Homeowners Win a Round in Bout Over SDSU Activity Center

Judge Ronald L. Johnson Monday ordered that the California State University system Board of Trustees produce a supplementary Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed $41 million on-campus student activity center at San Diego State University.

The ruling is a victory for the Alvarado Estates Homeowners’ Assn., who argued that the first EIR, approved by the trustees in Sept., 1989, was vague and undefined in several areas.

Johnson also awarded the Alvarado Estates attorney fees.

“Apparently, the neighborhood group got the judge’s attention,” said SDSU Athletic Director Fred Miller, who did not attend the hearing. “My concern is if our groundbreaking is set back, it will cost more for the building. That’s counterproductive.”

The tentative groundbreaking for the student activities center, which will consist of a 12,000-seat arena and a 75,000-square foot recreation center, is January, 1991. Jill Ingram, legal representative for CSU, said it will take some time to come up with the supplementary report but that it is too early to say whether groundbreaking for the arena will need to be moved back.

The next step, said Ingram, is up to the board of trustees.

“There’s no way of knowing right now,” she said. “I think a decision has to be made by the trustees which path they want to take,” she said. “It’s left open to the trustees what they want to do with what’s happened. It’s going to take some time. Months.”

Key elements of Johnson’s ruling:

--The “no project” and “alternate sites” alternatives were not adequately evaluated. As a result, the conclusions of the EIR are not based on substantial evidence.

According to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an entity is obligated to consider a range of alternatives, including whether the project is needed in the first place and what other sites could be used, before going ahead with construction.

--The noise, traffic and neighborhood intrusion subjects were not adequately dealt with in the original EIR.

--The university was not specific enough in terms of its plan to monitor neighborhood intrusion.

--The university foundation’s master redevelopment plan, which includes further developing of the south and west parts of the campus for student housing, shopping and relocating some university organizations, was not spelled out clearly enough in the EIR.

“I’m ecstatic,” said Craig Courter, legal representative for the homeowners. “It’s a really big effort for a homeowners’ association to undertake a litigation like this. It’s expensive. But the legal fees will be recovered.

“It is our hope that the trustees and the community can get together and do a sufficient EIR that won’t end up in litigation.”

SDSU plans to have the proposed arena built where the Aztec Bowl now stands, off of 55th St. The recreation center is to be built adjacent to the arena. Area residents, nervous about increased traffic, would like to see an access road built directly from Interstate-8 to the proposed complex.

“We feel that, ultimately, this is going to be the final solution,” said Dr. Paul Thomas, president of the homeowners Assn. “Probably around Waring Road. We’re not desperately opposed to the student activity center, we just want to make sure no stone is left unturned. We just don’t want the added traffic through the neighborhoods interrupting our style of life.”

“The people I’ve spoken to are disappointed by (Monday’s ruling), but we’re ready to get started on the supplemental EIR,” said Dan Cornthwaite, executive director of the Associated Students of SDSU. “It will take us a few days to sort this out and make sure we’re complying with what the court wants.”

SDSU students approved in a referendum in the spring of 1988 to increase their fees to finance the activity center.