In reviewing a petition challenging the legality of a lead agency's actions under CEQA, what is the scope of the review?

"In reviewing a petition challenging the legality of a lead agency's actions under CEQA, our role is the same as the trial court's. We review the agency's actions, not the trial court's decision, and our inquiry extends 'only to whether there was a prejudicial abuse of discretion' on the part of the agency. [Citations.] An abuse of discretion is established if the agency has not proceeded in a manner required by law or if its factual determinations are not supported by substantial evidence. [Citations.] For purposes of CEQA, substantial evidence "means enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached.' [Citation.]" (Rialto Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rialto (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 899, 923, fn. omitted.)