The fate of a five-story apartment complex in Silver Lake will be decided by the Los Angeles City Council on Wednesday, Feb. 5, as officials consider an appeal challenging the project’s environmental approval.

The proposed development, backed by New York investor Six Peak Capital, would include 121 units in a mix of studio, one-, and two-bedroom apartments, with 13 designated for extremely low-income residents, located at 2511-2517 W. Sunset Boulevard.

The project includes about 3,600 square feet of ground-floor commercial space and a two-level, 79-car subterranean parking garage. To make way for the project, the developer would demolish a closed store — Circle H Markets & Liquor — a recycling center, and a parking lot.

The developer is pursuing Transit-Oriented Communities (TOC) incentives, a program that allows increased density and reduced parking space requirements near public transit — in exchange for including some affordable housing units in the project.

Under these incentives, Six Peak Capital is seeking a 70% density increase, exceeding standard zoning limits, and proposing a parking ratio of 0.5 spaces per unit—equivalent to one parking space for every two apartments.

City planning officials have recommended denying the appeal and allowing the project to move forward, arguing that the project qualifies for a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemption. However, some residents said the project is too large for the neighborhood and could worsen traffic and gentrification.

Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER) filed the appeal against the project to challenge the project’s environmental impact. The group argued that the project’s environmental review under state law was inadequate due to the project’s significant noise impacts.

“It looks like 96 decibels, which is very high, it’s like ‘rock concert’ high levels from pile driving, jackhammers, bulldozers, et cetera. The city has not imposed adequate mitigation measures to reduce those impacts,” Richard, T. Drury, a partner from the law firm Lozeau Drury LLP, which represents the appellant, said Monday.

City staff pushed back, stating in a report that SAFER failed to provide sufficient evidence to challenge the project’s categorical exemption under CEQA.

Beyond the environmental issues, the project has drawn concerns from residents who argued that the 79-foot building would be among the tallest in Silver Lake, disrupting the area’s character and worsening traffic congestion.

“It’s quite a large building in comparison to what you see throughout the rest of Silver Lake,” said Maebe Girl, treasurer of the Silver Lake Neighborhood Council. “I think part of what that concern entails is just how it will impact traffic flow. How it will impact other city services that are related to the building, such as sanitation and waste removal?”

Girl, who has lived in Silver Lake since the early 2010s, also worries that the project could fuel gentrification and drive up rents for longtime residents. Girl recalls that rent in the area was relatively affordable—but that has changed.

“ I have now lived in the same apartment for about 12 years, nearly for the fact that I can’t afford to move anywhere else in my neighborhood at this point,” Girl said. “And a lot of that has to do with rising rents all throughout the neighborhood particularly with these new developments.”

In addition to affordability concerns, Girl—who also serves as operations manager for the Neighborhood Homeless Coalition—fears that projects like this will exacerbate L.A.’s homelessness crisis.

“ I read that it has 121 units, 13 of those units are going to be set aside for extremely low income people, and I think that’s wonderful. I think we absolutely need more of that,” Girl said. “But when you take a look at the overall project, it’s going to have the adverse effect of increasing rents in the immediate surrounding areas.”

Meanwhile SAFER, which describes itself as a California public benefit corporation focused on environmental preservation, sustainable development, and worker advocacy, has faced scrutiny for its ties to construction unions.

Jamie York, president of the Reseda Neighborhood Council, who has called for stricter ethics laws for lobbyists at City Hall, noted that SAFER is one of several groups that frequently file CEQA appeals on behalf of labor unions.

“I think the biggest takeaway for me is that the SAFER group has a history of doing CEQA appeals,” York said.

City staff said in the report that even if rent increases or homelessness were a concern, these are not factors considered under the Transit-Oriented Communities (TOC) Guidelines or the Los Angeles Municipal Code when approving or denying a development.

The fate of a five-story apartment complex in Silver Lake will be decided by the Los Angeles City Council on Wednesday, Feb. 5, as officials consider an appeal challenging the project’s environmental approval.

The proposed development, backed by New York investor Six Peak Capital, would include 121 units in a mix of studio, one-, and two-bedroom apartments, with 13 designated for extremely low-income residents, located at 2511-2517 W. Sunset Boulevard.

The project includes about 3,600 square feet of ground-floor commercial space and a two-level, 79-car subterranean parking garage. To make way for the project, the developer would demolish a closed store — Circle H Markets & Liquor — a recycling center, and a parking lot.

The developer is pursuing Transit-Oriented Communities (TOC) incentives, a program that allows increased density and reduced parking space requirements near public transit — in exchange for including some affordable housing units in the project.

Under these incentives, Six Peak Capital is seeking a 70% density increase, exceeding standard zoning limits, and proposing a parking ratio of 0.5 spaces per unit—equivalent to one parking space for every two apartments.

City planning officials have recommended denying the appeal and allowing the project to move forward, arguing that the project qualifies for a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemption. However, some residents said the project is too large for the neighborhood and could worsen traffic and gentrification.

Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER) filed the appeal against the project to challenge the project’s environmental impact. The group argued that the project’s environmental review under state law was inadequate due to the project’s significant noise impacts.

“It looks like 96 decibels, which is very high, it’s like ‘rock concert’ high levels from pile driving, jackhammers, bulldozers, et cetera. The city has not imposed adequate mitigation measures to reduce those impacts,” Richard, T. Drury, a partner from the law firm Lozeau Drury LLP, which represents the appellant, said Monday.

City staff pushed back, stating in a report that SAFER failed to provide sufficient evidence to challenge the project’s categorical exemption under CEQA.

Beyond the environmental issues, the project has drawn concerns from residents who argued that the 79-foot building would be among the tallest in Silver Lake, disrupting the area’s character and worsening traffic congestion.

“It’s quite a large building in comparison to what you see throughout the rest of Silver Lake,” said Maebe Girl, treasurer of the Silver Lake Neighborhood Council. “I think part of what that concern entails is just how it will impact traffic flow. How it will impact other city services that are related to the building, such as sanitation and waste removal?”

Girl, who has lived in Silver Lake since the early 2010s, also worries that the project could fuel gentrification and drive up rents for longtime residents. Girl recalls that rent in the area was relatively affordable—but that has changed.

“ I have now lived in the same apartment for about 12 years, nearly for the fact that I can’t afford to move anywhere else in my neighborhood at this point,” Girl said. “And a lot of that has to do with rising rents all throughout the neighborhood particularly with these new developments.”

In addition to affordability concerns, Girl—who also serves as operations manager for the Neighborhood Homeless Coalition—fears that projects like this will exacerbate L.A.’s homelessness crisis.

“ I read that it has 121 units, 13 of those units are going to be set aside for extremely low income people, and I think that’s wonderful. I think we absolutely need more of that,” Girl said. “But when you take a look at the overall project, it’s going to have the adverse effect of increasing rents in the immediate surrounding areas.”

Meanwhile SAFER, which describes itself as a California public benefit corporation focused on environmental preservation, sustainable development, and worker advocacy, has faced scrutiny for its ties to construction unions.

Jamie York, president of the Reseda Neighborhood Council, who has called for stricter ethics laws for lobbyists at City Hall, noted that SAFER is one of several groups that frequently file CEQA appeals on behalf of labor unions.

“I think the biggest takeaway for me is that the SAFER group has a history of doing CEQA appeals,” York said.

City staff said in the report that even if rent increases or homelessness were a concern, these are not factors considered under the Transit-Oriented Communities (TOC) Guidelines or the Los Angeles Municipal Code when approving or denying a development.