Opinion ID: 2585012
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Inadequate CESA Findings

Text: EPIC contends that there were inadequate CESA findings to support the Incidental Take Permit. Although the findings leave something to be desired, we disagree there is prejudicial error. Administrative agency decisions in which discretion is exercised may generally be challenged by a writ of administrative mandamus pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. In Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 515 [113 Cal.Rptr. 836, 522 P.2d 12] ( Topanga ), we considered the meaning of subdivision (b) of that statute, defining `abuse of discretion' to include instances in which the administrative order or decision `is not supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported by the evidence' and subdivision (c), wherein `abuse of discretion is established if the court determines that the findings are not supported by substantial evidence in the light of the whole record.' We concluded that implicit in section 1094.5 is a requirement that the agency which renders the challenged decision must set forth findings to bridge the analytic gap between the raw evidence and ultimate decision or order.... By focusing ... upon the relationships between evidence and findings and between findings and ultimate action, the Legislature sought to direct the reviewing court's attention to the analytic route the administrative agency traveled from evidence to action. In so doing, we believe that the Legislature must have contemplated that the agency would reveal this route. Reference, in section 1094.5, to the reviewing court's duty to compare the evidence and ultimate decision to ` the findings' ... we believe leaves no room for the conclusion that the Legislature would have been content to have a reviewing court speculate as to the administrative agency's basis for decision. ( Topanga, supra, 11 Cal.3d at p. 515.) The findings do not need to be extensive or detailed. `[W]here reference to the administrative record informs the parties and reviewing courts of the theory upon which an agency has arrived at its ultimate finding and decision it has long been recognized that the decision should be upheld if the agency in truth found those facts which as a matter of law are essential to sustain its ... [decision].' ( Sierra Club v. California Coastal Commission, supra, 19 Cal.App.4th at p. 556.) On the other hand, mere conclusory findings without reference to the record are inadequate. (See Village of Laguna Beach, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 1022, 1035 [185 Cal.Rptr. 41].) EPIC contends that the CESA findings are inadequate. Under DFG regulations promulgated pursuant to CESA, the director of DFG must make findings that the take authorized by the Incidental Take Permit is consistent with the statutory requirements in Fish and Game Code section 2081, subdivision (b). (FP Rules, ง 783.4, subd. (a).) EPIC claims that DFG's CESA findings merely recited statutory criteria without any supporting rationale linking the evidence to the ultimate conclusion. The record discloses that the March 1, 1999 document containing the CESA findings recites the language of Fish and Game Code section 2081, subdivision (b) and affirms compliance with its provisions, referring to specific documents in the record: for example, that the Take of Covered Species as defined in the ITP [Incidental Take Permit] will be incidental to the otherwise lawful activities covered under the ITP, that the impacts will be minimized and fully mitigated through the HCP's Operating Conservation Program and [Implementation Agreement] and that the conservation and mitigation measures required pursuant to the HCP's Operating Conservation Program are roughly proportional in extent to the impact of Pacific Lumber's take. Thus, the findings refer to a specific documentโthe HCP's operating conservation program. This portion of the HCP describes conservation plans for each of the critical species expected to be impacted by Pacific Lumber's activities, setting forth for each species specific management objectives, conservation measures, and a monitoring program. The findings also refer to the Implementation Agreement, where Pacific Lumber's obligations are further delineated. The CESA findings were made in conjunction with findings for the final EIS/EIR. In the final EIS/EIR, the HCP's conservation programs were analyzed, and it was concluded that these programs would mitigate the adverse effects of incidental take on various species. Although the better practice would have been for the CESA findings to have referred more specifically to those portions of the final EIS/EIR that support the conclusion that the impacts of the take will be minimized and fully mitigated, we have no trouble under the circumstances discerning the analytic route the administrative agency traveled from evidence to action. ( Topanga, supra, 11 Cal.3d at p. 515; see No Slo Transit, Inc. v. City of Long Beach (1987) 197 Cal.App.3d 241, 260 [242 Cal.Rptr. 760].) We find no prejudicial error.