In County of Los Angeles v. City of Los Angeles (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 643, the court explained the function of a traditional writ of mandate. "A writ of mandate will lie to 'compel the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins, as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station' 'where there is not a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy, in the ordinary course of law.' (Code Civ. Proc., 1086.) ... Code of Civil Procedure section 1085 permits judicial review of ministerial duties as well as quasi-legislative and legislative acts. A trial court must determine whether the agency had a ministerial duty capable of direct enforcement or a quasi-legislative duty entitled to a considerable degree of deference. This question is generally subject to de novo review because it is one of statutory interpretation, a question of law for the trial court. A ministerial duty is one which is required by statute. 'A ministerial act is an act that a public officer is required to perform in a prescribed manner in obedience to the mandate of legal authority and without regard to his own judgment or opinion concerning such act's propriety or impropriety, when a given state of facts exists. Discretion, on the other hand, is the power conferred on public functionaries to act officially according to the dictates of their own judgment.' Normally, mandate will not lie to control a public agency's discretion, that is to say, force the exercise of discretion in a particular manner. However, it will lie to correct abuses of discretion. In determining whether a public agency has abused its discretion, the court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency, and if reasonable minds may disagree as to the wisdom of the agency's action, its determination must be upheld. A court must ask whether the public agency's action was arbitrary, capricious, or entirely lacking in evidentiary support, or whether the agency failed to follow the procedure and give the notices the law requires. In applying this extremely deferential test, a court '"must ensure that an agency has adequately considered all relevant factors, and has demonstrated a rational connection between those factors, the choice made, and the purposes of the enabling statute."' Deferential review of quasi-legislative activity minimizes judicial interference in the interests of the separation of powers doctrine. " (Id. at pp. 653-654.)