Laserfiche WebLink
additional, non - expert, testimony during the hearing.7 Id. After the parties' presentations, the <br />Board deliberated and voted unanimously to affirm the Division's proposed approval of PR -6. <br />R: 7422 -7432. On December 8, 2010, the Board issued its detailed Order setting forth extensive <br />findings of fact and conclusions of law. R: 8474 -8482. The Board's Order is fully supported by <br />the extensive administrative record; yet, Plaintiffs sought judicial review of the Board's Order by <br />filing their complaint on December 15, 2010. <br />V. ARGUMENT <br />A. Standard of Review <br />Section 32 -33 -128 of the Act provides the applicable standard of review for final agency <br />action. It states: <br />The court shall hear such petition or complaint solely on the record <br />made before the board. The findings of the board, if supported by <br />substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole, shall be <br />conclusive. § 34- 33- 128(2) (Emphasis added). <br />The Colorado Administrative Procedure Act, §§ 24 -4 -106 ( "APA "), which applies to the extent it <br />is not inconsistent with the Act,8 sets forth an additional standard of review of agency action. <br />Under that standard, a court must affirm agency action unless it is "arbitrary or capricious... in <br />excess of statutory authority... unsupported by substantial evidence when the record is <br />considered as a whole, or otherwise contrary to law." See § 24 -4- 106(7). <br />Administrative agency decisions are presumptively valid. See, e.g., Colo. Div. oflns. v. <br />Auto - Owner's Ins. Co., 219 P.3d 371 (Colo. App. 2009); Life Investors Ins. Co. ofAm. v. Smith, <br />' Numerous other interested persons testified during the hearing to support the Division's PR -6 <br />approval. R: 7415 -7422. <br />s § 24 -4 -107. <br />ME <br />