HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/10/2026 - Regular - Additional Doc-HEX TranscriptAppendix A
December 3, 2025 Hearing Transcript
Hull Ave Rezone -- LU25-REZONE-01
Note: This is a computer -generated transcript provided for informational purposes only. The
reader should not take this document as 100% accurate or take offense at errors created by the
limitations of the programming in transcribing speech. A recording of the hearing is available at
the City of Port Orchard Department of Community Development should anyone need an
accurate rendition of the hearing testimony.
Examiner Olbrechts: (00:02):
All right, perfect. It is the magic hour. I'll get the recorder going on my side too, just in case. Let's see
here. There we go. All right, for the record, it's December 3rd, 2025, 10:00 AM. I'm Phil Albright, hearing
examiner for the City of Port Orchard. And this morning we're holding a hearing on an application for a
site -specific rezone, file number LU25-rezone-01. And it looks like we got a mix of people attending in
person today and online, mostly online, but we've got at least a couple people in the hearing room
there. When we get to the public testimony portion, of course, everyone will have an opportunity to
speak, whether you're in the hearing room or online. Just make sure that you register your interest to be
heard. We'll tell you how to do that once we get to that portion of the hearing. But the hearing format
today is we'll start off with a presentation from staff and looks like that's going to be Connor Dalquist.
(00:59):
Is that correct? Mr. Dolquist, you're going to be doing the staff presentation today?
Mr. Dahlquist: (01:03):
Yes, that's correct.
Examiner Olbrechts: (01:04):
Okay. So he'll give us an overview of his staff report, which is a summary of how staff came to the
conclusion that the rezone meets the city's standards for rezone approval. After he's done with that,
then we'll move on to the applicant. If the applicant wants to add anything, they can. That's not
required. It's up to you, but if you want to say something, the time would be right after the staff report.
Then after that, we move on to the public portion of the hearing, which is public comments. I'll probably
start off with people in the meeting room first. We'll just ask anyone who wants to speak to raise their
hand or something, or we'll go through the sign -in sheets and you just need to go to the podium there
and I'll swear you in. We'll need to get the spelling of your last name just to make sure we don't
embarrass ourselves if we refer to some of your comments in the final decision, and then go ahead and
make your comments.
(01:53):
After I've finished with the people in the room, we'll move on to people who are attending virtually. So
far, we've got looks like at least five members of the public probably that are at least watching and some
of them likely will want to say something. After all that, then we go back to Mr. Dalquist to answer
Appendix A -- 12 (Completed 12/23/25) Page 1 of 18
Transcript by Rev.com
questions that people ask during their presentations. And Mr. Dolquist also has the opportunity to
submit rebuttal evidence as he finds necessary to make a complete record for a good decision, or I
should say in my case, recommendation to the city council. After Mr. Dolquist has done, the applicant is
a matter of due process because they're the ones that have to prove they meet all the code criteria.
They get to go last, present the last rebuttal evidence, and I get a couple weeks to issue a
recommendation to the city council.
(02:40):
Now, usually in most cases, the hearing examiner decision is final and it's only appealable to court.
That's the way most cities handle it. But by state law, rezones are subject to final approval by the city
council. They're considered legislative actions that have to be adopted by an ordinance and only the city
council has the authority to adopt an ordinance, not hearing examiners. At the same time though, and
this is where it gets a little strange under state law, there's only one public hearing allowed per
development project. And so since I'm holding the public hearing, the city council isn't allowed to hold
its own hearing. They have to rely upon all the testimony that's presented in this hearing today. By state
law, people aren't allowed to present new evidence to the city council. So if you want to be sure that the
council considers some of your concerns, make sure you get your concerns in the record today before
the hearing is closed so that I can forward those concerns to the city council.
(03:38):
Usually what I do when I prepare these recommendations, at least when there's some public testimony
is I'll have an informal transcript put together and I'll also address all the concerns raised by everybody
point by point in the recommendation of the city council as well. So now by state law too, I'm only
allowed to consider evidence that's put in the record today.That's a state legal requirement to ensure
that we're all on a level playing field, that everybody knows what information is being considered for the
final recommendation, final decision. So under those laws, I'm not allowed to talk to staff about the
project or anybody else. Any documents that I look at for this recommendation, the city council has to
be available to everybody else so they can see what was considered as well. So Mr. Dalquist, in
preparing his staff report, has put together an exhibit list.
(04:29):
And I keep on forgetting for the city of Port Orchard, you put your exhibit ... It's not in the staff reports.
It's not a separate document. Is there somebody that can share screen that can show that exhibit list? I
don't have that immediately available. I apologize. Like I said, it's usually just in the staff report. But Mr.
Dolquist, do you have that with the exhibit list?
Mr. Dahlquist: (04:51):
It's preferred. I don't know if Jackie had a list on hand. She's in the room right now, our permit planning
clerk. Okay. Yeah, can also
Examiner Olbrechts: (05:02):
Share. I got it. I've got it. Just found it. All right. It's index of record. Let me share my screen here. Oh, I'm
not allowed to share screen either. Ms. Krokoff, can you enable me to share screen?
(05:26):
No, that doesn't appear to be. I'll just identify real quick, give an overview of the documents that were
used to put together the staff recommendation. It's composed of the application, inspection cards,
some utility documents about a sewer extension, site grading and utilities. We have surveys. The
environmental review, under state law, the environmental checklist is used to determine whether an
Appendix A -- 12 (Completed 12/23/25) Page 2 of 18
Transcript by Rev.com
environmental impact statement needs to be put together. And the determination based on the
checklist for that was that it wasn't required for this rezone, and that's pretty common for a rezone of
this size. See, and we have the notice documents for the project, and yeah, that's pretty much the bulk
of it. So does anyone need to see any of these? We've got a total of 34 documents or have any objection
to their entering the record. There's the list right there on the screen right now.
(06:21):
So seeing and hearing note takers, if you do object, just click on the raise hand button at the bottom of
your Zoom screen. Or if you're in the meeting room, just wave your hand if you need to see any of those
or object. Not seeing, and that's pretty standard. I mean, the only grounds for objection would be that
they're not relevant to this proceeding or maybe not authentic documents. So I'll go ahead and admit to
exhibits one through 34, as well as the staff report itself. And Mr. Dolquist, at this point, let me swear
you in. Just raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth and nothing but the truth in
this proceeding?
Mr. Dahlquist: (06:51):
I do.
Examiner Olbrechts: (06:52):
Okay, great. Go ahead. All
Mr. Dahlquist: (06:55):
Right. Good morning, Connor Dalquist, associate planner for the City of Port Orchard. With me today
also is Nick Bonn, Department of Community Development Director, and then Chris Hammer as well,
assistant city engineer. Provided with the staff report for Whole Avenue Rezone are for 34 exhibits as
we covered. Staff provided an index of those exhibits and elect to include the exhibits in the record.
Since that application was submitted earlier this year, the city has been reviewing the proposed rezone
to ensure compliance with the Port Orchard Union Civil Code inconsistency with the adopted
comprehensive plan. The applicant proposes a site -specific rezone of approximately 2.7 acres. Total
aware, Sherman Avenue transitioned into Hole Avenue. The nearest intersection for reference is
Sherman Avenue and Melcher Street West. The subject property consists of two tax parcels currently
designated as Residential two or R2 and Greenbelt or GB. The rezoning request only applies to the R2
portion of the site seeking redesignation to R3.
(07:52):
If approved, the applicant's dated intent is to construct town homes in one apartment building with
associated infrastructure improvements, including upgrades to Hole Avenue asking fit at the time of
development application is submitted. Town homes are permitted in the R2, but however, apartment
buildings are not. Proper notice was provided to the public consistent with the requirements of the Port
Orchard Municipal Code, including notice of application, CP determination, and the public hearing.
Those notices are provided and indexed to the record. Staff received two comments to the application
in response to the notice of two comments on the application in response to the notice of application
and one petition outside of the designated comment period. These are generally related to the traffic
impacts, critical areas, and potential residential densities. Most comments received were project specific
in nature and would be addressed at the time of development application is submitted.
(08:45):
Appendix A -- 12 (Completed 12/23/25) Page 3 of 18
Transcript by Rev.com
These comments were considered in application review. The CEPA responsible official issued a
determination of non -significance on September 18th, 2025. Two additional comments were received
related to the DNS. The city then issued a modified DNS on October 29th, 2025 due to an error in public
comment period. Per the WAC and POMC Title 20, comments to the lead agency shall be within 14 days
of the date of issuance of the DNS. So the modified DNS reflected the correct 14 -day, period ending
November 12th, 2025.
(09:21):
The DNS was not appealed. The subject property is designated in the city's comprehensive plan as
median density residential. As proposed, the rezone from R2 to R3 satisfies the specific comprehensive
plan goals and policies identified in section two of the staff report. The R3 designation is consistent with
the medium density residential land use category and supports the city's goals of providing diverse
housing options, accommodating forecasted population growth and promoting efficient land use of
residential land while retaining the Greenbelt designation to protect critical areas. Because the
application is a rezone, it does not approve or specific site development or infrastructure improvements.
Those developments will be reviewed at the time of featured development permit when public
comments on traffic safety, stormwater, and critical areas of mitigation can be considered. So at this
stage, staff has reviewed the rezone for consistency with the portal to municipal code, the
comprehensive plan and the SEPA requirements.
(10:18):
And then the Greenbelt, as mentioned, a portion of the property will remain unchanged to protect
those critical areas. And based on the findings in the record, the Department of Community
Development finds the application consistent with the criteria of POMC 2042030. The department also
acknowledges the substantial public opposition documented in the exhibits to the record. Given the
application's consistency with the ordinance criteria and the documented public comments opposing
the request, the department issues a neutral recommendation to the hearing examiner. The department
neither supports nor opposes the requested site -specific rezone, but affirms that the application is
eligible for consideration under the applicable regulations, and I'm happy to answer any other questions
we have.
Examiner Olbrechts: (11:01):
Okay. Yeah, I got a few. And this is always unfair to staff, unfortunately, but the courts, in addition to the
criteria you have in the code for approving a rezone, the courts also impose a couple of their own. And
the primary is that either the rezone is either necessary to implement the comprehensive plan or at
least implements the comprehensive plan, or there's been a change in circumstances since the parcel
was last zoned. And you just, of course, feel that you shouldn't be rezoning too often that people rely
upon stable property regulations, that kind of thing. So I mean, can you cite to any change in condition
since this was last rezoned that justified the necessity to change it? Is this necessary to meet your
population targets, for instance? Has the surrounding area been increasing in density? Is there anything
that's changed since it was last rezone that creates this necessity?
Mr. Dahlquist: (12:03):
Yeah, in the history of the low area, you have the forest on redevelopment rezone is R3, but that
happened in the 70s. So that would be probably the nearest density increase that's happened nearby.
Even though the rezone wasn't nearby, the project is being built right now. So that kind of creates
precedent for, is this an appropriate land use reclassification in the area? We acknowledge that the
area, the neighborhood, the existing current neighborhood beyond for the forest on development, but I
Appendix A -- 12 (Completed 12/23/25) Page 4 of 18
Transcript by Rev.com
would say the current development happening right there at Melcher A and Sherman does create some
pattern of bringing more multifamily housing options in the area.
Examiner Olbrechts: (12:52):
Okay. And I certainly agree with you that now's not the time to talk about any future projects, but it is
appropriate to talk about whether the infrastructure can handle or is appropriate for the increase in
density that'll be facilitated by the rezone. And there were a lot of comments about the streets not
being adequate about the sidewalks not being there. I mean, and obviously if a future development is
done, they're going to be probably required to put in their own sidewalks on the street front edge.
Would that make any big difference in this particular area? I mean, where are the nearest other
sidewalks to this rezone area?
Mr. Dahlquist: (13:30):
Yeah, I don't know if I want Nick to jump in before I answer that, but there's potential infrastructure just
north of this. So directly where this property is on whole, there is no pedestrian infrastructure, but just
north of that, there is existing sidewalks and safety features that could be connected to if seen fit by
improvements needed when a development application is submitted. If Nick wanted to add to that, is
your hands raised?
Examiner Olbrechts: (13:56):
Mr. Bond, you'll swear in. Just raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, nothing but
the truth in this proceeding?
Mr. Bond: (14:01):
I do.
Examiner Olbrechts: (14:02):
Okay, great. Go ahead, Mr. Bond.
Mr. Bond: (14:04):
So I just wanted to add on to the question about the change in circumstances. Our comprehensive plan
was adopted in 2024 as part of our periodic update, so it is a fairly recent comprehensive plan adoption.
Under the 2024 comprehensive plan, one of the things that the city has to do that is new under state
law is in addition to making sure we have enough capacity for housing and employment, we are now
required to plan for housing at various income bans. And so Port Orchard, while on paper we have the
land capacity to accommodate housing at all income bans, we really aren't seeing the development of
housing as much as is needed in the zero to 80% AMI income band. And so adding additional supply, I
think is a bit of a change in circumstance now that we have this requirement. And so it is possible that
adding additional land in the R3 zone would increase our capacity for that income band that we are
currently not seeing a lot of housing development in.
Examiner Olbrechts: (15:09):
Oh, thank you. That really helps. Thanks, Mr. Bond. Anything else?
Mr. Bond: (15:13):
Appendix A -- 12 (Completed 12/23/25) Page 5 of 18
Transcript by Rev.com
That is all.
Examiner Olbrechts: (15:14):
Okay. All right. Okay. And so let's see, what else? I think, yeah, that's pretty much all I had, Mr. Dalquist.
I mean, like I said, there were a lot of concerns about the roads being subpar in the opinion of the
neighbors. I mean, are these roads unusually deficient compared to other parts of the city? I mean, in
other words, I'm just trying to look at from a perspective of the existing infrastructure, is this a bad place
to increase density as opposed to other parts of the city?
Mr. Dahlquist: (15:40):
Yeah, Chris is on here as well if he wants to be sworn in. But in the analysis, yes, so improvements would
be made in conjunction with proposed development if this was approved. So as of now, it probably
wouldn't be appropriate with existing conditions, but those of course would be changed when
development is proposed and connections to existing infrastructure and traffic improvements to the
nearest major intersections would be made and considered. Yeah, right now, so that would all be
dependent on if and when proposed project specific would be made. And if Chris, do you had anything
or Mr. Hammer?
Examiner Olbrechts: (16:23):
Yeah, Mr. Hammer, if you say anything, I'll have to swear you in.
Mr. Hammer: (16:26):
Okay. I could add some detail if that's desired.
Examiner Olbrechts: (16:29):
Okay. Yeah, we'll swear in. Then just raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,
nothing but the truth in this proceeding?
Mr. Hammer: (16:35):
I do.
Examiner Olbrechts: (16:35):
Okay, great. Go ahead.
Mr. Hammer: (16:37):
So just a little bit of a lay of the land. So to expand on what Connor was saying, Whole Avenue currently
has nine -foot lanes and no sidewalks for a segment. The Forest Song development's going to extend the
sidewalks down on one side of the street along their frontage. There's some sidewalks that are further
north on Hole Avenue. A development of this scale, if it generates more than 30 trips, which it would as
proposed, not to say it couldn't be scaled back, but would require offsite improvements to address
those deficiencies.
Examiner Olbrechts: (17:16):
Okay, sounds good. Thanks, Mr. Hammer. And let's see, I think putting a recommendation to the city
council, I'll probably want to take a look at the surrounding land uses from an aerial photograph Google
Appendix A -- 12 (Completed 12/23/25) Page 6 of 18
Transcript by Rev.com
Maps. Is there any objection out there at me looking at Google Maps just to get a good lay of the land
for the surrounding community? Okay, hearing seeing none. Again, just click on the virtual hand at the
bottom of your screen if you're attending virtually, but we'll go ahead and admit Google Maps aerials for
the surrounding area. Okay. With that, I guess we're ready to move on to the applicant at this time.
Does anyone from the applicant want to address the application at this point? Any takers? Yikes. Yeah,
that's a good one right there. Okay, sir, let me swear you in real quick. Just raise your right hand. Sorry, I
take it you're part of the applicant team, is that correct?
(18:15):
Okay. Yeah, I can't hear him. I think since he turned off his mic.
Mr. Dahlquist: (18:22):
You think the Zoom cart needs to be unmuted?
Examiner Olbrechts: (18:31):
Yeah, still not coming through. Yeah, we need it for the hearing recording too. Is there somebody in the
council chambers that's looking at that?
Mr. Bond: (18:45):
Yeah, we have staff in the council chambers.
Examiner Olbrechts: (18:48):
Okay.
Mr. Bond: (18:49):
It'll be resolved here momentarily.
Speaker 5 (18:51):
Yeah, we'll give them a minute.
Examiner Olbrechts: (19:38):
Of course, I guess we can get him a laptop and then you could just ... We're from a city computer
station.
Mr. Larson: (19:44):
Can you hear me now?
Examiner Olbrechts: (19:45):
Yeah, now we can hear you. Is that better?
Mr. Larson: (19:47):
Okay.
Examiner Olbrechts: (19:47):
Appendix A -- 12 (Completed 12/23/25) Page 7 of 18
Transcript by Rev.com
Welcome to the hearing, sir. Let me swear you in. Just raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to
tell the truth, nothing but the truth in this proceeding?
Mr. Larson: (19:54):
I do.
Examiner Olbrechts: (19:55):
And what's your name, sir, for the record?
Mr. Larson: (19:57):
Noel Larson.
Examiner Olbrechts: (19:58):
Okay. All right, go ahead, Mr. Larson.
Mr. Larson: (20:04):
I'd like to reiterate a couple of things that were said, which also I think were included in the comments
that were received. One of the primary things that I think a project, a rezone like this brings to the areas
the frontage improvements. And one of the things that was brought up was the possibility of this site
being redeveloped would actually create a connection between forest song and properties to the south,
potentially sidewalks all the way to downtown. Essentially, it's an infill type situation. So we've got
Forest song and neighborhoods to the south, and we've got the neighborhood to the north that has
sidewalks, and this is kind of a connector piece.
(20:52):
The second thing that I think I'd like to be considered is the change from R2 to R3 in this case doesn't, I
think, make a huge difference in how much the site could be developed. Our intent primarily with the
rezone is to provide the option of having apartments along with townhomes or some other higher
density type construction. Given that if we were to build townhomes, we believe that we could build
roughly 75 bedrooms versus around a hundred bedrooms if they were apartments. So I don't think
there's a huge difference between those two things or between the current zoning and what we could
do under R3. Either way, we'd have to do a lot of frontage improvements, sidewalks and that sort of
thing. So either way, that's going to happen.
(21:59):
Other than that, as the report said, housing is actually really needed in the area. We're falling behind
and this particular property, because it's in an urban growth area, really meets all the goals of the
Growth Management Act. And that also aligns with the comprehensive plan in Port Orchard. And the
Port Orchard Municipal Code actually addresses a lot of the concerns that were presented by the
neighbors as far as frontage improvements and infrastructure and that sort of thing. So those are the
main things that I wanted to touch on currently based on what I've heard so far.
Examiner Olbrechts: (22:46):
Okay. Thanks, Mr. Larson. Well said. Thank you. All right. Move on now to public comments. As I said,
first, we'll put members of the public in the meeting room. And Ms. Crockett, do you see anybody in the
meeting room that wants to speak? If you want to say something, just raise your hand at this point. Just
Appendix A -- 12 (Completed 12/23/25) Page 8 of 18
Transcript by Rev.com
don't see anybody sitting out there from my vantage point, so other than the applicant, nobody in the
meeting room?
Speaker 7 (23:09):
I do have one applicant who put their hand up.
Examiner Olbrechts: (23:12):
Okay. All right. Come on up to the podium, whoever rolls your hand and will swear you in and you can
get started.
Speaker 7 (23:22):
I'm waiting for them to unmute themselves.
Examiner Olbrechts: (23:26):
Oh, no. Well, at this point I'm asking about people in the meeting room.
Speaker 7 (23:29):
There are no
Examiner Olbrechts: (23:31):
Other in- Okay. All right. So it's just the people attending virtually then. All right. Yeah, so we'll just wait
for the person to unmute themselves, see who that is. That's Lindsay Paul Avenue resident.
Ms. Paradiso: (23:43):
Hello. Sorry. Oh, there you are. I was waiting for the people in the room to speak, so I wasn't -
Examiner Olbrechts: (23:49):
Yeah, me too. I think we're past that confusion finally.
Ms. Paradiso: (23:53):
Yeah. So give me one second. Oh,
Examiner Olbrechts: (23:56):
Sorry.
Ms. Paradiso: (23:58):
I'm putting together my sheet. Okay. Okay. Do I have a specific amount of time that I'm allowed to speak
Examiner Olbrechts: (24:05):
For? Well, if you could try to keep it under five minutes. And what's your last name for the record?
Ms. Paradiso: (24:11):
Paradiso. It's P -A -R -A -D -I -S -O.
Appendix A -- 12 (Completed 12/23/25) Page 9 of 18
Transcript by Rev.com
Examiner Olbrechts: (24:16):
Okay. Ms. Peradiso, let me swear you in. Just raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the
truth, nothing but the truth in this proceeding?
Ms. Paradiso: (24:22):
I do.
Examiner Olbrechts: (24:23):
Okay, great. Go ahead.
Ms. Paradiso: (24:24):
Am I able to turn my camera on or does that not matter?
Examiner Olbrechts: (24:28):
No, you can. And I was trying to find your video as a matter of fact. Let's see here. Yeah, I mean, have
you used Zoom before? Because at the bottom left of your screen, there should be a little video camera
and if it has
Ms. Paradiso: (24:39):
Any way- I have, but I don't have the option.
Examiner Olbrechts: (24:43):
Oh, that's ...
Mr. Bond: (24:44):
I think we need to bring her in as a panelist for her to share her video.
Examiner Olbrechts: (24:49):
Yeah, I think people, if they want to show themselves, they should be able to. So let's bring her in as a
panelist then.
Ms. Paradiso: (24:58):
All right, I'm back and I can do video now. Okay. Okay. There
Examiner Olbrechts: (25:02):
You are. We see you. Okay, great.
Ms. Paradiso: (25:03):
Bye-bye. Nice to see you. Okay, thank you. I have some comments presented or ready, so I'll just say
Speaker 5 (25:09):
Them.
Appendix A -- 12 (Completed 12/23/25) Page 10 of 18
Transcript by Rev.com
Ms. Paradiso: (25:10):
Okay. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Lindsay and I live on Hole Avenue. I'm asking you to
deny the proposed rezone of 1083 Hole from R2 to R3 because the request is not compatible with the
established character, function, and long-range planning vision for the neighborhood. Hull Avenue is a
low density single family corridor made up of large lots and long-term homeowners. The current R2
zoning reflects what actually exists here. An R3 designation would introduce a scale and intensity of
development that doesn't align with any surrounding parcel and would create a sudden unplanned
disruption rather than a thoughtful transition. The applicant mentioned that an R3 designation could
allow 75 bedrooms and town homes or up to a hundred bedrooms and apartments, and frame this as
necessary because the city is falling behind in housing, but that doesn't reflect what's happening in my
opinion. Several large apartment complexes have already been built nearby, including the Forest Song
apartment complex that is right across from this proposed parcel with hundreds of new units added and
more that are currently under construction.
(26:22):
The city's already producing significant housing in locations that are planned and equipped for this level
of density. The question isn't whether we should be adding housing, but it's whether this parcel is
appropriate for this type of housing, and it simply isn't. While we're close to downtown, the area doesn't
function as a mixed use district with towards walkable daily services. Most residents still rely on vehicles
to get to basic needs. The proximity alone doesn't justify the medium density zoning.
(26:56):
R3 zoning is intended for areas where infrastructure and services already support it, and that's not the
case here. This request also, again, but going to Forest Song, I feel like that is an additional negative
precedent that's being set. They said that Forest Song was a precedent. I feel like that raises almost
more of a concern because we're trying to add far too many people into an area that can't support it.
Like I said, I'm not opposed to housing. I just think that we need to consider appropriate placement and
scale and stay consistent with long-range planning. And thank you for your time.
Examiner Olbrechts: (27:44):
Great comments. Thank you. All right. Anyone else out there want to add anything at this point? Just to
click on the virtual hand at the bottom of your screen and we'll figure out how to get you up to be heard
today.
Ms. Coates: (27:55):
Yes, my name is Savannah Coates.
Examiner Olbrechts: (27:57):
Okay. Ms. Counsel, let me swear in. Just raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,
nothing but the truth in this proceeding?
Ms. Coates: (28:02):
I do.
Examiner Olbrechts: (28:03):
And do you want to be seen today?
Appendix A -- 12 (Completed 12/23/25) Page 11 of 18
Transcript by Rev.com
Ms. Coates: (28:06):
It doesn't matter to me if my -
Examiner Olbrechts: (28:08):
Okay. All
Ms. Coates: (28:08):
Right. Yeah, I'm not too worried about it. Join us. Okay,
Examiner Olbrechts: (28:11):
Go ahead then. Yeah. And how do you spell your last name for the record? Ms. Coates? Uh-oh, did we
lose her?
Speaker 7 (28:23):
I promoted her to a panelist in case she wanted to use
Ms. Coates: (28:26):
The- There we go. Sorry. It just took me just a second. Hello. My name is Savannah Coates and I live at
1080 Hole Avenue. I'm directly across the way from them. My biggest concern here is they are speaking
about putting a sidewalk in that will connect to the other sidewalk. There's not going to be a way to get
that sidewalk in. First of all, because there's three houses plus my property that's very large, they're not
going to be able to connect them. This is a very dangerous road already. People go down this road a
million miles an hour, and my driveway is a blind hill driveway. If they put an apartment complex over
there, it's going to be very, very dangerous for these kids in their bus route.
(29:16):
Also, these two properties are mine are three -fourth of a mile nearest the public transit bus stop and
shops like Extra Mile, Tremont, Pottery, 711 Bay Street. While this may seem like an approachable
distance, the lack of pedestrian infrastructure in either direction to reach these services show that the
neighborhood cannot responsibly support a development at that scale being proposed here. While there
is a development, a short distance up the road, Sherman and Melcher, there's a significantly steep
walkway that would not sustain handicap access to The nearest area with sidewalks. Additionally, the
developments in that area have resulted in a bus stop at Meltra and Sherman, which is a very tight
corner. And two cars can't even turn at the same time. The bus when it takes the corner has to go into
the other lane. It's actually dangerous for the kids to have a bus stop there as well.
(30:23):
The sidewalk, I do not feel safe having my child travel to that intersection for buses. They are now
picked up out in front of my house, which is also very hazardous because of the hills and you cannot see
to pull out of the driveway.
(30:42):
In front of my home doesn't seem reasonable to have an increased amount of children crossing the road
for the bus stop here or to move up and down the road for an alternative located pickup. I'm new to this
neighborhood and while we selected it for its proximity to town over a previous residence that I used to
live in Southworth, we did not consider this as a walkable neighborhood. We fell in love with our home
due to the surrounding green spaces and tight -knit communities evident at the Habitat for Humanity
Appendix A -- 12 (Completed 12/23/25) Page 12 of 18
Transcript by Rev.com
neighborhood and the rest of the homes on the plateau near Hull, Taylor and Smith. And that's pretty
much all I got. I'm just really concerned about the danger it's going to bring to everybody pulling in and
out of this area because there's nowhere to put a sidewalk in. You can get one out in front of that
property, but you're not going to meet any sidewalk that goes to any other roads.
(31:38):
There's too much other people's property. They're not going to allow you guys just to put a sidewalk out
front. Okay, thank you.
Examiner Olbrechts: (31:46):
Okay, thank you. Yeah, that's very helpful. All right. Anyone else out there? Again, just click on the
virtual hand if you want to say, oh, we got another one. Mr. Norby, let's bring him up. All right. Okay,
Mr. Norby. And yes, still we don't see you on camera if you're intending to be seen. We don't see you
yet, but that's fine. That's your choice.
Examiner Olbrechts:0 (32:11):
You there, Mr.. I can go without camera.
Examiner Olbrechts: (32:13):
Okay. All right. Let me just swear you in. Just raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the
truth, nothing but the truth in this proceeding?
Examiner Olbrechts:0 (32:19):
I do.
Examiner Olbrechts: (32:20):
And your last name is spelled N -O -R -B -Y, is that correct?
Examiner Olbrechts:0 (32:23):
That is correct. Okay,
Examiner Olbrechts: (32:24):
Great. Go ahead.
Mr. Norby: (32:26):
Oh, good morning, members of the community and panel. My biggest concern is the proximity to
resources, both as it's already been stated. It's not really a walkable neighborhood outside of the street
itself. So from the northern corner of Hull Avenue to the end of the sidewalk to the south, that's really
the amount of walking you can do safely, especially with kids or pets. The type of housing potentially
being suggested, lower income housing. It typically comes with people who rely more on those services
or walkability. It's not a judgment on my part. I've been there. I understand. The concern comes in, if it's
not a walkable area, why are we cramming housing designed for these people to get a leg up in the
world into that zone, if that makes sense?
Examiner Olbrechts: (33:22):
Appendix A -- 12 (Completed 12/23/25) Page 13 of 18
Transcript by Rev.com
Definitely. Is that it, Mr. Norman?
Examiner Olbrechts:0 (33:24):
That is everything I have. Thank
Examiner Olbrechts: (33:25):
You. Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Anybody else out there? I think Ms. Walstrom, you
had your hand up before. Yeah, let's bring her in then. There she is. Okay, Ms. Walstrom, and is your last
name for the record, is that W -A -H -L -S -T -R -O -M?
Examiner Olbrechts:1 (33:44):
Yes, sir.
Examiner Olbrechts: (33:45):
Okay. And did you want to be seen or not? Your camera's off.
Examiner Olbrechts:1 (33:49):
You can turn my camera
Examiner Olbrechts: (33:50):
On. Okay. Actually, I think you have to do it from your end. Right, Ms. Krekoff, let's see how you'd have
to go on the bottom left of your screen there. Just click on the video camera.
Examiner Olbrechts:1 (33:59):
There's a functionality that she's enabling as each person uses it, as I understand.
Examiner Olbrechts: (34:05):
Yeah, once you're promoted to panelists, and I think you've been promoted, right, Ms. Krokoff?
Examiner Olbrechts:1 (34:20):
I haven't seen it yet. If we don't get it soon, I can just continue
Speaker 5 (34:26):
As if- Okay. Yeah, let me swear you in. Well
Examiner Olbrechts: (34:39):
Oh, now she's muted.
Examiner Olbrechts:1 (34:42):
Okay. There we go. Hi. Okay.
Examiner Olbrechts: (34:44):
Appendix A -- 12 (Completed 12/23/25) Page 14 of 18
Transcript by Rev.com
All right. Let me swear you in. Ms. Walsh from just raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell
the truth, nothing but the truth in this proceeding?
Examiner Olbrechts:1 (34:51):
I swear and affirm to tell the truth and nothing
Speaker 5 (34:52):
But the truth.
Wahlstrom: (34:54):
All right. Go ahead. I have talked with several neighbors about this, and I know that some of the
infrastructure is among the things that has been brought up, but some of that is just such a salient
feature of the community. There's a plateau near Taylor and Smith Street where there has been
possibilities to establish sidewalks and they do get used, but at around the point of 1002 Hole Avenue or
1011 Hole Avenue, the sidewalks do disappear and there is the sidewalk that has come down to the area
where Melcher and Sherman meet at Grant. And I think it's great that that has become available. But as
Savannah has mentioned, it's not really a good segue in between the two different areas and 1061, 1083
only takes up a portion of that. And I appreciate the baked in settlement or development process of
adding the necessity for sidewalks in order to get projects approved.
(36:11):
The plain fact is that it's just this pocket of an area for a song is on an additional plateau. And at that
point, they even also have their own barriers to access once you get to the next intersection up to
Tremont and Pottery. And so piecemealing the sidewalks doesn't grant this as a walkable neighborhood.
Additionally, the people who have residences directly up against Forest Song have complained about
additional threats to their vegetation such as Douglas Burs with the removal of all of the vegetation.
They've noticed that they have had a lot more tree fall and those sort of things since that property has
been developed. And then with the, I think it's either Alderwood, Sandy Loam, or maybe the Kitsap
Indianola, it looks like it has ... So this has to do with the report. It looks like that has a tendency to hold
onto water in areas or in times of high saturation, such as when we receive atmospheric rivers.
(37:21):
And one of the most severe, as someone who's lived in this neighborhood for 20 years, one of the most
severe atmospheric river events we had was about 15 years ago, but we do know that those are going to
be coming with increased severity, and so it feels incredibly negligent to overlook that because all of the
up slope properties such as where Savannah Coates was and where Forest Song is, those properties had
cascading water, which was coming into the homes and basements for the downhill side because the
water was just saturating. And if you were to add something with so little permeable layers such as
parking lots, buildings and those sort of things, even at a 75 bedroom level, much less a 100 bedroom
level for the combined, I think maybe three to four acres that 1061 and 1083 make up, it just doesn't
seem like a safe level of development.
(38:32):
And I'm concerned that with removing the vegetation and having the lack of permeable layers, as well as
an increased threat to all of the other vegetation that could help stabilize the hill that goes to Port
Orchard Boulevard, which is a green belt, a designated green belt, and it has intentionally been kept that
way, that a lot of the stability of that hillside does come at risk. I do understand that there was no
standing water when they did that survey, but that didn't take place during a high precipitation event. I
Appendix A -- 12 (Completed 12/23/25) Page 15 of 18
Transcript by Rev.com
just wanted to check my notes and see the disconnected sidewalks. I actually am really excited to hear
about this being developed. I consider all the people in Port Orchard, my neighbors, including those who
are unhoused. And I know that some have taken up areas such as the addresses that are listed, and I'm
excited to have neighbors of all income levels join our area.
(39:43):
I just don't think that even 75 beds, much less 100 is sustainable. If you look, I think it's 917 or 919 Hole.
There was a recent fire maybe 10 years ago. It was a single property and it ended up becoming two
separate properties. To me, that is an example of sustainable development that matches the way that
this neighborhood is. And even if there were families who ended up having children who were going to
be using a bus stop in that unsafe area that Savannah ended up pointing out, it's just a handful versus
the several dozen potential ones. And we still don't even know the impact of the loss of vegetation from
forest song because we haven't weathered the storm where we're going to see the impact of different
atmospheric river events, such as the one that I have cited that did provide basically curtains of water
coming on the downhill side of those slopes.
Examiner Olbrechts: (40:55):
Okay. Thanks, Ms. Walstrom. Again, very helpful. So all right, anybody else out there? Again, just click on
the virtual hand. I think we got everybody. So back to Mr. Dalquist then. Have any comments to make,
Mr. Dalquist?
Mr. Dahlquist: (41:12):
I didn't get any questions, just some great comments for feedback for neighborhood contact. So
appreciate the public feedback and the critical areas concerns and the space for infrastructure
improvements that may be required when development is proposed. Yeah, no follow-up besides
Yeah, thank you. Okay.
Examiner Olbrechts: (41:34):
Finally, Mr. Larson, you get final word. Do you want to say anything? Oh no, he's muted again. We got to
get him audible.
Mr. Dahlquist: (42:04):
The Zoom card again. Yeah, there we
Mr. Larson: (42:06):
Go. Okay. Can you hear me now?
Mr. Dahlquist: (42:07):
There
Examiner Olbrechts: (42:08):
We go. Yeah, we can hear you now. Thanks,
Mr. Larson: (42:09):
Appendix A -- 12 (Completed 12/23/25) Page 16 of 18
Transcript by Rev.com
Mr. Larson. Something that I've heard brought up a number of times here that I'd like to address is this
idea that increases in density in this particular neighborhood don't really fit. A mixture of densities
across Port Orchard, isn't that unusual? There's actually a number of developments. I'll give a few
examples. Mariner's Glenn at Jackson and Lund, Orchard Point at Pottery and Lippert, and the Keyway
Apartments on Sydney are a few examples where we have apartment complexes mixed in with single
family neighborhoods. I think that works and just wanted to put it out there that this isn't really an
unusual combination across Port Orchard. Thank you.
Examiner Olbrechts: (42:56):
Okay. Thanks, Mr. Larson. All right, with that, I will go ahead and close the hearing. And like I said, I got
about a couple weeks to send a recommendation to the city council. If any of you want to get a copy of
that, be sure to share your email address with the city. And Mr. Dalquist, where should they send their
email address if they want to get a copy of the recommendation? Is that to you or Ms. Kirkoff or how
does that work?
Mr. Dahlquist: (43:19):
Yeah, they can reach out to the ... So what email they should reach out to clarify?
Examiner Olbrechts: (43:28):
Sure. Yeah. You want to get your email address? Is that what you're saying?
Mr. Dahlquist: (43:32):
Yeah, so they can reach out to permitcenter@portorchardwa.gov or of course my email,
cdelquist@portorchard.awa.gov.And Iwasgoingtotypethem, but it doesn't look like I can share text.
Examiner Olbrechts: (43:47):
Oh, there's no chat there. If you couldn't get that, just call the permit, the planning department, and I'm
sure they'll share that information with you. And no, these really good comments today, and I'm glad
that the community got those comments in at this stage of review. I mean, so often what I see as a
hearing examiner for a few dozen jurisdictions is when someone proposes a department building, I'll
have a room full of people upset saying that that kind of density isn't appropriate for their
neighborhood. But if the property's already been zoned for that density, there are even state statutes
that say you can't reconsider density choices that are made in the zoning code. Once that's in the code,
that can't be changed when a specific application is made. So this is the time to do it. And you all got in, I
think, all the information necessary to make a reasoned evaluation for the city council.
(44:43):
I mean, even if I recommend approval, I'll still be forwarding, of course, all your comments, like I said, by
transcript and also summarizing them. And of course, that'll include the petition and the comment
letters as well, all goes to the city council so that they can consider that information as well. So as I said,
if you want to see a copy of that recommendation, be sure to share your email with the planning
department that'll be sent to you. And then once my recommendation comes in, the planning
department will be scheduling what they call a closed record review by the city council. Again, that
means they can't consider new information. It's just the information I give them, and then if they decide
to approve the rezone, they'll be adopting that by ordinance. So that's a process that'll take probably at
least another month or probably more.
Appendix A -- 12 (Completed 12/23/25) Page 17 of 18
Transcript by Rev.com
(45:30):
So anyway, thanks again for all of you participating today and hope you have a great holiday. We're
adjourned.
Appendix A -- 12 (Completed 12/23/25) Page 18 of 18
Transcript by Rev.com