unless the reviewing body
has the firm conviction that a mistake has been made. There is no doubt
that the reviewing agency erred in its determination. The plat is a major
action that will significantly affect the quality of the environment. The
proposed plat is a major action that will have more than a moderate
impact on the quality of the environment. The mitigation measures imposed
by the ERC do not fully mitigate the impacts of developing this site. Too
many questions on environmental issues are still unanswered. Repeating
the obvious: we have a heron colony and the impacts of this development
on that colony and its environment need more analysis. It is possible
that the development of environmental information will accomplish both
the preservation of the heron colony and permit the development of the
private property. (page 60. The remaining points that follow are also on
page 60.)

24. The appealing party must prevail on this appeal. A DNS, even a
mitigated DNS, would be inappropriate for this proposal. First, at this
point, without more information, it truly is hard to understand what
mitigation, that is, what conditions, would be sufficient to offset the
potential impacts. In order to mitigate a proposal, one needs to fully
understand the impacts. The information now in the record does not
provide the necessary information at this time. Full environmental
disclosure should provide the necessary information and that means the
preparation of an EIS.

25. Again, the record is replete with a great deal of conflicting and
contradictory information provided by hired or voluntary experts. A
concise EIS prepared under the City's auspices should provide a neutral
document with more balanced information.

27. The determination of the Environmental Review Committee is reversed.
A Determination of Significance is substituted in its place.

28. Having reached the conclusion that an EIS is required, no purpose
would be served in reviewing the proposed plat request for the subject
site. The evaluation performed by the EIS may determine that the proposed
plat needs modification.

DECISION:
The decision of the ERC is reversed. A Determination of Significance will
replace the decision of the ERC.

Ordered this 3rd day of August, 2004."


There is a two-week appeal period, ending at 5 pm August 17. If this date
passes with no appeal, then the hearing examiner's decision stands. If
his decision is appealed, we will know better what that means once we see
the appeal.

Clearly, it's not over yet. But for now, we should congratulate ourselves
for a job very well done. THANK YOU ALL.

Suzanne Krom, President
Herons Forever
www.heronsforever.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/pipermail/tweeters/attachments/20040807/8f67125a/attachment.htm