What is the standard of review in a CEQA case?

The standard of review in a CEQA case, as provided in sections 21168.5 and 21005, is abuse of discretion. Section 21168.5 states in part: "In any action or proceeding ... to attack, review, set aside, void or annul a determination, finding, or decision of a public agency on the grounds of noncompliance with this division, the inquiry shall extend only to whether there was a prejudicial abuse of discretion." (See 21005, subd. (a) [noncompliance with information disclosure requirements may "constitute a prejudicial abuse of discretion"].) Our decisions have thus articulated a procedural issues/factual issues dichotomy. "[A]n agency may abuse its discretion under CEQA either by failing to proceed in the manner CEQA provides or by reaching factual conclusions unsupported by substantial evidence. ( 21168.5.) Judicial review of these two types of error differs significantly: While we determine de novo whether the agency has employed the correct procedures, scrupulously enforc[ing] all legislatively mandated CEQA requirements ( Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564 [276 Cal.Rptr. 410, 801 P.2d 1161] ), we accord greater deference to the agency's substantive factual conclusions. In reviewing for substantial evidence, the reviewing court may not set aside an agency's approval of an EIR on the ground that an opposite conclusion would have been equally or more reasonable, for, on factual questions, our task is not to weigh conflicting evidence and determine

[241 Cal.Rptr.3d 518]