## Facts

- The Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) applied to San Juan County for a substantial development permit under the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 (SMA) to build a small boating destination site on Griffin Bay.
- The proposal included two mooring buoys, campsites, picnic areas, a fire ring, vault toilets, a well, signs, fencing, screening, and improvements to an existing access road; the road was to be gated for administrative use only.
- DNR issued a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) declaration of nonsignificance based on an environmental checklist.
- The County planning staff recommended approval with conditions; the county engineer and sanitarian did not object, but nearby landowners and citizens opposed the project.
- The county commissioners denied the permit without issuing findings or stating reasons.
- DNR sought review before the Shorelines Hearings Board (SHB), which conducted a de novo hearing, entered findings and conclusions, and remanded with instructions that the County issue the permit subject to conditions, including relocating campsites to reduce concerns raised in the record.
- The superior court affirmed SHB’s order; the County and intervening landowners appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether SHB’s review of a local government shoreline-permit decision under RCW 90.58.180(3) is de novo, permitting new evidence beyond the local record.
2. Whether SHB’s decision turns on deference to the local government (e.g., “arbitrary and capricious” or “clearly erroneous”) or on SHB’s independent determination of consistency with the SMA and the applicable shoreline master program.
3. Whether SHB may order a county to issue a shoreline permit with conditions, rather than only remanding for further local proceedings.
4. Whether the conditioned project complied with the SMA, the local master program, and SEPA.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the superior court and sustained SHB’s order requiring issuance of the permit subject to conditions.
- SHB properly conducted a de novo, quasi-judicial hearing under RCW 90.58.180(3) and applicable SHB rules, and was not confined to the county record.
- SHB’s task was to determine whether the local action was consistent with the SMA and the master program, not to apply a deferential “rational basis” or “arbitrary and capricious” review of the commissioners’ denial.
- SHB had authority to modify the local decision by directing issuance of a conditioned permit when the project, as conditioned, met SMA and master program requirements.
- Substantial evidence supported SHB’s findings that the project, as conditioned, complied with SMA, the master program, and SEPA; the county’s denial without findings did not prevail over SHB’s detailed determinations.

## Legal Principles

- RCW 90.58.180(3) contemplates SHB review through a de novo adversary hearing, allowing SHB to take relevant, material evidence even if not presented to the local government.
- In shoreline permit appeals, SHB independently evaluates whether the local decision is consistent with the SMA and the applicable shoreline master program; deference doctrines associated with review of discretionary local decisions do not control SHB’s statutory role.
- SHB may affirm, reverse, or modify a local shoreline decision and may require issuance of a permit with conditions when conditions bring the proposal into compliance.
- The addition of mitigating conditions to ensure SMA/master program consistency does not, by itself, validate a local denial in the absence of supported findings.
- A SEPA negative threshold determination and technical staff evaluations may support approval when, after an evidentiary hearing, SHB finds the development will comply with governing shoreline policies and regulations as conditioned.

## Conclusion

The court upheld SHB’s de novo authority to receive evidence, make independent consistency determinations under the SMA and the shoreline master program, and order San Juan County to issue a substantial development permit with conditions for DNR’s Griffin Bay boating destination site.


San Juan County v. Dep’t of Nat. Res., 28 Wn. App. 796, 626 P.2d 995 (Wash. Ct. App. 1981)