Commission forwards ‘The Stand’ billboard project on Sunset to city council after debate over an east‑wall sign

The West Hollywood Planning Commission on Nov. 20 voted 4‑2 (with one recusal) to forward a development‑agreement proposal for a major billboard project at 9039 Sunset Boulevard, known as "The Stand," to the City Council after a contentious discussion about an existing east‑wall sign used by the tenant.

Staff presented the project as a sustainability‑oriented overhaul of an existing rooftop and façade advertising site. Jennifer Davis, a staff presenter, said the proposal retains and reuses the existing rooftop steel structure, adds two rooftop full‑motion digital faces (960 sq ft per face), and replaces multiple older statics with a single matte‑white static wrap on the front façade (approximately 743 sq ft). The design also includes a mass‑timber vertical 'kickstand,' upcycled wood cladding, colored concrete paving, and educational plaques describing sustainable materials and practices as public‑realm enhancements. Staff recommended adoption of resolutions for the development agreement and associated sign approvals (resolutions PC25‑1628 and PC25‑1629) and noted environmental review addendum findings.

During questions and deliberation commissioners identified a notable omission: renderings and parts of staff materials did not clearly show an existing tall east‑wall on the property that has historically been used for what staff characterized as on‑site advertising by the tenant. Several commissioners said photographic evidence showed the east wall carrying off‑site commercial images at times. Commissioners asked whether the development agreement would supersede or otherwise address that east‑wall signage and whether the applicant had obtained or needed to amend tenant lease language to change the east wall’s use.

Applicant representatives (project designer Irvin of Rios and owner Alana Body) responded that the east wall historically was available for tenant on‑site advertising and that the tenant had been informed during lease negotiations that the new wrap would reduce the tenant’s east‑wall advertising area. The owner said the lease anticipates modifying the tenant’s easement for that wall if the project is approved. Staff said records did not show a separate DA for the east wall and that some older on‑site signs predate the DA framework; staff proposed adding a condition requiring documentation that the east wall be reduced in size to accommodate the new static billboard and that renderings and the DA be revised to make the east wall’s future status explicit.

Commissioners were divided. Commissioners Hoopen Garner and Solomon said the record lacked transparency and sufficient representation of the east wall in plans and renderings, arguing the commission could not make required findings without that clarity. Commissioners Edwards, Harris and Vice Chair Jones supported forwarding the item to council with the staff‑recommended condition and additional direction for staff to ensure the east wall is addressed in DA materials. Commissioner Carvalero recused himself because of a conflict of interest.

The motion to forward the development agreement and billboard resolutions to the City Council (including an added condition that the on‑site east wall be reduced to accommodate the new static billboard and that the rear portion of the east wall remain for limited on‑site advertising) passed 4‑2 with one recusal. The commission’s action will now be considered by the City Council; because the item includes a development agreement and entitlements, final approval rests with the council.

Public commenters raised concerns about scale, pedestrian activation on the Sunset hill, and ensuring the city secures and protects financial and programming benefits in the DA. Resident Anita Gwami asked the commission to ensure promised city benefits are not lost in contract templates and to clarify long‑term revenue expectations.

Staff noted minor editorial edits to the DA and said formatting and typographical fixes would be made before council. The commission’s recommendation is recorded in resolutions PC25‑1628 and PC25‑1629 and will be placed on an upcoming City Council agenda for final consideration.