806 W. Adams Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90007
Champion Real Estate Company, through 806 West Adams Property LLC, proposed 102 apartments on a 2.8-acre site it bought in 2018 for $26 million at the southeast corner of Adams Boulevard and Severance Street in University Park, less than a mile from USC. The plan has 100 five-bedroom units and two three-bedroom units, five of them for very low-income households, in six buildings of three stories over a podium plus a four-story clubhouse, 45 feet tall. USC is not involved. On May 17, 2019 a city zoning administrator granted a Class 32 infill exemption from CEQA but denied site plan review, citing "noise and music" from rooftop decks. The project was redesigned in a Craftsman style with inset decks and limited deck hours; the Planning Commission approved it on October 10, 2019, and the City Council upheld the exemption on February 4, 2020. The West Adams Heritage Association and the Adams Severance Coalition sued. On August 10, 2023 the Court of Appeal, in an unpublished opinion, voided the exemption because the city had relied on deck-noise restrictions as mitigation. AB 1307, signed weeks later, says occupant noise is not a CEQA impact. After the California Supreme Court sent the case back, the Court of Appeal ruled again on October 31, 2024: noise no longer counted, but the exemption stays set aside until the city finds the project consistent with the Exposition/University Park Redevelopment Plan, which a 2019 ordinance gave the force of zoning. No such finding has been reported. Champion separately obtained a ministerial permit in November 2022 for a four-story, 52-unit building on one parcel, which a trial court upheld against a separate CEQA suit in May 2024; neighbors appealed. The court said Champion had not abandoned the larger plan.
Ask a question to begin.
Press Enter to send · Switch personas to start a new conversation
A Class 32 exemption is granted, but site plan review is denied over deck "noise and music."
Court of AppealThe commission denies Jim Childs's appeal and limits deck hours.
Court of AppealA separate four-story building with six affordable units on one parcel (month only).
Urbanize LAIn an unpublished opinion, the court holds that the city improperly relied on mitigation.
Court of AppealThe court holds case S281588 pending the People's Park case and denies publication of the 2023 opinion.
California Supreme CourtThe neighborhood groups appeal (B339952).
Court of AppealThe case is transferred to the Court of Appeal after the People's Park ruling.
California Supreme CourtThe exemption stays set aside until the city finds the project consistent with the Exposition/University Park Redevelopment Plan (106 Cal.App.5th 395).
Court of AppealOn the 2023 ruling: "It's infuriating."
Declined to comment to CalMatters. In court, argued the two plans "are separate developments that differ in virtually every aspect of design."
"California will not allow NIMBYism to take hold, blocking critically needed housing for years and even decades."
Said the project would be open to students but would likely draw USC faculty and staff.
Joined the West Adams Heritage Association in arguing the Class 32 exemption was improper.
Appealed to the Planning Commission and the City Council; both appeals were denied.
Attorney Amy Minteer: "This is a very prominent and visible site because of its corner location."
The zoning administrator found the decks "would potentially affect surrounding uses through noise and music."
2023: "We cannot reconcile these contradictory findings."
The writ petition got the exemption set aside in 2023 over deck noise and again in 2024 over consistency with the redevelopment plan, which a 2019 ordinance (LAMC 11.5.14) gave zoning force.
Site plan review was denied over deck noise in 2019, and appeals ran to the City Council before the exemption was upheld on Feb. 4, 2020. The process delayed the project and forced a redesign.
Compatibility findings forced a redesign from a modernist to a Craftsman style, with inset decks.
Argued the project would harm nearby historical resources; the courts rejected the argument both times.
Each row is a dated action by a deciding body, taken from the minutes, agenda packet, video, or ruling linked in the source column.
| Date | Body | Action | Vote | Staff recommendation | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 17, 2019 | Staff | denied Zoning administrator granted a Class 32 exemption but denied site plan review over rooftop deck noise. | — | None | Court of Appeal |
| October 10, 2019 | Planning Commission | approved Approved the redesigned project and denied an appeal, with limits on deck hours. | — | Unknown | Court of Appeal |
| February 4, 2020 | City Council | appeal rejected Denied an appeal and upheld the CEQA exemption. | — | Unknown | Court of Appeal |
| August 10, 2023 | Court | ruling issued Unpublished opinion setting aside the CEQA exemption. | — | Unknown | Court of Appeal |
| October 31, 2024 | Court | ruling issued Published opinion: occupant noise no longer counts, but the exemption stays set aside pending a redevelopment plan consistency finding. | — | Unknown | Court of Appeal |