In what circumstances will an administrative finding be sufficient to invalidate an Environmental Information Review?

Appellants claim that the administrative findings supporting the decisions of the airports commission and board of supervisors were inadequate. In the absence of a statutory requirement, administrative findings will be deemed adequate if they are sufficient to apprise interested parties and the courts of the bases for the administrative action. (See Topanga Ass'n for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 515--517, 113 Cal.Rptr. 836, 522 P.2d 12.) The resolutions attacked by appellants identify certain adverse environmental effects and prospective benefits of the project; they reflect the judgment that the social, economic and environmental benefits of the project outweigh its significant environmental risks. Since the resolutions adequately expose the agency's mode of analysis, they must be sustained if supported by substantial evidence. People v. County of Kern, Supra, 39 Cal.App.3d 830, 115 Cal.Rptr. 67, does not require a contrary conclusion. There, the court had invalidated an EIR because the agency had failed to respond to objections raised against the proposed project (39 Cal.App.3d at p. 842, 115 Cal.Rptr. 67). The sufficiency of administrative findings was not in issue in that case. Moreover, insofar as County of Kern suggests that agencies must set forth reasons why the benefits of the project outweigh significant environmental objections (see also Burger v. County of Mendocino, Supra, 45 Cal.App.3d 322, 119 Cal.Rptr. 568), the resolutions indicate that both the airports commission and the board of supervisors had complied with this requirement.