Judge Curtis A. Kin, Case Number: 23STCP01979, Date: 2024-04-11 Tentative Ruling

Petitioner Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility petitions for a writ of mandate directing respondents City of Los Angeles and City Council of the City of Los Angeles to vacate and set aside their approval of the 975-987 South Manhattan Place Project until respondent complies with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).

The proposed Project entails the construction of a new seven-story, 95,206 square-foot, multi-family development with 120 residential units, 12 of which are set aside for extremely low-income households. (AR 13, 33, 1192.) The Project is located at 975-987 South Manhattan Place in the City’s Wilshire Community Plan area and is split-zoned: the majority of the Project Site is zoned “high medium” density residential and a smaller portion is zoned “general commercial.” (AR 13, 33, 1536, 1691.) The Project is within “the City’s highly urbanized and densely populated Koreatown neighborhood,” where it is surrounded by multi-family residential

buildings to the north and west, a large vacant lot to the east, and a commercial building directly to the south. (AR 13, 1418, 1689, 1740-41.) According to the City Planning Commission, the Project meets all “Transit Oriented Communities” requirements and is consistent with the City’s goal of reducing traffic congestion and improving air quality. (AR 66-73.)

The Site lies on a “heavily impacted and previously developed urban infill site” (AR 2603) that contains no natural land or features (AR 6742, 6752). The northern portion of the Site was fully developed for over a hundred years before the residential building previously located on the property was demolished in 2018 and the southern portion was developed with a surface parking lot. (AR 1811, 5844-49.) The entire Site now sits on a vacant dirt lot that has been “heavily disturbed due to construction staging and parking, and intense fuel modification practices, with mostly bare ground and the only vegetation present being non-native annual plants and grasses.”

On November 3, 2021, real party in interest Korea Town, LP submitted an Environmental Assessment Application for the Project to the City’s Department of City Planning. (AR 6609-20.) In May 2022, the City produced a Categorical Exemption (“CE”) report prepared by expert environmental consultant CAJA Environmental Services (“CAJA”) (AR 1380), which determined the Project qualifies for the Infill Exemption and that none of the regulatory exceptions under Guidelines section 15300.2 apply (“2022 Report”). (AR 1378-1679.)[1] Relevant to this lawsuit, which focuses on CEQA Guidelines section 15332(c), the 2022 Report determined that the Site had “no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.” (AR 1420.) Specifically, in making its “no value as habitat” determination, the 2022 Report explained:

The Project Site is a vacant lot. There are three (3) street/sidewalk trees on Manhattan. There are no protected trees or shrubs on the Site . . . .

No federally protected wetlands (e.g., estuarine and marine deepwater, estuarine and marine, freshwater pond, lake, riverine) occur on or in the immediate vicinity of the Project Site. The nearest wetland is MacArthur Park, which classified as a Freshwater Pond and located approximately 1.80 miles east of the Project Site.

No riparian or other sensitive habitat areas are located on or adjacent to the Project Site. Due to the highly urbanized nature of the Project Site and surrounding area, the lack of a major water body, and the lack of trees, the Project Site is not a habitat for native resident or migratory species or contain native nurseries.

There are no City or County significant ecological areas on or around the Project Site. There are no California Natural Community Conservations Plans (CNCCP) in the area. . . . There are no Habitat Conservation Plans near the Site.

Thus, there exists no value for the Project Site as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. Further, the Project Site is not located in an approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

SAFER submitted comments ahead of the City’s May 25, 2022 hearing on the Project. None of SAFER’s comments discussed habitat onsite or other significant biological issues. Instead, SAFER’s comments addressed the Project’s purported impacts on indoor air quality and noise. (AR 2571-79.) Following the May 25, 2022 hearing, on July 8, 2022, the City’s Director of Planning (“Director”) issued a Letter of Determination (“LOD”) approving the Project’s entitlements and determining that, based on the whole of the administrative record, the Project qualifies for the Infill Exemption and no exceptions apply. (AR 6.)

SAFER filed an appeal to the City’s determination on July 21, 2022, which reiterated its earlier comments about noise and indoor air quality. (AR 82-95.) SAFER’s July 21, 2022 “Justification/Reason for Appeal” again makes no reference to the Site’s alleged habitat value. (AR 86.)

On October 24, 2022, SAFER submitted over 190 pages of material. (AR 2609-2802.) Included was a letter from Dr. Shawn Smallwood, PhD (“Smallwood”) summarizing the results of a site visit by Noriko Smallwood on July 24, 2022 (“Smallwood Letter”). (AR 2777-95.) In this letter, Dr. Smallwood related that Ms. Smallwood allegedly detected 13 species of vertebrate wildlife at the Site, three of which qualified as special-status bird species: Cooper’s hawk, western gull, and Allen’s hummingbird. (AR 2777-79.) Dr. Smallwood conjectured that the Site could support “17 special-status species of wildlife” and, on that basis, holds “considerable habitat value to wildlife.” (AR 2782-83.) The Smallwood Letter asserted the Site has habitat value due to its purported utility as “stopover and staging opportunities” during migration. (AR 2783.)

In response to the Smallwood Letter, the City’s expert CEQA consultant, CAJA, addressed the letter’s claims, noting that Dr. Smallwood’s assertions were not supported “by any map showing the specific location of the claimed sightings, and provide[d] no evidence for habitat on the Site, instead just pointing out observations of birds in the general vicinity of the Site.” (AR 2603-04.) CAJA then went on the confirm there are “no wildlife corridors, riparian or wetland areas nearby the Project Site” and that there is no evidence or information suggesting that the Site, “which is a heavily impacted and previously developed urban infill site in the middle of Koreatown, can validly be considered sensitive habitat. . . .” (AR 2603-04.)

The City Planning Commission (“CPC”) received oral comments at its October 27, 2022 hearing for the Project that reiterated the information found in both the Smallwood Letter and CAJA’s response. (AR 2536-43.) Planning Department staff stated that it had reviewed SAFER’s October 24, 2022 appeal letter and found it had failed to provide substantial evidence in support of its claims and ignored the substantial evidence supporting the Director’s Infill Exemption determination. (AR 2535.)

On December 7, 2022, the CPC, with support from the Planning Department’s Appeal Report (AR 96-104), denied SAFER’s appeal and issued a Letter of Determination (“PC LOD”) approving the Project. (AR 59-77.) The PC LOD determined the Project was exempt from CEQA and that there was no substantial evidence, based on the whole administrative record, demonstrating any exception to the Infill Exemption applied. (AR 59.)

On December 14, 2022, SAFER appealed the CPC’s Infill Exemption determination. (AR 1004.) The City and CAJA thereafter updated the 2022 Report to “adequately reflect current city policies as well as address [SAFER’s] concerns,” addressing a variety of topics including air quality, general plan consistency, and noise (“2023 Report”). (AR 1192, 1680-2313.) The City’s 2023 Report added further discussion of species habitat (AR 1722-24), which was supported by a biological site survey and assessment of the Project Site conducted by professional biological consultants, South Environmental (“SE Report”). (AR 1141-61.) Using the City’s standard form for evaluating a particular site, South Environmental assessed the Site for presence of water resources, protected trees or shrubs, and any protected animal species. (AR 1141-42, 1145.) The SE Report contained photographs and information gathered during wildlife biologist AJ Samra’s visit to the Site on February 21, 2023. (AR 1141-43, 1149-54.)

As with the City’s 2022 Report, both the 2023 Report and the SE Report contained findings that the Site is disturbed land located in the middle of a dense and highly urbanized area that contains no trees, water, or other natural features that would constitute habitat, and is not within any identified ecologically sensitive areas. (AR 1141-43, 1419-20, 1722-24.) The SE Report noted that the Site was then being used for “construction staging and parking” for a “construction company working on a development across the street” and the Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Diversity Database (“CNDDB”) did not identify any sensitive species in the vicinity of the Site. (AR 1142.) As with the City’s 2022 Report, both the 2023 Report and the SE Report concluded the Site has “no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species.” (AR 1141-43, 1419-20, 1722-24.)

In its April 13, 2023 appeal report submitted to the Planning and Land Use Management (“PLUM”) Committee,[2] City staff concluded that the CPC did not err in finding that the Project fits the Infill Exemption, as its analysis “relie[d] on various technical studies from qualified experts” and SAFER’s appeal failed to offer substantial evidence demonstrating any flaws in the City’s exemption determination. (AR 1192; see also AR 1722-24, 1142-43.) On April 18, 2023, after having heard SAFER’s final appeal of the Project, the PLUM Committee considered the 2023 Report, the SE Report, and written submissions from SAFER and voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council deny the appeal and sustain CPC’s approval of the Project and Infill Exemption. (AR 78-79, 1192-1377, 2375, 2555-56, 3857-4050.)

SAFER subsequently submitted additional letters and comments, including additional comments from Dr. Smallwood, asserting without evidentiary support, that the City “bulldozed” the Site. (AR 4620-21, 4811-12 [Smallwood Response to SE Report] (“Response Letter”).) Dr. Smallwood explained that, in the seven months between Ms. Smallwood’s site inspection on July 24, 2022 and South Environmental’s site inspection on February 21, 2023, the Site “had been committed to a construction staging area” and was “highly disturbed.” (AR 4812.) Dr. Smallwood reiterated that the Site constitutes habitat for the special status species based on Ms. Smallwood’s previously reported observations and because the Site could ostensibly be used as a “stopover” point for protected bird species. (AR 4817-18.) The Response Letter asserted the legal position that the “baseline” condition of the Site under CEQA should have been “open space” as alleged in the earlier Smallwood Letter, not the “dirt pad” pictured in the SE Report. (AR 4817.)

The City Council denied SAFER’s appeal and approved the Project on May 2, 2023. (AR 81.) On May 5, 2023, the City filed a Notice of Exemption for the Project with the Los Angeles County Clerk, noting that the Project was exempt from CEQA under the Infill Exemption. (AR 3-5.)

On June 6, 2023, petitioner filed a Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate. On November 6, 2023, real party in interest Korea Town, LP filed an Answer.[3] On November 7, 2023, respondents City of Los Angeles and City Council for the City of Los Angeles filed an Answer.

On December 21, 2023, petitioner filed an opening brief. On January 30, 2024, respondents and real party filed an opposition. On February 29, 2024, petitioner filed a reply. The Court has received an electronic copy of the administrative record and a hard copy of the joint appendix.

In an action challenging an agency’s decision under CEQA, the trial court reviews the agency’s decision for a prejudicial abuse of discretion. (Pub. Res. Code § 21168.5.) “Abuse of discretion is established if the agency has not proceeded in a manner required by law or if the determination or decision is not supported by substantial evidence.” (Ibid.)

“[S]ubstantial evidence includes fact, a reasonable assumption predicated upon fact, or expert opinion supported by fact…. Substantial evidence is not argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence that is clearly inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence of social or economic impacts that do not contribute to, or are not caused by, physical impacts on the environment.” (Pub. Res. Code § 21080(e).) Under the substantial evidence test, the Court “review[s] the administrative record to see if it contains evidence of ponderable legal significance that is reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value, to support the agency’s decision.” (Protect Tustin Ranch v. City of Tustin (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 951, 960.) The Court does not weigh the evidence. (Ibid.)

When an appellant challenges “’the sufficiency of the evidence, all material evidence on the point must be set forth and not merely [its] own evidence.” (Toigo v. Town of Ross (1998) 70 Cal.App.4th 309, 317, quoting Jordan v. City of Santa Barbara (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1245, 1255.) The petitioner “must lay out the evidence favorable to the other side and show why it is lacking.” (Defend the Bay v. City of Irvine (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1261, 1266.) “Failure to do so is fatal. A reviewing court will not independently review the record to make up for appellant's failure to carry his burden.” (Ibid.)

Respondents and real party contend that the Project qualifies for a Class 32 exemption to CEQA, codified in Title 14, Section 15332 of the California Code of Regulations (hereinafter, “Guidelines”). CEQA Guidelines § 15332 exempts “in-fill development” meeting the following requirements:

(a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.

(b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.

(d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.

(e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

Under CEQA, “[t]he lead agency has the burden to demonstrate that a project falls within a categorical exemption and the agency’s determination must be supported by substantial evidence.” (Citizens for Environmental Responsibility v. State ex rel. 14th Dist. Ag. Assn. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 555, 568 [“CER”].) “‘[W]here the record contains evidence bearing on the question whether the project qualifies for the exemption … and the agency makes factual determinations as to whether the project fits within an exemption category … [judicial review is] whether the record contains substantial evidence to support the agency’s decision.”’ (Walters v. City of Redondo Beach (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 809, 817.) The Court “do[es] not weigh conflicting evidence, as that is the role of the public agency.” (Protect Tustin Ranch, 70 Cal.App.5th at 960.)

“Since a determination that a project falls within a categorical exemption excuses any further compliance with CEQA whatsoever, we must construe the exemptions narrowly in order to afford the fullest possible environmental protection.” (Save Our Carmel River v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management Dist. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 677, 697.)

The essential issue here is whether subdivision (c) of CEQA Guidelines § 15332 applies, that is, whether the Site “has no value, as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.”

Petitioner focuses on a site visit conducted by Noriko Smallwood, a wildlife biologist, on July 24, 2022. (AR 2777.) Having walked around the perimeter of the Site with binoculars for 2.16 hours, Ms. Smallwood detected 13 species of vertebrate wildlife, three of which were special-status bird species: Cooper’s hawk, western gull, and Allen’s hummingbird. (AR 2777-80, 2782.) Dr. Shawn Smallwood – researcher of animal density and distribution, habitat selection, and conservation of rare and endangered species who has performed wildlife surveys for 37 years (AR 2777) – applied a model to Ms. Smallwood’s results to estimate that with repeated surveys, Ms. Smallwood would detect 73 species of vertebrate wildlife at the Site, 17 of which would be special-status species. (AR 2781-82). The model was based on a survey across 167 square kilometers of annual grasslands of the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, where Dr. Smallwood performed 721 hours of surveys at 46 stations from 2015 through 2019. (AR 2781.) Dr. Smallwood further explained:

Very few patches of open space remain within Los Angeles. Each one that remains available to birds and bats is undoubtedly sought for stopover and staging opportunities and for refugia and foraging to fuel long-distance flights. A site such as that of the proposed project is critically important for wildlife movement because it composes an increasingly diminishing area of open space within a growing expanse of anthropogenic uses, forcing more species of volant wildlife to use the site for stopover and staging during migration, dispersal, and home range patrol [citations]. If it goes forward, the project would cut wildlife off from stopover and staging opportunities, forcing volant wildlife to travel even farther between remaining stopover sites. As it is, the site is valuable to wildlife movement in the region.

(AR 2783.) Based on the foregoing, Dr. Smallwood concluded that “the site holds considerable habitat value to wildlife.” (AR 2783.)

While such evidence was before respondents, the Court finds there was, nonetheless, substantial evidence to support the conclusion that the in-fill exemption to the Project should apply. In so finding, this Court does not weigh the conflicting evidence when evaluating the decision for substantial evidence.[4] (Protect Tustin Ranch, 70 Cal.App.5th at 960.) Respondents had before them the May 2022 report by CAJA Environmental Services, which stated: “No riparian or other sensitive habitat areas are located on or adjacent to the Project Site. Due to the highly urbanized nature of the Project Site and surrounding area, the lack of a major water body, and the lack of trees, the Project Site is not a habitat for native resident or migratory species or contain native nurseries.” (AR 1420, footnote omitted.) CAJA also noted that there are no city or county designated significant ecological areas nor any state conversation plans covering the Site or anywhere nearby. (AR 1419-20.) In making its “no value as habitat” determination, the 2022 Report determined: (1) the Site is entirely surrounded by urban uses; (2) the Site is a vacant dirt lot containing no trees—including no protected trees or shrubs—and no natural features typically associated with animal habitat; and (3) the Site contains no ecologically sensitive areas, wetlands, or marine habitat on or near it. (AR 1419-20.)

The May 2022 report would alone seem to constitute substantial evidence supporting the finding of “no value as habitat,” but there is more. Respondents also rely on results from a site visit by wildlife biologist AJ Samra on behalf of South Environmental that took place on February 21, 2023. (AR 1141-43, 1149-54.) Consistent with the May 2022 report, South Environmental noted the following: (1) no protected trees or shrubs occur on the Site; (2) the Site lacks water resources; (3) no native plants were present at the Site; (4) the area around the Site is heavily urbanized; and (5) there are no California Natural Diversity Database records of sensitive and special status species within a 0.25-mile radius of the Site. (AR 1142-43, 1145.) South Environmental also attached photographs consistent with the observations noted in its report. (AR 1149-54.) Based on the foregoing, South Environmental concluded that the Site “does not serve as habitat for special-status plants or animals, and none have the potential to occur.” (AR 1143.)

Further still, CAJA updated its 2022 Report in April 2023. (AR 1192, 1680-2313.) CAJA’s updated findings remain consistent with both the May 2022 Report and the SE Report. (AR 1722-24.) In particular, CAJA concluded: “Due to the highly urbanized nature of the Project Site and surrounding area, the lack of a major water body, and the lack of trees, the Project Site is not a habitat for native resident or migratory species or contain native nurseries.” (AR 1723.)

The foregoing substantial evidence of “no value, as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species” should end the inquiry as to whether respondents committed an abuse of discretion. Nevertheless, petitioner argues that the Site had been regraded and denuded of vegetation prior to preparation of the SE Report and the April 2023 Report due to construction staging. (Cf. AR 1338-39 [photographs attached to SE Report]; cf. AR 5847-48 [pictures taken on or before July 1, 2019]; AR 4812 [photograph from Google Earth Street View image of 975 Manhattan Place in July 2022]; AR 6742 [photograph of Site in presentation dated May 25, 2022].) Petitioner thus contends that the SE Report and the April 2023 Report have no evidentiary value, because the potential environmental impact of the Project needs to be compared to the “baseline,” or when the environmental analysis is commenced, according to petitioner.

This argument is unhelpful to petitioner’s cause. To begin with, it is far from clear that petitioner’s “baseline” requirement has any application here. The requirement for a baseline analysis arises from CEQA Guidelines § 15125(a), but that section, by its explicit terms, applies only to the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. (See Guidelines § 15125(a) [“An EIR must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project. This environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency determines whether an impact is significant”].) While petitioner argues the “baseline” requirement also extends to determinations of exemptions, the cases cited by petitioner do not necessarily stand for that proposition.[5]

In any event, even if a baseline analysis were required, thereby requiring the Project to be evaluated with respect to when the environmental analysis commenced in May 2022 (see Guidelines § 15125(a)(1); AR 6 [City determined that in-fill exemption applied in May 2022]), as discussed above, the May 2022 report constitutes substantial evidence that the in-fill exemption applies. As was found in May 2022, due to the urban nature of the Site and the surrounding area, the lack of a body of water, lack of trees, and lack of government-designated conversation efforts, there was substantial evidence supporting the applicability of the in-fill exemption. While Petitioner argues that the May 2022 report does not constitute substantial evidence because there is no evidence of any site visit, petitioner cites no authority indicating that a site visit is necessary to constitute substantial evidence, and the Court does not find that the lack of a site visit impacts its conclusion that the May 2022 report constitutes substantial evidence.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that substantial evidence supports the City’s finding that the Project was exempt under the in-fill exemption.

“Once the agency establishes that the project is exempt, the burden shifts to the party challenging the exemption to show that the project is not exempt because it falls within one of the exceptions listed in Guidelines section 15300.2.” (CER, 242 Cal.App.4th at 568.)

Petitioner argues that there is a reasonable possibility that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. “A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2(c).)

The unusual circumstances exception may be established in one of two ways. “A party invoking the exception may establish an unusual circumstance without evidence of an environmental effect, by showing that the project has some feature that distinguishes it from others in the exempt class, such as its size or location. In such a case, to render the exception applicable, the party need only show a reasonable possibility of a significant effect due to that unusual circumstance. Alternatively…a party may establish an unusual circumstance with evidence that the project will have a significant environmental effect.” (Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1086, 1105.)

Petitioner has not shown that unusual circumstances apply to the Project. “‘[T]he presence of comparable facilities in the immediate area adequately supports [an] implied finding that there were no “unusual circumstances” precluding a categorical exemption.’ [Citation.]” (Walters v. City of Redondo Beach (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 809, 821, quoting Bloom v. McGurk (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 1307, 1316.) Here, the Project is typical of the multi-family residential buildings surrounding the Site in Koreatown and is in a “high medium” density residential zone. (AR 13, 1418, 1689, 1691, 1740-41.) As for the second test under Berkeley, the Court of Appeal in Walters summarized its application as follows:

In the second alternative under Berkeley Hillside, a challenger “may establish an unusual circumstance with evidence that the project will have a significant environmental effect.” “When it is shown ‘that a project otherwise covered by a categorical exemption will have a significant environmental effect, it necessarily follows that the project presents unusual circumstances.’” “But a challenger must establish more than just a fair argument that the project will have a significant environmental effect. A party challenging the exemption, must show that the project will have a significant environmental impact.” “In other words, a showing by substantial evidence that a project will have a significant effect on the environment satisfies both prongs of the unusual circumstances exception under the second method of establishing the exception.”

(Walters, 1 Cal.App.5th 819-20, internal citations omitted, emphasis in original.) Petitioner does not demonstrate the inevitability of a significant environmental impact. Even if it is correct that the Site would no longer be a “stopover” for certain special status bird species (see AR 2783), there is no evidence that any special-status species has ever lived at the Site or that the Project will otherwise have a definitive significant environmental impact on a special status bird species or any other endangered, rare, or threatened species.

Petitioner has not met its burden to demonstrate an exception to the in-fill exception.

The petition is DENIED. Pursuant to Local Rule 3.231(n), respondents shall prepare, serve, and ultimately file a proposed judgment.

[1] The CEQA Guidelines appear at Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §§ 15000, et seq.

[2] The PLUM Committee is the Los Angeles City Council (“City Council”) committee that hears and decides CEQA appeals. (AR 78-79, 1192.) PLUM Committee determinations are then presented to the full City Council for ratification. (AR 78-79.)

[3] On June 9, 2023, pursuant to petitioner’s request, real party in interest Andrew Brady was dismissed without prejudice. Any reference to real party refers to Korea Town, LP.

[4] Otherwise, there may be good reason for this Court to question the value of petitioner’s evidence. Dr. Smallwood contends the Site is used as a stopover during migration (AR 2783), but that does not necessarily render the Site a habitat for the special status bird species. “Habitat” is defined in Merriam-Webster Dictionary as “the place or environment where a plant or animal naturally or normally lives and grows.” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/habitat; see also Leavitt v. County of Madera (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1502, 1514 [in case involving statutory construction of CEQA provisions, “To determine the usual and ordinary meaning of a word or phrase, a court may refer to the definitions contained in a dictionary.”) Dr. Smallwood does not present any evidence that any special status bird species lives at the Site. Further, in finding that 17 vertebrate wildlife special-status species may visit the Site, Dr. Smallwood applied a model based on a survey across 167 square kilometers of annual grasslands of the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. (AR 2781-82.) There is no explanation why grasslands may be analogized to a parcel in an urbanized area.

[5] In Reply, petitioner cites three cases it claims “demonstrate that courts rely on Section 15125 for evaluating the baseline environmental setting for projects relying on CEQA exemptions.” (Reply at 5.) However, in North Coast Rivers Alliance v. Westlands Water Dist. (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 832, 872-74, the Court of Appeal performed a baseline analysis to determine whether the “significant effect on the environment” exception to an exemption applied. In County of Amador v. El Dorado County Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 931, 952, the baseline analysis pertained to whether the EIR adequately described the baseline environment and historic operations. The court’s discussion of the applicability of two categorical exemptions did not involve any baseline analysis. (County of Amador, 76 Cal.App.4th at 966-69.) In Bottini¸v. City of San Diego (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 281, the Court of Appeal explained that a project that is categorically exempt does not undergo the CEQA review process, where the agency “must evaluate the environmental impact of a project against a measure commonly referred to as the baseline, i.e., the environment’s state in the absence of the project.” (Bottini, 27 Cal.App.5th at 292-93.) Bottini does not even cite Guidelines § 15125.

SUPPORTERS ALLIANCE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY,	Petitioner,	Case No.	23STCP01979
vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.,	Respondent.	[TENTATIVE] RULING ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE Dept. 82 (Hon. Curtis A. Kin)
KOREA TOWN, LP, et al.,	Real Parties in Interest.