VOSD Persists in Getting Encinitas Housing Issues Wrong
Some local observers say Voice of San Diego (VOSD) has a pro-development stance because its principal funders require it. Recognizing the reporters and editors as objective journalists would be preferable, but the publication’s persistent bias in covering Encinitas housing issues makes that difficult.
VOSD is a nonprofit. According to its website, it’s “fully funded by individual members, major charitable gifts, foundations and community partnerships.” It carries no advertising. It was founded as an alternative to the Union-Tribune, which few would say has a history of objective journalism.
Publications have editorial processes to ensure objective, accurate reporting, clarity of expression and good English. Virtually no responsible publication gives its reporters free rein. What readers see has been scrutinized by editorial eyes. Reporters’ copy typically goes through a copy editor and a line editor. Weekly and monthly publications often have fact-checking departments. Dailies typically don’t because they don’t have the time or money. They have to rely on their reporters for accuracy.
With the decline of revenue, publishers’ budgets have tightened and staffs have shrunk. Factual errors, muddled writing, typos and poor English have become more common in many publications. Opinion has crept into what should be objective reporting because editorial eyes are no longer there to remove it.
VOSD has had a reporter assigned to North County for years. The personnel have changed, but the position has been consistent. The reporter writes the weekly North County Report. Currently, the reporter is Jesse Marx. In its daily Morning Report, VOSD often publishes a capsule summary of a North County Report story. Various writers compile the Morning Reports. Sara Libby edited two recent reports.
VOSD’s biased and often woefully inaccurate reporting about Encinitas housing issues seems to have begun with Maya Srikrishnan’s March 9, 2016 story headlined “Years of Defying State Affordable Housing Law Gets Encinitas Sued Again.” It’s odd the March 9 story took the tack it did because Srikrishnan’s September 4, 2015 story headlined “Encinitas Hopes to Comply With State Housing Law by 2016” was largely neutral and accurate.
A local observer characterized the March 9 story by saying, “Maya got rolled by David Meyer.” Meyer is a local developer who has sued the city and was quoted in the story.
Rather than heeding that remark or detailed comments from knowledgeable locals found below the story, VOSD stuck with the piece’s bias and inaccuracies, not only repeating them in subsequent stories but magnifying them. VOSD got on the wrong track. Despite corrective input and encouragement from several locals, the publication stubbornly stayed there.
Srikrishnan wrote the following in VOSD:
“. . . both affordable housing advocates and developers like the [density bonus] law: It lets private developers make more money if they build homes for poor people. The city of Encinitas has spent years trying to get around this law.”
“City leaders haven’t been bashful about their attempts to circumvent the law. They’ve routinely said one of their top priorities is finding ways to disobey it.”
“Residents are hostile to new development in Encinitas, density bonus or otherwise.”
Marx followed Srikrishnan’s lead, apparently with no independent research:
“. . . for years [Encinitas has] been defying California law by failing to craft and send a legally acceptable housing plan to Sacramento.”
“The voices that often dominate stories about Encinitas’ struggle to accommodate new housing are those of wealthy residents who oppose building.”
Adriana Heldiz stayed on the villainous-locals track: “Hero of the Week. This week’s hero is Superior Court Judge Ronald Frazier, who’s poised to suspend an Encinitas law giving locals final say over major land-use changes.”
VOSD has portrayed density bonus, Proposition A and HEUs in Encinitas simplistically and largely ignorantly. They’re not black-and-white, heroes-and-villains issues. VOSD has characterized City Councils and voters as trying to oppress low-income people and prevent them from living in Encinitas. No VOSD reporter has researched the topic well enough to understand it.
To get it right, VOSD would have to admit its gross errors regarding housing in Encinitas, start over and thoroughly research the issues. The publication’s integrity and credibility are at stake.
— Doug Fiske
Encinitas Convinced the Coastal Commission to Ignore the Coastal Act
To understand the Leucadia 101 Streetscape project, it must be seen in this context: Every City Council since the project’s approval on January 13, 2010 has been fiercely determined to push it through. Regardless of facts that argue strongly against it, the city has been dead set on getting the project done.
Toward that end, the city retained the civil engineering firm Michael Baker International (MBI) to design and direct the project. MBI also conducted the Environmental Impact Report and the traffic study. With those, MBI found nothing to upset its multi-million dollar contract. Ignoring the conflict of interest was part of the plan. Assigning MBI multiple roles ensured the project would go forward.
In the EIR, MBI identified only one hindrance the company couldn’t mitigate or find insignificant: The project would slow emergency response times that were already too slow. To get around that problem, the city committed about $700,000 to equip a fire department station for two personnel at the north end of the corridor. The trial period is two years. Originally, the department was to demonstrate acceptable response times before the project proceeded. The city and department are now ignoring that requirement.
In the traffic study, MBI glossed over or ignored the traffic jams that back up from the Leucadia Boulevard light. With the project, those jams will be more frequent and twice as long in time and distance. MBI could not admit the jams because saying the project would reduce beach access and increase travel time would prevent Coastal Commission approval.
MBI also ignored the effects of the placement of the roundabouts. Originally, there were six, all but one in 8/10 mile at the north end. Now there are four. Three in a half-mile stretch at the north end, one 1.2 miles south. MBI supported the false claim that roundabouts at one end and another more than a mile away would slow traffic and keep it flowing through the entire corridor.
Coastal Commission approval was a big hurdle. To help convince the San Diego staff and the commissioners themselves, MBI provided an EIR and a traffic study that were essentially false. Documents obtained through a Public Records Act request reveal that the city staff campaigned hard to have the commission staff greenlight the project. The commission staff stuck to the agency’s mandate to enforce the California Coastal Act of 1976. It prohibits anything that restricts beach access. Unquestionably and unavoidably, Streetscape does that.
On July 27, 2018, the commission staff released a report that required the city to prove the project would not restrict beach access and slow travel time. That was a condition of approval. Simply put, the city had to conduct studies to demonstrate the project’s legality.
Several residents and two commissioners appealed the Coastal Development Permit (CDP) required for approval. With other factors, the appeals cited the same points raised in the commission staff report. The city was up against a wall and had to do something about it.
Between July 27 and September 28, the city somehow got the commission staff to flip its position from effectively prohibiting Streetscape to permitting it. The September 28 commission staff report added this sentence:
“The portion of the suggested modification regarding future requirements for summer traffic surveys is not intended to be retroactively applied to projects already approved by the City.”
The staff reversed its earlier position by exempting the project. Its conditions no longer require the city to prove the project does not violate the Coastal Act.
On October 11, the Coastal Commission approved the project on the staff’s recommendation. One of the commissioners who had appealed the CDP made the motion to approve. The vote was 12-0. The commissioners who appealed the CDP did not reply to a post-hearing request to explain their reversal.
As the hearing opened, Commissioners Padilla and Uranga reported ex parte phone calls with Mayor Catherine Blakespear that had occurred days earlier. Padilla also reported an ex parte call with Encinitas Residents Coalition President Leah Bissonette. Padilla summarized the content of his conversations. Uranga said his was like Padilla’s. I requested ex parte phone calls with Padilla and Commissioner Turnbull-Sanders, who were the commissioner CDP appellants. Padilla declined, Turnbull-Sanders did not reply.
Documents obtained through a Public Records Act request show no smoking gun to explain how the city got the commission staff to flip and the commission to go along. The documents show intense collaboration between the city and commission staffs but no evidence of collusion.
A Coastal Commission attorney refused a subsequent request for documents that would explain the flip, saying internal communications are exempt from public scrutiny. That’s not transparency. It’s a coverup.
The city performed a master stroke in convincing the commission to ignore the law it’s duty-bound to enforce. How the city did that remains unknown.
— Doug Fiske
