Sadly, but not surprisingly, we lost our appeal before the planning commission and the following letter to editor of the Mercer Island Reporter tells the story well. While it was an open record appeal and we had much new evidence to present (arborist reports, evidence of substantial error in the Critical areas Report, etc), the commissioners failed to spend the time necessary to fully read and comprehend our material. The hearing was an absolute waste of our time. The planning commissioners should not be charged with such decisions as they do not seem appropriately trained to be reviewing critical issues such as these, especially during an appeal that is 'quasi-judicial ' in format and questions cannot be freely asked of both sides throughout the discussion period. They had many questions, yet we appellants were not allowed to answer. Few, if any, in council chambers that night seemed to completely understand the procedures, most importantly the right for our appeal documents and new evidence to be fully read by the commissioners- something that should have taken several hours of their time, something that should have led to a temporary post-ponement of the decision. Of great concern now, yet dismissed (or simply overlooked) by the commissioners...should the tree become damaged, it could quickly become a hazard tree and 5-6 homes are in close range of a direct strike. The commissioners' ill-informed decision failing to reverse the reduction in the property's wetland buffer could potentially impact safety of person and property. Reducing the wetland buffer allows constuction to occur directly over the tree's root system. Very frustrating on so many levels! The next step in the appeal process is to file in King County Superior Court and we are contemplating this, though we have no idea what this would require. Please read the following letter to the editor:

Construction could destroy habitat

I attended the Feb. 6, 2008 meeting of the Mercer Island Planning Commission, held at City Hall. The only agenda item was an appeal of the decision by George Steirer, senior planner at the Development Services Group for Mercer Island, to approve a reduced wetland buffer so that a single family home may be built on a property in the East Mercer Highlands. Not only does the lot contain a wetland covering about half the area, but it is home to one of the largest old-growth Douglas firs left on the Island, measured at 80 inches in diameter.As expected, both sides in the debate were present and gave testimony in support of their cause. Quite a bit of written material was given to the Commission for review. There were conflicting reports from various experts, and some of the earlier data was being revised. However, despite this uncertainty and without putting in the time necessary to thoroughly review the newly produced material, the Commission agreed with the staff recommendation to grant the reduced buffer.I am amazed that the Commission would make a final ruling. It was stated twice that they could remand the decision back to staff with further instructions. Based on what I heard, it would have been much more appropriate to have staff talk to the various experts on both sides, possibly on site at the property, and try to come to a consensus solution. What happened looked like the decision was made before the meeting began.With this Commission and Mr. Steirer as senior planner, I fear that development forces are going to destroy habitat and reduce the long-term desirability of living on Mercer Island.

Brian McGee