National City City Council
August 22, 2023

AGENDA
Consolidated Special Meeting
City Council Chamber - 1243 National City
Boulevard, National City, CA
Ron Morrison, Mayor
Luz Molina, Vice-Mayor Ben Martinez, Interim City Manager Marcus Bush, Councilmember Barry J. Schultz, City Attorney Jose Rodriguez, Councilmember Shelley Chapel, MMC, City Clerk Ditas Yamane, Councilmember R. Mitchel Beauchamp, City Treasurer _______________________________________________________________________

The City Council also sits as the City of National City Community Development Commission, Housing Authority, Joint Powers Financing Authority, and Successor Agency to the Community Development Commission as the National City Redevelopment Agency
Thank you for participating in local government and the City of National City Council Meetings.

Meetings: Regular City Council Meetings are held on the first and third Tuesday of the month at 6:00 p.m. Special Closed Session Meeting and Workshops may be same day, t he start time is based on needs. Check Special Agendas for times.

Location: Regular City Council Meetings are held in the Council Chamber located at City Hall, 1243 National City Boulevard, National City, CA 91950, the meetings are open to the public.

Agendas and Material: Agendas and Agenda Packet for items listed are available on the City website, and distributed to the City Council no less than 72 hours prior to the Ci ty Council Meeting. Sign up for E-Notifications to receive alerts when items are posted.

Public Participation: Encouraged in a number of ways as described below. Members of the public may attend the City Council Meeting in person, watch the City Council Meeting via live web stream, or participate remotely via Zoom. Recording of Meetings are archived and available for viewing on the City’s website.

Public Comment: Persons wishing to address the City Council on matters not on the agenda may do so under Public Comments. Those wishing to speak on items on the agenda may do so when the item is being considered. Please submit a Speaker’s Slip to the City Clerk prior to the meeting or immediately following the announcement of the item. All commen ts will be limited up to three (3) minutes. The Presiding Officer shall have the authority to reduce the time allotted to accommodate for a large number of speakers. (City Council Policy 104) If you wish to submit written comment email to the City Clerk’s Office at least 2 hours prior to the City Council Meeting to allow time for distribution to the City Council.

Spanish Interpretation Services: Spanish Interpretation Services are available, please contact the City Clerk prior to the start of the meeting for assistance.

American Disabilities Act Title II: In compliance with the American Disabilities Act of 1990, persons with a disability may request an agenda in appropriate alternative formats as required by Title II. Any person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should direct such request to the City Clerk’s Office (619) 336 -4228 at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting.

AGENDA
Consolidated Special Meeting
City Council Chamber - 1243 National City
Boulevard, National City, CA
Ron Morrison, Mayor
Luz Molina, Vice-Mayor Ben Martinez, Interim City Manager Marcus Bush, Councilmember Barry J. Schultz, City Attorney Jose Rodriguez, Councilmember Shelley Chapel, MMC, City Clerk Ditas Yamane, Councilmember R. Mitchel Beauchamp, City Treasurer _______________________________________________________________________

The City Council also sits as the City of National City Community Development Commission, Housing Authority, Joint Powers Financing Authority, and Successor Agency to the Community Development Commission as the National City Redevelopment Agency
Gracias por participar en las reuniones del gobierno local y del Consejo de la Ciudad de National City.

Reuniones: Las reuniones regulares del Consejo Municipal se llevan a cabo el primer y te rcer martes del mes a las 6:00 p.m. La reunión especial de sesión privada y los talleres pueden ser el mismo día, la hora de inicio se basa en las necesidades. Consulte las agendas especiales para conocer los horarios.

Ubicación: Las reuniones regulares del Concejo Municipal se llevan a cabo en la Cámara del Consejo ubicada en el Ayuntamiento, 1243 National City Boulevard, National City, CA 91950, las reuniones están abiertas al público.

Agendas y Material: Las Agendas y el Paquete de Agenda para los tem as enumerados están disponibles en el sitio web de la Ciudad y se distribuyen al Concejo Municipal no menos de 72 horas antes de la Reunión del Concejo Municipal. Regístrese para recibir notificaciones electrónicas cuando se publiquen artículos.

Participación pública: Se fomenta de varias maneras como se describe a continuación. Los miembros del público pueden asistir a la Reunión del Concejo Municipal en persona, ver la Reunión del Concejo Municipal a través de la transmisión web en vivo o participar de forma remota a través de Zoom. Las grabaciones de las reuniones están archivadas y disponibles para su visualización en el sitio web de la Ciudad.

Comentario Público: Las personas que deseen dirigirse al Concejo Municipal sobre asuntos que no están en la agenda pueden hacerlo bajo Comentarios públicos. Quienes deseen hacer uso de la palabra sobre los temas del programa podrán hacerlo cuando se esté examinando el tema.

Por favor, envíe una solicitud del orador al Secretario de la Ciudad antes de la reuni ón o inmediatamente después del anuncio del artículo. Todos los comentarios estarán limitados a tres (3) minutos. El Presidente tendrá la autoridad para reducir el tiempo asignado para dar cabida a un gran número de oradores. (Política del Concejo Municipal 104) Si desea enviar comentarios por escrito, envíe un correo electrónico a la Oficina del Secretario de la Ciudad al menos 2 horas antes de la Reunión del Consejo Municipal para dar tiempo a la distribución al Consejo Municipal.

Servicios de interpretación en español: Los servicios de interpretación en español están disponibles, comuníquese con el Secretario de la Ciudad antes del inicio de la reunión para obtener ayuda.

Título II de la Ley de Discapacidades Americanas: En cumplimiento con la Ley de Discapacidades Americanas de 1990, las personas con discapacidad pueden solicitar una agenda en formatos alternativos apropiados según lo requerido por el Título II. Cualquier persona con una discapacidad que requiera un modificación o adaptación para participar en una reunión debe dirigir dicha solicitud a la Oficina del Secretario de la Ciudad (619) 336 -4228 al menos 24 horas antes de la reunión.

AGENDA
Consolidated Special Meeting

Tuesday, August 22, 2023, 4:30 p.m.

City Council Chamber - 1243 National City Boulevard
National City, CA
Pages

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ROLL CALL

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG

4. PUBLIC COMMENT

5. STAFF REPORTS

5.1 Responses from the City of National City to the findings and recommendations of a 2022/2023 County of San Diego Grand Jury Report filed on June 7, 2023, and titled “Governance of San Diego Bay and Its Tidal Lands and Regions.” 2 Recommendation:

Review and approve the proposed responses to the County Grand Jury Report and authorize the Mayor to transmit the responses to the Grand Jury via the Superior Court Presiding Judge.

5.2 Letter of Recommendation for California Assembly Bill (AB) 399, the Water Ratepayers Protections Act 2023
Recommendation: Receive direction from the City Council of the City of National City on submitting a letter of support for the Water Ratepayers Act of 2023, which requires a member agency to receive majority voter approval of its electorate, and the entire San Diego County Water Authority’s electorate, before it can detach itself from the San Diego County Water Authority.

6. ADJOURNMENT
Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of National City - Tuesday, September 5, 2023 - 6:00 p.m. - Council Chambers - National City, California.

AGENDA REPORT

Department: City Manager's Office
Prepared by: Carlos Aguirre, Acting Deputy City Manager/ Housing Director Meeting Date: Tuesday, August 22, 2023
Approved by: Ben Martinez, Interim City Manager

SUBJECT:

Responses from the City of National City to the findings and recommendations of a 2022/2023 County of San Diego Grand Jury Report filed on June 7, 2023, and titled “Governance of San Diego Bay and Its Tidal Lands and Regions.”

RECOMMENDATION:

Review and approve the proposed responses to the County Grand Jury Report and authorize the Mayor to transmit the responses to the Grand Jury via the Superior Court Presiding Judge.

BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE PRIOR ACTION:

Not Applicable.

EXPLANATION:

The Grand Jury Report is the product of an investigation by the County of San Diego 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 (Exhibit “A”).

Per the Grand Jury Report, “[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 County 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 the ir governing bodies, as well as 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.

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 matt ers 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 J ury Report and prepared a response letter (Exhibit “B” ) 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 must 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 disputed and inclu de an explanation for their disagreement with the finding.

For each Grand 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.

At the regular meeting of the City Council on August 15, City Council expressed that they had not been provided an opportunity to receive a briefing dire ctly from staff on the responses in the proposed letter or for staff to consider City Council’s direct input. The City Council voted for the item to be continued to a special meeting after having the opportunity to review the responses and suggest changes. A special meeting was scheduled for August 22 at 4:30 p.m. to consider any input gathered by City Council members . A redlined version of the initial comment letter incorporating changes suggested from the City Council is attached as Exhibit “C.”

FINANCIAL STATEMENT:

There is no fiscal impact associated from the City of National City responding to the Grand Jury report.

RELATED CITY COUNCIL 2020-2025 STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL:

Not Applicable

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

This is not a project under CEQA and is therefore not subject to environmental review. CCR15378; PRC 21065.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:

Agenda Report posted within 24 hours of meeting date and time in accordance with Brown Act.

ORDINANCE:

Not Applicable

EXHIBITS:

Exhibit A - Grand Jury Report
Exhibit B - Initial Draft Response Letter
Exhibit C - Redline to Initial Response Letter

Todd Gloria, Mayor
City of San Diego
202 C Street, 11th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
San Diego City Council
City of San Diego
202 C Street, 10th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101

GRAND TRY
Countyof San Diego
550 Corporate Center
550 W. C Street, Suite 860
San Diego, CA 92101- 3513
619- 236-2020 FAX 619- 338- 8127
httr):// www. sdcounly. ce,gov/ qrandiu[ y
Ed Lopatin, Foreperson
June 1, 2023
Unified Port District Commission Board
Unified Port District
3165 PacificHighway
San Diego, CA 92101
See attachedmailinglist for additionalrespondents.

Re: Grand Jury Report— Governance of San Diego Bay and Its Tidal Lands andRegions Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,
The2022/2023SanDiegoCountyGrandJuryherewithprovidesthereferencedreportfor your review and commentto the PresidingJudge of the SuperiorCourt in compliancewith the Penal Code of California § 933( c). This report was prepared pursuant to §925 and §925aof the Penal Code.

InaccordancewithPenalCode §933.05(f), acopyofthisreportisbeingprovidedtoaffected agenciesatleasttwoworkingdayspriortoitspublic -releaseandafter -beingapprovedbythePresiding Judge of the Superior Court.

Pleasenotethat §933.05(f) specifiesthatnoofficer, agency, department, orgoverningbody of a public agencyshall disclose anycontentsof the reportprior to its public release. Thisreportwill befiledwiththe Clerkofthe Courtandreleasedto the publiconJune 7, 2023.

Ed Lopatin, Foreperson
2022/2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY
EL: ar
enc.

Attached Mailing List John McCann, Mayor Carolina Chavez, Councilmember Governance of SanDiego Rayand City of Chula Vista City of Chula Vista s Tidal Lands and Regions Report 276 Fourth Ave 276 Fourth Ave Chula Vista, CA 91910 ` Chula Vista, CA 91910
Jose Preciado, Councilmember
City of Chula Vista
276. -.Fourth Ave
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Paloma Aguirre, Mayor
City of Imperial Beach
825 Imperial Beach Blvd
Imperial Beach, CA 91932
Matthew Leyba- Gonzalez,
Councilmember
City of Imperial Beach
825 Imperial Beach Blvd
Imperial Beach, CA 91932
Mike Donovan, Councilmember
City of Coronado

1.825 Strand Way
Coronado, CA 92118
Casey Tanaka, Councilmember
City of Coronado
1825 Strand Way
Coronado, CA 92118
Marcus Bush, Councilmember
City of National City
1234 National City Blvd
National City, CA91950
Nora Vargas, Chairperson
San Diego County Board of Supervisors
1600 PacificHighway, Room335
San Diego, CA92101
Jim Desmond, Supervisor - District 5
San DiegoCounty Boardof Supervisors
1600 PacificHighway, Room335
San Diego, CA 92101
Alonso Gonzalez, Councilmember
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Ave
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Carol Seabury, Councilmember
City of Imperial Beach
825 Imperial Beach Blvd
Imperial Beach, CA 91932
Mitch McKay, Councilmember
City of Imperial Beach
825 Imperial Beach Blvd
Imperial Beach, CA 91932
Carrie Downey, Councilmember
City of Coronado
1825 Strand Way
Coronado, CA 92118
Ron Morrison, Mayor
City of National City
1234 National City Blvd
National City, CA91950
Jose Rodriguez, Councilmember
City of National City
1234 National City Blvd
National City, CA91950
Joel Anderson, Supervisor - District 2
San Diego County Board of Supervisors
1600 PacificHighway, Room335
San Diego, CA 92101
Andrea Cardenas, Councilmember
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Ave
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Jack Fisher, Councilmember
City of Imperial Beach
825 Imperial Beach Blvd
Imperial Beach, CA 91932
Richard Bailey,.Mayor
City of Coronado
1825 Strand. Way.

Coronado, CA 92118
John Duncan, Councilmember
City of Coronado.
1825 Strand Way..

Coronado, CA92118
Luz Molina, Councilmember
City of National City
1234 National City Blvd
National City, CA91950
Ditas Yamane, Councilmember
City of National City
1234 National City Blvd
National City, CA91950
Terra Lawson- Remer, Supervisor Dist. 3
San Diogo County Board of Supervisors
1600 PacificHighway, Room335
San Diego, CA 92101

Governance of San Diego Bay and Its
Tidal Lands and Regions
A Report by the
2022/2023 San Diego County Grand Jury
Filed June 7, 2023

GOVERNANCE OF SAN DIEGO BAY AND ITS TIDAL LANDS

AND REGIONS

SUMMARY
The2022/2023GrandJury (GrandJury) undertookaninvestigationof the SanDiego Unified Port District (PortDistrict), the Countyof SanDiegoandthe five Port Citiesof ChulaVista, Imperial Beach, Coronado, SanDiegoandNationalCity to assesshow theseorganizationsinteractaroundthe governanceof SanDiego Bay tidal landsandresources. This assessmentwas undertakenin response to a perception that the Port of San Diego and its unelected seven -member Board of Commissioners is not accountableto eitherthe electedofficials or theelectorateof its five membercitiesor the County of SanDiego, especiallyin theplanning, developmentandimplementationof projectsin thosecities.

ThePortDistrictis anindependentgovernmentalagencycreatedbytheStateof Californiaand approvedby votersin Chula Vista, Coronado,' ImperialBeach, NationalCity andSanDiegoin 1962 to managethe tidelandsandsubmergedlandsof SanDiego Bay.

Thisreportwill briefly reviewpreviousGrandJuryreportsonthePortDistrict andlook atits creation, governance, relationto Stateagencies, andfunding. The GrandJury will alsoinvestigateconflicts and issuessurroundingthe PortDistrict' s operationsin regardto the equitablerepresentationof residents ofthefivePortCitiesandtheirgoverningbodies, aswell astheresidentsoftheCountyof SanDiego anditsresidents. Finally, theGrandJurywill alsodiscussthePortDistrict'splanningprocessandhow itsproposedprojectshaveaffectedthefivePortCities, theCountyof SanDiegoandresidentsoftheseregions.

Thereport'srecommendationsincludeincreasingthePortDistrict' spublic participationand transparencyby:

Schedulingregularupdatesandpresentationsatpubliclynoticedopenmeetingsof thecity councils of its member cities;
Simplificationof thePortMasterPlansaroundthePortDistrictPlanningDistrictsfallingwithin eachof thePortCity'sjurisdictionalboundariesandthreeof theCounty's supervisorialdistricts; SubmittingthePortMasterPlan, andall futureupdatesandamendments, to therelevantcity council and County Supervisor for discussion and ratification; LobbyingtheCaliforniaStateLegislatureto introducelegislationenablingtheCountyof San Diego to assume oversight of the activities of the SanDiego Unified Port District and decisions of theBoardof PortCommissioners, andsharein thePortDist -riot'sdutyasguardianof the. public, trustin thetidal andsubmergedlandsof SanDiegoBay;
Dependingontheoutcomeof thelegislationrecommendedabove, exploringanalternateform of governancefor thePortDistrict, with participationfromthe CountyBoardof Supervisorsand elected officials of the five member cities;
Encourage a limit of two four- year terms that a Port Commissioner can serve; Includestafffrom eachof thefive citiesoneachof thePortDistrict's advisorycommittees; and Postmeetingminutesandagendasof eachof thePortDistrict's advisorycommitteeson-line. 1Whilethe 1962voteto approvecreationof thePortinvolvedtallyingthecombinedvotesof thefiveportcities, votersin the City of Coronadovoted against Proposition D by a marginof 3 to 1. 2022/ 2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT ( FILED JUNE 7, 2023)

INTRODUCTION
We can do whatever we want, right?" 2The words were spoken — and repeated several times-- by a commissionerof theSailDiegoUnifiedPoit Districtduringapublicweetingof theBoardof Poit Commissioners. A Commissioner went on to describe what was believed to be "the absolute sovereigntyof thisboardto makeanydecisionthatwewantfromthisdaisatanytime." s The commentwasmadeduringadiscussionof thechangesproposedforthePortDistrict'spolicyon Capital Improvement Projects, and while made in this specific context, seemed intended to characterizethe broad authority andperceivednatureof this organization — led by a seven -member unelectedboardof commissioners, largelyautonomous, self-governing, self-fundedandindependent of oversight by local electedofficials.

The2022-23 SanDiegoCountyGrandJury (GrandJury) is notalonein its concernoverthelackof oversight, transparencyandaccountability of an organizationwith suchfar reachingpower and jurisdiction. Overthelastseveraldecades, twoseparateSanDiegoCountyGrandJurieshavereached similar conclusions, the earliestbeingthe 1986-87GrandJury andmorerecentlythe 1997-98Grand Jury.

The 1986-87 GrandJury Reportconcluded, "An enterprise of the scope and importance of the Port Districtmustincludeastrongconcernfor communityrelations, publicinputandaccountability ... yet, inthepublic'smind, it conductsitselfasdoesaprivatecompany, responsibleonlyto itsstockholders.

Thefactisthatit is apubliccorporation, guardingapublictrustandspendingpublicmoney."4 Similarly, the synopsisof the 1997-98 GrandJuryreportconcludedthatthe sevencommissionersof thePortDistrict "areviewedasoperatingwith almostunlimiteddiscretionregardinghowtheyspend money with minimal accountability.

Commissionersarenot requiredto gainapprovalfor their actionsfrom the voting public or evenfrom thecitycouncilswhichappointthem." 5Inpractice, thePortDistrictrequiresafiduciaryoathofits commissioners to act in the best interests of the Port District, and in its role as guardian of the public trust, to the benefit of the residents of California. As appointees of one of five Port District cities, each commissioner must also represent the perspectives of the city appointing them ascommissioner.

Inrepresentingtheinterestsof thePortDistrictbutonlytheperspectivesof theportcitiesappointing them, a dichotomyis created. Thedichotomyallowsportcommissionersto managethevaluable resourcesof SanDiego Bay in a unified, comprehensivemannerbut limits electedgovernmentsof the PortCitiesandtheirconstituentsin makingtheirviewsknownorin determiningtheactionsthatarein theirbestinterests. As aresult, this dichotomyleadsnotonlyto voterdisenfranchisement, butto a disconnection between elected municipal governments andtheir constituents, who must subordinate and subject their interests to the interpretations of the unelected Board of Port Commissioners. zSanDiegoUnifiedPortDistrictPortCommissionersMeeting, September13, 2022, videorecording@1:14:25. Boardof Port Commissioners on 2022- 09- 13 1:00 PM ( granicus. com) aSanDiegoUnifiedPortDistrictPortCommissionersMeeting, September13, 2022, videorecording@1:15:50. Boardof Port Commissioners on 2022- 09- 13 1:00 PM ( granicus. com) 41986-87SanDiegoCountyGrandJury, TheCountyofSanDiegoandTheSanDiegoUnifiedPortDistrictReportNo, 15, June 30, 1987, page 5- 6.
51997-98 SanDiegoCountyGrandJury, TheSanDiegoUnifiedPortDistrict: It'sTimefor TaxpayersandCitizensto Havea Direct Say, Final Report, June 30, 1998, page 103.
2 2022/ 2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT ( FILED JUNE 7, 2023)

Severeastheseassessmentsare, they arerootedin the SanDiegoUnified PortDistrict Act (PortAct)', enactedby the California Legislaturein 1962, through which the Stateof California delegatesthe powerandresponsibilityfor managementofthetidelandsandsubmergedlandsof SanDiegoBay. The Port Act delegates these powers to the Port District from the California State Lands Commission SLC) as guardian of these tidelands and submerged lands through the public trust doctrine. This doctrine " provides that tide and submerged lands and the beds of lakes, streams and other navigable waterwaysareto beheldin trustby the Statefor thebenefitof thepeopleof California." 7ThePort District acts in this capacity asanindependentgovernmentalspecial district without direct oversight of its sevencommissionersby otherlocalcity or countyagencies. Theunsalariedcommissionersare appointedto four-yeartermsbycity councilsof eachof thefive citiesthatborderSanDiegoBay, (San Diego, ChulaVista, Coronado, ImperialBeach, andNationalCity). Whilethecommissionersmust residein the city thatappointedthem, theycanserveanunlimitednumberof four-yearterms, except in theCityof Coronadowhichlimitsitsportcommissionersto twoterms. Portcommissionersmaybe recalledby majority vote of the city councilwhich appointedthem. Otherthantheselimitations, no oversightby localgovernmentalbodiesis authorizedby thePortAct, anddecisionsby theBoardof PortCommissionersarenot subjectto approval, vetoor appealby city councilsor votersof thefive Port Cities or the county. 8, 9
Democratictheory equatesresponsiblegovernmentwith popularparticipation in and control over policy formulation, political equalityfor theindividual, decidingdivisionsof opinionby majorityrule withcompletefreedomof discussion, andperiodicallyholdingfreeandmeaningfulelections.10Yetby virtue of the legislation that created the San Diego Unified Port District, values such as these that citizenshavecometo expectin our governmentallegislative, regulatoryandjudicial institutionshave not been embraced.

METHODOLOGY
TheGrandJuryconductedinterviewsandrequestedinformationfrommunicipalandcounty governmentalorganizations affectedby the Port Act.

The Grand Jury researchedandreviewed thesedocuments:

California Harbors and Navigation Code, Appendix I, also known asthe San Diego Unified Port District Act ( Port Act)
The 1986-1987 Grand Jury report: " The County of SanDiego andthe SanDiego Unified Port District, Report No. 15" and responses
The 1997-1998 Grand Jury report: "The San Diego Unified Port District: It' s Time for Taxpayers andCitizensto Havea Direct Say" andresponsesfrom the citiesof SanDiego, ChulaVista, Coronado, ImperialBeach, andNationalCity
Meeting Minutes and Agendasfrom the cities of SanDiego, Chula Vista, Coronado, Imperial Beach, andNational City aswell asthe SanDiego Unified PortDistrict Historical recordsandarticlesrelating to formation of the Port District (per footnotes) GrandJuryReportson Portsin otherCalifornia Counties
6CaliforniaHarborsandNavigationCode, Appendix1, SanDiegoPortDistrictAct, Documentno. 70987, filed March3, 2020, Office of the District Clerk. '
https:// www. slc. ca. gov/ public- engagement/
sCalifornia Harbors and Navigation Code, Appendix 1, SanDiego Port District Act eTheCityof Coronadolimitsthe numberof termsservedbyPortCommissionersto two terms 10Bachrach, Peter, TheTheoryof DemocraticElitism (Chicago, 1962), p. 94. 2022/ 2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT ( FILED JUNE 7, 2023)

SanDiegoUnified PortDistrict Website: www.portofsandiego_org Detailed electronicmaps showing specificboundariesandareaswithin the SanDiego Unified Port District

DISCUSSION
Creation of the San Diego Unified Port District
When California became a state in 1850, it acquired title to navigable waterways astrustee for the protection of public lands, streams, lakes, marshlands, and tidelands. This is referred to as common law public trust doctrine. Per the State of California State Lands Commission ( SLC), " The public' s right to useCalifornia' swaterwaysfor navigation, fishing, boating, naturalhabitatprotectionand otherwater -orientedactivitiesis protectedby the CommonLaw doctrineof thePublicTrust." Historically, thePublic Trust hasreferredto thebasicright of the public to useits waterwaysto engage in " commerce, navigation, and fisheries." The SLC further states that the " Public Trust provides that tide and submerged lands and the beds of lakes, streams and other navigable waterways areto beheldin trustbytheStateforthebenefitof thepeopleof California."I1 SanDiego Unified Port District: UniqueAmong California Ports TheSanDiegoUnifiedPortDistrictis uniqueamongCalifornia's12portsin its establishmentby state law. Accordingto thePortAct, this wasnecessarybecauseof thegeographyandotherspecial characteristics of the locale:

It isherebydeclaredto bethepolicy of theStateof Californiato developtheharborsandports of this Statefor multiple purposeusefor the benefitof thepeople. A necessityexistswithin SanDiego County for suchdevelopment. Becauseof the severalseparatecities and unincorporatedpopulatedareasin the areahereinafterdescribed, only aspeciallycreated district canoperateeffectively in developingtheharborsandport facilities. Becauseof the unique problems presentedby this area, andthe facts and circumstancerelative to the development of harbor and port facilities, the adoption of a special act and the creation of a special district is required. 12
With passageof the enabling Proposition D in November 1962, the SLC granted regulation and control of thetidelands and submergedlandsof SanDiego Bay to the newly createdPort District.

Following passageof SanDiego County's PropositionD, the cities of SanDiego, Chula Vista, Coronado, ImperialBeach, andNationalCity wereto transferthemanagementof statetidal and submergedlandsin SanDiegoBayto thejurisdiction of anewly formedSanDiegoUnified Port District,
Proposition D Controversy
Passageof PropositionD wasnotobtainedwithoutcontroversy. Priorto theelection, thecitycouncils of Coronado, Imperial Beach and Chula Vista opposed formation of the Port District. Supporters of the propositionfocusedontheeconomicbenefitsmadepossibleby thecombinedeffortsof PortCitieson suchprojectsasconstructionof SouthBay channelandtheresultingjob growth from expansionof industrialdevelopmentandmaritimeactivities. Opponentsofthepropositionfocusedprimarilyonthe potentialcontrolwieldedby anunelectedboardof port commissionerswho would havethepowerto ii https:// www. slc. ca. gov/ public- engagement/
szCalifornia Harborsand NavigationCode, Appendix 1, SanDiegoPort District Act, §2, pg 7. https:// Pantheonstorage. blob.core.windows net/ administration/ San-Diego-Unified- Port-District- Act pdf March 3, 2020. 4 2022/ 2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT ( FILED JUNE 7, 2023)

issuebonds, levy taxesanddeveloplocal tidelandresourceswithout input from individual PortCities.

Another concern was the unequal number of commissioners allocated to each of the Port Cities; the City of SanDiegowouldgetthreecommissionerswhileeachof theremainingfour PortCitieswould get one commissioner each, potentially allowing SanDiego to exert dominanceover Port Commission resources and priorities. 13
A studycommissionedby the CoronadoChamberof Commercethreemonthsprior to the 1962 electionsuggestedthatinsteadof the simplemajorityrequiredby thePortAct to constituteaquorum for Commissioners to conduct business, the act be amendedto require a quorum of at least two commissionersfromthefourPortCitiesof Coronado, ImperialBeach, ChulaVistaandNationalCity.

An additionalchangein themake-upof theportcommissionwasalsosuggestedto includeonlytwo SanDiegoCommissioners, onecommissionerfromSanDiegoCounty, andoneeachfromthefour otherPortCities, allowingappointmentof acommissionerrepresentinginterestsof unincorporated bayfront areasof the county.14
While PropositionD wasapprovedby amajority of votersin the citiesof SanDiego, ChulaVista, ImperialBeachandNationalCity, thepropositionwasdefeatedin Coronadobya 3to 1margin. An unsuccessfullawsuit filed by Coronado, Imperial BeachandChula Vista attemptedto make acceptanceof membershipin thePort District optional, resultingin atemporarydelay, but formation of thePortDistrict wascompletedonDecember18, 1963, following certificationof thevotescastfor Proposition D in the November 6, 1962 election. 15
Port District Funding of Operations
PortDistrict operationsarefinancedprimarily throughleasesandfeesgeneratedthroughits realestate operations, parking, harbor police and other servicesor feesprovided to public or commercial customers of the Port District. As a landlord, the Port District generates most of its revenue from tenantsand subtenantswho pay rent or feesto conductbusinesson tidelands. The list includes hotels, restaurants, retail shops, marinas, landings, yacht clubs, shipyards, cargo operators, aerospace firms andcruise ships. While allowed by the Port Act to do so, the Port District doesnot collect taxes..

Various provisions of the Port Act also allow the Port District to issue general obligation, revenue bondsor levy propertyor otherformsof taxation.

In the Fiscal Year ending June30, 2022, over $90 million, or 55% of the Port District' s operating revenueweregeneratedby leasesandotherRealEstaterevenue, while parking, maritimeandother feesprovidedanother $77million in operatingrevenue, orapproximately45% of operating revenues.

Like commercial business entities that are dependent on revenue streams to remain viable, economic activities that support the Port District' s operations have also represented a significant source of economicrisk. Recently, impactsoftheCOVID-19pandemiconPortDistrictoperationsseverely limitedmostrevenuegeneratingPortDistrictactivities, resultingin a $19.3million lossin thefiscal yearending June2021 andprompting onePort Commissionerto considerthe needto "analyzeand 13SanDiegoCountyRegistrarofVoters, ArgumentsforandAgainstPropositionD, SanDiegoCountyGeneralElection, November 7, 1962.
14TheWyattReport: Here'sTextof AdvisoryonUnitedPort, SanDiegoEveningTribune, August22, 1962, A14 -A15. 1sIbid.
2022/ 2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT ( FILED JUNE 7, 2023)

understandoptionsfor potentialtaxation. ,16However, thePortDistrict qualifiedfor $29million in stimulusfundassistancein thefollowingyear, leadingtothegenerationof a $68.3million incomein thefiscalyearendingJune2022.17
While thesetidelands -associatedrevenuestreamsallow the Port District to operatefree of budget constraints typical of other state or local government agencies, the need to generatesuch revenue can leadto a significantsourceof biasin thedeliberationsof PortCommissionersandobscuremotivesand objectivesof staffatall levelsof theorganization. In arecentbriefingbythePortDistrict, asizeable, expected return on investment from a proposed project was praised as ajustification for the large public investment of tax dollars neededto fund the project, with lessemphasisplacedon the project' s other characteristics.

Balanced Interests?
TheGrandJuryinvestigationrevealedmanyconcernsbythePortDistrict'sstakeholders. SmallerPort Cities reported a lack of follow through or investment in their cities proportional to the revenue generatedfor thePortDistrict by tidelandsactivitiesoccurringin their municipalboundaries. Others citealackof prioritizationforprojectsnotassociatedwithlucrativeleasingcontractsorother significantrevenuesources. TheGrandJuryacknowledgessuchviews, andseesthedilemmafacedby thePortDistrictin balancingthemanydiverseandpotentiallycompetingmunicipal, stateandpublic interestsit mustmanageasbothnuancedandcomplexin wayslessunderstoodbythepublicin general, andin somecasesby the city andcountygovernmentsit serves.

How doesa port commissioner balance or prioritize the needsor interests of separatecommunities, neighborhoods or municipalities against one another or against the interests of the Port District itself? Astheadagegoes, actionsspeaklouderthanwords; perhapsrecentactivitiesbythePortDistrictand votesby theBoardof PortCommissionerscanhelpto answersuchquestions.

Chula Vista Hotel and Convention Center
The key piece of the ChulaVista Bayfront MasterPlan is the Gaylord Pacific Resortand Convention Center, a $1.1billion project that broke groundin 2022 for a 1,600 -room hotel alongside a 275,000 squarefootconventioncenterona36.5 -acresite. In 2012, afteralmostadecadeofplanning, theCity of Chula Vista and the Port District received approval from the California Coastal Commission for this projectallowing for theconversionof 535acresof vacantandindustrialpropertyinto a ResortHotel andConventionCenter, RV Park, andparkingstructure. An existingmotel, alsopartof theprojectsits on land adjacent to Port District boundaries.

Theproject is important becauseboththe City of ChulaVista andthe PortDistrict collaboratedonthe MasterPlan andwereinvolved in seekingits approval, andbothpartiesconsiderthe development project a great success. The Grand Jury investigationrevealedanalignment of interestsof both parties centered on the regional economic benefits from development of these underused and undervalued tidelandassets. Both partieswerefully engaged, fully committedandenjoyedthe supportof the community duringall phasesof theproject, from the initial masterplan approvalto selectionof the JenniferVanGrove, SanDiego's BayfrontisControlledbya Little -understoodAgencyWith PowerThatWill BeTestedin TheNewYear, February5, 2021, page13; SanDiego's bayfrontiscontrolledby a little -understoodagencywith power that will be tested in new vear - The San Diego Union -Tribune ( sandiegouniontribune com) 17SanDiegoUnifiedPortDistrict, AnnualComprehensiveFinancialReport, FiscalYearsEndedJune302022and2021.

6 2022/2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT ( FILED NNE 7, 2023)

operatoranddeveloper, aswell astheformationof multiplefinancingagreements. Bothpartiesareto sharein the public infrastructure costs expected to approach $370 million, but also retain sharesof excess revenues.

Dole Fruit CompanyContract
First signed in 2002, this agreement leased portions of San Diego' s 10a' Avenue terminal to Dole Fruit Companyforimportsof fruit intotheU.S. westcoastmarket. Primaryoperationscenteredonlong- haultruckingoperationsdeliveringfruit to manysitesin theSouthernCaliforniaregion, aswell as short=haultruckingoperationsto sitesin SanDiegoCounty. Theshort -haullocaloperationsinvolved many more trips by smaller -sizedtrucks andwere perceivedto createa more significant sourceof air pollution than long-haul operationswhich involved larger loads andfewer trips on semi -trailer trucks.

Following negotiation for a 25 -year leaseextensionthrough 2036, terms were not releaseduntil three daysprior to theproposal'sapprovalby theBoardof Port CommissionersonAugust14, 2012. The agreementnot only extendedDole'slease, but alsomovedits short -haultruckingoperationoutof San Diego'sBarrioLoganneighborhood. Thismovewasperceivedtoreducepollutionin anareaalready affectedbysignificantpollutionfromthenearbyfreewayandindustrialmaritimeandmanufacturing activities. However, the short -haultrucking operationwasonly relocatedto a locationin the neighboringcity of National City, therebyincreasingpollution thatpotentiallyaffectedthehealthand well-beingof nearbyresidentsof thatcity. Relocationof Dole'sshort -haultruckingoperationsalso requiredthedisruption, delayandreroutingof theNationalCitylegoftheBayshoreBikewayproject andtheTidelandsAvenuerelocationplanningefforts, twokeycomponentsoftheNationalCityBalanced Plan.

Theactionstakenby the Port District in approvingtheDoleFruit Companylease, reducedpotential health hazardsfor residents of SanDiego' s Barrio Logan neighborhood at the expenseof the health of NationalCityresidents, while creatingsignificantdelaysanddisruptionsin theMasterPlanbenefitting National City residents.

Mitsubishi CementFactory
ThePort District recentlyconsideredanapplicationby Mitsubishi CementCorporation (Mitsubishi) for a Coastal Development Permit ( CDP) that would allow Mitsubishi to construct and operate a cementimport, storage, loadinganddistributionfacility within theTenthAvenueMarineTerminal." Beginningin 2015, Mitsubishihadbeennegotiatingwith thePortDistrictto shipcement -making materials to the Port -operated Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal warehouse for storage and shipment to SouthernCaliforniaconstructionsites. Nearbyresidentsperceivedtheprojectwould haveintroduceda new significant sourceof pollution to surroundingneighborhoodsalready experiencingpollution from maritime and industrial activities and freeways in the area.

While thePortDistricthasapprovedaMaritimeCleanAir Strategy (MCAS) to replacedieselfuel burningtruckswith electricvehiclesby 2030, thetechnologysupportingzeroemissionelectricpower for vehicles the size of cementtrucks was not yet available, and the Port District announcedin a press SanDiegoUnified Port District, Ordinance2936, February25, 2019, https:// pantheonstorage. blob. core. windows. net/ administration/ Ordinance- No- 2936. pdf 7 2022/ 2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT ( FILED JUNE 7, 2023)

releasethatnegotiationswith Mitsubishi "werenotmovingforward," but expressed a willingness to re - consider the proposal, " shouldthedaycomewhentheywantto re -opennegotiations."'9 WhilethedecisiontodiscontinueMitsubishi'scementwarehousefacilitywasultimatelymadein the public interest, the discussion to proceed or terminate the project occurred not in a public forum, but behind closed doors and was announced in a press release.

Theprocessfor evaluationof suchprojectsby thePortDistrict is well establishedandlogical in its progressionfrom theproposal, preliminaryapproval, planning, development, environmentaland coastalcommissionreviewphases. Yet considerationof theprojectby alocal electedgovernmental entitymight havegivengreaterpriority to thehealthconcernsof communitymembersandresultedin a more equitable balance between economic and health concerns earlier in the project' s evaluation process.

Coronado Cottages at the Cays
Recentdecisionsby thePortDistrictsurroundingtheproposedCottagesattheCaysProjecton Coronado'sNorth GrandCaribeIsleexemplifythedisconnectionanddisenfranchisementof the voting public and electedgovernmentalbodiesresulting from the Port District' s independencefrom local governmental oversight. The Port District had considered a development application from a lesseeof propertyonCoronado'sNorthGrandCaribeIslandto build 41two-bedroomshortstayunits limited to six guests per unit. In a letter addressed to the Board of Port Commissioners dated December23, 2022, the Mayor of Coronadoexpressedstrongoppositionto theproject, stating, "this projectdoesnotreflectthewill of thecommunityor theCoronadoCity Council." Specific objections to the project cited in the letter included: 20
A unanimousvote by the CoronadoCity Councilin oppositionto theproposedproject.

Oppositionfrom communitygroupssuchasthe CoronadoCaysHomeowner'sAssociation and community memberswho provided petitions in opposition.

Reversal of the Port District policy refined in the 2021 Port Master Plan Update (PMPU) to expresslydisallow the developmentof more hotel rooms andto convert the land use designation to Recreational Open Space, which preserves the area for environmental preservation and complete public access."
Theprojectwouldcreate "preferentialaccessto thosethatcanaffordwhatwill mostlikely be costly room ratessimilar to otherhotel ratesin the area." The project contravenes the PMPU commitment for the " protection and management of naturalresourcesthatbestreflect environmentalstewardshipfor presentandfuture generations", on property expectedto be highly vulnerableto sealevel rise in the decades to come.

Theprojectwould "createahotelusewhich is not compatiblewith the surrounding residential area...," posingsignificanttraffic impactsandsafetyconcernson the communityof approximately1,200homeswhich canonly be accessedthrough a single entrance.
19SanDiegoUnified Port District, Port of SanDiegoIssuesStatementon Mitsubishi CementProposal, GeneralPress Release, February 1, 2023, https:// www. portofsandiego. org/ press-releases/ general- press- releases/ port- san-diego- issues- statement- mitsubishi- cement- proposal
20MayorRichardBailey, Letterof Oppositionto Cottagesat the CaysDevelopmentProjectProposal, December23, 2022, 2022/ 2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT ( FILED JUNE 7, 2023)

Dueto policiesgoverningthe rightsof lessees, ThePortDistrict wasobligatedto presentthis developmentproposalfor avoteto theBoardof PortCommissioners. In addition, the PortDistrict viewed theland usedesignation of RecreationalOpen Spacefor the parcel reflected in the 2021 Port MasterPlanUpdateasbeingunbindingandpreliminary, pendingapprovalbytheCaliforniaCoastal Commission: Had it been approved, this land use would have representeda land use inconsistent with the CoronadoCaysdevelopmentproposalwhich requireda CommercialOpenSpacedesignation currentlyin placefor theproperty. OnFebruary14, 2023, theBoardof PortCommissionersapproved theCottagesattheCaysProjectby avoteof 4-3in favorof initiatingaCaliforniaEnvironmental QualityAct (CEQA) review, followedby considerationof aPortMasterPlanAmendmentto addthe projectto thePortMasterPlan, prior to applicationby the developerfor a coastaldevelopmentpermit.

Who Watchesthe Watchers? California Coastal Commission and State Lands Commission InresponsetotheGrandJury'sconcernthatthePortDistrictislargelyautonomous, self-governing, self-fundedandindependentof oversightby local electedofficials, thePortDistrict viewsthe oversightof its decisionsandactivitiesprovidedby the California StateLandsCommission (SLC) and the California Coastal Commission as more than adequate.

The SLC oversight is to ensurePort District activities are consistentwith the public trust doctrine. In this role the Port District consults with the SLC on an asneededbasis, to seekclarification, advice and guidancein mattersaffectingthePortDistrict'sroleasguardianofthepublictrustfor SanDiegoBay.

If determinedtobeinconsistentwiththisdoctrine, theSLCcoulddirectthePortDistricttostop, discussandresolvethe issuescausingsuchconcern.

In addition to the StateLands Commission and California Coastal Commission approvals, the CEQA requiresthat "stateandlocalagenciesconsiderenvironmentalprotectioninregulatingpublicand privateactivitiesandshouldnotapproveprojectsfor whichthereexistfeasibleandenvironmentallysuperior mitigation in or alternatives." In the absenceof any documentedexemptionsprovided for in the act, CEQA requires the publication of detailed Environmental Impact Reports for projects approvedby the Port District for public review andcomment.21 Requirements of the California Coastal Commission and CEQA also affect Port District activities relating to the approval of the Port Master Plan, Master Plan Updates or Amendments. In addition, Port District approvedprojects often require a coastaldevelopmentpermit from the California Coastal Commission.

Whilemembersof portcity councilsor SanDiegoCountySupervisorshavenodirectoversightofPort District activities or ability to appealdecisionsof theBoardof Port Commissioners, thePortDistrict indicatedthe existenceof multiple venuesto maketheir views known, andcommissionersasa whole placea very high value on the desiresof membercities. In addition, the public hasaccessto most of the public meetings of the SLC, California Coastal Commission and also to regular meetings of the Board of Port Commissioners, aswell asaccessto thepublic websitesof theseorganizations. Also, decisionsof thethree-member California CoastalCommissioncanbe appealedwith the agreementof two of three commissioners to first hear the appeal and then vote to reverse their decision. ziCaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct, Chapter1: Policy (archive.org) 9 2022/2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT ( FILED JUNE 7, 2023)

Public Participation and the Port District of SanDiego
The GrandJury notedmeetingsof the Board of Commissionersarepostedon the Port District' s websiteandthat public participation is allowed. Meeting agendasareposted, andminutes aremade available. In addition, the Board of Port Commissioner meetings are recorded, and recordings are availablefor publicviewing. ThePortDistrict'spolicyregardingpublicparticipationis spelledoutin Boardof PortCommissionersPolicy060whichwasadoptedJune10, 2008.22 TheBoardof PortCommissionersalsoformedseveralsubcommittees, forums, orworkinggroupsto solicit public input in the Board's decision-makingprocess. "In setting policies for our dynamic waterfront, the Port District of San Diego seeks to make decisions that are in the public interest. To thatend, theBoardof PortCommissionershasformedvariouscommittees, forumsandworking groupsto discusscurrentissues. Thesemeetingsareanimportanttool for gatheringinformation, exploringideas, andobtainingfeedbackfor usein decisionmakingbytheBoard."23 Thesegroupsinclude the Accessibility Advisory Committee; Arts, Culture, andDesign Committee; Audit Oversight Committee; Bayfront Cultural and Design Committee Chula Vista; Chula Vista BayfrontFacilitiesFinancingAuthority; EnvironmentalAdvisoryCommittee; Maritime Forum; San DiegoHarborSafetyCommittee; Wildlife AdvisoryGroup; andWorldTradeCenterSanDiego.

ResearchinginformationavailableonthePortDistrict'swebsite, theGrandJurynotesthatagendas andmeetingminutesfor somebut not all the advisorycommitteesareavailable. The screenshotbelow documentingtheinformationconcerningthePort'sEnvironmentalAdvisory zzBPC-Policy-No-060-Public-Participation-in-Board-of-Port-Commissioners-Board-Meetings.pdf. https:// pantheonstorage. blob. core. windows. net/ administration/ zshttps:// www. portofsandlego. org/ people/ other- public- meetings 10 2022/ 2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT ( FILED JUNE 7, 2023)

Committee for all years available.24
AllMeetings
l'slVavr `, (a!tnarVitwt.

Years ri: EnvironmantaIAdvisoryCommttee__..__._.`aLlnatn6rratatta Sear dar Help
lOrHords Group ; Export
Nom: gData. r,; 3l btetlicgbmt tdtebgLabOn h4tal.ngWIS 4trh AHtlab4tn@a 4endaMet lilktes kt bkmirwtts V:dto eompAtib' tC s EnvbonmentalWoryCommittee 911412022 i 911AM VNfualMOrl - h¢e'gda_tadE i' 89en Aa¢sslbleAa¢ NotavAtle Notava:labie Notavalhlo ! lotavadabl¢ Notavailable REl75EDA6ENDA
EnvaaVnaakl
Emit"ntilARSoryCommillee 311612022 i! 9:0041 Vutualwellq Rim" d¢ta0s N to dgoressbMqg¢ a Notaulabl¢ Notava1able Rolv ,Iabl2 No! avaiabte lootavaifabl¢ Em4raan dvisanCaaaee:' 121112021 q 9-ik* r `}
YaGofMee4fgFIe2defs v r % ]
Navaa6f a JE ° r arapab tontdaif r Ngiara9aGla ' k: F.. .. x. nr.... ,_ .,.....,. .,.., e..,,,.._... .,. ........,. .., ^. . y... - ... ., ..,. ., ,. , v ErAmnentalAdmoryCommiltee 912212021 9:30AM 4irtualMeeting MeeHn9detads jA¢y_nda Notavalabla Notavai?ab!¢ Notava!able Notavalable Natavaiiab!e Rolavalhie C6 ice¢ 6n12021 r, ,_
9'30Aj YItUI¢t ` lx NDt3Y tBt3 ak" 193 3} c } rk2rzka NtSarara Not 42i ' 5 dr ,. alt . big. dx u,. nxr, 5., . C, :. x5 C,,. _. e t t Y r. t' rF EmmonmentalAko Camm9lee 311212021 9 9:30AM MvalMeting Med-4±9 Agent Notatsiiable Notavadable Nota4lable Notavailable Notavaifabl¢ Notavailable r R '! rR tlft
A c mNY ' ti r12(212020 9AM CN¢Eta k fe11; NCtnaMt tNxasaa 6zvrlbe r 4^xia e taa+at34}t y 6ctaa>3tp r, EM" ntilAmou. committet 911612020 930AM M¢etAgdta'ds Agee Notavailable tlotavAble Notvailable Notavailable Notavaifabl¢ Notavailable YralFleeGng
aomiteniAdiaryfdn+me¢ 3' 613'iU20 r 930411
A
a `` ApAp" ot4va4Efi i1Caa6k9 a' ' 1<4a la Nri cati>e
The GrandJury notesthat only four of the eight meetingshad "accessible" agendas, while noneof the meetingshadminutespostedonline. Accordingto the lastpostedagendafor theEnvironmental Advisory Committee, the agendaincludedadiscussionwith respectto theNational City Balanced Planportion of theproposedupdatedMasterPlan. However, in reviewingthepostedmembershipof theEnvironmentalAdvisoryCommitteetherearenostaffmemberslistedfromNationalCity (not any of the other Port Cities), This points to a lack of transparencywith regardsto the coordinationof the Port District with the member cities.

Master Plan Documents and Updates
Under Section 19 of the Port Act, the Port District was to " draft a master plan for harbor and port improvement and for the use of all of the tidelands and submerged lands which shall be conveyed to the district pursuant to the provisions of this act." This Port MasterPlanwas approvedby the Board of PortCommissionersin 1980andlatercertifiedbytheCaliforniaCoastalCommissiononJanuary21, 1981.25SubsequentlythePortDistrictapproved41amendmentstothe1980MasterPlan.

In 2019, SB507 §5.7 wasincorporatedinto thePortAct requiringPortDistrict to "submitto theState Lands Commission a trust lands use plan for. trust lands .. , describinganyproposeddevelopment, preservation, or other use of the trust lands," Section 5.7 goes on to state that the " State Lands zahttps:// portofsandiego. legistar. com/ Calendar. aspx zsCalifornia Harbors and Navigation Code, Appendix 1, SanDiego Port District Act §19, San Diego Unified Port District, Document 70987, March 3, 2020, page 15.
11 2022/ 2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT ( FILED JUNE 7, 2023)

Commission, in its solediscretion, mayconsiderwhetherthesubmissionof thePortMaster Plan ... meets the requirements of ... a trust lands use plan." 16 1'he fort District' sresponsehas beento publish the "SanDiego Unified Port District, DRAF 1' Port MasterPlanUpdate" datedNovember2021. As of thewriting of thisreporttheMasterPlanUpdate hasnot beensubmittedto the California CoastalCommissionor to the StateLandsCommission.27 ParticularconfusionexistsamongPortCitiesleadersandresidentsregardingtheprovisionsPort MasterPlanthatis periodicallyupdatedby thePortDistrict. Much of the confusionis associatedwith the sizeand complexity of the Master Plan documentitself— the most recent but -still - unapproved - update (2021) is well over400pagesin lengthwhenincludingappendices, whilethepubliccomments alonecompriseanother800pages. As anindicatorof thecomplexityof informationcontainedin the Plan commentsalone, the format for the commentsreceivedfor the 2021 MasterPlan Updadewas an electronicPDFflat file format comprisingcommentsfrom 10agencies, 19organizations, 10 businessesorPortTenantsandindividualsfromall 10planningdistricts. Questionedabouthowthe Port District respondedto comments, how the comments were used or actedupon, the Port Gaveno clear answers in response.

Theplanis categorizedinto 10geographicalPortplanningdistricts. Despitethefactthatthese planningdistrictscouldbeorganizedaroundeachofthePortCitieswithinwhichthesmallerplanning districts exist, this approachhas not beenused in the past. However, such an approach could foster greaterunderstandingof theseplansby residentsandleadersalike while greatlysimplifying the review andapprovalprocessfor eachPort city' s MasterPlan.

While the Port Act identifies requirements for development of Port Master Plans and Trust Use Plans, theGrandJuryconcludedthatthePortAct doesnot precludethePortCitiesortheCountyof San Diegofrom requiringratificationby PortCitiesor thecountyof suchplansprior to submissionto the appropriatestateagencyfor approval. Further, suchratificationby eachPortCity Councilorthe County Board of Supervisorswould allow elected officials to ensurethat theseplans are in the best interest of their constituents and aligned with plans and objectives of these government bodies.

Tothatend, theGrandJurywill recommendthatPortCitiesandCountySupervisorsof supervisorial districtsfronting SanDiegoBayberequiredto ratify all portmasterplans, masterplanupdates, master plan amendmentsor trust useplansfor PortDistrict activitiesoccurringwithin their boundaries; further, thatsuchratificationberequiredpriorto PortDistrictproceedingwith EnvironmentalImpact Reviewsrequiredby CEQA, submissionof suchplansfor approvalby theCaliforniaCoastal Commission, StateLandsCommissionorapprovalofcoastaldevelopmentpermits. Finally, once ratifiedby aPortCity or Countyagency, eachPortCity'smasterplanupdatewouldbecomethe currentPortMasterPlanfor projectplanningpurposes.

Options: Wheretogofrom here? PortCommissionerStatusReportstoCityCouncils Therecommendationsof the 1997-1998GrandJuryreportweredirectedto thecity councilsof the five citiesaffectedbythePortDistrictandtotheCountyBoardof Supervisors. Recommendation98 - California Harbors and Navigation Code, Appendix 1, San Diego Port District Act §19, SanDiego Unified Port District, Document 70987, March 3, 2020, page 10.

Z' https:// pantheonstorage.blob.core.windows. net/ waterfront- development/ Port-Master-Plan-Update-Draft-November- 2021. pdf
12 2022/2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT ( FILED JUNE 7, 2023)

50to thefive city councilswereto "createandimplementformalpoliciesrequiringtheirport commissionerrepresentativesto report regularly to their respectivecity councils in aformal manner." TheCity crCSariDiegorespoluledto tlirtialec:curutitlida(iollssayirg Uiatpolioiatiwttloalraadyill pla.c:e governingqualificationsfor portcommissionersaswell asformalreportingto thecitycouncil. The cities of Coronado and Imperial Beach reported that briefings from their Port Commissioners concerningPortDistrict activitieswerescheduledaspartof eachregularlyscheduledcity council meeting. TheCity of ChulaVistareportedthecity councilmeetswith theirportcommissioner quarterly, or as often as needed," while NationalCity reportedreceiving, periodicreportsfrom their Port Commissioner on an informal basis.

ThecurrentGrandJuryinvestigatedthecurrentpracticesof thePortCitiesin pursuingregularupdates in regularlyscheduledpublicforumssuchasCity Councilmeetings. Communicationwith Port Commissionerswas reportedto occur regularly on aninformal basis, but confirmation of such informalmeetingsprovedimpractical. As aresult, theGrandJuryreviewedreadilyavailablepublic meetingagendasandminutesof thePortCity councilsduring2022. Wediscoveredthefollowing:

SanDiego: TheGrandJurycouldnotfindanyminutesoragendaitemsrecognizingthatanyofits Port CommissionersmadepresentationsregardingPortDistrict activitiesin public meetings. This includedareview of City Council agendasfor 2022, noneof which includedagendaitemsof briefings orpresentationsby the city' sPortCommissioners.

ChulaVista: TheGrandJurycouldnotfindanyminutesoragendaitemsrecognizingthatits Port CommissionermadepresentationsregardingPortDistrict activitiesin public.

Coronado: Accordingtoreviewedminutesandagendaitems, asingleupdatefromthecity's commissioner occurred on April 19, 2022.

ImperialBeach: Accordingto reviewedminutesandagendaitems, onlyoneupdatetookplaceon January19, 2022.28
NationalCity: An agendaitemfor reportsfromtheircommissioneris createdfor eachCity Council meeting. The GrandJury wasunableto learnif that wasthe result of a publishedcouncil policy.

In view of theinformationprovidedthroughtestimonyandsurveysof publicrecordsregardingPort Commissionerreportsandbriefingsto their city councilsonthe activitiesof thePortDistrict, the GrandJuryconcludedthatsuchreportingin publiclyaccessiblevenuessuchascity councilmeetings doesnot take place on a frequent or regular basis. Combined with a preferencefor informal channels of communication with their appointed representatives, these tendencies call into question whether Port CommissionersandPortCity Councilsmaintainopenandtransparentrelationships.

Re-engagementof Port Citiesand Countyof SaltDiego
TheGrandJuryhasconcludedthatbecauseofthePortDistrict'sindependenceandautonomyfrom local governmentalreview or approval of its decisions, voters andelectedrepresentativesin the Port Cities andCounty of SanDiegohavebecomedisenfranchised. Electedrepresentativescannotprevent or appealPortDistrict decisionsthat adverselyaffecttheir constituents, andasaresult, voterscannot dependon their electedrepresentativesto actin their bestinterests. As a result of suchshortcomings, accountability of representatives to their constituents is limited when the normal expected prerogatives of electedoffice holdershavebeensupplantedinsteadby anunelectedentity suchasthePortDistrict. zs
Cityof ImperialBeach, CityCouncil, RegularMeetingMinutes, January19, 2022, 6:00p.m,, VirtualMeeting 13 2022/ 2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT ( FILED JUNE 7, 2023)

Balancing the rights and interestsof diverse coastalcities, communities andneighborhoodsthroughout lieSafiDiegoCuuu[y tegiuuisa5igttilicattlaltalleuge, eveulooanelectedgovetuiugbodyuol motivatedby economicincentives. Attemptingthistaskthroughalargelyindependentand autonomous organization such as the Port District that is dependent on revenue from development projectsandleasingactivity maybetoomuchto askof theorganization, especiallywithoutthe guidanceof deliberativeelectedcity councils, countysupervisorsor otherelectedgovernmentbodies.

The GrandJuryconcludesthat only with there-engagementof the electedgovernmentbodiesaffected by Port District activities and landswithin their jurisdictional boundariescanthe interestsof residents beequitablybalancedwith competingPortDistrict goalsandobjectives.

FACTS AND FINDINGS
Duties, Responsibilities and Powers
Fact: The public trust doctrine provides that tidal and submerged lands, beds of lakes, streamsand othernavigablewaterwaysareto beheld in trustby the Statefor thebenefit of the peopleof California.

Fact: ThePortDistrict Act delegatesthepowerandresponsibilityfor managementof thetidelands andsubmergedlandsof SanDiego Bay from the Stateof California to the SanDiego Unified Port District.

Fact: Many electedofficials of Port Cities believe Port Commissioners areto act in the best interest of the cities appointing them.

Fact: The Port Act limits the ability of electedofficials to representthe interestsof the voterswho elect them.

Fact: It is the duty of eachPort Commissionerto act asa guardianof thepublic trust for tidal and submergedlandsof SanDiego Bay in the interestsof all California residents.

Fact: Port Commissionerstakeafiduciary oathto actin thebestinterestsof the Port District, Finding 01: PortCommissionersareonly requiredto representtheperspectives, not the interestsof the Port City appointing them to the Board of Port Commissioners.

Finding 02: The Port District acts as an independent special district without direct oversight from local city or countygovernments.

Fact: The oversightprovided by the StateLandsCommissionandCalifornia CoastalCommissionof PortDistrict activities is viewed by the Port District asmorethan sufficient.

Fact: PortCommissionersmustlive in thePortCity appointingthem.

Fact: PortCommissionersmayberecalledbyamajorityvoteofthecity councilappointingthem.

Fact: PortCommissionerscanserveanunlimitednumberof four-yearterms, exceptin theCityof Coronado in which Commissioners can serve a maximum of two terms. 14 2022/ 2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT ( FILED JUNE 7, 2023)

Finding03: Becausetheinterestsof residentsof PortCitiesandtheCountyof SanDiego aresubject to theinterpretationsof theunelectedDoardof PoitCommissioners, theirinterestsmaynotbeheard, prioritized or represented accurately.

Finding 04: BriefingsbyPortCommissionersto PortCity Councilsin noticedpublicmeetings regarding issuesaffecting their jurisdictions, will increasethe level of public participation and knowledgeregardingPortDistrict activities, PortMasterPlans, MasterPlanUpdates, PortMasterPlan amendments or additions.

FindingOS: Currently, theBoardofPortCommissionersdoesnothavetermlimits. Consideringterm limitswouldfosterdemocraticprinciplesbyprovidingmoreopportunitiesfor diverseandtalented individualstoserve, preventtheaccumulationof influence, andupholdthepublictrustbykeepingthe Boardrepresentativeresponsiveto its community.

Initial Opposition to Port District Formation
Fact: TheCity Councilsof thecitiesof Coronado, ImperialBeachandChulaVistainitially opposed formation of the Port District in 1962.

Fact: Formation of the Port District in 1962 occurred despite concerns that an unelected board of Port Commissionerswouldhavethepowerto issuebonds, levytaxesanddeveloplocaltidelandresources without input or approval of individual Port Cities.

Fact: Opposition to the formation of the Port District in 1962 involved the unequal number of commissionersallocatedto eachof the Port Cities; the City of SanDiegowould getthree commissioners while each of the remaining four Port Cities would get one commissioner each, potentially allowing SanDiego to exert dominanceover the resources, priorities and decisionsof the Port District.

Finding06: Withthreeof sevenportcommissionersappointedtotheBoardofPortCommissionersby the City of SanDiego, thepotentialexistsfor the City of SanDiegoto exertdominanceoverthe priorities, resources and decisions of the Port District.

Port District Potential Source of Bias
Fact: PortDistrict operationsarefinancedprimarilythroughleasesandfeesgeneratedthroughitsreal estateoperations, parking, harborpoliceandotherfeesprovidedby customersof thePortDistrict.

Finding 07: The Port District is incentivized to maximize revenueto fund its operations, a goal that maycreateconflictsofinterestin thepriorities, allocationof resourcesandotherdecisionsmadebythe Port Commission.

Chula Vista Convention Center and Hotel
Fact: The $ 1.1 billion Chula Vista Hotel and Convention Center broke ground in 2022.

Finding 08: Successin the development of the Chula Vista Hotel andConvention Center hasbeen obtainedbecauseof a close collaboration andalignment of interestsbetweenthe Port District andthe City of Chula Vista.
15 2022/ 2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT ( FILED JUNE 7, 2023)

Dole Fruit Company Proposal
Fact: A 2012 approval of the Board of Port Commissioners for a lease of warehouse space on the Port District'sTenthAvenueTerminalto DoleFruitCompanyalsomovedastagingareafor short -haul trucking to the National City area.

Finding 09: ThePortCommissionersdecisionto moveshort -haultruck stagingfor local deliveriesof DoleFruitproductsrelocatedasourceof pollutionfromtheBarrioLogancommunityto communities in National City.

Mitsubishi Cement Corporation Proposal
Fact: MitsubishiCementCorporation'sproposalfor storageandshipmentby truckof cementproducts to constructionsitesin theregiongeneratedcontroversyandnegativepublicityamongresidentsof nearbyneighborhoodsaffectedby potential healthrisks.

Fact: Considerationof theMitsubishiCementCorporationprojectwasterminatedby mutual agreement of the Port District and Mitsubishi Cement Corporation.

Fact: In its public statement, the Port District expresseda willingness to re -open negotiations related to this proposal with Mitsubishi Cement Corporation in the future.

Fact: The Mitsubishi Cement Corporation project was terminated due to technical concerns around the availability of zero emission trucks capable of the loads required for cement deliveries.

Finding 10: ThecontroversysurroundingtheMitsubishiCementCorporationProject'spotential healtheffectsontheBarrioLoganneighborhoodandothernearbyresidentsdamagedthePort District' s community relations with thesecommunities and contributed to the decision to discontinue the project.

Finding 11: Oversightof theMitsubishi CementCorporationprojectby the City of SanDiegoor San DiegoCountygovernmentsmighthavegivengreaterpriorityto thehealthconcernsof community members and resulted in a more equitable balance between economic and health concerns earlier in the project' s evaluation process.

Coronado Cottages at the Cays Proposal
Fact: TheCottagesattheCaysdevelopmentproposalmetwith significantoppositionnot only from the Coronadomayor and city council, but alsofrom residentsandmembersof the CoronadoCays Homeowner'sAssociationrepresentingthecommunityof 1,200homes.

Fact: MaintainingfreeaccessbyCaliforniaresidentsto SanDiegoBayfor recreationaluseis often cited asan obligation of the public trust by the Port District.

Fact: Three of seven Port Commissioners voted to oppose the Cottages at the Cays development proposal, includingtheCity of Coronado'sPortCommissioner, theNationalCityPortCommissioner as well as one of three San Diego Port Commissioners.

Fact: TheCottagesattheCaysdevelopmentproposalwasconsistentwiththeproperty'sdesignation in thePortMasterPlanascommercialrecreationspaceasapprovedbytheCaliforniaCoastal Commission.
16 2022/ 2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT ( FILED JUNE 7, 2023)

Fact: TheCottagesattheCaysdevelopmentproposalwasnotconsistentwiththeproperty's designationasrecreationalopenspacein the more recentCalifornia CoastalCommission -unapproved Port Master Plan Update.

Fact: Without the approval of the California Coastal Commission, the Port District viewed the Coronado Cays Port Master Plan Update land use designation of recreational open space asnon- binding andpreliminary.

Fact: TheCoronadoMayor, CityCouncilmembersandresidentsof Coronadoaffectedbythe CottagesattheCaysdevelopmentproposalreliedonthepropertyusedesignationfor recreationalopen spaceadoptedmostrecentlyin the PortMasterPlanUpdatedocument, believingthis documentshould control useof property proposedfor the Cottagesat the Caysdevelopment.

Finding 12: The Port' s decision to approvethe Cottagesat the Cays developmentproposal could negativelyimpactaccessto SanDiegoBayandapprovingtheplanfavorsthosewillingorabletopay costly hotel ratestypical of the Coronado area.

Public Participation
Fact: PortCommissionerreportsandbriefingsto their city councilsonthe activitiesof thePort District, in publicly accessiblevenuessuchascity councilmeetingsdonot takeplaceonafrequentor regular basis.

Finding13: Givenapreferencefor informalchannelsof communicationby PortCity councilsand mayorswith theirappointedPortDistrictrepresentatives, neitherPortCommissionersnorPortCity Councilsmaintaincompletelyopenandtransparentrelationshipsallowingfor publicinvolvementor awareness of Port District activities.

Master Plan Documents and Updates
Fact: RatificationofPortMasterPlans, MasterPlanUpdatesorMasterPlanAmendmentsbyPort CitiesorCountyof SanDiegofor planningdistrictswiththeirjurisdictionisnotprohibitedbythePortAct.

Finding14: Initscurrentform, thePortMasterPlanandMasterPlanUpdatedocumentspublishedby the Port District areoverly complex, difficult to understandandtoo broad in scopeto foster meaningfulcomprehensionby PortCity residents, electedmunicipalor countyofficials.

Finding 1.5: Ratification of Port Master Plans, Master Plan Updatesor MasterPlan Amendments wouldallow residentsof PortCity PlanningdistrictsandSanDiegoCountyto acknowledgeand confirm their understanding of Port District development plans andprojects within their municipal and countyboundariesandprovide reliabledocumentsfor communitiesto plan for thefuture.

RECOMMENDATIONS
The2022/2023SanDiegoCounty Grand Jury recommendsthat the City Councilsof thecitiesof SanDiego, ChulaVista, Coronado, ImperialBeach, andNationalCity:
17 2022/ 2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT ( FILED JUNE 7, 2023)

23- 90: Enact ordinancesor policiesplacing a two -term limit on the number of termsthat aPort Commissionercanserve (asalreadyenactedfor theCityof Coronado). 23- 91: Institute ordinancesor formal policiesrequiring the appointed Commissionersfromeachcityberequiredto giveat aminimum, quarterly updatesto the City Councils at officially scheduledcity council meetings open to the public.
23- 92: Institute ordinances or formal policies that require ratification of the Port Master Plans, proposed Port Master Plan Updates or amendments to the Port MasterPlanfor Port District planningdistrictswithin eachcity'sboundaries. 23- 93: In consultation with the SanDiego 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 decisionby theSanDiegoCountyBoardof Supervisorsandtheelectedcity councils of the five Port Cities.

The 2022/2023SanDiegoCounty Grand Jury recommendsthat the County of SanDiegoBoard of Supervisors:
23- 94: Institute ordinances or formal policies that require ratification of the Port Master Plans, proposed Port Master Plan Updates or amendments to the Port Master Plan by eachof three county supervisors for Port District planning districts within eachof three county supervisorial district boundaries.
23- 95: Direct the CountyOfficeof IntergovernmentalRelationsto lobby CaliforniaStatelegislatorsto introducelegislationenablingtheCountyof San Diego to assume oversight of the activities of the San Diego Unified Port District or decisions of the Board of Port Commissioners and share in the Port District' s duty as guardian of the public trust in the tidal and submergedlands of SanDiegoBay.
23- 96: Depending on the outcome of Recommendation ( 23AX, above), consider exploring and implementing an alternate form of governancefor the Port District allowing for participation in, andoversightby the SanDiego County Board of Supervisorsand the electedcity councilsof the five port cities.

The 2022/2023SanDiegoCounty Grand Jury recommendsthat SanDiegoUnified Port District Board of Commissioners:
23- 97: Instituteformal policiesor proceduresallowingfor appealof anyaction takenby theBoard of Port Commissioners, includingdecisions, ordinances, or project approvals.
18 2022/2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT ( FILED NNE 7, 2023)

23- 98: Institute formal policiesto enablePort Citiesand Countyof SanDiegoto ratify the Port Master Plans, proposed Port Master Plan Updates or amendmentsto thePort Master Plan for Port District planning districts within each city' s and county boundaries.
23- 99: DirectlyinformeachofthefiveCityCouncilsat officiallyscheduledCity Council meetings open to the public how the proposed updated Port Master Plan affects areas within their jurisdictional boundaries. 23- 100: To increase the coordination of Port District activities with the Port Cities and their staffs, institute a policy of including staff from eachof the five Port CitiesandCountyof SanDiegoon eachof thePort District'sadvisory committees.
23- 101: Postmeetingminutesandagendasof eachofthePortDistrict'sadvisorycommittees. 23- 102: In consultation with the City Councils of SanDiego, Chula Vista, Coronado, Imperial BeachandNationalCity, considerplacingatwo -term limit on the number of terms that a Port Commissioner can serve ( as already enacted for the City of Coronado).
23- 103: Institute ordinancesor formal policiesrequiring the appointed Commissionersfrom eachcityberequiredto giveataminimum, quarterly updatesto the City Councils at officially scheduledcity council meetings open to the public.
23- 104: In consultation with the SanDiego County Board of Supervisors, explore an alternate form of governancefor the Port District allowing for participationin, andoversightofPort District activitiesanddecisionbythe SanDiegoCountyBoard of Supervisorsandthe electedcity councilsof the five Port Cities.

REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS
TheCaliforniaPenalCode §933(c) requiresanypublicagencywhichtheGrandJuryhasreviewed, andaboutwhichit hasissuedafinal report, to commentto thePresidingJudgeof theSuperiorCourt onthefindingsandrecommendationspertainingtomattersunderthecontroloftheagency. Such commentshallbemadenolaterthan90daysaftertheGrandJurypublishesitsreport (filedwiththeClerk of the Court); exceptthat in the caseof areportcontainingfindingsandrecommendations pertainingtoadepartmentoragencyheadedbyanelectedCountyofficial (e.g. DistrictAttorney,. Sheriff, etc.), suchcommentshallbemadewithin60daystothePresidingJudgewith aninformation copy sent to the Board of Supervisors.

Furthermore, California Penal Code § 933. 05( a), (b), ( c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment( s) are to be made:
19 2022/2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT ( FILED JUNE 7, 2023)

a) Asto eachgrandjury finding, therespondingpersonorentityshallindicateoneofthe following:
1) TherespondentagreesMill thefinding
2) Therespondentdisagreeswhollyorpartiallywiththefinding; in whichcase theresponseshallspecifytheportion of the finding that is disputedand shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor.
b) Astoeachgrandjury recommendation, therespondingpersonorentityshallreportoneof the following actions:
1) Therecommendationhasbeenimplemented, withasummaryregardingtheimplemented action. 2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. 3) The recommendationrequires further analysis, with an explanation andthe scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the mattertobepreparedfordiscussionbytheofficerorheadoftheagency ordepartmentbeinginvestigatedorreviewed, includingthegoverning bodyof thepublic agencywhenapplicable. Thistime frameshallnot exceedsixmonthsfrom thedateof publicationof thegrandjury report. 4) The recommendationwill not be implementedbecauseit is not warrantedor is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor.
c) If afindingorrecommendationofthegrandjury addressesbudgetaryorpersonnelmatters of acountyagencyordepartmentheadedby anelectedofficer, boththeagencyor departmentheadandtheBoardof Supervisorsshallrespondif requestedbythegrand jury, buttheresponseoftheBoardof Supervisorsshalladdressonlythosebudgetaryor personnelmattersoverwhichit hassomedecision-makingauthority. Theresponseof the electedagencyor departmentheadshall addressall aspectsof the findings or recommendationsaffectinghis orheragencyor department.

Commentsto thePresidingJudgeof the SuperiorCourtin compliancewith thePenalCode §933.05are required from the:

Responding Agency Recommendations Date
City of SanDiego, City Council 23- 90 through 23- 93 8/ 28/ 2023 City of Chula Vista, City Council 23- 90 through 23- 93 8/ 28/ 2023 City of Imperial Beach, City Council 23- 90 through 23- 93 8/ 28/ 2023 City of Coronado, City Council 23- 90 through 23- 93 8/ 28/ 2023 City of National City, City Council 23- 90 through 23- 93 8/ 28/ 2023 County of San Diego,
Board of Supervisors
San Diego Unified Port District,
Board of Port Commissioners
23- 94 through 23- 96 8/ 28/ 2023
23- 97 through 23- 104 8/ 28/ 2023
20 2022/2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT ( FILED JUNE 7, 2023)

Exhibit B

DRAFT LETTER AND RESPONSES FROM THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY

Honorable Michael T. Smyth
Presiding Judge
San Diego County Superior Court
1100 Union Street
San Diego, CA 92101

RE: City of National City Response to San Diego County Grand Jury Report: “Governance of San Diego Bay and its Tidal Lands and Regions”

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Grand Jury report. National City has struggled historically with the Unified Port of San Diego in regard to the equitable distribution of resources. National City , a historically disadvantaged community, has been disproportionately impacted by Navy and maritime operations. These uses have had significant environmental impacts on local residents and communities .

National City residents have had limited access to the San Diego Bay, not only to the natural environment and recreational facilities, but also to economic access and to a fair share of revenue generated by industries.

In contrast, in more affluent communities the maritime uses have been pushed out to make room for hotel, commercial and recreational activities and the public has significant access to the Bay. These activities have less environmental impact on their su rrounding communities and generate significant resources to those communities. Although the report acknowledges some examples of these concerns by referencing “Balanced Interests,” and the Dole Fruit short-haul trucking and the Mitsubishi Cement Factory examples, it focuses on governance issues which are not the primary issues.

We believe that the current Board of Port Commissioners and National City’s Port Commissioner have made a good effort towards starting to correct this long standing issue of inequity but there is still a lot of work to be done. The real challenge is how to continue to invest in National City while protecting the environment, reducing community impacts, ensuring access to the bay and recreation and social events that are meaningful to National City residents, and generating revenues to National City economy.

The National City Balanced Plan and the $1.1 billion hotel and convention center currently under construction in Chula Vista is an example of what we are talking about. We embrace the process of planning for Port investments and uses, activities, and operations that promote the access, health, and social wellbeing of community members and cleaner industries that yield sustainable economic benefit to National City by creating revenue for the City, and generating jobs and business opportunity for its residents.

Please see the responses from the City of National City to the finding and recommendations of the Report included with this letter as Attachment “A.”

Sincerely,

Ron Morrison
Mayor

Exhibit B
Attachment A:

Pursuant to California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, the following specific responses are submitted to you regarding the 2022-2023 Grand Jury Findings and Recommendations pertaining to Governance of San Diego Bay and Its Tidal Lands and Regions.

FINDINGS

Finding 01: Port Commissioners are only required to represent the perspectives, not the interests of the Port City appointing them to the Board of Port Commissioners.

Response: The City of National City agrees with this finding, However although not required to represent the interest of their Community, a successful Commissioner finds ways to both represent the perspective s and the interest of the City they represent and the Port as a whole.

Finding 02: The Port District acts as an independent special district without direct oversight from local city or county governments.

Response: National City agrees with this finding.

Finding 03: 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 heard, prioritized or represented accurately.

Response: National City agrees with this finding.

Finding 04: 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 Port District activities, Port Master Plans, Master Plan Updates, Port Master Plan amendments or additions.

Response: National City agrees with this finding.

Finding 05: 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.

Response: National City disagrees partially with the finding. There is no factual data that indicates term limits would prevent the accumulation of influence , and that term limits uphold the public trust by keeping the Board representative responsive to its community.

Exhibit B
Finding 06: With three of seven port commissioners appointed to the Board of Port Commissioners by the City of S an Diego, the potential exists for the City of San Diego to exert dominance over the priorities, resources and decisions of the Port District.

Response: National City agrees with this finding,

Finding 07: The Port District i s incentivized to maximize revenue to fund its operations, a goal that may create conflicts of interest in the priorities, allocation of resources and other decisions made by the Port Commission.

Response: National City agrees with this finding. However, active participation by the member Cities have resulted in a more “balanced” approach to the overall goals of the Port District.

Finding 08: 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.

Response: National City agrees with this finding.

Finding 09: 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

Response: National City agrees with this finding.

Finding 10: The controversy surrounding the Mitsubishi Cement Corporation Project's potential health effects on the Barrio Logan neighborhood and other nearby residents damaged the Port District's community relations with these communities and contributed to the decision to discontinue the project.

Response: National City agrees with this finding.

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.

Response: National City disagrees partially with the finding. We don’t believe the County of San Diego would have any jurisdiction over this item.

Finding 12: The Port’s decision to approve the Cottages 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.

Exhibit B
Response: National City agrees that what was approved could impact public access, and the Port should always work to ensure that access for all communities is maintained when considering uses that potentially reduce access to the Bay.

Finding 13: Given a preference for informal channels of communication 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.

Response: National City strongly disagrees with this finding. Decisions on Port activities are made at duly advertised public meetings of the Port Board of Commissioners and cities have the opportunity to provide feedback on their actions by submitting letters to the Board, attending the Board meeting or providing public comments to their Port Commissioner at public meetings of the City Council.

Likewise, all decisions related to the Port by National City are made at public ly noticed City Council meetings attended by the public.

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.

Response: National City agrees with this finding.

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.

Response: National City disagrees partially with this finding. We don’t agree that the County’s involvement will help in the Port Master Plan review process. This item should be studied in greater detail if it were to move forward.

RECOMMENDATIONS

23-90: Enact ordinance or policies placing a two -term limit on the number of terms that a Port Commissioner can serve.

Response: National City disagrees with the concept of term limits on its Port Commissioner.

The City has recognized the benefit of term limits and has adopted term limits for our elected officials. We believe that the City should determine if they want term limits for their Commissioner and what those limits should be . Unlike elected officials that are hard to remove from office, Port Commissioners can be removed by City Council action therefore the need for term limits is not as imperative.

Exhibit B
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.

Response: The recommendation is not warranted. We agree with the necessity of having Port Commissioners keeping the public and City Council informed of what is happening at the Port. We don’t think an ordinance or a formal policy is needed to ensure that this is happening. As a matter of practice our Port Commissioner attends the Council meetings on a more frequent (at least monthly) basis to update the Mayor, City Council and public. 23-92: Institute ordinances of formal policies that require ratification of the Port Master Plans, proposed Port Master Plan Updates or amendments to the Port Master Plan for Port District planning districts within each city’s boundaries.

Response: While National City agrees with the concept , this recommendation requires further analysis on how a ratification process would work and how would the planning process work if ratification was not forth coming.
23-93: In consultation with 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.

Response: National City disagrees with this concept. The Port and its five member Cities work well together. In our opinion, if the Port District brought in another agency with no direct interest in the Port matters , it would only complicate the governance process and reduce the Port’s overall effectiveness.

Exhibit C- RedlineB

DRAFT LETTER AND RESPONSES FROM THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY

Honorable Michael T. Smyth
Presiding Judge
San Diego County Superior Court
1100 Union Street
San Diego, CA 92101

RE: City of National City Response to San Diego County Grand Jury Report: “Governance of San Diego Bay and its Tidal Lands and Regions”

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Grand Jury report. National City has struggled historically with the Unified Port of San Diego in regard to the equitable distribution of resources. National City , a historically disadvantaged community, has been disproportionately impacted by Navy and maritime operations. These uses have had significant environmental impacts on local residents and communities .

National City residents have had limited access to the San Diego Bay, not only to the natural environment and recreational facilities, but also to economic access and to a fair share of revenue generated by industries.

In contrast, in more affluent communities the maritime uses have been pushed out to make room for hotel, commercial and recreational activities and the public has significant access to the Bay. These activities have less environmental impact on their su rrounding communities and generate significant resources to those communities. Although the report acknowledges some examples of these concerns by referencing “Balanced Interests,” and the Dole Fruit short-haul trucking and the Mitsubishi Cement Factory examples, it focuses on governance issues which are not the primary issues.

We believe that the current Board of Port Commissioners and National City’s Port Commissioner have made a good effort towards starting to correct this long standing issue of inequity but there is still a lot of work to be done. The real challenge is how to continue to invest in National City while protecting the environment, reducing community impacts, ensuring access to the bay and recreation and social events that are meaningful to National City residents, and generating revenues to National City economy.

The National City Balanced Plan and the $1.1 billion hotel and convention center currently under construction in Chula Vista is an example of what we are talking about. We embrace the process of planning for Port investments and uses, activities, and operations that promote the access, health, and social wellbeing of community members and cleaner industries that yield sustainable economic benefit to National City by creating revenue for the City, and generating jobs and business opportunity for its residents.

Please see the responses from the City of National City to the finding and recommendations of the Report included with this letter as Attachment “A.”

Sincerely,

Ron Morrison
Mayor

Exhibit C- RedlineB
Attachment A:

Pursuant to California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, the following specific responses are submitted to you regarding the 2022-2023 Grand Jury Findings and Recommendations pertaining to Governance of San Diego Bay and Its Tidal Lands and Regions.

FINDINGS

Finding 01: Port Commissioners are only required to represent the perspectives, not the interests of the Port City appointing them to the Board of Port Commissioners.

Response: The City of National City agrees with this finding, However , although not required to represent the interest of their Community, a successful Commissioner finds ways to both represent the perspective s and the interest of the City they represent and the Port as a whole.

Finding 02: The Port District acts as an independent special district without direct oversight from local city or county governments.

Response: National City agrees with this finding.

Finding 03: 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 heard, prioritized or represented accurately.

Response: National City agrees with this finding.

Finding 04: 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 Port District activities, Port Master Plans, Master Plan Updates, Port Master Plan amendments or additions.

Response: National City agrees with this finding.

Finding 05: 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.

Response: National City agrees with the finding.disagrees partially with the finding. There is no factual data that indicates term limits would prevent the accumulation of influence, and that term limits uphold the public trust by keeping the Board representative responsive to its community.Term limits do foster democratic principles, however, the power to impose term limits on Port Commissioners should rest on the local authority of the Port City Councils. For example, National City has a policy which stipulates that anyone wishing to be

Exhibit C- RedlineB
re-appointed to any Board , Commission, or Committee and has served two or more full terms already, must be approved by a 4/5th vote of the City Council (City Council Policy No. 107 (10)).

Finding 06: With three of seven port commissioners appointed to the Board of Port Commissioners by the City of S an Diego, the potential exists for the City of San Diego to exert dominance over the priorities, resources and decisions of the Port District.

Response: National City agrees with this finding,

Finding 07: The Port District is incentivized to maximize revenue to fund its operations, a goal that may create conflicts of interest in the priorities, allocation of resources and other decisions made by the Port Commission.

Response: National City agrees with this finding. However, active participation by the member Cities havehas resulted in a more “balanced” approach to the overall goals of the Port District.

Finding 08: 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.

Response: National City agrees with this finding.

Finding 09: 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

Response: National City agrees with this finding.

Finding 10: The controversy surrounding the Mitsubishi Cement Corporation Project's potential health effects on the Barrio Logan neighborhood and other nearby residents damaged the Port District's community relations with these communities and contributed to the decision to discontinue the project.

Response: National City agrees with this finding.

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 bet ween economic and health concerns earlier in the project's evaluation process.

Response: National City agrees with th is findingdisagrees part ially with the finding .

Although the County of San Diego should not have political jurisdiction over Port matters,

Exhibit C- RedlineB
it is in the interest of all for the City of San Diego and County of San Diego to use its departmental and specialized resources to provide assessments and further studies on the potential of environmental impacts to the Port Cities and the region including air and water quality, habitat preservation, and human health and wellness. Small er cities like National City do not have resources to make to complete these important assessments.We don’t believe the County of San Diego would have any jurisdiction over this item.

Finding 12: The Port’s decision to approve the Cottages 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.

Response: National City agrees that what was approved could impact public access, and the Port should always work to ensure that access for all communities is maintained when considering uses that potentially reduce access to the Bay.

Finding 13: Given a preference for informal channels of communication by Port City councils and mayors with their appointed Port District representatives, neither Port Commissioners nor Port City Councils m aintain completely open and transparent relationships allowing for public involvement or awareness of Port District activities.

Response: National City strongly disagrees with this finding. Decisions on Port activities are made at duly advertised public meetings of the Port Board of Commissioners and cities have the opportunity to provide feedback on their actions by submitting letters to the Board, attending the Board meeting or providing public comments to their Port Commissioner at public meetings of the City Council.

Likewise, all decisions related to the Port by National City are made at public ly noticed City Council meetings attended by the public.

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.

Response: National City agrees with this finding.

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.

Response: National City agrees disagrees partially with this finding. As stated under Finding 11, in-house resources available at San Diego County should be used to further study impacts of Port Master Plans, Updates, and Amendments.

We don’t agree that the County’s involvement will help in the Port Master Plan

Exhibit C- RedlineB
review process. This item should be studied in greater detail if it were to move forward.

RECOMMENDATIONS

23-90: Enact ordinance or policies placing a two -term limit on the number of terms that a Port Commissioner can serve.

Response: Term limits do foster democratic principles, however, the power to impose term limits on Port Commissioners should rest on the local authority of the Port City Councils.

For example, National City has a policy which stipulates that anyone wis hing to be re - appointed to any Board, Commission, or Committee and has served two or more full terms already, must be approved by a 4/5 th vote of the City Council (City Council Policy No. 107 (10)). National City disagrees with the concept of term limits on its Port Commissioner. The City has recognized the benefit of term limits and has adopted term limits for our elected officials. We believe that the City should determine if they want term limits for their Commissioner and what those limits should be . Unlike elected officials that are hard to remove from office, Port Commissioners can be removed by City Council action therefore the need for term limits is not as imperative.
23-91: Institute ordinances or formal policies requiring the appointed Commissioners from ea ch city be required to give at a minimum, quarterly updates to the City Councils at officially scheduled city council meetings open to the public.

Response: The recommendation is not warranted. We agree with the necessity of having Port Commissioners keeping the public and City Council informed of what is happening at the Port. We don’t think an ordinance or a formal policy is needed to ensure that this is happening. As a matter of practice our Port Commissioner attends the Council meetings on a more frequent (at least monthly) basis to update the Mayor, City Council and public. 23-92: Institute ordinances of formal policies that require ratification of the Port Master Plans, proposed Port Master Plan Updates or amendments to the Port Master Plan for Port District planning districts within each city’s boundaries.

Response: While National City agrees with the concept , Tthis recommendation requires further analysis on how a ratification process would work and how would the planning process work if ratification was not forth coming.
23-93: In consultation with 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.

Response: National City disagrees with this concept. The Port and its five- member Port Cities work well together. In our opinion, if the Port District brought in another agency to govern Port matters, with no direct interest in the Port matters, it would only complicate the governance process and reduce the Port’s overall effectiveness. However, a s previously

Exhibit C- RedlineB
stated in the National City’s response to Finding 11, the County can play a key role i n studying the impact of Port activities on the quality of life in Port Cities and the region.