West Hollywood City Council will consider a proposal that would allow property owners along Santa Monica Boulevard, Fairfax Avenue and La Brea Avenue to put up billboards or other types of off-site signage if they build new housing or mixed-use developments.
The main goal behind this proposal, written by Councilmember John Heilman, is to encourage the construction of new housing, particularly developments that include a larger number of affordable units than are currently required by city regulations. In simple terms, the city wants to trade the right to put up new signs for more housing, especially housing that’s affordable for lower-income residents.
At the moment, West Hollywood only allows billboards and digital signs on Sunset Boulevard. Property owners there can put up signs if they agree to provide some sort of benefit to the community, like paying money to the city or supporting local programs.
However, in other areas of the city, many of the existing billboards are considered “legal nonconforming.” This means they were put up before the current rules went into effect and are allowed to stay, but they can’t be replaced if they are taken down. No new signs are allowed to be built in these areas.
The proposed change would potentially lift this restriction for commercial zones on Santa Monica Boulevard, Fairfax Avenue, and La Brea Avenue, allowing property owners to replace old signs or put up new ones—on the condition that they also build housing or mixed-use projects, with a specific emphasis on affordable housing.
The reasoning behind this proposal is to give property owners a financial incentive to redevelop their sites, which could help bring in more housing to meet the city’s goals. The city has set targets for how many housing units need to be built, particularly affordable units, and this plan is seen as a way to help meet those goals. Currently, many property owners are hesitant to redevelop their properties because they would lose the revenue generated by existing billboards. By allowing them to keep or replace signs if they build new housing, the city hopes to encourage more property owners to move forward with these projects.
The proposal also aims to address rising construction costs, which have made it harder for developers to build new housing, particularly since the COVID-19 pandemic. By allowing signs as part of a new housing development, the city is hoping to make these projects more financially viable for developers. In return for allowing the signs, the city would require that a significant portion of the new housing is set aside as affordable units, offering housing options for lower-income residents that are sorely needed in West Hollywood.
City staff have pointed out that if this policy is approved, it will require a lot of work to put into place. The city may need to hire consultants to help draft the guidelines for this new rule, and there will be a lot of negotiations with property owners on a case-by-case basis. City Council will also need to decide what kinds of signs will be allowed under this new policy, whether they are traditional billboards, digital signs, or even full-motion video screens. There will also need to be discussions about how much money the city should receive from these deals, as part of the public benefits requirement.
If this plan is put into action, it could lead to more affordable housing being built along key commercial streets in West Hollywood, helping to address the housing shortage and meet the city’s goals under the Regional Housing Needs Assessment. It would also give property owners an incentive to redevelop underutilized sites, improving the look of these areas by getting rid of old, outdated billboards and replacing them with newer, better-designed signs.
Is the money collected by the city for these proposed billboards going solely to affordable housing? I think the incentive is not for housing. This is visual pollution. Allow for more density in the actual buildings on those main arteries. That’s how you actually get more housing. More units!
always giving the developers anything they want … the original ethos that formed West Hollywood is so dead
Billboards already add visual pollution and digital signs are even worse. They are distracting for drivers. Don’t we have enough to maneuver driving through West Hollywood. There are too many accidents. How many people need to die or get injured before they come up with better ways to build affordable housing. I’d rather have a taller building with more units than a useless billboard hovering over me. There are better ways to generate income for the city. Stop selling us out. Some of us live here.
And how long until they approve billboards on side/residential streets? Just say no no no,
Correct me if I’m wrong, please, but wasn’t a new billboard allowed on the western edge of the Holloway Interim Housing project, even before any construction started on the motel?
What’s NOT been mentioned is the option of new digital billboards that can provide a great verity of content including Public Interest and Local Arts. Commercial time on the digital bill boards could easily be sold by the property owners with a mandate that a significant % of digital billboard imagery be reserved for Public Interest & Local Arts. They could also to warn of an impending natural disaster or even for aid & relief information in the event of a natural disaster striking.
NO NO NO PERIOD
John! I thought this was coming from the opposite side of seating. No no no. WeHo and a bunch of money grabbing ugly billboards? Still luv your other and common sense policies…
Just a horrible incentive to encourage more urban blight. Let’s bribe more developers with deep pockets to overdevelop. I guess West Hollywood’s ideal streetscape is Sunset Blvd. And yet West Hollywood buys land and just builds parking lots on Santa Monica Blvd.
I’d rather see property owners get some other form of incentive, perhaps a tax break for a period of time, rather than something that would make our streets look uglier.
It is impossible for this council to appreciate any aesthetic value or quality of life issues.
Surveying Weho in the past 10 years, there are practically no aesthetically please structures that have been built. They are largely some architect’s wild vision to experiment on our city even though they may not have to live with the monstrosity for decades to come.
Most cities are not afraid to say NO to ugly. Weho’s outsourced city attorney scares city officials from exercising discretion that would benefit the residents.
Perhaps this policy could be limited to structures or parcels that already have billboards. When you see the large bill board on the north side of Santa Monica just west of Laurel, you realize that the billboard income probably discourages development of this site.