Laserfiche WebLink
build 9 smaller houses on the 9 lots so that they would not encroach upon the Creek <br />setback.) <br />STA"ARD OF REVIEW <br />The decision of Respondent contested by this Petition for Writ is quasi-judicial in <br />nature, and thus subject to administrative mandate review under Code of Civil Procedure <br />Section 1094.5. See also McGill v Regents of University of California (1996) 44 <br />Cal. App.4 h 1776, 1785. It is not disputed that a hearing was required, a hearing was held, <br />evidence was taken, and discretion to grant the Planned Development Permit, the Vesting <br />Tentative Map, and certification of the CEQA Environmental Impact Report were placed <br />in the hands of Respondent City. <br />Abuse of discretion is established if the respondent has not proceeded in the <br />manner required by law, the order or. decision is not supported by the findings, or the <br />findings are not supported by the evidence." C.C.P. §1094.5(b). <br />The determination of whether there was a failure to proceed as required by law or <br />that the decision is not supported by the findings is subject to de novo review by the Court, <br />as these pertain to issues of law, not fact. <br />The question of whether findings are required to be made is an issue of law. <br />Whether the findings were made, but do not sufficiently support the decision made, is also <br />a question of law subject to de novo review. This is to be distinguished from the <br />determination of whether the findings themselves are supported by sufficient evidence, <br />which is an issue of fact subject to the "substantial evidence" test. C.C.P. §1094.5(c); <br />inane v San Francisco Cky Planning Comm (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 732, 742 -743. <br />In writ review of a decision by a public agency under CEQA, the trial court "shall <br />not exercise its independent judgment on the evidence but shall only determine whether the <br />E <br />8.B. - Page 63