The final decision on the long-standing lawsuits challenging SDSU’s 2007 Revised Master Plan Environmental Impact Report was made by Judge Thomas P. Nugent. He signed the final decision on Feb 11, 2010, finding the revised EIR valid.

Check the Ongoing Topics page for future developments]

The lawsuits had been filed by Del Cerro Action Council, the City of San Diego, and others after the revised EIR was issued in 2007, consolidated into a single case, and argued since then until a proposed decision was issued on January 13, 2010. The most disputed issues were SDSU’s (CSU’s) responsibility for paying for mitigation of the environmental impacts (there’s apparently little obligation), and whether the Navajo community plan had been taken into account (it had, but doesn’t matter). Following the proposed decision, objections to it were made and heard, and now this final decision is the last word on the case. Background information is documented on this blog’s Ongoing Topics page. I won’t attempt to relate the variety of other details covered in the lawsuits, but I obtained a copy of the judge’s decision and reproduced it below.

Now that the Adobe Falls project appears ready to proceed, one open question regards the number of units to be built. Presently there is only one road providing access to the site (via Del Cerro Blvd.). If no alternate access can be provided to the site, a maximum of 172 homes will be developed. If an additional alternate access can be provided, up to 348 homes could be developed on the site. The only viable alternate access would be through property owned by the Smoke Tree Adobe Falls Homeowners Association which has vehemently opposed the new development.

Going forward, my interest is in understanding the fate of the Adobe Falls open space area and the city’s only year-round cascading waterfall. I will report new developments as I learn about them.

[Update Mar 4: In response to my question whether an appeal will be filed, Gina Coburn, Communications Director for the San Diego City Attorney's office wrote me: "Given the pendency of litigation, we are limited by what we will comment on. We will point out, however, that the City and Redevelopment Agency will appeal the Court’s denial of our writ. The lawsuit only addressed SDSU’s Campus Master Plan Expansion, and did not address any other separate redevelopment projects in the area." She added that her office will not comment on specifics of the appeal and that it cannot comment on what any other parties in the lawsuit might do]

Last July I wrote an article in which I explored Alvarado Creek and its path from La Mesa to Adobe Falls in Del Cerro and on to the San Diego River. Adobe Falls was ultimately to become its own story, though, as I learned more about SDSU’s Master Plan project to build residential housing for faculty and staff in the Adobe Falls area and the ongoing legal challenges that ensued. The story was entitled Alvarado Creek and the future of Adobe Falls.

When I wrote that story there were still unresolved legal challenges to SDSU’s project, specifically the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and I encountered ongoing obstacles in following the legal developments. Indeed, after writing the story, I wasn’t able to access the casefile any more. That process is documented in my Adobe Falls updates post.

Both of those posts contain detailed background information including links for the EIR, the Master Plan, and more.

Today, I finally made some progress. Although the clerk in the public records office again informed me that the casefile was not available, after I pleaded how long I’ve been trying to get my hands on it she contacted the department and they (reluctantly) agreed to allow me limited access to it, but only in the clerk’s presence.

I had already seen the older casefile documents, but regarding new developments, I was only allowed to see one item — a Proposed Statement of Decision that Judge Thomas P. Nugent issued. I could choose to have the clerk stand over me while I read it or she could make a copy for me. I took the copy!

My informal reading of the major challenges is: 1) the EIR fails to identify, mitigate, and consider alternatives to local & regional traffic impacts; 2) the EIR fails to provide correct or adequate fair share calculations; 3) the EIR fails to adequately identify impacts to or mitigation measures to reduce impacts to area population and housing stock; 4) the EIR fails to provide analysis or description of proposed open space and/or recreational facilities; 5) the EIR fails to adequately identify or mitigate for impacts to Adobe Falls Creek and surrounding riparian wetlands, or to native plant habitat, open space, or visual character.

The judge’s Proposed Statement of Decision was filed on Jan 13, 2010 and essentially dismisses all challenges to SDSU’s 2007 EIR.

One issue that particularly interested me was water (!). The Petitioners argued that SDSU’s EIR did not adequately examine the development’s impacts on the city’s (limited) water supply. The judge ruled, however, that the EIR had specifically addressed both water supply impacts and water delivery infrastructure impacts and that they were adequately addressed and supported by substantial evidence.

In his Conclusion, the judge says “This Proposed Statement of Decision shall become final within fifteen days unless either party files objections thereto pursuant to California Rules of Court, §3.1590(f). Any objections shall be limited to alleged errors of fact or law. Attempts to reargue the case will not be considered.”

I was not permitted to see additional new documents that apparently represent objections to the decision statement. I was told the department is probably going to put together a new volume for the case (it already has 6 volumes); that probably means more paperwork is expected while the new objections are heard. Since the objections can only pertain to errors of fact or law in the decision, though, it seems pretty clear to me that at this point, there’s not much more standing in the way of the project, other than SDSU and CSU finding money to pay for it.

For the long term, I intend to continue following the project after the legal issues are resolved. I’ll keep all further updates in the Ongoing Topics page on the menu bar at the top of this blog.

Added Feb 5: PDF copy of the Proposed Statement of Decision (will open in new tab)

[updated Feb 5 to emphasize the likelihood that there are objections or challenges to the decision]

[Feb 8 - It's curious that the local mainstream news media hasn't written a word about the judge's ruling. I wouldn't think it's because it is a proposed statement of decision, because the media had plenty to say when a proposed decision was announced regarding the QSA water transfer business! I don't care if they mention my blog post or not, but isn't this a topic of broad importance?]

Revised SDSU Master Plan

As I wrote previously, the lawsuits against CSU were consolidated into one case (GIC855643), the combined case was transferred from downtown’s Superior Court to the north county branch in Vista, and some hearings have been held with more scheduled. For the city, the case is being handled by San Diego city attorney Andrea Dixon who serves as counsel to the Planning Commission. 

Echoing events that followed SDSU’s 2005 Master Plan, the latest hearings revolve around plaintiffs’ contention that SDSU’s 2007 Master Plan Update and EIR is invalid, in part, because the university claims that “SDSU, as a state entity, is not subject to local planning directives, such as the City of San Diego General Plan and other community plans, and is subject only to state planning laws.”  Those plans include: 1) City of San Diego General Plan Planned Use Map; 2) College Area Community Plan; 3) Navajo Area Community Plan; 4) City of San Diego Municipal Zoning Code.

The plaintiffs also challenge SDSU’s assertion that it is not financially responsible for a fair share of the cost of environmental mitigation required by CEQA. SDSU allows only that it would seek funds from the legislature for mitigation, but regardless of success in obtaining those funds, SDSU would be under no obligation to pay for mitigation expenses.

Recapping the main reasons cited by Del Cerro Action Council and the City for wanting SDSU’s EIR and Master Plan decertified: 1) the EIR fails to identify, mitigate, and consider alternatives to local & regional traffic impacts; 2) the EIR fails to provide correct or adequate fair share calculations; 3) the EIR fails to adequately identify impacts to or mitigation measures to reduce impacts to area population and housing stock; 4) the EIR fails to provide analysis or description of proposed open space and/or recreational facilities; 5) the EIR fails to adequately identify or mitigate for impacts to Adobe Falls Creek and surrounding riparian wetlands, or to native plant habitat, open space, or visual character.

Coincidentally, I haven’t been able to see the casefile for updates since I published the Adobe Falls story. I’m a brand new blogger with a miniscule readership so I’m sure I have nothing to do with that, but it certainly hinders my trying to follow new developments.

Updates:

Jul 30: Records for the recent June 10 and July 27 hearings are not yet available
Aug 3: According to Gina Coburn, Communications Director for the City Attorney, the case was transferred from downtown to Vista because none of the CEQA-designated judges in downtown San Diego were acceptable to the parties. Her office will not answer any other questions about the case or subsequent hearings. Additional hearings are scheduled for August 4 and 25, September 25, and October 23.
Sep 28: I asked Matt Potter @San Diego Reader if he could help me learn why the casefiles have been kept off the shelf; he subsequently indicated the Reader’s attorneys were unable to shed more light on the situation
Nov 8: A fire near the falls burned a fair number of palms along the creek along in addition to vegetation: http://groksurf.com/2009/11/08/del-cerro-fire-mop-up/
Nov 9: Since my July update, the case file has still not been available in the Superior Court viewing room (I’ve checked a minimum of once a week). They have no answer when asked why.
Nov 23: Casefile still not available for public viewing. I called the department (Judge Thomas P. Nugent) twice this month and left a message but they haven’t returned my calls.
Dec 1: Casefile still not available
Dec 9: Casefile still not available
Dec 18: Casefile still not available
Dec 28: Casefile still not available

2010

Jan 6: Casefile still not available
Jan 12: Casefile still not available
Jan 25: Casefile still not available
Jan 29: Casefile still not available
Feb 4: All further updates will appear in Ongoing Topics.

Plenty of boulder-climbing opportunities

On the upper falls looking west

But first, an exploration of the Alvarado Creek watershed.

By my reckoning, Alvarado Creek draws its water from much of Del Cerro, San Carlos, Fletcher Hills, Grossmont and some of the hilly areas south of the I-8 corridor from Grossmont west until Fairmount Ave. Roughly speaking, the northern boundary of the watershed would be Waring Road and then Navajo Road; on the east and south it would be the Fletcher Parkway area, and along I-8 some runoff from the south may also come from near El Cajon Blvd and Montezuma Road.

The creek starts visibly forming where Fletcher Parkway and S-125 cross paths (the underground Grossmont Reservoir beneath Harry Griffen Park and the Duck Pond behind Anthony’s are nearby).

Beneath the 125, runoff from the northeast

Growing rapidly, it’s almost immediately channelized alongside Fletcher Parkway…

…and makes its way past the Grossmont Trolley Center and the commercial strip featuring BabiesRUs and Costco:

At the corner of Baltimore and Fletcher Pkwy the creek is hidden from street view.

As Fletcher Parkway ends, it continues alongside I-8 past an RV trailer park before going underground again beneath the trolley tracks just before Alvarado Hospital:

The creek meets SDSU at College Avenue, then veers briefly north in a tunnel under the I-8 freeway, and emerges on the other side to cascade down Adobe Falls. Below the falls, the creek subsequently gets channeled around the large Smoke Tree gated condominium assemblage and the other housing units springing up, and gets another moisture boost from Navajo Canyon (when it rains, anyway) at Waring Road:

Looking northeast up Navajo Canyon...

...looking southwest where it meets Alvarado Canyon at Waring Road...

...Navajo Canyon runoff gets piped under Waring Rd. and into Alvarado Creek

The creek then tunnels in a few places beneath some Grantville businesses before emptying into a channel leading to the San Diego River:

Burrowing under near the Grantville post office

Incidentally, The Grantville Redevelopment Plan envisions opening up a portion of Alvarado Creek as a mini-park somewhere in this vicinity, possibly near the trolley station.  In the picture below the creek does a final underground at Fairmount Avenue and finds the San Diego River on the other side of the Honda dealership:

Near Grantville trolley station channel filling with sediment

Also near Grantville trolley station

Lake Murray reservoir is an interesting contributor to Alvarado Creek.

The dam is at the southern end of the reservoir

The reservoir capacity is 4,818 acre feet (AF). Nearly all the water in the reservoir is imported from the Colorado River and Northern California (via San Vicente and El Capitan reservoirs). A small amount, perhaps 100AF per year, comes from local runoff. The Alvarado Water Treatment Plant and its storage tanks are adjacent to the dam. As part of a recent plant upgrade, 6,128 photovoltaic solar panels were installed atop the concrete roofs of all three storage tanks, a total area covering approximately 4.33 acres. The solar energy supplies about 20% of the plant’s power needs.

The treatment facility is to the left of the dam

According to Gregory Cross from the SD Water Department, the concrete dam itself leaks, as do all dams. When I asked if percolation under the reservoir might also contribute to runoff below the dam, he told me he thinks there is a flow net under the dam, and that there’s some leakage from headwall piping associated with the storage tanks at the treatment center, and nuisance water from undetermined sources that caused problems during construction of upgrades to the treatment plant.

Also of interest is a ‘brow ditch’ that encircles part of the reservoir. The San Diego Water Department Watershed Sanitary Survey says: Murray Reservoir itself is surrounded by a diversion ditch which intercepts dry weather, low flow, and first flush runoff from all tributaries and diverts it around the reservoir to a discharge point below the dam. At higher runoff levels, for example, during major storm events, surface flow carries past the diversion system and into the reservoir.

Water from brow ditch empties on the dam's spillway

For the higher runoff levels mentioned above, the brow ditch has an overflow spillway into the reservoir:

Ditch overflow goes into the concrete spillway on the left

The spillway has a few problems: a leak of ‘nuisance water’ …

… and an almost-choked drain:

Here’s a bird’s eye view of the brow ditch spillway (you can see that leak):

From the dam, runoff flows through a small canyon, tunnels under I-8, and joins Alvarado Creek near Reservoir Drive at Alvarado Hospital. This picture shows where the runoff goes underground at I-8 and joins Alvarado Creek under the trolley tracks. Note the air vents (or drain?) between the tracks and the freeway:

In this satellite view the faint blue line traces the runoff from the dam into Alvarado Creek, the creek’s course, and the San Diego River (click image for a slightly larger version):

So, as I said, there’s not much that is creek-like. That brings me back to Adobe Falls.

Adobe Falls is tucked into the undeveloped canyon north of the I-8 freeway across from SDSU. In this view looking east, you can make out palm groupings near the freeway in the upper falls area and then a little farther down in the lower segment of the falls:

This is on the opposite side near the falls, looking west:

The City of San Diego owns a 4-acre slice of Adobe Falls as Historical Site No. 80. It’s referred to as Adobe Falls Open Space Park and is not maintained for recreational purposes. SDSU owns the remainder of the undeveloped space in that part of the canyon.

The Adobe Falls area was slated for development by SDSU’s 2005 Master Plan with a project to develop residential housing for faculty and staff. SDSU initially planned to build 540 residential housing units above and below the falls. There was considerable opposition to the plan, especially by area residents worried about the impact on the neighborhood and environment and additional traffic on the already overcrowded, low-capacity Del Cerro Blvd which ends in a cul-de-sac west of College Avenue. Presently Del Cerro Blvd from College Avenue is the only way the area can be reached.

The project drew several lawsuits against California State University (CSU) Board of Trustees in 2005. The suits contested certain aspects of CSU’s Environmental Impact Report.  They also sought to invalidate CSU’s claim in the 2005 Master Plan that it was not obligated to pay for road and other public infrastructure improvements or for environmental mitigation required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

SDSU across from the falls

The court agreed that CSU did not meet CEQA requirements and that CSU was responsible for mitigation expenses.  It set aside CSU’s 2005 Master Plan and Environmental Impact Report and  awarded attorney fees for all plaintiffs (the university lost an appeal trying to avoid paying attorney fees to Del Cerro Action Council).  Recognizing that CSU would revise its Master Plan and EIR, the court also retained jurisdiction on the matter to ensure future compliance with CEQA .

SDSU’s subsequent 2007 Master Plan (approved by CSU Trustees Nov. 14, 2007) scaled back the project.  It would build a maximum of 348 units (down from 540) if a second vehicular access route could be found, or 172 units if the single access point through Del Cerro was the only possiblity (SDSU Senate minutes from Feb. 5, 2007 explain also that instead of 6-story condos, they would build 2-story townhomes). The second access route would be from the west, most likely through property owned by the Smoke Tree Adobe Falls Homeowners Association, but comments from that group published in the Environmental Impact Report show extreme opposition to any development whatsoever, much less allowing access to it through their property. It’s a little ironic that they complained that the “permanent green belt” they anticipated when they moved in might be disturbed. I suspect that many people were thinking the same thing when the Smoke Tree complex was going up.

Smoke Tree includes the line of condos/townhomes alongside the palm-dotted creek:

Trying to learn more about the current status of the Adobe Falls development, I sent email to a field representative for city council member Marti Emerald and was told the project had been pulled and nothing was pending for Adobe Falls.

Digging a little more, I contacted SDSU’s Director of Facilities Planning, Design & Construction. She indicated that SDSU’s 2007 Master Plan design for Adobe Falls remains in effect, although it still remains to be seen whether additional access can be found, so the total number of units is still unknown. She also informed me that a hearing on this case has been scheduled for September 25, 2009 in the Superior Court north county branch in Vista.

I’m guessing that at least two items will be addressed in the upcoming hearing(s): 1) Whether the revised 2007 Master Plan and EIR complies with CEQA, and 2) CSU’s fair share of the mitigation expense (the 2007 Master Plan statement about CSU’s fair share is likely to be problematic because it only admits that CSU must “seek” funds from the state legislature, which implies that if it seeks but cannot obtain funds (or registered warrants!) from the state, CSU will not pay it from its own budget).

I’m not positive I’ve identified all the major legal issues impeding the project.  For one thing, I was able to view the new consolidated case file only, because of a records snafu at the courthouse. The other cases may reveal significant information that I haven’t picked up. When I’m able to see them, I’ll update this article if necessary.  UPDATE HERE

Virtually no news updates on this story have appeared since 2007.  I’m pretty sure the project’s not dead, though.  I think once they resolve the  implementation details in the litigation, the project will get underway (if they can find any money for it!).

I have mixed feelings about developing the falls. Currently, reaching the falls is difficult (the stream crossing required in order to get there can be impossible when the flow is heavy) and navigating the giant boulders when you reach the falls is quite dangerous. SDSU promises to retain the falls and enhance them for environmental and recreational benefits, and that could be a good thing. But if it’s easier for people to go see the falls and they become more popular, that’s more traffic and parking headaches for the neighborhood.

I’m resigned to the fact that after Smoke Tree mushroomed in the canyon it was inevitable that additional development would follow. Anyway, the remaining property does belong to SDSU and they need the space. So when all is said and done, Adobe Falls will still be there, but I suspect it will have the small footprint and manicured feel of an exclusive resort water garden, and the entire canyon and Del Cerro hillside will dramatically change in appearance from a natural setting to an urban setting. Despite that pessimistic feeling, I remain hopeful SDSU will do the right thing by the environment and its neighbors.

[Please see also the Adobe Falls Update]

Here’s a Flickr slideshow of pictures from the area, and here’s a short video I made:

Additional information and bibliography

Project summary from SDSU’s 2007 Master Plan:

If no alternate access can be provided to the site, a maximum of 172 homes will be developed – a more than 68 percent reduction from the original proposal. If alternate access can be provided, up to 348 homes could be developed on the site.

The Adobe Falls property is divided by its topography into two areas – the “upper village” and “lower village.” In the first phase, 48 townhomes will be constructed in the “upper village.” The “upper village” would be the first phase of development.

Because the “lower village” was studied at a conceptual level, a range of 124 to 300 homes are proposed that depend on the vehicular access that can be provided to the site.

• If no alternate access is provided, 124 townhomes are proposed.
• If gated access is provided through Del Cerro and to the west through Smoke Tree Condominiums, up to 174 townhomes could be constructed. Permission is needed from the Smoke Tree Homeowners Association to secure this alternate access.
• If an alternate access can be secured through Smoke Tree or another option to the west (no access through Del Cerro) up to 300 condominium units could be developed.

Because plans for the “lower village” are conceptual, further public and environmental review and a subsequent action by the CSU Board of Trustees are required before anything can be constructed.

In addition to providing affordable homes for faculty and staff, the Adobe Falls project will substantially improve the surrounding environment. The project includes almost 13 acres of open space. More than 9.5 acres of wetlands and native habitat will be preserved and enhanced as part of the project.

Project map from the Master Plan:

Adobe Falls would be enclosed by the upper and lower villages

The lawsuits:

Lead Case Title: DEL CERRO ACTION COUNCIL VS BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY
Case Number: GIC855643 Case Location: North County
Case Type: Civil Date Filed: 10/20/2005
Category: CU-TTE Toxic Tort/Environmental

Plaintiff/Petitioner
Last Name or Business Name First Name Primary (P)
CITY OF SAN DIEGO P
DEL CERRO ACTION COUNCIL P
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO
SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
SAN DIEGO METROPOLITAN TRANSIT SYSTEM

Defendant/Respondent
Last Name or Business Name First Name Primary (P)
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY P
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY P
ALVARADO HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY
CITY OF SAN DIEGO AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO

——————————–

SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION VS. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SAN DIEGO
Case Number: 37-2008-00091165-CU-BC-CTL Case Location: San Diego
Case Type: Civil Date Filed: 09/05/2008
Category: CU-BCW Breach of Contract/Warranty

Plaintiff/Petitioner
Last Name or Business Name First Name Primary (P)
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY P
SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION P

Defendant/Respondent
Last Name or Business Name First Name Primary (P)
CITY OF SAN DIEGO P
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SAN DIEGO P

——————————–

CITY OF SAN DIEGO VS. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY
Case Number: 37-2007-00083773-CU-MC-CTL Case Location: San Diego
Case Type: Civil Date Filed: 12/14/2007
Category: CU-MCO Misc Complaints – Other

Plaintiff/Petitioner
Last Name or Business Name First Name Primary (P)
CITY OF SAN DIEGO P
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO

Defendant/Respondent
Last Name or Business Name First Name Primary (P)
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY P

——————————–

SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS VS. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY
Case Number: 37-2007-00083768-CU-TT-CTL Case Location: San Diego
Case Type: Civil Date Filed: 12/14/2007
Category: CU-TTE Toxic Tort/Environmental

Plaintiff/Petitioner
Last Name or Business Name First Name Primary (P)
SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS P

Defendant/Respondent
Last Name or Business Name First Name Primary (P)
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY P

——————————–

SAN DIEGO METROPOLITAN TRANSIT SYSTEM VS. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY
Case Number: 37-2007-00083692-CU-WM-CTL Case Location: San Diego
Case Type: Civil Date Filed: 12/14/2007
Category: CU-WM Writ of Mandate

Plaintiff/Petitioner
Last Name or Business Name First Name Primary (P)
SAN DIEGO METROPOLITAN TRANSIT SYSTEM P

Defendant/Respondent
Last Name or Business Name First Name Primary (P)
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY P

——————————–

CITY OF SAN DIEGO VS BOARD OF TRUSTEES CA STATE UNIV
Case Number: GIC855701 Case Location: San Diego
Case Type: Civil Date Filed: 10/20/2005
Category: CU-TTE Toxic Tort/Environmental

Plaintiff/Petitioner
Last Name or Business Name First Name Primary (P)
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CITY SD P
CITY OF SAN DIEGO
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO

Defendant/Respondent
Last Name or Business Name First Name Primary (P)
BOARD OF TRUSTEES CA STATE UNIV P
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY P
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY P
BOARD OF TRUSTEESOF THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY P

Sources:

• 3 Lawsuits target SDSU expansion / SD Union-Tribune Oct. 21, 2005
• Alvarado calls SDSU expansion a threat / SD Union-Tribune, May 4, 2006
• Biological resources technical report for the 2007 SDSU Campus Master Plan revision
• Breaking stories (Better late than never) / San Diego Reader Feb 2, 2006
• Concerns voiced on SDSU expansion plan / SignOnSanDiego Aug. 13, 2007
• Del Cerro Action Council website (outdated)
• Discover some inner-city serenity in Allied Gardens Navajo Canyon / Jerry Schad Feb 17, 2000
• Fine Day for Sewage / San Diego Reader Oct. 12, 2000
• Flashback / San Diego Reader June 8, 2006
• Going bye-bye (Branding iron) / San Diego Reader July 14, 2005
• Grantville Master Plan / San Diego Redevelopment Agency Mar. 9, 2009
• Greedy City Targets Grantville / San Diego Reader Apr. 22, 2004
• Navajo Community Profile / City of San Diego
• The Need for Water: The Federal Government and the
  Growth of San Diego, 1940-1955 / Journal of San Diego History
• Paleontological resource assessment for San Diego State University 2005 Master Plan Revisions
• Retired faculty housing at SDSU or access to higher education for local students? / Pat Washington Support Committee Mar. 14, 2006
• San Diego Board of Education Trustees letter opposing project July 12, 2005
• San Diego Canyons Coalition roster
• San Diego growth plan runs into resistance / SignOnSanDiego July 14, 2005
• San Diego Redevelopment Agency-Grantville web page
• San Diego River Park Master Plan
• San Diego River Park Plan recommendations June 2005
• San Diego Superior Court Case Search website
• San Diego Water Dept. Watershed Sanitary Survey Jan. 2001 rev. May 2003
• Save Del Cerro website (outdated)
• SDSU expansion takes short-term diversion / SignOnSanDiego Apr. 19, 2008
• SDSU Hydrology Water Quality Technical Report (has good maps of expansion plan) / Nov. 2004
• SDSU Master Plan 2007
• SDSU Senate minutes Feb 5, 2007
• Solar Power at Alvarado Water Treatment Plant / Water & Wastes Digest Mar. 2, 2007
• Stonewall / San Diego Reader June 1, 2006
• Up on the Hill / San Diego Reader Nov. 15, 2000