[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6209971,"mediaKeyId","3728724-8cc85f378d4d9c15fec8a447a3b964f5","parentId",3728724,"title","Experts disagree over wetland extent at Silverview site after county-ordered peer review","audioSeconds",9120,"startMs",489000,"endMs",9609000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3728724-8cc85f378d4d9c15fec8a447a3b964f5&start=489&end=9609","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3728724-8cc85f378d4d9c15fec8a447a3b964f5/thumbnail_489000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6209971/Kitsap-County/Washington/Experts-disagree-over-wetland-extent-at-Silverview-site-after-county-ordered-peer-review","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6209971-b1749dde632a70da8f4111ef4a747869/orig.mp4?Expires=1773700490&Signature=XmJJA6I~NRI~zSCuyfqPikgef0uXYDJKtelsw9mVDxWZEzdKm2SfKYz-l~kvZC5sHyd48XF~Y5LuVEA87C6Ka~ZmjAg6qlLxh8u~Bwo72Qc-B4X4oipVkg9GLYzX7b496UWpql91SaXYUU-JZpEUD-THXkFEv663AmJYylDw1NE8Oz~WK2SbnIfSv3nn37bcZVJ2Z9bZl3QQPMJQjIfiLEfwZ3gKtFPcT4PzHTqYhq-s-qc3b63zSFIq2BVciH8a-XgtfvVRHKHVAt4DBCSEximCq3VzZ8c67zR2bS6IhdHNhiUTYutN1EtaVuN4pE06Fh0-d6i8S-o-K7p11~1SXA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Kitsap County, WA","date","2025-06-04T00:00:00Z","article","Experts who visited the Silverview property in Silverdale gave sharply different accounts this week of whether meadow areas meet the three legal parameters for wetlands — hydrology, hydrophytic vegetation and hydric soil — and how large any regulatory wetland is.

A peer reviewer retained by Kitsap County, Christopher Wright of Radke Associates, testified that his team opened six test pits and found hydric soil meeting the A-11 indicator at one location (their Sample Plot 2) but not at five others. Wright said some pits were dug during a dry period and that the agency with jurisdiction, the Washington Department of Ecology, had earlier accepted a smaller mapped wetland for the site.

The split matters because the Hearing Examiner ordered a remand limited in part to a focused review of soil indicators. Why it matters: wetland boundaries determine which areas are subject to county code controls and whether the project would require mitigation or avoidance.

Wright described standard field practice: when a prior pit is obvious or disturbed, a reviewer opens a new, undisturbed hole “in close proximity” (he said often 5–8 feet away) and compares results. He told the examiner that three of four holes near Wetland A did not meet hydric-soil criteria, while one pit did and also showed hydrophytic vegetation and secondary hydrology indicators (drainage patterns). Wright emphasized he followed the Corps/NRCS checklists and the 1987 Corps manual as updated by later field indicators when assessing soils.

Appellant consultant Dr. Sarah Cook and Soundview Consultants’ Rachel Hyland testified that their earlier delineations show a larger wetland. Cook said she identified a meadow wetland dominated in places by reed canarygrass and that her mapping, and a later field letter by tribal and state technical staff, supported substantially more than the 355 square feet Ecology had referenced earlier. Hyland said Soundview collected additional plots on remand (the parties’ materials show ~20 data plots were collected across the site on remand) and reported multiple locations that meet wetland parameters; she and other witnesses said many of the post-remand plots lie between the parties’ mapped lines.

Experts debated which field standards control. The hearing record includes repeated references to: the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, the Western Mountains/Valleys/Coast regional supplement, and the current Field Indicators of Hydric Soils (v. 8.2). Radke and Soundview witnesses told the examiner they relied on the updated field indicators (v.8.2), which set practical thresholds for visually detecting redoximorphic features (for example, the F6 indicator requires a dark surface and 2% redox concentrations within the upper rooting zone, or an alternate threshold for chroma 2 soils of 5% redox). Appellant’s witness Dr. Cook cited published literature and professional debate over visual thresholds for identifying faint redox features; she argued several Soundview plots contained hydric-soil features that should have been classified wet.

County staff senior planner Jeff Smith testified the county had requested a party review and that the remand scope focused on specific soil indicators called out in the Hearing Examiner’s order. He said staff considers the applicant’s feasibility and design arguments separately from technical wetland jurisdiction. Wright and Radke noted a prior Ecology review and a letter of concurrence with the applicant’s mapped wetland boundary; Cook and Hyland said Ecology’s internal technical staff had disagreed in the field with that head-office letter and the county should weigh that technical disagreement.

What was decided here: the hearing so far has produced conflicting technical findings, but not a final change in the county’s regulatory position. No formal vote or binding county action on jurisdiction occurred during the session. The Hearing Examiner retained the record for further consideration.

Ending
The disagreement centers on interpretation of in-field evidence and which soil-indicator thresholds to apply. The record contains detailed data forms from multiple consultants, a county-ordered peer review, and references to Ecology and Corps guidance. The Examiner will weigh those conflicting technical reports and agency guidance before issuing a written ruling that will determine which areas of the site are regulated wetland and what mitigation or avoidance measures — if any — the county will require.
","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Kitsap County Hearing Examiner - 06-04-2025 Silver View Appeal Day 3","oneSentenceSummary","A Kitsap County remand review of the Silverview site produced conflicting technical findings this week: a county-retained peer reviewer said only one of six pits met hydric-soil criteria, while other consultants and tribal/state reviewers said the meadow contains a larger wetland.","taxTitle","Kitsap County, Washington","taxId",7830,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6209965,"Parking under Silverview buildings remains disputed as engineers, planners contest aquifer, cost and design risks",19596,4000,19600000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3728724-8cc85f378d4d9c15fec8a447a3b964f5&start=4&end=19600","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3728724-8cc85f378d4d9c15fec8a447a3b964f5/thumbnail_4000.jpg","/articles/6209965/Kitsap-County/Washington/Parking-under-Silverview-buildings-remains-disputed-as-engineers-planners-contest-aquifer-cost-and-design-risks","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6209965-ca83b00444e3457796af0badeee5f454/orig.mp4?Expires=1773700490&Signature=GemoGLcv-L5n6ry3huClH7WXK9MBZlaarAZqjv0NLlq9IkXzx2VYGwX6fbhv6Y67d5tYrmGx7V1z8cy5NIWxjkNGgjt-9U-LzVE6SRT4Cp6duPJ3t2GkSFxEG1a-tQcqyoljt4l0nvnL5K0nYnAHUiLMp0Dk0bQkI2SkZrRVVXBDSLvhIZ2Yjpdum4SsVQBDasgO8v11TkASEo~ZJbnw0K8-iJAV5GiNSjZT601y65Rggzj3QHc1h7UDk~O7QYYe8raOiFFJbU8Ly1D7Kg488Fzo~ZYnQeOgQJyA54p2YNaVTG40KzI~ch0TbyufTiwljEd--X99Lb5-epjACZelbg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A central planning question at the Silverview appeals hearing was whether the applicant must put parking under the proposed apartment buildings where feasible under the Silverdale waterfront design standards — and if so, whether that is feasible on this site.

What was argued: applicant-side witnesses and the project’s architect said structured (under-building) parking is not feasible because site-specific subsurface conditions — including a shallow, artesian aquifer in the downslope area — make deeper excavation risky and costly. The county’s staff (Jeff Smith) testified that the applicant’s feasibility analysis addressed the design standards and that staff believes the applicant has justified using surface parking rather than structured parking in the current proposal. Opponents and some independent witnesses argued that other design choices (podium parking, narrower building footprints, or alternative foundation methods) could allow under-building parking and that nearby examples in Silverdale show that one level of structured parking is feasible in the area.

Seismic, elevator and pit requirements: expert witnesses emphasized that elevators used in multiunit buildings require a below-floor elevator pit (industry practice cited: a minimum ~4.0 ft pit below the lowest service floor), plus sump and drainage for hydraulic elevator systems. Architects and engineers said that elevator pits and required waterproofing add complexity and depth to below-grade work and therefore can reach into subsurface lenses that parties call aquifer or confining till. One county-contracted geotechnical expert (testimony in prior submissions and referenced in hearing) signaled an opinion that foundations that preserve a specified thickness of confining till (50% of the confining layer, as cited in hearing) mitigate the highest risks, but witnesses disagreed on whether the project’s proposed structural sections meet that margin.

Costs and feasibility economics: parties discussed industry estimates. The applicant provided feasibility material citing a per-stall cost figure (~$30,000 per stall in one consultant analysis), while other industry references and a contractor estimate range shown in the hearing suggested higher per-stall ranges (examples used in testimony: ~$63,000 per stall in a comparative estimate from a construction-cost source). The arithmetic shown in the hearing: at $30,000 per stall for 160 required stalls, the incremental cost would be about $4.88 million; higher per-stall estimates would multiply that differential and affect project viability. County staff told the examiner they reviewed the applicant’s market and feasibility analysis and considered it sufficient for the remand issues.

Design trade-offs: witnesses and counsel agreed on trade-offs. Putting parking below the buildings reduces surface parking and visible car headlights, and can align better with the design standard preference to “build up rather than out.” But under-building solutions tend to narrow unit configurations or change unit orientation (double-loaded corridors versus garden-style walk-ups), which affects unit design, views, and perceived quality of housing. Architects warned that some low-cost design workarounds (for example, elevated walkways or “balcony” circulation to reduce measured egress distance) produce poor residential design; others argued they can be used to meet life-safety code if carefully done.

What the hearing produced: testimony, cross-examination, and exhibits. No final policy change was adopted during the session; the Hearing Examiner will consider the evidence and issue a decision. The debate included testimony from the applicant’s architect and contractor estimates, county staff, independent architects and geotechnical consultants, and references to nearby developments (North Beach, Rivulet) used as comparables.

Ending
The Examiner’s decision will need to weigh technical geotechnical risk, elevator and excavation depth requirements, construction-cost estimates, and the Silverdale design standards’ direction to prefer building up over out. The record includes competing professional judgments on subsurface risk and on how to interpret “feasible” in the waterfront design chapter; the Examiner’s written ruling will determine whether structured parking is required, optional, or infeasible for the Silverview proposal.
","Kitsap County’s Silverview hearing turned into a technical and economic debate over whether at least some — or all — of the project’s required parking must be built under the proposed buildings, with experts divided on cost estimates, elevator/pit needs and the risk of breaching a shallow aquifer.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Experts disagree over wetland extent at Silverview site after county-ordered peer review

Parking under Silverview buildings remains disputed as engineers, planners contest aquifer, cost and design risks