446 S. Shatto Place (ENV-2024-438-CE)

2025071128

City of Los Angeles

NOE - Notice of Exemption

7/28/2025

7/28/2025

Sean Mo

Andmore Partners

Representative

Parties Undertaking Project

3530 Wilshire Blvd, #1830
Los Angeles, CA 90010

(213) 788-1175

smo@a-n-d-m-o-r-e.com

Bryant Wu

City of Los Angeles, Department of City Planning

Planning Associate

Lead/Public Agency

200 N Spring Street, Room 621
Los Angeles, CA 90012

(213) 202-5435

bryant.wu@lacity.org

PROJECT LOCATION 446 S. Shatto Place

NAME OF APPLICANT / OWNER: Steve Hong

Categorical Exemption

Section 15332 – Class 32

The City has considered whether the Proposed Project is subject any of the six (6) exceptions that would prohibit the use of a categorical exemption as set forth in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2. The six (6) exceptions to this Exemption are: (a) Location; (b) Cumulative Impacts; (c) Significant Effect; (d) Scenic Highways; (e) Hazardous Waste Sites; and (f) Historical Resources. The location exception does not apply to the Class 32 exemption. a. Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located – a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply in all instances, except where the project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies. The subject site is located within a Methane Zone and a Special Grading Area (BOE Basic Grid Map A-13372); however, specific Regulatory Compliance Measures (RCMs) in the City of Los Angeles regulate the grading and construction of projects in these particular types of “sensitive” locations and will reduce any potential impacts to less than significant. Specifically, the following RCMs would apply: • Regulatory Compliance Measure RC-GEO-1 (Seismic): The design and construction of the project shall conform to the California Building Code seismic standards as approved by the Department of Building and Safety. • Regulatory Compliance Measure RC-GEO-2 (Hillside Grading Area): The grading plan shall conform with the City's Landform Grading Manual guidelines, subject to approval by the Advisory Agency and the Department of Building and Safety's Grading Division. Appropriate erosion control and drainage devices shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Building and Safety Department. These measures include interceptor terraces, berms, vee-channels, and inlet and outlet structures, as specified by Section 91.7013 of the Building Code, including planting fast-growing annual and perennial grasses in areas where construction is not immediately planned. • Regulatory Compliance Measure RC-GEO-3 (Landslide Area): Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the applicant shall submit a geotechnical report, prepared by a registered civil engineer or certified engineering geologist, to the Department of Building and Safety, for review and approval. The geotechnical report shall assess potential consequences of any landslide and soil displacement, estimation of settlement, lateral movement or reduction in foundation soil-bearing capacity, and discuss mitigation measures that may include building design consideration. Building design considerations shall include, but are not limited to: o ground stabilization o selection of appropriate foundation type and depths o selection of appropriate structural systems to accommodate anticipated displacements or any combination of these measures. The project shall comply with the conditions contained within the Department of Building and Safety’s Geology and Soils Report Approval Letter for the proposed project, and as it may be subsequently amended or modified. • Regulatory Compliance Measure RC-GEO-5 (Subsidence Area): Prior to the issuance of building or grading permits, the applicant shall submit a geotechnical report prepared by a registered civil engineer or certified engineering geologist to the written satisfaction of the Department of Building and Safety. The geotechnical report shall assess potential consequences of any subsidence and soil strength loss, estimation of settlement, lateral movement or reduction in foundation soil-bearing capacity and discuss mitigation measures that may include building design consideration. Building design considerations shall include, but are not limited to: ground stabilization, selection of appropriate foundation type and depths, selection of appropriate structural systems to accommodate anticipated displacements or any combination of these measures. The project shall comply with the conditions contained within the Department of Building and Safety’s Geology and Soils Report Approval Letter for the proposed project, and as it may be subsequently amended or modified. • Regulatory Compliance Measure RC-GEO-6 (Expansive Soils Area): Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the applicant shall submit a geotechnical report, prepared by a registered civil engineer or certified engineering geologist, to the Department of Building and Safety, for review and approval. The geotechnical report shall assess potential consequences of any soil expansion and soil strength loss, estimation of settlement, lateral movement or reduction in foundation soil-bearing capacity, and discuss mitigation measures that may include building design consideration. Building design considerations shall include, but are not limited to: ground stabilization, selection of appropriate foundation type and depths, selection of appropriate structural systems to accommodate anticipated displacements or any combination of these measures. The project shall comply with the conditions contained within the Department of Building and Safety’s Geology and Soils Report Approval Letter for the proposed project, and as it may be subsequently amended or modified. These RCMs have been historically proven to work to the satisfaction of the City Engineer to reduce any impacts from the specific environment in which the Project is located. In addition, all haul routes applications require the submittal of a Geology and Soils Report to the Department of Building and Safety (DBS). A Geology and Soils Report Approval Letter, for the subject property, which details conditions of approval that must be followed. In addition, roof and site drainage as well as sewer availability must comply with Bureau of Engineering and Bureau of Sanitation standards; and hydrants, Fire Department Access, and Fire Safety must be reviewed and approved by the Los Angeles Fire Department before permits can be issued. Thus, in conjunction with the above RCMs and compliance with other applicable regulations, the location of the Project will not result in a significant impact based on its location. b. Cumulative Impact. The exception applies when, although a particular project may not have a significant impact, the impact of successive projects, of the same type, in the same place, over time is significant. A significant impact may occur if the proposed project, in conjunction with the related projects, would result in impacts that are less than significant when viewed separately but significant when viewed together. The following projects were or are filed with the Department of City Planning: PROJECTS WITHIN A QUARTER-MILE FEET FROM THE SUBJECT SITE: 1. 430 South Westmoreland Avenue - ADM-2021-10149-DB-CU-SIP-PHP - 12/13/2021 Construction of a 8 story 45 unit apartment 2. 639 South Commonwealth Avenue - DIR-2022-6248-TOC-SPR-VHCA - 08/30/2022 Construction of a 7 story 142 unit apartment 3. 525 S. Virgil Avenue - DIR-2020-3627-TOC-SPR-HCA - 06/11/2020 - Redevelopment of a 4 story 130 unit mixed use building 4. 3019 – 3023 West 6th Street - DIR-2019-1021-TOC - 02/19/2019 Construction of a 6 story 14 unit residential development 5. 550 South Shatto Place - ZA-2018-3985-MCUP-TOC-WDI-SPR 07/09/2018 - Construction of a 31 story, 256 unit mixed use building According to the table above, there were five (5) projects filed with the Department of City Planning within the quarter-mile radius. For the project located at 430 South Westmoreland Avenue, Plan Check was approved on November 20, 2024. For the project located at 639 S. Commonwealth avenue, verifications are still in progress under Permit Number 21010-10002-03056. For the project located at 626 S. Virgil Avenue, verifications are still in progress under Permit Number 20010-10001-02264. For the project located at 3019 West 6th Street, quality review was completed on April 24, 2019 under Permit Number 19010-10000-00944. For the project located at 550 South Shatto Place, quality review was completed on May 8, 2024 under Permit Number 240101-10000-01673. There are no known projects which will result in a significant cumulative impact and this exception does not apply. According to Navigate LA, there is one (1) other haul route application being processed within 500 feet of the subject site. The approved haul route is for the following property and during the following timeframe: 430 South Westmoreland Avenue: The haul route proposes hauling on Monday to Friday between May 2, 2023 and November 2, 2025. The haul route for 430 South Westmoreland does not share the same street as the proposed project site located at 446 Shatto Place. In light of the increase in construction activity in Grading Hillside Areas and the increase in associated truck traffic related to the import and export of soil, a haul route monitoring program is being implemented by the Department of Building and Safety for added enforcement to ensure safety and to protect the quality of life of residents. The haul route approval will be subject to recommended conditions prepared by LADOT to be considered by the Board of Building and Safety Commissioners that will reduce the impacts of construction related hauling activity, monitor the traffic effects of hauling, and reduce haul trips in response to congestion. It is anticipated that the above projects would be in different stages of construction and concurrent use of the streets for purposes of hauling is anticipated to be minimal. Additionally, each project would be subject to the review of LADOT and the Bureau of Street Services and conditions of approval issued by the Board of Building and Safety Commissioners. Therefore, in conjunction with Citywide RCMs and compliance with other applicable regulations, no foreseeable cumulative impacts are expected c. Significant Effect Due to Unusual Circumstances. This exception applies when, although the project may otherwise be exempt, there is a reasonable possibility that the project will have a significant effect due to unusual circumstances. The project proposes a 60-unit apartment complex in an area zoned and designated for such development. Adjacent lots are developed with multi-story buildings, and the subject site is of a similar size and scope to nearby properties. The adjacent uses include residential and commercial multi-story buildings, so the proposed project would not create unusual circumstances which may lead to a significant effect on the environment. The project proposes a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 4.23:1 on a site that is permitted to have a maximum FAR of 1.5:1 or a maximum FAR of 4.25:1 under LAMC 12.22 A.31 Transit Oriented Communities Affordable Housing Incentive Program. A multi-story multi-family residential building is not unusual for the vicinity of the subject site and is similar in scope to other existing multi-family residential buildings in the area. Thus, there are no unusual circumstances that may lead to a significant effect on the environment, and this exception does not apply. d. Scenic Highways. This exception applies when, although the project may otherwise be exempt, there may be damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. The only State Scenic Highway within the City of Los Angeles is the Topanga Canyon State Scenic Highway, State Route 27, which travels through a portion of Topanga State Park. The project site is approximately 29 miles from State Route 27 and thus no potential damage to this resource would result from the project. Therefore, the subject site will not create any impacts within the designated state scenic highway, and this exception does not apply. e. Waste Sites. Projects located on a site or facility listed pursuant to California Government Code 65962.5. According to Envirostor, the State of California’s database of Hazardous Waste Sites, the site is not identified as a hazardous waste site. The nearest identified site includes Shatto Cleaners located approximately 900 feet to the northeast and includes a voluntary clean up. Other identified sites include four school clean up areas located within 3000 feet of the site. Although the site is located within a Methane Zone, there are no oil wells on-site according to CalGEM, with the nearest oil well located approximately 275 feet away. One located on the same block to the north, three to the east on the east side of Westmoreland Avenue, and on the south side of West 5th Street. As such, the project would not be developed on a site identified as a hazardous site pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. f. Historic Resources. Projects that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource. The project site has not been identified as a historic resource by local or state agencies, and the project site has not been determined to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources, the Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monuments Register, and/or any local register; and was not found to be a potential historic resource based on the City’s HistoricPlacesLA website or SurveyLA, the citywide survey of Los Angeles. Therefore, the City does not identify the site as a historic resource. Based on this, the project will not result in a substantial adverse change to the significance of a historic resource and this exception does not apply. In conclusion, this project is categorically exempt from the requirements of CEQA, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15332, Class 32, and based on the whole of the administrative record, there is no substantial evidence demonstrating than an exception to a categorical exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15300.2 applies.