Topanga: The Cornerstone for Findings
Any discussion of findings and decisions affecting land use must begin with
the seminal case of Topanga Association for a Scenic Community v.
County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506. In Topanga, the
court defined findings, explained their purposes, and showed when they are
needed.
Definition
The Topanga court defined findings as legally relevant subconclusions
which expose the agency's mode of analysis of facts, regulations, and policies,
and which bridge the analytical gap between raw data and ultimate decision.
(Topanga, supra at pp. 515 and 516.) In other words, findings
are the legal footprints local administrators and officials leave to explain
how they progressed from the facts through established policies to the decision.
Purpose
The Topanga court also outlined five purposes for making findings,
two relevant mainly to the decision making process, two relevant to judicial
functions, and the last relevant to public relations. Findings should:
1. Provide a framework for making principled decisions, enhancing the integrity
of the administrative process;
2. Help make analysis orderly and reduce the likelihood that the agency
will randomly leap from evidence to conclusions;
3. Enable the parties to determine whether and on what basis they should
seek judicial review and remedy;
4. Apprise a reviewing court of the basis for the agency's action; and,
5. Serve a public relations function by helping to persuade the parties
that administrative decision making is careful, reasoned, and equitable.
(Topanga, supra at pp. 514, 516, fn. 14, and 517.)
Circumstances Requiring Findings
While the five purposes seem clear enough, state law has not clearly distinguished
between situations which require findings and those which do not. Absent
a specific legislative requirement for findings, the courts determine when
they are necessary. In general, case law has required findings for land
use decisions that are adjudicative in nature; these are also known as adjudicatory,
quasi-judicial, or administrative decisions. In this type of decision, a
reviewing body holds a hearing, as required by the Constitution, state statute,
or local ordinance, takes evidence, uses discretion in determining the facts,
and bases its decision on the facts. The decision involves applying a fixed
rule, standard, or law to a specific set of existing facts. In land use
cases, the 'existing facts' are often parcels of land. Adjudicative acts
are also described as ones which "are necessary to carry out the legislative
policies and purposes already declared by the legislative body." (Fishman
v. City of Palo Alto (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 506, 509.) Examples of adjudicative
acts include variances, use permits, Williamson Act contract cancellations,
coastal zone development permits, Coastal Commission review of local coastal
plans, and tentative tract and parcel maps. In each case local officials
apply existing land use or other development standards to specific parcels.
Not only do these approvals constitute adjudicative acts, their denials
are adjudicative as well. Especially in the case of tentative subdivision
maps, if the decision making body makes certain statutory findings, it must
deny the tentative map (Government Code Section 66474). If the body makes
certain other findings, it has the option of denying the subdivision (Government
Code Section 66474.6).
By comparison, findings are not necessary for legislative or quasi-legislative
acts, unless specifically required by statute. (San Francisco Ecology
Center v. City and County of San Francisco (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 584;
Ensign Bickford Realty Corp. v. City Council (1977) 68 Cal.App.3d
467, 473.) While legislative acts may also entail holding a legally required
hearing, taking evidence, using discretion in determining the facts, and
making a decision based on the facts, they contrast with adjudicative acts
in one major way: legislative acts generally formulate a rule to be applied
to all future cases rather than applying an existing rule to a specific
factual situation or parcel. They are also described as declaring "a
public purpose and mak[ing] provisions of the ways and means of its accomplishment."
(Fishman v. City of Palo Alto supra, at 509.) Examples are the adoption
or amendment of a general plan or zoning ordinance. Even though a zone change
or general plan amendment may be specific to a particular parcel, it is
still a legislative act because its underlying effect is legislative in
nature, regardless of the size or geographic scope of the property affected.
(Arnel Development Company v. City of Costa Mesa (1980) 28 Cal.3d
511, 514; Karlson v. City of Camarillo (1980) 100 Cal.App.3d 789,
799.) Table I lists examples of adjudicative
and legislative acts as established by their case law precedents.
Next:
JUDICIAL STANDARDS OF REVIEW
Return to Table of Contents
Prepared by:
State of California
Governor's Office of Planning and Research
1400 Tenth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
916-322-2318