The Council approved Riverwalk. The evacuation questions remain.
On October 21, 2026, the Los Angeles City Council adopted both Riverwalk items by an 11 to 0 vote, with four members absent.
The vote adopts the recommendations of the Planning and Land Use Management Committee, which denied both appeals on October 13. The City Planning Commission’s approval stands, with the conditions added in October.
The decision settles the appeals. It does not answer how Ventura Boulevard and the hillside neighborhoods would evacuate, and we could not find a written City analysis of the wider evacuation study in either Council file.
City Council | October 21 | Decided Confirmed in the City Clerk’s vote records. The official journal of the meeting had not been published when we checked. What was decided
Two appeals. Both denied. Approval upheld.
- Council File 26-1081
Council File 26-1081 concerns the vesting tentative tract map and related environmental clearance.
PLUM denied the appeal on October 13. The Council adopted the item on October 21, 11 to 0.
View the official Council file - Council File 26-1081-S1
Council File 26-1081-S1 concerns the planning and specific plan approvals and related environmental clearance.
PLUM denied the appeal on October 13. The Council adopted the item on October 21, 11 to 0.
View the official Council file
Confirmed in the City record
- Both Council files show a Council vote on October 21, 2026: Adopted, 11 yes, 0 no, 4 absent.
- Council File 26-1081 records the action as “Council adopted item, subject to reconsideration, pursuant to Council Rule 51.”
- On October 20, City Planning filed corrected tract map conditions, stating that the previous version “contained an error” and that the correction was made “to accurately reflect” the PLUM Committee’s action.
Not yet published
- The official journal of the October 21 Council meeting.
- The October 21 file activity entry for Council File 26-1081-S1. Its vote record is already posted.
We will update this page from the official record when these are posted.
The record kept moving. The evacuation answer did not.
- October 13
The PLUM Committee denied both appeals and recommended that the Council sustain the Planning Commission's approval. It added the conditions proposed by Council District 4, and a condition recommended by City Planning that requires proof of compliance with the State Minimum Fire Safe Regulations before the final tract map is recorded.
- October 19
City Planning filed revised conditions of approval for both cases, reflecting the committee's changes.
- October 19
Council District 4 told a resident that the Jensen Hughes evacuation study does not change the Planning Department's ability to make the findings required for approval.
- October 20
The Council continued the 26-1081-S1 appeal to October 21 so both appeals could be heard together. City Planning filed corrected tract map conditions, stating that the previous version contained an error.
- October 21
The City Council adopted both items, 11 to 0, with four members absent. The appeals are denied and the Planning Commission's approval stands with the added conditions. The official journal of the meeting had not been published when we checked.
The central question still needs a public answer.
The official record includes Fire Department access requirements and a fire protection technical memorandum prepared for the project applicant.
Those documents address important project-level safety issues.
Our concern extends to the surrounding road network.
How will the new development's residents and existing neighborhoods evacuate together? What happens if roads are congested or an emergency affects more than one location?
The record also contains a wider evacuation study filed with the appeal. Council District 4 says it does not change the findings. The Council has now voted, and we could not find a written City analysis of the study in either Council file.
Public improvements matter. So does evacuation capacity.
Council District 4 proposed these contributions in its October 13 letter. The PLUM Committee added them as conditions, and the City Council adopted the committee’s recommendations on October 21.
- $375,000for Bureau of Engineering design of LA RiverWay connections west of Whitsett Avenue, and left-turn phasing at Whitsett Avenue and Moorpark Street
- $300,000for maintenance along the LA RiverWay and the river frontage
- Up to 23shade trees on Ventura Boulevard
No certificate of occupancy may be issued until the contributions are paid and the trees are planted.
No condition directs funding to evacuation access on the hillside streets south of Ventura Boulevard, and no condition requires a corridor evacuation analysis.
We welcome appropriate improvements. They do not answer how the corridor clears in an emergency.
Tract map conditions corrected. On October 20, City Planning filed corrected tract map conditions, stating that the previous version “contained an error.” The corrected version is the one linked here. Read the corrected conditions
The vote is over. The safety case still needs explaining.
We support housing and the redevelopment of this site. We are still calling for a publicly accessible, independent corridor evacuation assessment, including existing hillside residents, the additional development and emergency response needs. Approving one project does not stop the City from studying the corridor it sits on.
We are also still asking for written answers to the questions residents sent Council District 4 on October 19. We will publish any answers we receive.
Keep the record in view.
Review the evidence, share it with neighbors and sign up for updates as new public records are published.