III. Responses to Comments (Continued) III.D Comment Letters Comment Letter No. 293 Deborah Lehman, MD Clinical Director, Pediatric Infectious Diseases Cedars-Sinai Medical Center 8700 Beverly Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90048 Comment No. 293-1 As a member of The Archer School for Girls’ Board of Trustees, and a close neighbor, I believe that the Archer Forward Campus Preservation and Improvement Plan is necessary to ensure the school’s future success. I am writing to request your support for our project. Archer has committed itself to being a good neighbor since the school moved to its current location on Sunset Boulevard in 1999. As specified by our CUP, Archer requires at least 50% of its students to carpool, which is much more stringent than any other school in the area, including Brentwood School and Saint Martin of Tours. Last year, roughly 80% of our students took the bus to school every day. As a result, we are responsible for only a small percentage of the traffic in the area. Archer works hard to find any avenues that would reduce additional traffic to an already congested area. As a parent of an Archer graduate as well as a current student I can personally attest to the value of this school as an institution for girls all over the city. Our girls deserve a school with facilities comparable to other independent schools in the area. As a parent and a neighbor I can confirm Archer’s strict adherence to its CUP and applaud the school for being a leader with respect to traffic regulation in the area. As you may recall, we have met or exceeded the requirements set forth in our CUP at every review. We intend to continue to hold ourselves to the same standard during the public review process through construction activities and beyond. We will reach out to every community organization and household who would like to hear about our project. Our goal is to answer all questions and concerns, and of course, to secure support. This project is a thoughtful plan that will fill a critical need for onsite athletics, academic, arts, recreational facilities, and more efficient on-campus parking. We hope you’ll agree that Archer Forward is the best plan for our school and community. Your support of our efforts throughout the public review process would be greatly appreciated. City of Los Angeles Archer Forward: Campus Preservation and Improvement Plan SCH. No. 2012011001 November 2014 Page III-1207 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III.D Comment Letters We hope you will agree that Archer Forward is the best plan for our school and for our community. Your support of our efforts throughout the public review process would be greatly appreciated. Response to Comment No. 293-1 This comment indicating support for the Project is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. City of Los Angeles Archer Forward: Campus Preservation and Improvement Plan SCH. No. 2012011001 November 2014 Page III-1208 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III.D Comment Letters Comment Letter No. 294 Mara Lenkov 4924 Agnes Ave. Valley Village, CA 91607 Comment No. 294-1 I am the parent of an Archer girl and I am writing because I am a strong supporter of The Archer School for Girls and it’s proposed plan, Archer Forward. I am requesting that you and Council member Bonin work closely with Archer and help the school secure approval for this well thought out plan. Archer Forward both enhances the school and respects Archer’s location in residential Brentwood. The design was created to buffer the community while creating more green and beauty in the neighborhood. It is sustainable and creates an all-pedestrian campus, with parking underground. The plan has already been modified several times at the request of our neighbors, and we are continuing to meet with the community to ensure the best plan. Archer is a valuable institution in Los Angeles. Girls are taught to be good citizens and leaders, and are involved in community service throughout the city. The Archer Forward plan will provide deeply needed arts and athletic facilities as well as preserving the beautiful, historic building. It’s a plan that works for both the School and the Community, and I hope that the city will support it. The girls of Archer give so much back to the community—I think it is time for the City to give back to them as well. Thank you. Response to Comment No. 294-1 This comment indicating support for the Project is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. City of Los Angeles Archer Forward: Campus Preservation and Improvement Plan SCH. No. 2012011001 November 2014 Page III-1209 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III.D Comment Letters Comment Letter No. 295 Laurie Lerner 3626 Mandeville Canyon Rd. Los Angeles, CA 90049-1024 Comment No. 295-1 I am writing you to ask that you veto, or at the very least support the alternative plan to The Archer School massive expansion plan. Response to Comment No. 295-1 This introductory comment expressing opposition to the Project is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. The commenter does not provide a description of the alterntive plan that could be considered. Refer to Topical Response No. 14, Residential Neighbors’ Proposed Alternative, for a detailed response to the alternative proposed by the Residential Neighbors of Archer. Specific comments regarding the Draft EIR are provided and responded to below. Comment No. 295-2 As a resident of Mandeville Canyon for the past 15 years, I have seen traffic going East on Sunset and San Vicente Blvd. from Bundy Dr. increase to the point where I either have to take side streets (when possible—which it is not when going to the 405 Hwy.), or spend up to a half hour—or more if there is construction or an accident—to just get from Bundy to Barrington or the 405, or just turn around and not go to my local stores, restaurants, bank, etc. In fact the traffic has gotten so bad that it sometimes is stalled almost all the way to Mandeville Canyon itself. As I am sure you probably know by now, the report from the Department of Transportation indicated that Archer’s proposed project will create SIGNIFICANT impacts on both Bundy Drive and Sunset, Barrington Ave. and Sunset, Wilshire, and Montana, as well as Barrington Place and Sunset, which CANNOT be physically mitigated. The consequences of this is truly a nightmare for those of us who live in this wonderful area. Response to Comment No. 295-2 This comment does not address the adequacy of the analysis in the Draft EIR. The comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to decision-makers for review and consideration. City of Los Angeles Archer Forward: Campus Preservation and Improvement Plan SCH. No. 2012011001 November 2014 Page III-1210 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III.D Comment Letters Refer to Topical Response No. 10, Traffic Congestion Along Sunset Boulevard, for a detailed discussion of traffic congestion in the vicinity of the Project Site. In addition, as evaluated in Section IV.K, Traffic, Access, and Parking, of the Draft EIR and as discussed in Topical Response No. 5, Additional Mitigation Measures to Eliminate Significant Traffic Impacts, with implementation of the operational mitigation measures presented in the Draft EIR and Final EIR, all Project operational traffic impacts would be reduced to below a level of significance. Comment No. 295-3 I think it is also very unfair for all of us who live here to have to suffer because the Archer School is choosing to renege on their agreement with the Brentwood Homeowners Association, neighbors and the City who put in place restrictions (made 15 years ago when they came here). Their new proposal has no commitment to keep the existing use restrictions in place. Response to Comment No. 295-3 As described in Topical Response No. 16, Environmental Review and Conditional Use Permit Processes, Archer is currently operating pursuant to CUP No. 98-0158, which was approved through the required public process and contains conditions of approval governing campus operations and physical improvements. A new CUP and other concurrent entitlement requests, if approved by the decision-makers, would subject the School to a new set of conditions of approval, including conditions regarding compatibility of the School’s operations and its facilities with the surrounding neighborhood. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. Comment No. 295-4 PLEASE HELP! Let the City and Councilman Mike Bonin know you do not support the proposed Archer Forward plan. A number of my neighbors support an alternative plan that reduces the size and scope of the proposed project as well as traffic and puts less burden on the neighborhood. I myself would prefer it be vetoed in entirety but if not, I definitely support their alternative plan over the terrible Archer Forward Plan. City of Los Angeles Archer Forward: Campus Preservation and Improvement Plan SCH. No. 2012011001 November 2014 Page III-1211 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III.D Comment Letters Response to Comment No. 295-4 In response to comments, the Project has been refined, including reducing the square footage and massing, width, and length of some of the proposed buildings, reducing the number of parking spaces, and creating expanded landscape buffers.