KITSAP COUNTY, Wash. — Kitsap County planning staff recommended approval with conditions on Jan. 8 of the Meadowview preliminary plat (file 23-03239) and a shoreline conditional use permit (file 23-03929), a proposed 329-unit, three-parcel subdivision that would include two large stormwater ponds, pedestrian connections and shoreline open space near Island Lake.

The hearing examiner said the meeting would include public comment and that a separate State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) appeal of the county’s mitigated determination of nonsignificance would be heard over additional days. County staff and the applicant each presented multi-disciplinary technical reports; the hearing examiner admitted dozens of exhibits into the record and set a post-hearing written comment schedule.

Why it matters: The Meadowview proposal reaches several common thresholds for local controversy — shoreline jurisdiction, critical-area buffers (streams, wetlands, aquifer recharge), stormwater outfalls and one primary vehicle access — and residents and environmental consultants raised concerns about hydrology, water quality, and traffic safety. Because the applicant’s SEPA determination has been appealed, the hearing examiner will next consider whether probable significant adverse environmental impacts require an environmental impact statement.

County staff overview and recommendation

Darren Gurney, planning supervisor and project lead for Kitsap County Department of Community Development, walked through the staff report and supporting exhibits including critical-areas, habitat management and hydrologic assessments. He told the examiner the department finds the proposal “consistent with the comprehensive plan, goals and policies” and recommended approval with conditions (see Section 13 of the staff report), subject to the hearing process and any changes arising from the SEPA appeal.

Gurney described the record as extensive — the staff exhibit index and comment file together run to thousands of pages — and said staff had issued a mitigated determination of non-significance (MDNS) that is now the subject of two appeals. He also confirmed the shoreline conditional use recommendation is advisory: the Department of Ecology makes the final shoreline decision after the county record is complete.

Applicant case and technical evidence

The applicant, represented by counsel Dujuana Koloskova and civil engineer Holly Hebron of Core Design, confirmed the project site is three parcels totaling about 55 acres within the county Urban Growth Area (UGA). The proposal calls for 329 single-family lots (about 7 dwelling units per acre), organized in three phases (roughly 112 lots in phase 1, 110 in phase 2 and 107 in phase 3), public road dedications for most on-site streets, two stormwater ponds sited on an eastern parcel outside the immediate shoreline buffers, dispersion trenches that discharge to Island Lake, and a sanitary lift station.

Hebron and the applicant’s consultant team (Terra Associates for geotechnical work; Ecological Land Services for wetland delineation and habitat management; 10‑W for traffic; Kindred Hydro and Radikey Associates for hydrogeology and critical-area review) described the project’s design and mitigation features and answered questions about buffer lines, stormwater design and the proposed easement allowing stormwater facilities on an adjacent rural parcel (identified in the civil plans as parcel 2004). The applicant added its own proposed edits to staff’s recommended conditions and submitted those revisions as an exhibit for the record.

Key technical points in the record

- Permits and files: preliminary plat file 23-03239; shoreline conditional use permit file 23-03929. The shoreline designation near the northern parcel is Urban Conservancy; the county’s shoreline jurisdiction extends 200 feet from ordinary high water.

- Critical-area buffers identified in testimony: Island Lake standard buffer 100 feet (reduced standard buffer 85 feet may be allowed with no-net-loss demonstration at SDAP); Barker Creek is a Type F stream with a 150-foot buffer; an on-site Category 3 wetland (Wetland A) carries a 110-foot buffer.

- Stormwater: project stormwater generally discharges to two large ponds sited off the urban parcels (on the eastern parcel within an easement). Northern roof/runoff areas are routed to five dispersion trenches into Island Lake that applicant engineers say are placed more than 100 feet from the lake’s ordinary high water mark; applicant added voluntary bioretention swales in the treatment train. Applicant asserts ponds and dispersion facilities are placed outside regulated critical-area buffers and that pond outlets are sized and controlled to match existing flow rates.

- Hydrogeology: the applicant provided a hydrogeologic assessment (exhibit in record) and an independent hydrogeologist for the appellant/respondents (Kindred) also submitted modeling. Applicant and its hydrogeologist testified modeling predicts slight changes in average flows but not a substantial change in Island Lake or regional groundwater elevations; the appellant group disputes that conclusion and raised the need for fuller study.

- Geotechnical: Terra Associates documented multiple rounds of borings and test pits across the site and concluded soils consist mainly of outwash sands, ice-contact sediments and glacial till. The geotechnical team recommended structural and drainage measures for slope and excavation stability.

- Traffic and access: a traffic impact analysis (10‑W) examined 15 intersections and several roadway segments. The consultant concluded studied intersections would operate at acceptable levels of service with full build-out, proposed frontage and intersection improvements would address existing sight-distance issues, and mitigation would include payment of county transportation impact fees. The project has a single off-site vehicle access (Camp Court NW); due to topography a separate county-standard second access was not feasible, and the fire marshal has conditioned the project to require sprinklers on homes because of the single access constraint.

Public concerns raised

Public comments (about 70+ letters in the file and a lengthy in-person comment period) centered on Island Lake and Barker Creek: residents and local conservation volunteers pressed for stronger independent review of aquifer recharge and lake-level impacts, questioned whether the hydrogeologic/hydrologic analysis in the record was sufficient, urged daylighting of culverted sections of Barker Creek to restore salmon habitat, and sought assurances about stormwater water-quality treatment for nutrients and tire-related contaminants. Many speakers also raised concerns about tree removal and the visual/forest buffer impacts along Island Lake Road, pedestrian and school safety (proximity to Emerald Heights Elementary School), and traffic volumes on narrow local roads.

Representative public comments included long-standing local stewardship history for Island Lake, requests that the county require an environmental impact statement rather than rely on an MDNS, and pleas to retain the former camp property as parkland rather than allow subdivision development.

Procedural and record items

The examiner admitted the applicant’s PowerPoint and other submission exhibits into the record and added a few late-filed technical documents (geotechnical revised report, cultural resources assessment). The hearing schedule was clarified: the written record will be kept open for written public comment through Jan. 21, 2025 (5 p.m.), staff responses will be due Jan. 23 and the applicant’s reply by Jan. 27 (dates were set on the record at the hearing). The SEPA appeal (the central contested issue of whether an EIS is required) will be heard in a separate multi-day phase, and the hearing examiner advised that phase would include detailed expert testimony and legal argument.

Quotes from the record

Darren Gurney, Kitsap County planning supervisor: “We are recommending approval with conditions as seen in Section 13 of the staff report.”

Miss Jones (hearing clerk): “Public testimony will be limited to 3 minutes each.”

What’s next

The hearing examiner will continue the SEPA appeal process on the dates posted in the hearing notice; the examiner left the written record open for the additional public comments noted above and allowed applicants and staff time after the close of testimony to attempt to negotiate agreed changes to preliminary conditions. The record now contains multiple technical assessments that the examiner and parties will weigh when determining whether the MDNS was adequate or whether a full environmental impact statement is required.

Ending note

The Meadowview matter ties routine subdivision review to several watershed-scale and shoreline issues — stormwater routing and treatment, aquifer recharge, and salmon-bearing habitat — that the examiner said must be judged by the permit criteria and the technical record rather than public sentiment alone. Because the SEPA determination is appealed, the next hearing days will focus on those contested technical and legal questions.