v . 0 03 P a g e | 1
August 8, 2023
ITEM TITLE
Grand Jury Report: Accept the 2022/2023 San Diego County Grand Jury Report on Governance of San Diego Bay and its Tidal Lands and Regions and Authorize the Mayor to Sign a Response Letter
Report Number: 23-0205
Location: San Diego Unified Port District Tidelands Located in the City of Chula Vista Department: City Manager
Environmental Notice: This activity is not a “Project” as defined under Section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) State Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to State Guidelines Section 15060(c)(3) no environmental review is required.
Recommended Action
Adopt a resolution accepting the 2022/2023 San Diego County Grand Jury Report on Governance of San Diego Bay and its Tidal Lands and Regions and authorizing the Mayor to sign a response letter on behalf of the Mayor and City Council.
SUMMARY
On June 7, 2023, the 2022/2023 San Diego County Grand Jury (the “Grand Jury”) filed a report on Governance of San Diego Bay and its Tidal Lands and Regions (the “Grand Jury Report”). The Grand Jury Report contained a total of fifteen (15) findings and four (4) recommendations directed to the Mayors and City Councils of the five (5) Port District member cities, including Chula Vista.
Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05 require that the City submit responses to the applicable findings and recommendations to the Presiding Judge within 90 days of the filing of the Grand Jury Report.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Director of Development Services has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with CEQA and has determined that the activity is not a “Project” as defined under Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines because it will not result in a physical change in the environment; therefore, pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Thus, no environmental review is required.
P a g e | 2
BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
Not applicable.
DISCUSSION
The Grand Jury Report is the product of an investigation by the Grand Jury of the San Diego Unified Port District (the “Port District”), the County of San Diego, and the five (5) Port District member cities of Chula Vista, Imperial Beach, Coronado, San Diego, and National City. The goal of the investigation was to assess how the subject organizations interact around the governance of San Diego Bay tidal lands and resources (Attachment 1).
Per the Grand Jury Re port, “[t]his assessment was undertaken in response to a perception that the Port of San Diego and its unelected seven-member Board of Commissioners is not accountable to either the elected officials or the electorate of its five member cities or the Count y of San Diego, especially in the planning, development and implementation of projects in those cities.” In the Grand Jury Report, the Grand Jury reviews previous Grand Jury reports on the Port District, reviews the Port District’s creation, governance, relation to State agencies, and funding. The Grand Jury Report also describes conflicts and issues surrounding the Port District’s operations in regard to the equitable representation of residents of the five Port cities and their governing bodies, as well a s the County of San Diego and its residents. Lastly, the Grand Jury Report discusses the Port District’s planning process and how its proposed projects have affected its member cities and the County of San Diego.
The Grand Jury Report makes the following findings:
Finding 1*: Port Commissioners are only required to represent the perspectives, not the interests of the Port City appointing them to the Board of Port Commissioners.
Finding 2: The Port District acts as an independent special district without direct oversight from local city or county governments.
Finding 3: Because the interests of residents of Port Cities and the County of San Diego are subject to the interpretations of the unelected Board of Port Commissioners, their interests may not be hea rd, prioritized or represented accurately.
Finding 4: Briefings by Port Commissioners to Port City Councils in noticed public meetings regarding issues affecting their jurisdictions, will increase the level of public participation and knowledge regarding P ort District activities, Port Master Plans, Master Plan Updates, Port Master Plan amendments or additions.
Finding 5*: Currently, the Board of Port Commissioners does not have term limits. Considering term limits would foster democratic principles by providing more opportunities for diverse and talented individuals to serve, prevent the accumulation of influence, and uphold the public trust by keeping the Board representative responsive to its community.
Finding 6*: With three of seven port commissioners ap pointed to the Board of Port Commissioners by the City of San Diego, the potential exists for the City of San Diego to exert dominance over the priorities, resources and decisions of the Port District.
P a g e | 3
Finding 7*: The Port District is incentivized to maxim ize revenue to fund its operations, a goal that may crate conflict of interest in the priorities, allocation of resources and other decisions made by the Port Commission.
Finding 8*: Success in the development of the Chula Vista Hotel and Convention Center has been obtained because of a close collaboration and alignment of interests between the Port District and the City of Chula Vista.
Finding 9: The Port Commissioners decision to move short -haul truck staging for local deliveries of Dole Fruit products relocated a source of pollution from the Barrio Logan community to communities in National City.
Finding 10 : The controversy surrounding the Mitsubishi Cement Corporation Project’s potential health effects on the Barrio Logan neighborhood and other nearby re sidents damaged the Port District’s community relations with these communities and contributed to the decision to discontinue the project.
Finding 11: Oversight of the Mitsubishi Cement Corporation project by the City of San Diego or San Diego County governments might have given greater priority to the health concerns of community members and resulted in a more equitable balance between economic and health concerns earlier in the project’s evaluation process.
Finding 12 : The Port’s decision to approve the C ottages at the Cays development proposal could negatively impact access to San Diego Bay and approving the plan favors those willing or able to pay costly hotel rates typical of the Coronado area.
Finding 13*: Given a preference for informal channels of co mmunication by Port City councils and mayors with their appointed Port District representatives, neither Port Commissioners nor Port City Councils maintain completely open and transparent relationships allowing for public involvement or awareness of Port District activities.
Finding 14*: In its current form, the Port Master Plan and Master Plan Update documents published by the Port District are overly complex, difficult to understand and too broad in scope to foster meaningful comprehension by Port City residents, elected municipal or county officials.
Finding 15 *: Ratification of Port Master Plans, Master Plan Updates or Master Plan Amendments would allow residents of Port City Planning districts and San Diego County to acknowledge and confirm their understanding of Port District development plans and projects within their municipal and county boundaries and provide reliable documents for communities to plan for the future.
Findings 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, and 15 apply to the City of Chula Vista, and are identified with an asterisk in the above list.
The Grand Jury Report recommends that the City Councils of the cities of San Diego, Chula Vista, Coronado, Imperial Beach, and National City:
Recommendation 23-90: Enact ordinances or policies placing a two -term limit on the number of terms that a Port Commissioner can serve (as already enacted for the City of Coronado).
P a g e | 4
Recommendation 23 -91: Institute ordinances or formal policies requiring the appointed Commissioners from each city be required to give at a minimum, quarterly updates to the City Councils at officially scheduled city council meetings open to the public.
Recommendation 23-92: Institute ordinances or formal policies that require ratification of the Port Master Plans, proposed Port Master Plan U pdates or amendments to the Port Master Plan for Port District planning districts within each city’s boundaries.
Recommendation 23-93: In consultation with the San Diego County Board of Supervisors, explore and implement an alternate form of governance for the Port District allowing for participation in, and oversight of Port District activities and decision by the San Diego County Board of Supervisors and the elected city councils of the five Port Cities.
California Penal Code §933(c) and 933.05 require that any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, provide comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court).
The Grand Jury Report was filed on June 7, 2023.
Staff has carefully reviewed the Grand Jury Report and prepared a response letter (Attachment 2) to the honorable Michael T. Smyth, Presiding Judge of the San Diego County Superior Court, addressing the applicable findings and recommendations of the Grand Jury Report.
For each Grand Jury finding, the responding entity much indicate that it 1) agrees with the finding, or that it 2) disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response must specify the portion of the finding that is disp uted and include an explanation for their disagreement with the finding. The proposed response letter addresses all findings pertaining to matters under the control of the City of Chula Vista.
For each Gran d Jury recommendation, the responding entity must indicate that 1) the entity has implemented the recommendation; 2) the entity has not yet implemented the recommendation, but will do so in the future, with a time frame for implementation; 3) the recommendation requires further analysis, with a time frame for completing such analysis, not to exceed 6 months from the date of the publication of the Grand Jury report; or 4) the recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation. The proposed response letter provides such response to each recommendation made to the City of Chula Vista.
It is requested that the Mayor and City Council accept and review the Grand Jury Report and the prepared response letter. It is further requested that the Mayor and City Council accept the response prepared by staff and authorize the Mayor to sign the letter as a completed response from the City of Chula Vista.
DECISION-MAKER CONFLICT
Staff has reviewed the decision contemplated by this action and has determined that it is not site-specific and consequently, the real property holdings of the City Council members do not create a disqualifying real property-related financial conflict of interest under the Political Reform Act (Cal. Gov't Code § 87100, et seq.).
Staff is not independently aware, and has not been informed by any City Councilmember, of any other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision-maker conflict of interest in this matter.
P a g e | 5
CURRENT-YEAR FISCAL IMPACT
There is no current-year fiscal impact as a result of this action.
ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT
There is no ongoing fiscal impact as a result of this action.
ATTACHMENTS
1. 2022/2023 San Diego County Grand Jury Report – Governance of San Diego Bay and its Tidal Lands and Regions
2. Proposed response letter
Staff Contact: Tiffany Allen, Assistant City Manager