Neighbors press Kitsap County on traffic, water and mitigation as Royal Valley Phase 2 hearing is held; record kept open

Kitsap County held a public hearing May 28 on the Royal Valley preliminary plat and Performance Based Development (Area 2), during which staff recommended approval with conditions while residents and technical witnesses pressed the applicant and county on stormwater enforcement, groundwater and sewer capacity, road access and the adequacy of the proposed mitigation.

Jeff Smith, representing the Department of Community Development, said the revised Royal Valley proposal would subdivide roughly 65.38 acres to create 52 single-family properties (including townhomes and cottages), a multifamily component of 276 units with an option to add 40 more units (bringing the total to roughly 328), and about 21% of the site set aside as open space under the performance-based development standards. He said the department had issued a mitigated determination of non-significance (MDNS) on March 16, 2026, and that no appeals were filed during the SEPA period.

"The subdivision will create 52 single-family properties ... In addition to that this development will include 276 multifamily units and then there's the option of including 40 additional units later," Smith said.

Norm L. Olsen, the project's engineer for Royal Valley Land LLC, outlined proposed tweaks to several staff conditions (including conditions 14, 15, 38, 40, 41, 47 and 48) so that two interior roads (Road A and Road E) would be dedicated and accepted as public rather than remaining private, and said the applicant would submit clarifications as an additional exhibit. Olsen also noted the project has entered agreements with the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) on intersections and said the developer had paid for sewer upgrades including a new pump station and a 24-inch main.

The bulk of the hearing was taken by public comment. Mandy Owens, who lives adjacent to the existing apartment construction near Blue/Glutes Pond, said three-story apartment buildings stand roughly 50 feet from her property and that incomplete fencing and the current egress plan will jeopardize deliveries to her home-based business and emergency access. "Each agency is communicating different(ly) and it's laid a little bit of chaos and confusion at my doorstep and surrounding neighbors," Owens said.

Cindy Allpress, whose family farm borders Phase 1, submitted an inspection reference (WAR311418, dated Sept. 4, 2025) and alleged repeated stormwater-control violations and inadequate enforcement during Phase 1. She warned of cumulative impacts from multiple developments and asked the examiner to pause approvals until county oversight and infrastructure capacity are addressed.

"During Phase 1, DCD did not enforce the landscape requirements called out in their administrative staff reports ... we have no reason to believe that they are able to enforce regulations for phase 2," Allpress said, and the hearing officer marked her submission as an exhibit.

Joseph Lubisher, who has worked on the county's critical areas ordinance, urged stronger, specified stormwater inspection requirements and challenged the record’s mitigation documents, saying a staff attachment (attachment E) was not clearly in the record and that buffer-averaging and "temporary impact" approaches need clearer hydrologic justification.

In response the applicant and staff: Olsen said some earlier Phase 1 stormwater issues stemmed from extreme rainstorms that exceeded design assumptions during construction and that the developer has worked with DCD to resolve violations; Robin Myers, the project's senior wetland scientist, described a master mitigation plan (admitted as an updated critical areas report, exhibit 42, dated 01/05/2026) that she said consolidates restoration and monitoring across the Royal Valley parcel and ties any small buffer intrusions (about 1,000–2,000 square feet total, she estimated) to the master mitigation program.

"We proposed to the county to do a mitigation master plan ... it's a comprehensive, coordinated and transparent framework," Myers said, adding that mitigation for several areas is already planted or complete and that changes shown in recent civil sheets are minor and will be addressed by the master plan.

County staff said the North Perry Water District has provided a water system plan reviewed by Ecology and the state Department of Health and that the project is within the retail water service area; staff also said they had located landscape plans that show a proposed fence at the apartment site. Jeff Smith asked parties to submit any outstanding technical items and said several elements of the preliminary plat will be refined as the county moves from a 60% preliminary design to final approvals.

Hearing Examiner Susan Drummond said there were enough unresolved technical and record questions to merit keeping the record open; she set a deadline of June 11, 2026, for additional written materials and asked staff and the applicant to confirm that referenced reports (including the updated mitigation and any water letters or civil plans) were in the record. "I'll be taking a close look at everything, including the material yet to come in," Drummond said.

No formal decision on the Royal Valley preliminary plat was issued at the hearing; the examiner will rule after reviewing the complete record.