essentially factual inquiry in California

2025(Berkeley Hillside, supra, 60 Cal.4th at p. 1114 ; see also Aptos, supra, 20 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1048–1049.) This is “an essentially factual inquiry.” (Berkeley Hillside, supra, 60 Cal.4th at p. 1114 .) If so, the City was obligated to “apply the fair argument standard [to] determin[e] whether ‘there is a reasonable possibility [of] a significant effect on the environment’ ” caused by that cumulative impact.

2025(Berkeley Hillside, supra, 60 Cal.4th at p. 1114 ; see also Aptos, supra, 20 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1048–1049.) This is “an essentially factual inquiry.” (Berkeley Hillside, supra, 60 Cal.4th at p. 1114 .) If so, the City was obligated to “apply the fair argument standard [to] determin[e] whether ‘there is a reasonable possibility [of] a significant effect on the environment’ ” caused by that cumulative impact.

2025(Berkeley Hillside, supra, 60 Cal.4th at p. 1114 ; see also Aptos, supra, 20 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1048–1049.) This is “an essentially factual inquiry.” (Berkeley Hillside, supra, 60 Cal.4th at p. 1114 .) If so, the City was obligated to “apply the fair argument standard [to] determin[e] whether ‘there is a reasonable possibility [of] a significant effect on the environment’ ” caused by that cumulative impact.

2025(Berkeley Hillside, supra, 60 Cal.4th at p. 1115 .) “[T]he reviewing court’s function ‘is to determine whether substantial evidence support[s] the agency’s conclusion as to whether the prescribed “fair argument” [of a significant impact] could be made.’” (Ibid.; see also Aptos, supra, 20 Cal.App.5th at p. 1049 .) C.

2018Assn. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 555 , 574, 195 Cal.Rptr.3d 168 .) Under the second alternative a challenger "may establish an unusual circumstance with evidence that the project will have a significant environmental effect." ( Berkeley Hillside, at p. 1105, 184 Cal.Rptr.3d 643 , 343 P.3d 834 , italic s added; Citizens for Environmental Responsibility, at p. 575, 195 Cal.Rptr.3d 168 .) "Whether a particular project presents circumstances that are unusual for projects in an exempt class is an essentially factual inquiry," which we review *361 under the traditional substantial evidence standard. ( B

2018Assn. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 555 , 574, 195 Cal.Rptr.3d 168 .) Under the second alternative a challenger "may establish an unusual circumstance with evidence that the project will have a significant environmental effect." ( Berkeley Hillside, at p. 1105, 184 Cal.Rptr.3d 643 , 343 P.3d 834 , italic s added; Citizens for Environmental Responsibility, at p. 575, 195 Cal.Rptr.3d 168 .) "Whether a particular project presents circumstances that are unusual for projects in an exempt class is an essentially factual inquiry," which we review *361 under the traditional substantial evidence standard. ( B

2024(See Ryan v. Real Estate of the Pacific, Inc. (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 637, 644 [exercising discretion to address whether expert witness is needed to establish scope of duty under a common knowledge]; Woodward Park Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. City of Fresno (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 683, 712-714 [exercising discretion to address whether environmental documents were adequate as a matter of law]; Bayside Timber Co. v. Board of Supervisors (1971) 20 Cal.App.3d 1 [exercising discretion to address constitutionality of Forest Practice Act].) Almost every CEQA case will involve matters affecting the public i

2024(See Ryan v. Real Estate of the Pacific, Inc. (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 637, 644 [exercising discretion to address whether expert witness is needed to establish scope of duty under a common knowledge]; Woodward Park Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. City of Fresno (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 683, 712-714 [exercising discretion to address whether environmental documents were adequate as a matter of law]; Bayside Timber Co. v. Board of Supervisors (1971) 20 Cal.App.3d 1 [exercising discretion to address constitutionality of Forest Practice Act].) Almost every CEQA case will involve matters affecting the public i

2015However, an agency‘s finding as to 6 The courts noting judicial disagreement regarding the applicable standard also cite Dehne v. County of Santa Clara (1981) 115 Cal.App.3d 827 , but that decision does not mention or discuss the unusual circumstances exception. 33 whether unusual circumstances give rise to ―a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment‖ (Guidelines, § 15300.2, subd. (c)) is reviewed to determine whether the agency, in applying the fair argument standard, ―proceeded in [the] manner required by law.‖ (§ 21168.5; Friends of “B” Stre

2015However, an agency’s finding as to whether unusual circumstances give rise to “a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment” (Guidelines, § 15300.2, subd. (c)) is reviewed to determine whether the agency, in applying the fair argument standard, “proceeded in [the] manner required by law.” (§ 21168.5; Friends of “B” Street, supra, 106 Cal.App.3d at p. 1002.) Whether a particular project presents circumstances that are unusual for projects in an exempt class is an essentially factual inquiry, “ ‘founded “on the application of the fact-finding tribu

2015However, an agency’s finding as to whether unusual circumstances give rise to “a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment” (Guidelines, § 15300.2, subd. (c)) is reviewed to determine whether the agency, in applying the fair argument standard, “proceeded in [the] manner required by law.” (§ 21168.5; Friends of “B” Street, supra, 106 Cal.App.3d at p. 1002.) Whether a particular project presents circumstances that are unusual for projects in an exempt class is an essentially factual inquiry, “ ‘founded “on the application of the fact-finding tribu

2015However, an agency’s finding as to whether unusual circumstances give rise to “a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment” (Guidelines, § 15300.2, subd. (c)) is reviewed to determine whether the agency, in applying the fair argument standard, “proceeded in [the] manner required by law.” (§ 21168.5; Friends of “B” Street, supra, 106 Cal.App.3d at p. 1002.) Whether a particular project presents circumstances that are unusual for projects in an exempt class is an essentially factual inquiry, “ ‘founded “on the application of the fact-finding tribu

2015However, an agency’s finding as to whether unusual circumstances give rise to “a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment” (Guidelines, § 15300.2, subd. (c)) is reviewed to determine whether the agency, in applying the fair argument standard, “proceeded in [the] manner required by law.” (§ 21168.5; Friends of “B” Street, supra, 106 Cal.App.3d at p. 1002.) Whether a particular project presents circumstances that are unusual for projects in an exempt class is an essentially factual inquiry, “ ‘founded “on the application of the fact-finding tribu

2015However, an agency’s finding as to whether unusual circumstances give rise to “a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment” (Guidelines, § 15300.2, subd. (c)) is reviewed to determine whether the agency, in applying the fair argument standard, “proceeded in [the] manner required by law.” (§ 21168.5; Friends of “B” Street, supra, 106 Cal.App.3d at p. 1002.) Whether a particular project presents circumstances that are unusual for projects in an exempt class is an essentially factual inquiry, “ ‘founded “on the application of the fact-finding tribu