Noise-Study Data That Led to Council Delay on Sound Wall Decision

To the editor:

Attached is the handout from [Tuesday’s] City Council meeting where I provided a comparison of the projected future noise levels for the La Mesa Meadows Project. The source of the information is the two attached noise studies: 

• 2005 Noise Study, Table 2: Predicted Transportation Noise Levels - La Mesa Meadows Residential, page 12
• 2009 Noise Study, Table 2: Predicted Transportation Noise Levels - La Mesa Meadows Residential, page 17

If you look at the attachments, you will see sections that I highlighted pertinent excerpts and have some handwritten notes. Of particular interest to me is the 2005 report.

Page 9, paragraph 2: “Model input included a digitized representation of SR-125 as well as future Average Daily Traffic  (ADT) volumes, vehicle mix, receptor elevations, the K-rail at edge of roadway and any applicable topographical attenuation identified in the project site plans.”  

Page 9, paragraph 3: “The model also considered the attenuation due to the large slope topography adjacent to the project site.”  

Yet the City’s “third-party consultant” clearly stated at the hearing that the 2005 study did not include the elevations of SR-125, the K-rail or the site topography.   

That is why I am so passionate about disclosing and documenting the facts related to the noise study.  How did they get such a different answer? 

To me, it is obvious that it is related to the data that they entered into the noise model in 2009.  I have never gotten a straight answer to that question and the information that is presented to City Council by the developer and the city’s “third-party consultant” (who is paid by the developer) is so blatantly not factual. 

City Council and staff obviously don’t know the project well enough to recognize this.   

Mary Putnam, La Mesa

See related story.