BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD
)
RE: Titus Ford EV Station )
) FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF
) LAW AND FINAL DECISION
Shoreline Substantial Development )
Permit )
)
LU24-SH SDP-03 )
)
OVERVIEW
Donovan Baker has requested approval of a shoreline substantial development permit to install an L3 EV charger near the existing carwash of the Titus Ford car dealership located at 1207 Bay Street. The application is approved subject to conditions.
ORAL TESTIMONY
Stephanie Andrews, senior planner, summarized the staff report. No one else commented at the public hearing.
EXHIBITS
Exhibits 1-15 of the Index to the Record prepared by the City Clerk for the project were admitted into the record during the May 13, 2025 hearing.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural:
1. Applicant. The Applicant is Donovan Baker, EC Company, 981 Powell Ave SW Suite #200, Renton, WA 98057.
4 2. Hearing. A virtual hearing was held on the application at Port Orchard City Hall in 5 the Council Chambers on May 13, 2025 at 1:00 pm.
6 Substantive:
7 3. Site/Proposal/Appeal Description. Donovan Baker has requested approval of a
8 shoreline substantial development permit (SSDP) to install an L3 EV charger near the existing carwash of the Titus Will car dealership located at 1207 Bay Street.
9
The contractor will trench from an existing electrical panel located at the carwash and
10 install conduit and wiring for a 100A circuit to a new EV charger. The EV charger will include a new concrete pad.
11
12 An SSDP is required because the proposal is located within the 200 foot shoreline jurisdiction of Sinclair Inlet.
13
The project area is generally flat and is fully paved with 0% pervious surfaces or
14 softscape. The site is used for parking vehicles that are for sale or awaiting service by
the adjacent Ford dealership. An automated car wash is located in the northern portion
15
of the site at 40’ from the Ordinary High Water Mark.
16
4. Characteristics of the Area. The site adjoins portions of the Titus Ford dealership 17 on the south and east, the Comfort Inn Hotel to the west and Sinclair Inlet to the north.
5. Adverse Impacts. As conditioned and mitigated, no adverse impacts are anticipated from the proposal.
19
20 A. No Net Loss. The proposed location is already fully paved and the EV charger is a fairly nominal structure so no ecological impacts are anticipated. From this
21 information it is determined that the proposal will result in no net loss of ecological function.
22
B. Aesthetic Impacts. The proposal will not create any significant adverse
23
aesthetic impacts. The record doesn’t contain any depiction of the charging
24 station themselves. However, the Exhibit 10 site plan shows the station
(excluding adjoining parking stalls) to be limited to an areas only 3.5 feet wide and the depth of a parking stall. The station is also adjacent to the existing car wash. From this information it is concluded that the proposal has no significant aesthetic impacts.
C. Cultural Resources. As conditioned, the proposal will not adversely affect cultural resources.
Taylor Harriman on behalf of the Suquamish Tribe sent in written comment that 4 the project area has a high probability of encountering cultural resources due to
5 a historically documented camping area. Ex. 9.1 The project area is also considered to have a high risk of encountering cultural materials according to
6 DAHP’s predictive model. Given that the project calls for excavation associated with conduit and EV charger foundations, the Suquamish Tribe requested the
7 implementation of the Suquamish Tribe’s Inadvertent Discovery Plan (IDP)
during all ground disturbing activities associated with the project.
8
9 As requested by the Suquamish Tribe, a condition of approval requires the
Applicant to submit an IDP.
D. Traffic. The proposal will not create any traffic impacts. A comment letter
11 expressed concern about traffic impacts. Ex. 9.2. Staff have found that the proposal will not generate any additional traffic. The proposal only involves 12 adding an charging station to the project site, which by itself would likely not
13 generate any additional traffic. Consequently no adverse traffic impacts are anticipated for the project.
14
15 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Procedural:
16
17 1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. Section 8.2 of the Port Orchard Shoreline
Master Program (SMP) authorizes the Hearing Examiner to hold hearings and issue final
18 approval of shoreline substantial development permits and shoreline conditional use permits.
19
20 Substantive:
21 2. Shoreline Designation. The project site is designated “High Intensity” by the SMP.
22
3. Review Criteria/Adoption of Staff Report Shoreline Findings/Conclusions. As 23 identified in SMP 7.1 “Commercial – non water oriented” is listed as a use that is
24 permitted outright in the High Intensity Shoreline Designation. The proposal does not qualify for any shoreline exemption so a shoreline substantial development permit is required. SMP 8.5 provides that a shoreline substantial development permit cannot be approved unless they are consistent with policies and procedures of the Shoreline Management Act, Ecology rules, and the local master program. The findings and conclusions of the staff report regarding compliance with these policies, procedure and regulations are adopted by this reference. The most significant and/or directly applicable regulations are quoted below and applied via corresponding conclusions of law.
Shoreline Management Act Policy
5
RCW 90.58.020:
6
. . . [I]t is the policy of the state to provide for the management of the shorelines of the
7 state by planning for and fostering all reasonable and appropriate uses. This policy is designed to ensure the development of these shorelines in a manner which, while 8 allowing for limited reduction of rights of the public in the navigable waters, will
9 promote and enhance the public interest. This policy contemplates protecting against adverse impacts to the public health, the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the
10 waters of the state and their aquatic life, while protecting generally public rights of navigation and corollary rights incidental thereto.
11 The legislature declares that the interest of all of the people shall be paramount in the management of shorelines of statewide significance. The department, in adopting 12 guidelines for shorelines of statewide significance, and local government, in developing
13 master programs for shorelines of statewide significance, shall give preference to uses in the following order of preference which:
14 (1) Recognize and protect the statewide interest over local interest;
(2) Preserve the natural character of the shoreline;
15 (3) Result in long term over short term benefit;
(4) Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline;
16
(5) Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines;
17 (6) Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline;
(7) Provide for any other element as defined in RCW 90.58.100 deemed appropriate
18 or necessary….
19 4. Policy Met. The policies of the Shoreline Management Act as quoted above are
20 met by the proposal. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposal will not adversely affect shoreline ecology or shoreline aesthetics. Since the proposal is all
21 landward of the OHWM it will not impair navigation. In this regard the statewide objectives in protecting shoreline resources is fully met by the proposal.
22
SMP Policies and Regulations
23
24 SMP 5.7: Conservation Preserve, protect, and restore shoreline vegetation and wetlands, as practical, to optimize the support of wild, botanic, and aquatic life, as it exists today, with the goal of achieving no net loss of ecological functions.
5. Policy met. The policy is met for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 5B.
As noted in SMP 1.3, the “overarching policy” of the SMP is that “the public’s opportunity to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of natural shorelines of the state shall be preserved to the greatest extent feasible consistent with the overall best interest of the state and the people generally.” SMP 1.1 recognizes that a “major concept” in protection of ecological function is the “no net lost” standard. The no net 4 loss standard is referenced 27 times in the SMP. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 5B,
5 the proposal provides for significant improvement to shoreline resources and thus clearly meets the no net loss standard.
6
SMP-GP-1: Prevent the destruction or damage of any site having historic, cultural,
7 scientific, or educational value, as identified by the appropriate authorities, including the state office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and the Suquamish Tribe.
8
9 6. Policy Met. The policy is met for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 5B. The SMP’s focus on cultural resources exhibits a priority for cultural protection and 10 preservation and those standards are met as detailed in the staff report.
11
SU-DR-18 All commercial development or redevelopment requiring a Substantial 12 Development or Conditional Use Permit within the shoreline jurisdiction shall provide
13 for public visual and/or physical access to the shoreline in accordance with the Public
Access section of this Master Program. Properties within the Downtown Overlay
14 District must be consistent with the Public Access section as well as any additional requirements in POMC Title 20.
15
16
7. Regulation Met. The regulation is met, mainly because little of it is enforceable
17 against private development. The proposal doesn’t create any impediment to existing public shoreline access and thus cannot be constitutionally required to provide public 18 access per Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987).
19
Universal Permitting Criteria
20
21 POMC 20.24.100: The criteria set forth below shall apply to all Type I through IV land use and development permit applications:
22
(1) Determination of Consistency. The applications are reviewed by the city to determine 23 consistency between the proposed project and the applicable land use and development regulations and the comprehensive plan. A proposed project’s consistency with the city’s land use and development 24 regulations shall be determined by consideration of:
(a) The type of land use;
(b) The level of development, such as units per acre or other measures of density;
(c) Availability of infrastructure, including public facilities and services needed to serve the development; and
(d) The character of the development, such as development standards.
(2) Upon review of an application, the decision-maker shall also determine whether the building 4 and/or site design complies with the following provisions:
(a) The comprehensive plan;
5 (b) The applicable provisions of this title;
6 (c) The Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), pursuant to Chapter 20.160 POMC, if not otherwise satisfied;
7 (d) The city’s public works design standards. …
8 8. Criterion met. The criterion is met. As outlined in the staff report, City staff have reviewed the application and found the proposal to conform to City standards. No issues
9 of compliance have been raised by the public or City staff. As previously determined, the proposal is found to comply with all applicable development standards as relevant 10 to shoreline substantial development review.
11
DECISION
12
13 The proposal as identified in Finding of Fact No. 3 and conditioned below satisfies all applicable criteria for a shoreline substantial development permit as determined in the Conclusions of Law of this decision 14 and is approved subject to the following conditions of approval:
15 1) Prior to any ground disturbing activities, an Inadvertent Discovery Plan (IDP) shall be submitted to the Suquamish Tribe for review and comment. A copy of the Suquamish comments along with the IDP 16 shall then be submitted to City planning staff for approval.
17
2) The EV chargers shall not be mounted on or connected to the unpermitted car wash structure.
18
DATED this 29th day of May 2025.
19
20 ____________________________
21 Hearing Examiner for Port Orchard