Email from Leo Lee, a traffic engineer for 30 years regarding the 'misleading' info. on 'traffic' impact put out by the developer

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Leo Lee
Date: Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 2:50 PM
Subject: Stadium Flyer
To: Citizens Against Stadium <citizensagainststadium@gmail.com>, Save My Valley <SaveMyValley@yahoo.com>, Jaoquin Lim <jlim@ci.walnut.ca.us>, T King <tking@ci.walnut.ca.us>, M Su <msu@ci.walnut.ca.us>

I got a flyer in the mail today about the proposed stadium that I suppose is mailed to all Walnut residents. It has an article entitled "The Truth about Traffic" that talks about how little traffic impacts there will be to Walnut roads, and an addition of "about 1900 cars would be added on Grand Avenue through Walnut, not the 75,000 cars some stadium opponents claim".

As a Traffic Engineer by profession of 30 years, I cannot agree with its content. I have reviewed the Traffic Impact section of the SEIR, and I found that it is flawed in its basic assumptions.

Firstly, it is a supplemental EIR to the IBC development. A stadium is a major land use change that would require an EIR of its own.

Secondly, the study only attempts to address the traffic impacts of the proposed stadium and associated facilities, it doesn't address the impacts of 'secondary developments' - hotels, restaurants, bars, etc. that would spring up in the surrounding neighborhoods spurred by the stadium.

Thirdly, even the technical analysis was flawed, leading to a gross underestimation of the amount of traffic that may be generated (like only 1900 cars on Grand).

Fourthly, it doesn't address how the traffic mitigation requirements will be built. The study recommended widening Grand Ave at a number of intersections, but the City of Industry will only be responsible for a 'fair share' of 10% to 40% typically, depending on the location. But without the stadium, these widening would not be required, so the fair share analysis is not applicable here. Fair share allocation is usually used in smaller developments whereby the impacts are so small that it won't warrant any immediate improvements, and yet the improvements may be needed in future when the cumulative impacts of the future developments make the mitigation measures necessary, so a 'fair share' cost is applied to this current developer such that the City gets a coffer of money for future mitigation use. A Stadium by itself is a major developments, so that any negative impacts shall be 100% paid for by it.

Please spread this word so that more City residents is aware of this and will not be misled.