Divided WeHo Council greenlights Viper Room development

The development project at 8850 Sunset Boulevard finally won approval from West Hollywood City Council on Monday night after many years of languishing and revisions. Mayor John M. Erickson, Vice Mayor Chelsea Byers and Councilmember Sepi Shyne cast the majority votes in favor of the highly controversial project, which will see the famous Viper Room redeveloped into high-end apartments, retail and a museum; Councilmembers Lauren Meister and John Heilman voted against the proposal. 

The Project

The proposed redevelopment spans almost an acre along Sunset Boulevard between San Vicente Boulevard and Larrabee Street. The project involves demolishing the existing buildings, including the Viper Room, and replacing them with an 11-story, mixed-use building. The development will include a 90-room luxury hotel, five restaurant and café spaces, a spa, a fitness room, and a revamped Viper Room nightclub with a recording studio. It also features 78 residential apartments, 16 of which will be affordable units. The underground parking spans five basement levels with access points designed to reduce traffic impact on Larrabee Street.

The building’s height is 161 feet with a floor area ratio (FAR) of 5.7:1. The design features undulating balconies, a central breezeway connecting Sunset Boulevard to a landscaped terrace overlooking the London Hotel, and publicly accessible terraces and gardens aimed at enhancing the pedestrian experience along Sunset Boulevard. The project includes two billboards—one a full-motion screen and one a static board—both of which exceed standard size limits but received a design excellence award. As an extraordinary benefit, the developer proposes annual payments for 10 years. An environmental impact report analyzed potential problems in areas like air quality, cultural resources, and traffic, and it proposed mitigation measures. However, construction noise, particularly for the adjacent London Hotel, will create significant, unavoidable impacts. The noise impact was initially left out of the Planning Commission’s report but has since been properly disclosed in the EIR.

The Debate

During the council’s deliberation, Councilmember John Heilman re-iterated his long-standing support for affordable housing but noted that this project is primarily a hotel development with some housing components. The inclusion of 16 affordable units was recognized as a positive aspect, but Heilman highlighted that the remaining 62 units would be high-end residences, akin to those found near the Edition Hotel. 

“They are not going to be affordable to the vast majority of people who live anywhere near West Hollywood,” Heilman said.

He emphasized that no matter how many units are built, this project would not solve the homelessness crisis because the issue involves more than just a lack of housing. Heilman was also skeptical that 17 affordable units in this project would significantly meet the demand for workplace housing for those who work in West Hollywood. He acknowledged that while it would be ideal for workers to live in the city, the reality is that there are already long waiting lists for affordable housing.

Heilman shifted to discussing the design of the project, stating that he found the architecture to be attractive and noted that it was a significant improvement over earlier versions of the proposal. However, regarding the public terrace along San Vicente Boulevard, Heilman expressed doubt about its value as a public benefit, particularly because of the limited hours of operation. He mentioned that similar amenities near his residence, like the benches along La Cienega Boulevard at the AKA development, are rarely used except by a few homeless individuals. He questioned whether the terrace would truly serve the community’s needs.

Heilman did not object to the proposed music gallery but criticized its planned hours of operation, which were set from 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. He argued that these hours do not accommodate working individuals or visitors who may want to visit the gallery outside those times. Heilman then raised concerns about the full valet system proposed for both residents and hotel guests. He argued that the system would likely be inefficient for residents, who would not want to wait behind hotel guests to retrieve their cars. He called for a reconsideration of how the valet service would function, particularly during peak times when demand from hotel guests might overwhelm the system.

Councilmember Heilman continued his remarks by stating that staff’s comparisons of the proposed project to AKA and Pendry House were poor examples, given the issues those developments have had. He pointed out that there were insufficient assurances in the proposal that the housing units would actually be occupied by long-term residents. He noted that, based on past experiences, there is little confidence that these units would be used as intended.

Heilman then turned his attention to transportation and circulation issues, echoing the concerns of neighbors. He argued that routing all vehicles through Larabee Street is problematic and agreed with Nick Schaefer’s comment that when people exit the development, they will want to go south. The current plan forces them to go north onto San Vicente Boulevard, which Heilman said will lead to drivers cutting through residential neighborhoods or illegally making left turns out of the project to head south.

Heilman found the proposal for five restaurant spaces to be unrealistic. He noted that no hotel with 90 rooms would realistically have that many restaurants, and he referenced the Pendry as an example where restaurant spaces have already been shut down. He also mentioned the Andaz, which has only one restaurant that is not fully operational. 

He said exemplifies a troubling trend where developers purchase properties knowing the current zoning and height limits do not allow for the return they expect. They then come to the city seeking significant increases in density and height to make their projects financially viable. Heilman noted that the requested increases for this project are substantial, with density jumping from 2.75 to 5.70 and height increasing from 100 to 161 feet.

“We can work with the developer to devise a project that is better, more responsive, and that actually makes sense and will get built. The project that’s before us tonight, unfortunately, is not one of those projects,” he said.

Heilman concluded his remarks by stating that he does not believe the project will actually be built. From a financial perspective, he argued, it is unlikely to attract the necessary financing. He cautioned any potential investors to take a hard look at the numbers before committing to financing such a development, implying that it is not a sound investment.

“It is is beyond distressing that staff provided wrong information to our Planning Commission, which is the body that is supposed to be vetting this project for us,” Lauren Meister began.

She asked staff how many of the 16 affordable units would be designated for very low-income residents. Staff clarified that eight of those units could be either low or very low-income, depending on the developer’s choice. She criticized the project’s noise mitigation measures as insufficient and voiced concerns about traffic impacts on Larabee and San Vicente Boulevards. Meister also raised questions about the project’s earthquake safety measures, indicating unease despite staff’s assurances.

Meister was skeptical about the value of the billboards in the project, questioning whether they were truly exceptional enough to be awarded as part of the development. She suggested that the billboards seemed more aimed at keeping the project financially solvent rather than offering any real public benefit. Meister also expressed frustration with the city’s approach to approving amendments to the Sunset Specific Plan, arguing that simply approving an amendment to comply with a project does not demonstrate actual compliance with the plan’s intentions.

Meister recalled her experience living near Sunset Boulevard and noted that there was no guarantee that neighborhood-serving retail businesses would be included in the project, a key concern for her. She also took issue with the calculations used to determine the project’s public benefits, suggesting that the cap rate and construction costs had been misrepresented.

She emphasized that the distribution of affordable units throughout the project appeared uneven, noting that none were planned for the higher floors, which would provide better views. Meister argued that this design perpetuates inequality, despite claims that the project avoids features like “poor doors.” She also questioned whether the affordable units would truly serve very low-income residents or if the terminology was being used to make the project appear more equitable than it actually is.

Meister called for more transparency in how the public benefits are calculated and allocated, criticizing the large billboards as potentially the primary source of revenue for the project, not the development itself.

Haven’t we learned anything from the Restoration Hardware public benefit debacle? What happens if The Viper Room goes away and the next tenant has nothing to do with music?

She described the overall deal as lopsided, with the city receiving relatively little in return for the significant height and density increases granted to the developer. Meister concluded that she could not support the project.

Councilmember Shyne expressed her support for the project, highlighting that the applicant’s cooperation with the London Hotel, which had initially been against the project, was a positive outcome. She noted that the applicant had listened to concerns and worked toward mitigating potential issues with its business neighbor. Shyne emphasized the job creation potential of the hotel and the inclusion of affordable and moderate-income housing, which she argued was needed in the community.

Shyne also recognized that many residents in West Hollywood struggle to afford housing because they fall between qualifying for low-income units and being able to purchase property. The moderate-income housing units included in the project could fill this gap. Shyne was pleased with the preservation of The Viper Room’s legacy through the proposed museum and club.

Shyne acknowledged the extensive discussions that had taken place over how traffic would be managed in the area, particularly regarding parking and circulation. The final outcome, as approved by the Planning Commission, represented what she considered the best solution so far.  She expressed satisfaction with the applicant’s commitment to working with unions and ensuring that at least 80% of workers on the project would be unionized. 

Erickson then provided his comments, expressing his frustration with how long the project had taken and the numerous changes that had been required, which he believed had increased the project’s costs.

“It could be another 10 or 15 years before anything gets built, if anything at all, because why would someone want to do business in the city when all we do is cause delays?” Erickson said. “That’s my problem with this process. The process itself, the first slide shown regarding the calendar—I mean, we want development, but we’ve wasted so much time and money with changes that have pushed this project back.”

Erickson was optimistic about the revitalization of The Viper Room. He acknowledged that he had not visited The Viper Room in years and wasn’t a fan of loud music, but he saw the project as an opportunity to preserve and reinvigorate a key piece of the Sunset Strip’s identity. Erickson emphasized that the project developers had shown long-term commitment, having been involved since 2018, which he saw as a sign of motivation to complete the project. He also questioned the feasibility of developing 250 units of housing on the site, suggesting that such a plan would likely face resistance due to concerns about size and density. Erickson believed that the current project, despite its imperfections, represented a realistic and motivated attempt to develop the site.

Chelsea Byers acknowledged that noise and construction are unavoidable aspects of building in a dense area like West Hollywood, but she did not see these issues as reasons to delay or halt the project. She also emphasized the importance of updating the city’s outdated Sunset Specific Plan to better accommodate modern development goals. While she recognized the project’s density, Byers was satisfied with the measures in place to manage it, such as parking provisions and event size limitations. She saw the project as a well-considered solution that met the city’s needs while balancing the challenges of developing a complex site.

Meister asked for clarification on the mix of affordable units, emphasizing that specifics about the number of very low-income units were still unclear. Meister remained concerned that the calculations used to determine the project’s viability might be flawed, particularly the cap rates and construction cost estimates. She also criticized the designation of public benefits like the Viper Room museum and outdoor terrace, arguing that these amenities were more project amenities than genuine public benefits.

Councilmember Shyne then raised the issue of retail versus restaurant space, noting that economic factors would ultimately determine the mix. She expressed confidence that the developer would adapt the plan to ensure the spaces were filled, rather than leaving them vacant. Shyne supported the idea of prioritizing residents in valet service, which the applicant confirmed as a possibility. Shyne also reiterated her belief that the project, despite its complexity, would bring significant benefits to the community.

As the meeting neared its conclusion, Vice Mayor Byers summarized her thoughts, expressing support for the project while acknowledging the concerns raised. She noted the extensive deliberations over the past eight years and felt the project had undergone sufficient scrutiny and revision to meet the city’s needs. Byers highlighted the inclusion of affordable housing, the preservation of The Viper Room, and the overall design improvements as key reasons to support the project.

Heilman addressed Mayor Erickson’s earlier comments about the project’s long history, acknowledging the many changes the developer had made over the years, but he placed responsibility for those changes on the developer, arguing that the initial proposal was so far out of alignment with zoning laws and community expectations that revisions were inevitable. He also questioned the absence of any confirmed hotel operator, speculating that this indicated uncertainty about the project’s viability.

Heilman expressed concern about the proposed valet service, even with the new prioritization for residents. He imagined that hotel guests would be unhappy if they saw residents being prioritized, which could create conflict. Heilman concluded by reiterating his desire to support development on the site but stressed the need for a more housing-focused project that made sense both functionally and economically. He didn’t believe the current proposal had achieved that balance.

Erickson went on to emphasize that the current site was in a state of disrepair, describing it as an eyesore in what he considered a beautiful part of the city. He viewed the project as a necessary revitalization of the area, one that would improve both aesthetics and economic activity. Erickson acknowledged the traffic and valet concerns but felt they had been adequately addressed through the proposed mitigations. He also touched on the issue of noise, noting that while construction noise is always an inconvenience, it was not a valid reason to oppose the project entirely.