Imagine a 34-story tower piercing West Hollywood’s eclectic skyline, adorned with up to seven glowing billboards—some flashing full-motion video—casting light across the city. That’s the vision for 1000 North La Brea Avenue, a proposed mixed-use development that’s already stirring controversy. At the March 6, 2025, Planning Commission meeting, the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for this ambitious project faced sharp scrutiny, particularly over its billboard plan, environmental impacts, and traffic concerns. With the public comment period closing March 10, 2025, and no residents speaking up at the meeting, the stakes are high for residents to shape this project’s future.
The development, slated for the northeast corner of North La Brea Avenue and Romaine Street, would replace a defunct concrete batch plant and a vacant warehouse with a 352-foot tower. It promises 514 residential units—128 of them affordable—30,000 square feet of commercial space, and amenities like a rooftop garden and emergency helipad. But the real buzz centers on those seven billboards, totaling 29,465 square feet of advertising space, a feature unprecedented for this corridor.
The EIR, prepared by Rincon Consultants for the City of West Hollywood under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), aims to assess the project’s environmental effects. It’s the next step before the Planning Commission recommends approval or denial to the City Council (alongside certifying a Final EIR), and Commissioners found plenty to question.
The billboards stole the spotlight, exposing a glaring issue: West Hollywood’s general plan bans new off-site signage outside Sunset Boulevard. The EIR sidesteps this by leaning on a prospective zoning amendment discussed by the City Council in October 2024—a policy still unwritten and unapproved. Commissioner Hoopingarner called it a “circular argument,” saying, “The project doesn’t comply with the zoning ordinance or the zoning map but once you change the zoning map it’s going to comply. That’s a complete circular argument.”
Commission Chair Lombardi noted the proposed luminance of 600 candelas per square meter doubles the Sunset Strip’s vetted threshold of 300. “The number in there right now is double what the Sunset policy is,” he said. The EIR’s assumption of compliance with a yet-to-be-adopted rule left commissioners skeptical about its adequacy.
The site’s industrial past raises red flags too. Soil contamination from petroleum hydrocarbons and volatile organic compounds is confirmed, and the EIR proposes removing 49,000 cubic yards of dirt. Commissioner Solomon quipped, “How dirty is your dirt?”—probing the logistics of remediation and its environmental fallout. The report outlines mitigation like regulatory oversight, but details remain thin.
Traffic concerns loomed large as well. Commissioner Hoopingarner flagged the EIR’s silence on the trips needed to haul that soil or pour concrete for 34 floors. She also criticized the lack of delivery zones for 514 units, predicting chaos from moving vans, ride-shares, and Amazon trucks. “The only way for southbound vehicles to arrive at that large grocery store as proposed is to make a U-turn at the corner of La Brea and Romaine,” she said. “That is potentially a very large traffic impact especially given the volume that’s being proposed and its proximity to the intersection of Santa Monica and LaBrea which is already a hugely congested.”
The tower’s scale—352 feet amid two-to-seven-story neighbors—also clashed with the general plan’s call to “avoid abrupt changes in scale and massing.” Hoopingarner challenged the EIR’s claim that the design “considers” its context: “How does a 34-story change… to two stories at best… not [be] abrupt?”
Despite the critiques, the project offers upsides. The 128 affordable units address West Hollywood’s housing crunch, and the commercial space could boost the local economy. Still, these benefits were overshadowed by the unresolved questions dominating the discussion.
Shockingly, no public comments surfaced at the March 6 meeting—a rare silence for a city that thrives on community input. With the EIR comment period ending March 10, 2025, at 5:00 p.m., this is your chance to weigh in. Love the idea of new housing or hate the thought of billboard blight? Email or snail mail your thoughts to Senior Planner Antonio Castillo using the contact information below.
Antonio Castillo, Senior Planner
8300 Santa Monica Blvd
West Hollywood, CA 90069
[email protected]
Just what weho needs is more mega billboards…..
There is an upside; if the soil to be removed is not contaminated it could be used to fill the gaping hole at the Melrose Triangle. The project could also be used as a tool to ensure that there is a subway stop at LaBrea and Santa Monica in the future, (probably the distant future).
The city pays lip service to the idea of public input. I am sure that they “alerted” all the WeHo residents who live within 500 feet of the development, which is exactly zero. Never mind that all residents who might brave that intersection will feel the effects.
The proposal exists at this site because it immediately abuts the City of Los Angeles on the east and south and wouldn’t have any resident opposition from nearby WeHo residents (except maybe The Dylan) who vote for, or against city councilors.
Similar to the high-rises along Sunset Boulevard, where Los Angeles city limit is immediately north. It’s all fundamentally about maximizing income for the CIty of West Hollywood, not necessarily for the betterment of the community (regardless if city limits) as a whole.
Therein conceptually lies the devil.
Once again, grateful that we have a sharp mind like Lynn Hoopingarner who digs deep and studies these proposals. Lynn is the rare public servant who takes her role seriously, keenly analyzes all complexities, and asks the tough questions.
The article falsely claims that the city of West Hollywood values public input. We have seen time and again that public input is merely window dressing that is ultimately thrown out the window.
I can’t imagine where the tenants are going to drive and park.
What would San Francisco do?
The architecture, if you can call it that, is hideously ugly. For a city that bills itself as creative, where is the creativity? We should expect and demand better.