Local Politics
  1. Home
  2. US
  3. California
  4. Los Angeles
  5. Issues

Riverwalk at Studio City appeals (CF 26-1081)

At a glance

  • What: two sets of appeals (agenda items 15 and 16) against approvals for Riverwalk at Studio City, a mixed-use project of 814 homes (46 reserved for very low income households) and about 75,968 square feet of restaurant space on the former big-box site at 12501-12665 West Ventura Boulevard, next to the Los Angeles River in Council District 4. One appeal targets the subdivision map, the other the City Planning Commission's density bonus and specific plan approvals.
  • Where it stands: on 2026-10-13 the Planning and Land Use Management Committee voted 5-0 to deny all appeals and sustain the City Planning Commission, with added conditions. On 2026-10-21 the City Council denied both sets of appeals: item 14 (the tract map appeals, Council File 26-1081) and item 22 (the City Planning Commission approvals appeal, Council File 26-1081-S1, continued from October 20) each passed by 11 ayes, 0 noes (Hernandez, Padilla, Raman and Soto-Martinez absent). Both carried a time limit, with October 23 the last day for Council action.
  • Next: the final map and building permits proceed under the conditions; a condition requires fire-safe regulation compliance before the final map is recorded; contributions and trees are due before any certificate of occupancy.

The appeals

  • Appellants (a residents association and Save L.A. River Open Space, through counsel) argued the project is in a very high fire hazard severity zone, that the city never modeled wildfire evacuation, and that an outside consultant's model put hillside evacuation to a freeway at about six hours today, adding about 27 minutes with this and the nearby Sportsmen's Lodge project. They also cited bat and bird habitat, about 140 daily haul trips for nearly a year, fire access road and 150-foot hose-reach rules, and said the project cannot rely on the AB 130 CEQA exemption.
  • A second appellant asked that a landscaped parkway replace a ten-foot concrete sidewalk on the project's street frontage, saying the City Planning Commission had supported it in June but the final motion did not say so.
  • The applicant (represented by outside counsel) said no evacuation study is required given the exemption, but it voluntarily submitted one showing the project can evacuate in under 20 minutes without significantly worsening conditions; a bat study found no bats on the surface parking lot site; palms will be removed; and the project meets fire, building and wildland-interface codes. It cited more than 7 million dollars in park fees and a 650,000 dollar contribution to river maintenance and nearby crossings.
  • City Planning staff said the project meets Fire Department protocols, state density bonus law overrides local specific plan standards, no evidence of protected habitat exists on site, and recommended denying the appeals except to add the landscaped parkway condition.

Public comment

  • Opposed or worried: a Sunset Hill neighborhood association (not against the project but demanding a funded engineering and evacuation review and fixes for the Whitsett and Ventura intersection, where it cited fatalities and injuries), a Studio City residents association speaker (escape routes only about every half mile), and a resident who tallied roughly 1,800 new apartments with neighboring projects and asked for wider hillside streets and native planting. A resident across the river objected that no left turn into the site would push traffic into her neighborhood.
  • In support: the Studio City Business Improvement District, Valley Industry and Commerce Association, Transit Coalition, a neighborhood council ad hoc committee representative (reporting native river plantings, bike and transit access), and several residents who praised the housing, low-income units and river access.

City Council, 2026-10-21

  • The item was not open for item comment, so speakers raised it under general comment. About ten supported it (applicant representatives, a neighborhood council ad hoc committee member, business and transit advocates, residents), citing low-income homes, restaurants, river access and park fees.
  • A speaker for the Studio City Neighborhood Council read its community impact statement of support: its conditions had been met or were in process, and its disaster-preparedness ad hoc committee drew little community interest. As an individual he said an outside study put added evacuation time at 27 minutes.
  • One Studio City resident asked the Council to deny the tract map, arguing that AB 130 still requires meeting safety standards, that the applicant's own consultant noted fire hose reach limits, and that the 27 minutes come on top of about six hours.

Conditions and decision

  • Raman's office read negotiated conditions: a 375,000 dollar contribution for L.A. Riverway Segment 8 engineering and landscape design and for left-turn phasing at Whitsett Avenue and Moorpark Street; 300,000 dollars to Recreation and Parks for river frontage operations and maintenance; up to 23 shade trees on Ventura Boulevard; and no certificate of occupancy until all contributions are paid and trees planted. Raman said her office supports denying the appeals if these conditions are kept, and said her office will work to sequence the area's many projects so construction trucks do not overwhelm it.
  • Blumenfield moved to deny the appeals and sustain the approvals, adding a fire safe regulations condition before the final map and confirming on the record that the landscaped parkway is included. Vote: 5 ayes (Blumenfield, Raman, Jurado, Lee, Nazarian).

Official Council action, 2026-10-21 (journal)

  • Item 14, tract map appeals (Council File 26-1081, Case VTT-84453-2A): the Council determined the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under Public Resources Code Section 21080.66, adopted the City Planning Commission's findings, and denied the appeals filed by Minteer, on behalf of the Studio City Residents Association and Save LA River Open Space, and by King. That sustained approval of a two-phase Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTT-84453) merging and re-subdividing the site into two ground lots, three residential airspace lots, five commercial airspace lots and eight parking airspace lots, plus a haul route, for 814 homes and 75,968 square feet of restaurant space at 12501 to 12665 West Ventura Boulevard. The conditions were modified by the Planning and Land Use Management Committee: Valleyheart Drive to get a new 10-foot sidewalk with landscaped parkway (Condition S-3(i)(3)); a new condition that before the final map is recorded the applicant must show compliance with Public Resources Code Section 4290 and the State Minimum Fire Safe Regulations and Chapter 7 of the California Building Code, as the Department of City Planning recommended on October 5, 2026; and the conditions in the Council District 4 letter of October 13, 2026. Vote 11 to 0.
  • Item 22, project review and compliance appeal (Council File 26-1081-S1, Case CPC-2025-5697-DB-PR-SPPC-MCUP-VHCA-1A): the Council denied the appeal by Minteer for the same groups and sustained the Commission's approvals of a Project Review (a net increase of 50 or more homes and 50,000 square feet or more of non-residential floor area) and a Project Compliance under the Ventura/Cahuenga Boulevard Corridor Specific Plan. Project figures in the journal: a 744,906-square-foot, seven-story (84-foot) building with a maximum floor area ratio of 3.2 to 1; 668,938 square feet of residential and 75,968 of restaurant floor area; 46 of the 814 homes reserved for Very Low Income households; 1,040 residential and 766 commercial car parking spaces; 89,937 square feet of open space; removal of 240 non-protected trees on site and three street trees; and grading and export of up to 521,000 cubic yards of earth. The same two added conditions applied. Vote 11 to 0.
  • Applicant: Studio City Sports Center, LLC; representative: Psomas. The City Planning Commission reported no General Fund impact because costs are recovered through fees. No community impact statement was submitted in the journal for either item.

Sources

Discussion time

About 50 minutes across 2 meetings (from transcript timestamps; approximate).

Meeting Minutes
2026-10-21 - City Council 12
2026-10-13 - Planning and Land Use Management Committee 38

Log

2026-10-20 - City Council

Journal: item 26 (Council File 26-1081-S1), the Project Review and Project Compliance appeal for the 814-unit project, was continued to Wednesday, October 21, 2026. The recommendation included two added conditions from the PLUM Committee: fire-safe regulation compliance before final map recordation, and the conditions in the Council District 4 letter of October 13, 2026.

2026-10-21 - City Council

Items 14 and 22 denied both sets of appeals, 11 ayes, 0 noes each (the journal confirms the vote the captions did not read out). The journal records the added fire-safety, Valleyheart Drive sidewalk and Council District 4 conditions.

  • 2026-10-21 - City Council - Passed with a group of items (11 ayes) before general comment; about ten supporters, the neighborhood council's support statement and one evacuation-safety opponent spoke under general comment.
  • 2026-10-13 - Planning and Land Use Management Committee - Staff, two appellants and the applicant presented; about 15 speakers; committee denied all appeals 5-0 with added fire-safety, funding, tree and parkway conditions.