The trial court correctly denied defendant’s Anti-SLAPP motion to strike this malicious prosecution action, finding plaintiff had established the probable validity of the malicious prosecution claim as to two causes of action in the underlying action, for violation of a municipal ordinance governing approval of demolition projects and for violation of CEQA.  The municipal ordinance claim was baseless since the portions of the ordinance allegedly violated were discretionary, not mandatory.  The CEQA claim was baseless because the plaintiff had not exhausted its administrative remedies, as required, by raising the CEQA objection before municipal agency considering the demolition permit, and because the project fell within the single family home exemption to CEQA.  Malice is normally a question of fact, and here, malice was at least prima facie shown by lack of probable cause combined with misrepresentations made in pleadings and briefs filed in support of the underlying action.