Laserfiche WebLink
change the general plan and zoning ordinances, and that its appellate review for legal error <br />and the existence of substantial evidence to support factual findings was conducted de <br />novo. Id., at pp. 426 -427. The Supreme Court noted that a petition for writ under <br />Section 1094.5 would not be procedurally correct, but the petitioners had pleaded both <br />administrative mandamus and traditional mandamus, and no one raised the issue of which <br />properly applied in that case. Imo, at p. 427 fn. 4. The Supreme Court acknowledged that <br />the standard for review offactual determinations under either type of petition for writ <br />would be the "substantial evidence" rule. Id <br />FACTUAL FINDING REOUIREMENTS <br />Formal findings were required to be made here by Respondent. <br />Ordinarily, when an administrative agency makes an adjudicatory decision, it is <br />required to make findings sufficient both to enable the parties to determine whether and on <br />what basis they should seek review and/in the event of review, to apprise a reviewing court <br />of the basis for the decision. [Citations.]" RgRers v. U.C. Retirement System (1985) <br />171 Cal.App.3d 864, 870. <br />Findings cannot simply parrot the language of statutes or regulations, but rather <br />must set forth the factual and legal determinations which link the facts to the law. <br />American Funeral Conclos v Board of Funeral Directors & Embalmers (1982) 136 <br />Cal.App.3d 303, 309; TQpnga Assn for a Scenic Community v County of Los Angles <br />1974) 11 Ca1.3d 506, 517. <br />Findings are not supposed to be a post hoc rationalization for a decision already <br />made. To the contrary, they are supposed to `conduce the administrative body to draw <br />legally relevant sub - conclusions supportive of [the] ultimate decision; the intended effect <br />is to facilitate orderly analysis and minimize the likelihood that the agency will randomly <br />7 <br />8.B. - Page 66