San Diego County Grand Jury • 2022-2023

Governance of San Diego Bay and Its Tidal Lands and Regions

Published: August 28, 2023 20 pages Consolidated Report
View Original PDF

Findings 15 findings

F01
Port Commissioners are only required to represent the perspectives, not the interests of the Port City appointing them to the Board of Port Commissioners.
F02
The Port District acts as an independent special district without direct oversight from local city or county governments. 13 2022/2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT (FILED JUNE 7, 2023) Fact: The oversight provided by the State Lands Commission and California Coastal Commission of Port District activities is viewed by the Port District as more than sufficient. Fact: Port Commissioners must live in the Port City appointing them. Fact: Port Commissioners may be recalled by a majority vote of the city council appointing them. Fact: Port Commissioners can serve an unlimited number of four-year terms, except in the City of Coronado in which Commissioners can serve a maximum of two terms.
F03
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.
F04
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.
F05
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. Initial Opposition to Port District Formation Fact: The City Councils of the cities of Coronado, Imperial Beach and Chula Vista initially 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 Commissioners would have the power to issue bonds, levy taxes and develop local tideland resources without input or approval of individual Port Cities. Fact: Opposition to the formation of the Port District in 1962 involved the unequal number of commissioners allocated to each of the Port Cities; the City of San Diego would get three commissioners while each of the remaining four Port Cities would get one commissioner each, potentially allowing San Diego to exert dominance over the resources, priorities and decisions of the Port District.
F06
With three of seven port commissioners appointed to the Board of Port Commissioners by the City of San Diego, the potential exists for the City of San Diego to exert dominance over the priorities, resources and decisions of the Port District. Port District Potential Source of Bias Fact: Port District operations are financed primarily through leases and fees generated through its real estate operations, parking, harbor police and other fees provided by customers of the Port District. 14 2022/2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT (FILED JUNE 7, 2023)
F07
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. Chula Vista Convention Center and Hotel Fact: The $1.1 billion Chula Vista Hotel and Convention Center broke ground in 2022.
F08
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. Dole Fruit Company Proposal Fact: A 2012 approval of the Board of Port Commissioners for a lease of warehouse space on the Port District’s Tenth Avenue Terminal to Dole Fruit Company also moved a staging area for short-haul trucking to the National City area.
F09
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. Mitsubishi Cement Corporation Proposal Fact: Mitsubishi Cement Corporation’s proposal for storage and shipment by truck of cement products to construction sites in the region generated controversy and negative publicity among residents of nearby neighborhoods affected by potential health risks. Fact: Consideration of the Mitsubishi Cement Corporation project was terminated by mutual agreement of the Port District and Mitsubishi Cement Corporation. Fact: In its public statement, the Port District expressed a 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.
F10
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.
F11
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. Coronado Cottages at the Cays Proposal Fact: The Cottages at the Cays development proposal met with significant opposition not only from the Coronado mayor and city council, but also from residents and members of the Coronado Cays Homeowner’s Association representing the community of 1,200 homes. 15 2022/2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT (FILED JUNE 7, 2023) Fact: Maintaining free access by California residents to San Diego Bay for recreational use is often cited as an 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, including the City of Coronado’s Port Commissioner, the National City Port Commissioner as well as one of three San Diego Port Commissioners. Fact: The Cottages at the Cays development proposal was consistent with the property’s designation in the Port Master Plan as commercial recreation space as approved by the California Coastal Commission. Fact: The Cottages at the Cays development proposal was not consistent with the property’s designation as recreational open space in the more recent California Coastal Commission-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 as non- binding and preliminary. Fact: The Coronado Mayor, City Council members and residents of Coronado affected by the Cottages at the Cays development proposal relied on the property use designation for recreational open space adopted most recently in the Port Master Plan Update document, believing this document should control use of property proposed for the Cottages at the Cays development.
F12
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. Public Participation Fact: Port Commissioner reports and briefings to their city councils on the activities of the Port District, in publicly accessible venues such as city council meetings do not take place on a frequent or regular basis.
F13
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. Master Plan Documents and Updates Fact: Ratification of Port Master Plans, Master Plan Updates or Master Plan Amendments by Port Cities or County of San Diego for planning districts with their jurisdiction is not prohibited by the Port Act.
F14
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. 16 2022/2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT (FILED JUNE 7, 2023)
F15
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.

Recommendations 15

No Responses Found 2

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.

San Diego County County
San Diego Unified Port District Port Authority