(1)The San Diego Unified Port District Act authorizes the establishment of the San Diego Unified Port District for the acquisition, construction, maintenance, operation, development, and regulation of harbor works and improvements for the harbor of San Diego and for the promotion of commerce, navigation, fisheries, and recreation. The act establishes the board of commissioners of the port district and vests it with specified authority and responsibilities regarding the management of the district.

This bill would require the board to adopt a code of ethics for the board, commissioners, and unrepresented district employees and to accept and respond to certain ethics complaints, as specified. The bill would require the board to appoint a board of ethics to provide independent ethics advice to the board, as specified. The bill would require an ethics complaint to be substantiated with a formal written complaint in a form consistent with a form provided on the districts internet website and with a sworn affidavit under the penalty of perjury. By expanding the scope of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the board to submit certain ethics complaints to the board of ethics, as specified. The bill would require the board of ethics, upon the conclusion of an investigation into the conduct of a commissioner, to provide all findings from the investigation to the State Lands Commission and to the city that appointed the commissioner that was subject to the investigation.

This bill would prohibit a commissioner from lobbying, contracting with, or being employed by the board or the district until after the expiration of one year, beginning January 1 of the year following a commissioners end of term or resignation. from, for a period of one year after leaving office, taking certain actions for the purpose of influencing an action of the board or the district, as specified. The bill would require the district to establish a registry for lobbyists, as specified. The bill would authorize the district to collect a registration fee in an amount not to exceed the reasonable cost of implementing the registry, as specified.

(2)The act requires the City of San Diego to appoint 3 commissioners and other specified cities to appoint one commissioner each to the board of commissioners. The act specifies a commissioners term is for 4 years, as specified.

This bill would authorize a commissioner to continue to serve beyond an expired term for 6 months until a replacement is appointed. The bill would require the City of San Diego to make a good faith attempt to appoint one commissioner that resides in one of 5 specified neighborhoods within that city and at least one commissioner that is a current or former member of the maritime and cargo handling industry. to, at the beginning of its commissioner appointment process, to make specified outreach efforts.

(3)The act requires the board of commissioners to annually elect from its members a chairperson, a vice chairperson, and a secretary. The act requires the board of commissioners to make rules and regulations for its own government and procedure. Existing law, the Ralph M. Brown Act, requires each legislative body of a local agency to provide notice of the time and place for its regular meetings and also requires that all meetings of a legislative body be open and public, and that all persons be permitted to attend unless a closed session is authorized. The California Public Records Act requires state and local agencies to make their records available for public inspection, unless an exemption from disclosure applies. Existing law requires the board of commissioners to comply with those acts, except as specified.

This bill would prohibit a commissioner from serving as chairperson unless the commissioner has served on the board for at least one year. The bill would clarify that the board of commissioners, if it acts to censure or strip a commissioner of their duties based on alleged unethical or unlawful conduct, to disclose to the public all documents and evidence related to the alleged conduct in accordance with the requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act and the California Public Records Act. authorize the board to censure or remove a commissioner from a committee after appropriate notice and if specified criteria are met.

(4)The act prohibits a commissioner from receiving a salary from the district and requires a commissioner to be reimbursed for necessary traveling and other expenses incurred while engaged in the performance of the commissioners duties.

(6)This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the San Diego Unified Port District.

(1)The San Diego Unified Port District Act authorizes the establishment of the San Diego Unified Port District for the acquisition, construction, maintenance, operation, development, and regulation of harbor works and improvements for the harbor of San Diego and for the promotion of commerce, navigation, fisheries, and recreation. The act establishes the board of commissioners of the port district and vests it with specified authority and responsibilities regarding the management of the district.

This bill would require the board to adopt a code of ethics for the board, commissioners, and unrepresented district employees and to accept and respond to certain ethics complaints, as specified. The bill would require the board to appoint a board of ethics to provide independent ethics advice to the board, as specified. The bill would require the board to submit certain ethics complaints to the board of ethics, as specified. The bill would require the board of ethics, upon the conclusion of an investigation into the conduct of a commissioner, to provide all findings from the investigation to the city that appointed the commissioner that was subject to the investigation.

This bill would prohibit a commissioner from lobbying, contracting with, or being employed by the board or the district until after the expiration of one year, beginning January 1 of the year following a commissioners end of term or resignation. The bill would require the district to establish a registry for lobbyists, as specified. The bill would authorize the district to collect a registration fee in an amount not to exceed the reasonable cost of implementing the registry, as specified.

(2)The act requires the City of San Diego to appoint 3 commissioners and other specified cities to appoint one commissioner each to the board of commissioners. The act specifies a commissioners term is for 4 years, as specified.

This bill would authorize a commissioner to continue to serve beyond an expired term for 6 months until a replacement is appointed. The bill would require the City of San Diego to make a good faith attempt to appoint one commissioner that resides in one of 5 specified neighborhoods within that city and at least one commissioner that is a current or former member of the maritime and cargo handling industry.

(3)The act requires the board of commissioners to annually elect from its members a chairperson, a vice chairperson, and a secretary. The act requires the board of commissioners to make rules and regulations for its own government and procedure. Existing law, the Ralph M. Brown Act, requires each legislative body of a local agency to provide notice of the time and place for its regular meetings and also requires that all meetings of a legislative body be open and public, and that all persons be permitted to attend unless a closed session is authorized. The California Public Records Act requires state and local agencies to make their records available for public inspection, unless an exemption from disclosure applies. Existing law requires the board of commissioners to comply with those acts, except as specified.

This bill would prohibit a commissioner from serving as chairperson unless the commissioner has served on the board for at least one year. The bill would clarify that the board of commissioners, if it acts to censure or strip a commissioner of their duties based on alleged unethical or unlawful conduct, to disclose to the public all documents and evidence related to the alleged conduct in accordance with the requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act and the California Public Records Act. The bill would require the board, before acting to censure or strip a commissioner of their duties, to provide 72 hours notice of the proposed action to censure or strip a commissioner of their duties to the city council and mayor of the city that appointed the commissioner.

(4)The act prohibits a commissioner from receiving a salary from the district and requires a commissioner to be reimbursed for necessary traveling and other expenses incurred while engaged in the performance of the commissioners duties.

This bill would require the district to compensate a commissioner $100 for each day that the commissioner attends a meeting or performs duties related to the district, as specified.

(5)The act authorizes specific uses for property held in trust by the district, including, but not limited to, the construction, reconstruction, repair, and maintenance of buildings and infrastructure for commerce and navigation, for commercial and industrial activity, for air commerce and air navigation, for recreation, and for open space, ecological preservation, and habitat restoration.

The bill would require the board to establish a Maritime Industrial Impact Fund, in-lieu of an account already established by the board, to fund projects to mitigate off-tideland impacts from the districts maritime industrial and terminal activities, as specified. The bill would require at least 2% of the districts gross maritime industrial operating revenue to be deposited into the fund, as specified. The bill would require, at a publicly noticed board meeting, the board to adopt policies and procedures regarding the requirements, procedures, and operation of the fund, as specified.

By requiring the board to provide this funding, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the San Diego Unified Port District.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

(1)The San Diego Unified Port District Act authorizes the establishment of the San Diego Unified Port District for the acquisition, construction, maintenance, operation, development, and regulation of harbor works and improvements for the harbor of San Diego and for the promotion of commerce, navigation, fisheries, and recreation. The act establishes the board of commissioners of the port district and vests it with specified authority and responsibilities regarding the management of the district.

This bill would require the board to adopt a code of ethics for the board, commissioners, and unrepresented district employees and to accept and respond to certain ethics complaints, as specified. The bill would require the board to appoint a board of ethics to provide independent ethics advice to the board, as specified. The bill would require the board to submit certain ethics complaints to the board of ethics, as specified. The bill would require the board of ethics, upon the conclusion of an investigation into the conduct of a commissioner, to provide all findings from the investigation to the city that appointed the commissioner that was subject to the investigation.

This bill would prohibit a commissioner from lobbying, contracting with, or being employed by the board or the district until after the expiration of one year, beginning January 1 of the year following a commissioners end of term or resignation. The bill would require the board to publish a report regarding its lobbying activities, as specified. district to establish a registry for lobbyists, as specified. The bill would authorize the district to collect a registration fee in an amount not to exceed the reasonable cost of implementing the registry, as specified.

(2)The act requires the City of San Diego to appoint 3 commissioners and other specified cities to appoint one commissioner each to the board of commissioners. The act specifies a commissioners term is for 4 years, as specified.

This bill would limit the commissioners to 3 terms. The bill would authorize a commissioner to continue to serve beyond an expired term for 6 months until a replacement is appointed. The bill would require the City of San Diego to make a good faith attempt to appoint one commissioner that resides in one of 5 specified neighborhoods within that city. city and at least one commissioner that is a current or former member of the maritime and cargo handling industry.

(3)The act requires the board of commissioners to annually elect from its members a chairperson, a vice chairperson, and a secretary. The act requires the board of commissioners to make rules and regulations for its own government and procedure. Existing law, the Ralph M. Brown Act, requires each legislative body of a local agency to provide notice of the time and place for its regular meetings and also requires that all meetings of a legislative body be open and public, and that all persons be permitted to attend unless a closed session is authorized. The California Public Records Act requires state and local agencies to make their records available for public inspection, unless an exemption from disclosure applies. Existing law requires the board of commissioners to comply with those acts, except as specified.

This bill would prohibit a commissioner from being elected chairperson or vice chairperson a second time, except as specified. The bill would prohibit a commissioner from serving as chairperson unless the commissioner has served on the board for at least one year. The bill would clarify that the board of commissioners, if it acts to censure or strip a commissioner of their duties based on alleged unethical or unlawful conduct, to disclose to the public all documents and evidence related to the alleged conduct in accordance with the requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act and the California Public Records Act. The bill would require the board, before acting to censure or strip a commissioner of their duties, to provide 72 hours notice of the proposed action to censure or strip a commissioner of their duties to the city council and mayor of the city that appointed the commissioner.

(4)The act prohibits a commissioner from receiving a salary from the district and requires a commissioner to be reimbursed for necessary traveling and other expenses incurred while engaged in the performance of the commissioners duties.

This bill would require the district to compensate a commissioner $100 for each day that the commissioner attends a meeting or performs duties related to the district, as specified.

By requiring the board to provide this funding, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the San Diego Unified Port District.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

(1)The San Diego Unified Port District Act authorizes the establishment of the San Diego Unified Port District for the acquisition, construction, maintenance, operation, development, and regulation of harbor works and improvements for the harbor of San Diego and for the promotion of commerce, navigation, fisheries, and recreation. The act establishes the board of commissioners of the port district and vests it with specified authority and responsibilities regarding the management of the district.

This bill would require the board to adopt a code of ethics and to accept and respond to ethics complaints, as specified. The bill would require the board to appoint a board of ethics to provide independent ethics advice to the board, as specified. The bill would require the board to submit ethics complaints to the board of ethics, as specified. The bill would require the board of ethics, upon the conclusion of an investigation into the conduct of a commissioner, to provide all findings from the investigation to the city that appointed the commissioner that was subject to the investigation.

This bill would prohibit a commissioner from lobbying, contracting with, or being employed by the board or the district for 2 years after serving as a commissioner. until after the expiration of one year, beginning January 1 of the year following a commissioners end of term or resignation. The bill would require the board to publish a report regarding its lobbying activities, as specified.

(2)The act requires the City of San Diego to appoint 3 commissioners and other specified cities to appoint one commissioner each to the board of commissioners. The act specifies a commissioners term is for 4 years, as specified.

This bill would limit the commissioners to 3 terms. The bill would authorize a commissioner to continue to serve beyond an expired term for 6 months until a replacement is appointed. The bill would require the City of San Diego to make a good faith attempt to appoint one commissioner that resides in one of 5 specified neighborhoods within that city.

(3)The act requires the board of commissioners to annually elect from its members a chairperson, a vice chairperson, and a secretary. The act requires the board of commissioners to make rules and regulations for its own government and procedure. Existing law, the Ralph M. Brown Act, requires each legislative body of a local agency to provide notice of the time and place for its regular meetings and also requires that all meetings of a legislative body be open and public, and that all persons be permitted to attend unless a closed session is authorized. The California Public Records Act requires state and local agencies to make their records available for public inspection, unless an exemption from disclosure applies. Existing law requires the board of commissioners to comply with those acts, except as specified.

This bill would prohibit a commissioner from being elected chairperson or vice chairperson a second time, except as specified. The bill would prohibit a commissioner from serving as chairperson unless the commissioner has served on the board for at least one year. The bill would clarify that the board of commissioners, if it acts to censure or strip a commissioner of their duties based on alleged unethical or unlawful conduct, to disclose to the public all documents and evidence related to the alleged conduct in accordance with the requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act and the California Public Records Act. The bill would require the board, before acting to censure or strip a commissioner of their duties, to provide 72 hours notice of the proposed action to censure or strip a commissioner of their duties to the city council and mayor of the city that appointed the commissioner.

(4)The act prohibits a commissioner from receiving a salary from the district and requires a commissioner to be reimbursed for necessary traveling and other expenses incurred while engaged in the performance of the commissioners duties.

This bill would require the district to compensate a commissioner $100 for each day that the commissioner attends a meeting or performs duties related to the district, as specified.

(5)The act requires the board to draft a master plan for harbor and port improvement and for the use of all the tidelands and submerged lands under the districts jurisdiction.

This bill would require the board, in implementing the master plan, to include funding for cooperative infrastructure and capital projects that directly address maritime industrial impacts by the port in cities that host maritime terminals, as specified. In addition to that funding, this bill would require the board to dedicate 1% of the ports nontax revenue, as specified, for those cooperative infrastructure and capital projects. The bill would also require the board to dedicate 1% of the port districts eligible rental income, as specified, to converting industrial properties in disadvantaged communities, as defined, within the district to open space.

By requiring the board to provide this funding, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the San Diego Unified Port District.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

(1)The San Diego Unified Port District Act authorizes the establishment of the San Diego Unified Port District for the acquisition, construction, maintenance, operation, development, and regulation of harbor works and improvements for the harbor of San Diego and for the promotion of commerce, navigation, fisheries, and recreation. The act establishes the board of commissioners of the port district and vests it with specified authority and responsibilities regarding the management of the district.

This bill would require the board to adopt a code of ethics and to accept and respond to ethics complaints, as specified. The bill would require the board to appoint a board of ethics to provide independent ethics advice to the board, as specified. The bill would require the board to submit ethics complaints to the board of ethics, as specified. The bill would require the board of ethics, upon the conclusion of an investigation into the conduct of a commissioner, to provide all findings from the investigation to the city that appointed the commissioner that was subject to the investigation.

This bill would prohibit a commissioner from lobbying, contracting with, or being employed by the board or the district for 2 years after serving as a commissioner. The bill would require the board to publish a report regarding its lobbying activities, as specified.

(2)The act requires the City of San Diego to appoint 3 commissioners and other specified cities to appoint one commissioner each to the board of commissioners. The act specifies a commissioners term is for 4 years, as specified.

This bill would limit the commissioners to 3 terms. The bill would authorize a commissioner to continue to serve beyond an expired term for 6 months until a replacement is appointed. The bill would require that one commissioner appointed by the City of San Diego reside to make a good faith attempt to appoint one commissioner that resides in one of 4 5 specified neighborhoods within that city.

(3)The act requires the board of commissioners to annually elect from its members a chairperson, a vice chairperson, and a secretary. The act requires the board of commissioners to make rules and regulations for its own government and procedure. Existing law, the Ralph M. Brown Act, requires each legislative body of a local agency to provide notice of the time and place for its regular meetings and also requires that all meetings of a legislative body be open and public, and that all persons be permitted to attend unless a closed session is authorized. The California Public Records Act requires state and local agencies to make their records available for public inspection, unless an exemption from disclosure applies. Existing law requires the board of commissioners to comply with those acts, except as specified.

This bill would prohibit a commissioner from being elected chairperson or vice chairperson a second time, except as specified. The bill would prohibit a commissioner from serving as chairperson unless the commissioner has served on the board for at least one year. The bill would clarify that the board of commissioners, if it acts to censure or strip a commissioner of their duties based on alleged unethical or unlawful conduct, to disclose to the public all documents and evidence related to the alleged conduct in accordance with the requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act and the California Public Records Act. The bill would require the board, before acting to censure or strip a commissioner of their duties, to provide 72 hours notice of the proposed action to censure or strip a commissioner of their duties to the city council and mayor of the city that appointed the commissioner.

(4)The act prohibits a commissioner from receiving a salary from the district and requires a commissioner to be reimbursed for necessary traveling and other expenses incurred while engaged in the performance of the commissioners duties.

(5)The act requires the board to draft a master plan for harbor and port improvement and for the use of all the tidelands and submerged lands under the districts jurisdiction.

This bill would require the board, in implementing the master plan, to include funding for cooperative infrastructure and capital projects that directly address maritime industrial impacts by the port in cities that host maritime terminals, as specified. In addition to that funding, this bill would require the board to dedicate 1% of the ports nontax revenue, as specified, for those cooperative infrastructure and capital projects. The bill would also require the board to dedicate 1% of the port districts eligible rental income, as specified, to converting industrial properties in disadvantaged communities, as defined, within the district to open space.

By requiring the board to provide this funding, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the San Diego Unified Port District.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

(1)The San Diego Unified Port District Act authorizes the establishment of the San Diego Unified Port District for the acquisition, construction, maintenance, operation, development, and regulation of harbor works and improvements for the harbor of San Diego and for the promotion of commerce, navigation, fisheries, and recreation. The act establishes the board of commissioners of the port district and vests it with specified authority and responsibilities regarding the management of the district.

This bill would require the board to adopt a code of ethics and to accept and respond to ethics complaints, as specified. The bill would require the board to appoint a board of ethics to provide independent ethics advice to the board, as specified. The bill would require the board to submit ethics complaints to the board of ethics, as specified. The bill would require the board of ethics, upon the conclusion of an investigation into the conduct of a commissioner, to provide all findings from the investigation to the city that appointed the commissioner that was subject to the investigation.

This bill would prohibit a commissioner from lobbying, contracting with, or being employed by the board or the district for 2 years after serving as a commissioner. The bill would require the board to publish a report regarding its lobbying activities, as specified.

(2)The act requires the City of San Diego to appoint 3 commissioners and other specified cities to appoint one commissioner each to the board of commissioners. The act specifies a commissioners term is for 4 years, as specified.

This bill would limit the commissioners to 3 terms. The bill would authorize a commissioner to continue to serve beyond an expired term for 6 months until a replacement is appointed. The bill would require that one commissioner appointed by the City of San Diego reside in one of 4 specified neighborhoods within that city.

(3)The act requires the board of commissioners to annually elect from its members a chairperson, a vice chairperson, and a secretary. The act requires the board of commissioners to make rules and regulations for its own government and procedure. Existing law, the Ralph M. Brown Act, requires each legislative body of a local agency to provide notice of the time and place for its regular meetings and also requires that all meetings of a legislative body be open and public, and that all persons be permitted to attend unless a closed session is authorized. The California Public Records Act requires state and local agencies to make their records available for public inspection, unless an exemption from disclosure applies. Existing law requires the board of commissioners to comply with those acts, except as specified.

This bill would prohibit a commissioner from being elected chairperson or vice chairperson a second time, except as specified. The bill would clarify that the board of commissioners, if it acts to censure or strip a commissioner of their duties based on alleged unethical or unlawful conduct, to disclose to the public all documents and evidence related to the alleged conduct in accordance with the requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act and the California Public Records Act. The bill would require the board, before acting to censure or strip a commissioner of their duties, to provide 72 hours notice of the proposed action to censure or strip a commissioner of their duties to the city council and mayor of the city that appointed the commissioner.

(4)The act prohibits a commissioner from receiving a salary from the district and requires a commissioner to be reimbursed for necessary traveling and other expenses incurred while engaged in the performance of the commissioners duties.

This bill would authorize a commissioner appointed or reappointed on or after January 1, 2025, to receive per diem compensation, as specified. The bill would prohibit a commissioner appointed or reappointed on or after January 1, 2025, from receiving a vehicle allowance.

(5)The act requires the board to draft a master plan for harbor and port improvement and for the use of all the tidelands and submerged lands under the districts jurisdiction.

This bill would require the board, in implementing the master plan, to include funding for cooperative infrastructure and capital projects that directly address maritime industrial impacts by the port in cities that host maritime terminals, as specified. In addition to that funding, this bill would require the board to dedicate 1% of the ports nontax revenue, as specified, for those cooperative infrastructure and capital projects. The bill would also require the board to dedicate 1% of the port districts eligible rental income, as specified, to converting industrial properties in disadvantaged communities, as defined, within the district to open space.

By requiring the board to provide this funding, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the San Diego Unified Port District.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

(1)The San Diego Unified Port District Act authorizes the establishment of the San Diego Unified Port District for the acquisition, construction, maintenance, operation, development, and regulation of harbor works and improvements for the harbor of San Diego and for the promotion of commerce, navigation, fisheries, and recreation. The act establishes the board of commissioners of the port district and vests it with specified authority and responsibilities regarding the management of the district.

This bill would require the board to adopt a code of ethics and to accept and respond to ethics complaints, as specified. The bill would require the board to appoint a board of ethics to provide independent ethics advice to the board, as specified. The bill would require the board to submit ethics complaints to the board of ethics, as specified.

This bill would prohibit a commissioner from lobbying, contracting with, or being employed by the board or the district for 2 years after serving as a commissioner.

(2)The act requires the City of San Diego to appoint 3 commissioners and other specified cities to appoint one commissioner each to the board of commissioners. The act specifies a commissioners term is for 4 years, as specified.

This bill would limit the commissioners to 3 terms. The bill would authorize a commissioner to continue to serve beyond an expired term for 6 months until a replacement is appointed. The bill would require that one commissioner appointed by the City of San Diego reside in one of 4 specified neighborhoods within that city.

(3)The act requires the board of commissioners to annually elect from its members a chairperson, a vice chairperson, and a secretary. The act requires the board of commissioners to make rules and regulations for its own government and procedure. Existing law, the Ralph M. Brown Act, requires each legislative body of a local agency to provide notice of the time and place for its regular meetings and also requires that all meetings of a legislative body be open and public, and that all persons be permitted to attend unless a closed session is authorized. The California Public Records Act requires state and local agencies to make their records available for public inspection, unless an exemption from disclosure applies. Existing law requires the board of commissioners to comply with those acts, except as specified.

This bill would prohibit a commissioner from being elected chairperson or vice chairperson a second time, except as specified. The bill would clarify that the board of commissioners, if it acts to censure or strip a commissioner of their duties based on alleged unethical or unlawful conduct, to disclose to the public all documents and evidence related to the alleged conduct in accordance with the requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act and the California Public Records Act. The bill would require the board, before acting to censure or strip a commissioner of their duties, to provide 72 hours notice of the proposed action to censure or strip a commissioner of their duties to the city council and mayor of the city that appointed the commissioner.

(4)The act prohibits a commissioner from receiving a salary from the district and requires a commissioner to be reimbursed for necessary traveling and other expenses incurred while engaged in the performance of the commissioners duties.

This bill would authorize a commissioner appointed or reappointed on or after January 1, 2025, to receive per diem compensation, as specified. The bill would prohibit a commissioner appointed or reappointed on or after January 1, 2025, from receiving a vehicle allowance.

(5)The act requires the board to draft a master plan for harbor and port improvement and for the use of all the tidelands and submerged lands under the districts jurisdiction.

This bill would require the board, in implementing the master plan, to include funding for cooperative infrastructure and capital projects that directly address maritime industrial impacts by the port in cities that host maritime terminals, as specified. In addition to that funding, this bill would require the board to dedicate 1% of the ports nontax revenue, as specified, for those cooperative infrastructure and capital projects. The bill would also require the board to dedicate 1% of the port districts eligible rental income, as specified, to converting industrial properties in disadvantaged communities, as defined, within the district to open space.

By requiring the board to provide this funding, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the San Diego Unified Port District.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 2783

Author:(Alvarez)

As Amended Ver:August 15, 2024

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Makes numerous changes to the San Diego Unified Port District Act.

Senate Amendments

1. Remove the requirement that the City of San Diego make a good faith attempt to appoint at least one commissioner that resides in specified neighborhoods within the City of San Diego, and at least one commissioner that is a current or former member of the maritime and cargo handling industry.
2. Specify that at the beginning of the City of San Diego's process for appointing a commissioner, the City of San Diego shall make an effort to reach out to portside communities and to the maritime and cargo handling industries, including impacted labor groups, to solicit names of potential candidates that meet the qualifications in 3) below.
3. Provide that commissioners shall collectively possess a balance of qualifications that support the District's complex and diverse needs. When appointing a commissioner, a city is encouraged to appoint a person who has several years of professional experience in one or more of the following fields: cargo handling, environmental stewardship, innovation, international trade, international trade logistics, land use and planning, legal, maritime, marine services, marketing, operations, real estate, shipping, technology, and tourism.
4. Authorize a city to consider appointing a commissioner that does not have experience in a field listed in 3) above, if the city determines that the person is otherwise qualified.
5. Remove the requirement that a commissioner shall not lobby, contract with, or be employed by the board or the District until after the expiration of one year, beginning January 1 of the year following a commissioner's end of term or resignation.
6. Specify a commissioner shall not, for a period of one year after leaving office, act as agent or attorney for, or otherwise represent for compensation, any other person, by making any formal or informal appearance before, or by making any oral or written communication to, a commissioner, the board, a committee or subcommittee of the board, the District, or an employee or officer of the board or District, if the appearance or communication is made for the purpose of influencing administrative action or legislative action, or influencing any action or proceeding involving the issuance, amendment, awarding, or revocation of a permit, license, grant, or contract, or the sale or purchase of goods or property, unless otherwise specified.
7. Remove the requirements related to the censure of a commissioner and instead requires that, after appropriate notice, the board may, by order, censure or remove a commissioner from a committee if it finds either of the following:
   1. That a commissioner committed a violation of the adopted code of ethics, as specified, and that censure or removal, as applicable, is in the public interest.
   2. The commissioner committed conduct that caused, or will likely cause, material harm to the District.
8. Authorize the board to waive the requirement for appropriate notice specified in 7), above, if the alleged conduct is egregious or criminal in nature and has caused material harm to the District.
9. Specify that commissioners may receive reimbursement for necessary traveling and other expenses incurred while engaged in the performance of their duties, and any other benefits authorized for commissioners on or before January 1, 2024 in addition to specified compensation.
10. Make specified changes to the individuals subject to ethics complaints, and the procedures for submitting, investigating, and addressing ethics complaints.
11. Require the board of ethics to provide all findings from an investigation to the State Lands Commission (SLC).
12. Specify that the board of ethics shall compile an annual report that includes a reference to each formally submitted complaint and the actions taken in response to each formally submitted complaint. The annual report shall be made available to the public on the District's internet website.
13. Removes the provisions related to the establishment of a Maritime Industrial Impact Fund.
14. Authorize moneys in the San Diego Unified Port District Revenue Fund to also be used for electrification projects, human-operated zero-emission cargo handling equipment, and infrastructure to support human-operated zero-emission cargo handling equipment associated with the District's marine terminals.

COMMENTS

1. Public Trust. The foundational principle of the common law Public Trust Doctrine is that it is an affirmative duty of the state to protect the people's common heritage in navigable waters for their common use. The traditional uses allowed under the Public Trust Doctrine were described as water-related commerce, navigation, and fisheries. As a common law doctrine, the courts have significantly shaped the Public Trust Doctrine in a number of important ways. Courts have found that the public uses to which sovereign lands are subject are sufficiently flexible to encompass changing public needs. According to the SLC, more recently, the doctrine has been broadened by various landmark court decisions to include the right to swim, boat, and engage in other forms of water recreation, and even to preserve lands in their natural state in order to protect scenic and wildlife habitat values. The Public Trust Doctrine provides that tide and submerged lands and the beds of lakes, streams and other navigable waterways are to be held in trust by the State for the benefit of the people of California. The Public Trust Doctrine, as a common law doctrine, is not static but is continuously evolving to protect the public's use and needs in California's waterways.

For more than 100 years, the Legislature has granted public trust lands to local governments so the lands can be managed locally for the benefit of the people of California. There are more than 80 trustees in the state, including the ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, San Diego, San Francisco, Oakland, Richmond, Benicia, and Eureka. While these trust lands are managed locally, SLC has oversight authority to ensure those local trustees are complying with the Public Trust Doctrine and the applicable granting statutes.

1. San Diego Unified Port District. According to the District, the Port of San Diego was created by the California State Legislature to manage San Diego Bay and surrounding waterfront land on December 18, 1962 and the voters approved the District's creation. The Port of San Diego is the fourth largest of the 11 ports in California. The District includes five member cities, including San Diego, Chula Vista, Coronado, National City, and Imperial Beach. The District currently oversees two maritime cargo terminals, two cruise ship terminals, 22 public parks, the Harbor Police Department and the leases of hundreds of tenant and subtenant businesses around San Diego Bay. These include 17 hotels, 74 restaurants, three specialty retail centers and numerous other attractions including museums and bay tours.

Existing law establishes the District as the trustee of public lands within San Diego Bay. The Port District was created for the acquisition, construction, maintenance, operation, development and regulation of harbor works and improvements, including rail and water, for the development, operation, maintenance, control, regulation, and management of the harbor of San Diego upon the tidelands and lands lying under the inland navigable waters of San Diego Bay, and for the promotion of commerce, navigation, fisheries, and recreation. The District is governed by a seven-member Board of Port Commissioners; one commissioner each is appointed by the city councils of Chula Vista, Coronado, Imperial Beach and National City, and three commissioners are appointed by the San Diego City Council.
The terms of each commissioner of the District is 4 years, and a commissioner may be removed from the board by a majority vote of the city council which appointed the commissioner. The board must annually elect one of its members as chairperson and another as vice chairperson, and shall also elect annually a secretary, who may or may not be a member of the board. A majority of the board constitutes a quorum for the transaction of business, the board is required to make rules and regulations for its own government and procedure and must hold at least one regular meeting each month, and may hold any special meetings it deems necessary. The commissioners must be officers of the District and cannot receive salaries but can receive reimbursement for necessary traveling and other expenses incurred while engaged in the performance of their duties.

The Act requires the board to draft a master plan for harbor and port improvement and for the use of all of the tidelands and submerged lands which are conveyed to the District. A two-thirds vote of the board is required to adopt the plan and to amend the plan. According to the District, on February 28, 2024, the board unanimously certified the Final Program Environmental Impact Report and approved the Port Master Plan Update (PMPU). Next, District staff will process the PMPU document with the California Coastal Commission with the goal of certification in late 2024.

1. Grand Jury. The San Diego County Grand Jury has issued three reports concerning the District in the last 40 years, highlighting concerns over lack of accountability and representation. A 2023 report made 15 different recommendations to the city councils of the member cities of the District, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors, and the District board of commissioners. Among the recommendations were to:
   1. Institute formal policies or procedures for appeal of any action taken by the District.
   2. Consider placing a two-term limit on the number of terms a District commissioner can serve.
   3. Institute ordinances or formal policies requiring the appointed commissioners to give regular updates to their respective city councils.
   4. Explore an alternate form of governance for the District allowing for participation in, and oversight of, District activities, among others.

According to the Author

"The Port of San Diego was created by the State Legislature in 1962 to serve as a steward of San Diego Bay for the benefit of California. It is a unique Special District that includes multiple member-cities that appoint Port Commissioners to serve on their behalf and, despite being reviewed by no less than three grand jury reports in the past 35 years, has very little statutory oversight.

"AB 2783 provides needed transparency and oversight reforms to the Port of San Diego by addressing issues identified in the 2022-2023 Grand Jury report. Other Port Districts on the west coast have adopted similar governance and accountability measures, which recent incidents within the Port of San Diego suggest is needed. In the past year, the CEO and CFO have left for reasons that have not been publicly disclosed, one commissioner got an unprecedented censure, and the former Port Chairman abruptly resigned.

"AB 2783 introduces an essential layer of independent oversight regarding ethical conduct and conflict of interest issues, and enhances the Port's role as a collaborative stakeholder. These measures are designed to align decision-making processes more closely with the welfare of the State and its citizenry."

Arguments in Support

According to the City of Chula Vista on a previous version of the bill, "AB 2783 seeks to add provisions to the San Diego Unified Port District Act related to governance, ethics, and other measures to increase transparency while prioritizing community needs and environmental stewardship.

"For several decades, the City of Chula Vista has strategically planned and developed programs to address disparities within under resourced areas of the city such as western Chula Vista. Together with the Port District, the City collaboratively planned the Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan (CVBMP) and since 2014, we have been working to deliver the catalyst project for the CVBMP, an approximately 275,000 net usable square feet of meeting space (Convention Center), 1,600 parking spaces (Parking Improvements), and an up to 1,600 room resort hotel (Resort Hotel). Today, that project is under construction and expected to open in the summer of 2025.

"The City and Port District have been great partners, and we look forward to continuing to revitalize the Chula Vista Bayfront by supporting economic growth that uplift communities in the city and the entire region."

Arguments in Opposition

According to the San Diego Harbor Police Officers Association on a previous version of this bill, "As a critical element of the region's public safety network, the Port of San Diego Harbor Police dispatch and public safety services remain in operation 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The Port of San Diego Harbor Police responds to calls for service at the nearly 800 businesses surrounding the Port's waterfront including a convention center, 18 major hotels and resorts, 20 marina and related facilities, 4 shipyards, 105 restaurants, and 22 parks. As essential employees, we remained on the frontlines of the COVID-19 pandemic, continuing to provide excellent levels of public service.

"The HPOA must oppose this bill on behalf of all who work to keep the peace and uphold public safety along the waterfront and on the Bay. By diverting public resources and shifting funding away, Assembly Bill 2783 would undermine our agency's mission and the livelihoods of our employees, and we must respectfully oppose this measure."

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

Unknown state-mandated local costs for the San Diego Unified Port District (District) to establish a lobbyist registry and board of ethics, with associated duties and requirements, and make other governance changes. These costs are not likely to be reimbursable by the state as maritime ports have the authority to charge fees to users of the ports that can be used to offset any increased administrative costs. The bill also requires ethics complaints to be filed with a sworn affidavit under penalty of perjury, thereby creating a new crime. Any local costs related to the creation of a new crime are not state-reimbursable. (Local funds)

VOTES:

ASM LOCAL GOVERNMENT: 5-1-3

YES: Juan Carrillo, Haney, Pacheco, Ramos, Wilson

NO: Essayli

ABS, ABST OR NV: Waldron, Kalra, Ward

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 12-1-2

YES: Wicks, Sanchez, Arambula, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Mike Fong, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Pellerin, Villapudua

NO: Dixon

ABS, ABST OR NV: Jim Patterson, Ta

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 61-0-19

YES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Connolly, Davies, Mike Fong, Vince Fong, Gabriel, Garcia, Grayson, Haney, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, McCarty, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Rendon, Reyes, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Waldron, Wallis, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Robert Rivas

ABS, ABST OR NV: Calderon, Cervantes, Chen, Megan Dahle, Dixon, Essayli, Flora, Friedman, Gallagher, Gipson, Hart, Holden, Lackey, Mathis, McKinnor, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Luz Rivas, Ta

SENATE FLOOR: 38-0-2

YES: Allen, Archuleta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballero, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Laird, Limón, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk

ABS, ABST OR NV: Alvarado-Gil, Jones

UPDATED

VERSION: August 15, 2024

CONSULTANT: Jimmy MacDonald / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958 FN: 0004865

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 2783

Author:(Alvarez)

As Amended Ver:August 15, 2024

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Makes numerous changes to the San Diego Unified Port District Act.

Senate Amendments

1. Remove the requirement that the City of San Diego make a good faith attempt to appoint at least one commissioner that resides in specified neighborhoods within the City of San Diego, and at least one commissioner that is a current or former member of the maritime and cargo handling industry.
2. Specify that at the beginning of the City of San Diego's process for appointing a commissioner, the City of San Diego shall make an effort to reach out to portside communities and to the maritime and cargo handling industries, including impacted labor groups, to solicit names of potential candidates that meet the qualifications in 3) below.
3. Provide that commissioners shall collectively possess a balance of qualifications that support the District's complex and diverse needs. When appointing a commissioner, a city is encouraged to appoint a person who has several years of professional experience in one or more of the following fields: cargo handling, environmental stewardship, innovation, international trade, international trade logistics, land use and planning, legal, maritime, marine services, marketing, operations, real estate, shipping, technology, and tourism.
4. Authorize a city to consider appointing a commissioner that does not have experience in a field listed in 3) above, if the city determines that the person is otherwise qualified.
5. Remove the requirement that a commissioner shall not lobby, contract with, or be employed by the board or the District until after the expiration of one year, beginning January 1 of the year following a commissioner's end of term or resignation.
6. Specify a commissioner shall not, for a period of one year after leaving office, act as agent or attorney for, or otherwise represent for compensation, any other person, by making any formal or informal appearance before, or by making any oral or written communication to, a commissioner, the board, a committee or subcommittee of the board, the District, or an employee or officer of the board or District, if the appearance or communication is made for the purpose of influencing administrative action or legislative action, or influencing any action or proceeding involving the issuance, amendment, awarding, or revocation of a permit, license, grant, or contract, or the sale or purchase of goods or property, unless otherwise specified.
7. Remove the requirements related to the censure of a commissioner and instead requires that, after appropriate notice, the board may, by order, censure or remove a commissioner from a committee if it finds either of the following:
   1. That a commissioner committed a violation of the adopted code of ethics, as specified, and that censure or removal, as applicable, is in the public interest.
   2. The commissioner committed conduct that caused, or will likely cause, material harm to the District.
8. Authorize the board to waive the requirement for appropriate notice specified in 7), above, if the alleged conduct is egregious or criminal in nature and has caused material harm to the District.
9. Specify that commissioners may receive reimbursement for necessary traveling and other expenses incurred while engaged in the performance of their duties, and any other benefits authorized for commissioners on or before January 1, 2024 in addition to specified compensation.
10. Make specified changes to the individuals subject to ethics complaints, and the procedures for submitting, investigating, and addressing ethics complaints.
11. Require the board of ethics to provide all findings from an investigation to the State Lands Commission (SLC).
12. Specify that the board of ethics shall compile an annual report that includes a reference to each formally submitted complaint and the actions taken in response to each formally submitted complaint. The annual report shall be made available to the public on the District's internet website.
13. Removes the provisions related to the establishment of a Maritime Industrial Impact Fund.
14. Authorize moneys in the San Diego Unified Port District Revenue Fund to also be used for electrification projects, human-operated zero-emission cargo handling equipment, and infrastructure to support human-operated zero-emission cargo handling equipment associated with the District's marine terminals.

COMMENTS

1. Public Trust. The foundational principle of the common law Public Trust Doctrine is that it is an affirmative duty of the state to protect the people's common heritage in navigable waters for their common use. The traditional uses allowed under the Public Trust Doctrine were described as water-related commerce, navigation, and fisheries. As a common law doctrine, the courts have significantly shaped the Public Trust Doctrine in a number of important ways. Courts have found that the public uses to which sovereign lands are subject are sufficiently flexible to encompass changing public needs. According to the SLC, more recently, the doctrine has been broadened by various landmark court decisions to include the right to swim, boat, and engage in other forms of water recreation, and even to preserve lands in their natural state in order to protect scenic and wildlife habitat values. The Public Trust Doctrine provides that tide and submerged lands and the beds of lakes, streams and other navigable waterways are to be held in trust by the State for the benefit of the people of California. The Public Trust Doctrine, as a common law doctrine, is not static but is continuously evolving to protect the public's use and needs in California's waterways.

For more than 100 years, the Legislature has granted public trust lands to local governments so the lands can be managed locally for the benefit of the people of California. There are more than 80 trustees in the state, including the ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, San Diego, San Francisco, Oakland, Richmond, Benicia, and Eureka. While these trust lands are managed locally, SLC has oversight authority to ensure those local trustees are complying with the Public Trust Doctrine and the applicable granting statutes.

1. San Diego Unified Port District. According to the District, the Port of San Diego was created by the California State Legislature to manage San Diego Bay and surrounding waterfront land on December 18, 1962 and the voters approved the District's creation. The Port of San Diego is the fourth largest of the 11 ports in California. The District includes five member cities, including San Diego, Chula Vista, Coronado, National City, and Imperial Beach. The District currently oversees two maritime cargo terminals, two cruise ship terminals, 22 public parks, the Harbor Police Department and the leases of hundreds of tenant and subtenant businesses around San Diego Bay. These include 17 hotels, 74 restaurants, three specialty retail centers and numerous other attractions including museums and bay tours.

Existing law establishes the District as the trustee of public lands within San Diego Bay. The Port District was created for the acquisition, construction, maintenance, operation, development and regulation of harbor works and improvements, including rail and water, for the development, operation, maintenance, control, regulation, and management of the harbor of San Diego upon the tidelands and lands lying under the inland navigable waters of San Diego Bay, and for the promotion of commerce, navigation, fisheries, and recreation. The District is governed by a seven-member Board of Port Commissioners; one commissioner each is appointed by the city councils of Chula Vista, Coronado, Imperial Beach and National City, and three commissioners are appointed by the San Diego City Council.
The terms of each commissioner of the District is 4 years, and a commissioner may be removed from the board by a majority vote of the city council which appointed the commissioner. The board must annually elect one of its members as chairperson and another as vice chairperson, and shall also elect annually a secretary, who may or may not be a member of the board. A majority of the board constitutes a quorum for the transaction of business, the board is required to make rules and regulations for its own government and procedure and must hold at least one regular meeting each month, and may hold any special meetings it deems necessary. The commissioners must be officers of the District and cannot receive salaries but can receive reimbursement for necessary traveling and other expenses incurred while engaged in the performance of their duties.

The Act requires the board to draft a master plan for harbor and port improvement and for the use of all of the tidelands and submerged lands which are conveyed to the District. A two-thirds vote of the board is required to adopt the plan and to amend the plan. According to the District, on February 28, 2024, the board unanimously certified the Final Program Environmental Impact Report and approved the Port Master Plan Update (PMPU). Next, District staff will process the PMPU document with the California Coastal Commission with the goal of certification in late 2024.

1. Grand Jury. The San Diego County Grand Jury has issued three reports concerning the District in the last 40 years, highlighting concerns over lack of accountability and representation. A 2023 report made 15 different recommendations to the city councils of the member cities of the District, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors, and the District board of commissioners. Among the recommendations were to:
   1. Institute formal policies or procedures for appeal of any action taken by the District.
   2. Consider placing a two-term limit on the number of terms a District commissioner can serve.
   3. Institute ordinances or formal policies requiring the appointed commissioners to give regular updates to their respective city councils.
   4. Explore an alternate form of governance for the District allowing for participation in, and oversight of, District activities, among others.

According to the Author

"The Port of San Diego was created by the State Legislature in 1962 to serve as a steward of San Diego Bay for the benefit of California. It is a unique Special District that includes multiple member-cities that appoint Port Commissioners to serve on their behalf and, despite being reviewed by no less than three grand jury reports in the past 35 years, has very little statutory oversight.

"AB 2783 provides needed transparency and oversight reforms to the Port of San Diego by addressing issues identified in the 2022-2023 Grand Jury report. Other Port Districts on the west coast have adopted similar governance and accountability measures, which recent incidents within the Port of San Diego suggest is needed. In the past year, the CEO and CFO have left for reasons that have not been publicly disclosed, one commissioner got an unprecedented censure, and the former Port Chairman abruptly resigned.

"AB 2783 introduces an essential layer of independent oversight regarding ethical conduct and conflict of interest issues, and enhances the Port's role as a collaborative stakeholder. These measures are designed to align decision-making processes more closely with the welfare of the State and its citizenry."

Arguments in Support

According to the City of Chula Vista on a previous version of the bill, "AB 2783 seeks to add provisions to the San Diego Unified Port District Act related to governance, ethics, and other measures to increase transparency while prioritizing community needs and environmental stewardship.

"For several decades, the City of Chula Vista has strategically planned and developed programs to address disparities within under resourced areas of the city such as western Chula Vista. Together with the Port District, the City collaboratively planned the Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan (CVBMP) and since 2014, we have been working to deliver the catalyst project for the CVBMP, an approximately 275,000 net usable square feet of meeting space (Convention Center), 1,600 parking spaces (Parking Improvements), and an up to 1,600 room resort hotel (Resort Hotel). Today, that project is under construction and expected to open in the summer of 2025.

"The City and Port District have been great partners, and we look forward to continuing to revitalize the Chula Vista Bayfront by supporting economic growth that uplift communities in the city and the entire region."

Arguments in Opposition

According to the San Diego Harbor Police Officers Association on a previous version of this bill, "As a critical element of the region's public safety network, the Port of San Diego Harbor Police dispatch and public safety services remain in operation 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The Port of San Diego Harbor Police responds to calls for service at the nearly 800 businesses surrounding the Port's waterfront including a convention center, 18 major hotels and resorts, 20 marina and related facilities, 4 shipyards, 105 restaurants, and 22 parks. As essential employees, we remained on the frontlines of the COVID-19 pandemic, continuing to provide excellent levels of public service.

"The HPOA must oppose this bill on behalf of all who work to keep the peace and uphold public safety along the waterfront and on the Bay. By diverting public resources and shifting funding away, Assembly Bill 2783 would undermine our agency's mission and the livelihoods of our employees, and we must respectfully oppose this measure."

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

Unknown state-mandated local costs for the San Diego Unified Port District (District) to establish a lobbyist registry and board of ethics, with associated duties and requirements, and make other governance changes. These costs are not likely to be reimbursable by the state as maritime ports have the authority to charge fees to users of the ports that can be used to offset any increased administrative costs. The bill also requires ethics complaints to be filed with a sworn affidavit under penalty of perjury, thereby creating a new crime. Any local costs related to the creation of a new crime are not state-reimbursable. (Local funds)

VOTES:

ASM LOCAL GOVERNMENT: 5-1-3

YES: Juan Carrillo, Haney, Pacheco, Ramos, Wilson

NO: Essayli

ABS, ABST OR NV: Waldron, Kalra, Ward

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 12-1-2

YES: Wicks, Sanchez, Arambula, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Mike Fong, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Pellerin, Villapudua

NO: Dixon

ABS, ABST OR NV: Jim Patterson, Ta

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 61-0-19

YES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Connolly, Davies, Mike Fong, Vince Fong, Gabriel, Garcia, Grayson, Haney, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, McCarty, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Rendon, Reyes, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Waldron, Wallis, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Robert Rivas

ABS, ABST OR NV: Calderon, Cervantes, Chen, Megan Dahle, Dixon, Essayli, Flora, Friedman, Gallagher, Gipson, Hart, Holden, Lackey, Mathis, McKinnor, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Luz Rivas, Ta

SENATE FLOOR: 38-0-2

YES: Allen, Archuleta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballero, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Laird, Limón, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk

ABS, ABST OR NV: Alvarado-Gil, Jones

UPDATED

VERSION: August 15, 2024

CONSULTANT: Jimmy MacDonald / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958 FN: 0004865

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 2783

Author: Alvarez (D)

Amended: 8/15/24 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE: 5-1, 7/3/24

AYES: Durazo, Glazer, Skinner, Wahab, Wiener

NOES: Seyarto

NO VOTE RECORDED: Dahle

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 8/15/24

AYES: Caballero, Ashby, Becker, Bradford, Wahab

NOES: Jones, Seyarto

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 61-0, 5/22/24 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: San Diego Unified Port District

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill makes numerous changes to the San Diego Unified Port District Act.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Establishes, under the common law Public Trust Doctrine, that tide and submerged lands and the beds of lakes, streams and other navigable waterways are to be held in trust by the State for the benefit of the people of California.
2. Grants public trust lands to local governments so the lands can be managed locally for the benefit of the people of California, under State Lands Commission (SLC) oversight. There are more than 80 trustees in the state, including the ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, San Diego, San Francisco, Oakland, Richmond, Benicia, and Eureka.
3. Creates the San Diego Unified Port District (district) to manage San Diego Bay and the surrounding waterfront land.
4. Establishes the district as the trustee of public lands within San Diego Bay. The district was created for the acquisition, construction, maintenance, operation, development and regulation of harbor works and improvements, including rail and water, for the development, operation, maintenance, control, regulation, and management of the harbor of San Diego upon the tidelands and lands lying under the inland navigable waters of San Diego Bay, and for the promotion of commerce, navigation, fisheries, and recreation.
5. Establishes a seven member Board of Port Commissioners (commissioners) to govern the district, as follows:
   1. One commissioner each is appointed by the city councils of Chula Vista, Coronado, Imperial Beach and National City, and three commissioners are appointed by the San Diego City Council.
   2. The terms of each commissioner is four years, and a commissioner may be removed from the board by a majority vote of the city council which appointed the commissioner. The board must annually elect one of its members as chairperson and another as vice chairperson, and must also elect annually a secretary, who may or may not be a member of the board. A majority of the board constitutes a quorum for the transaction of business.
6. Requires the board to make rules and regulations for its own government and procedure and must hold at least one regular meeting each month, and may hold any special meetings it deems necessary.
7. Requires the commissioners to be officers of the district. Commissioners cannot receive salaries but can receive reimbursement for necessary traveling and other expenses incurred while engaged in the performance of their duties.
8. Requires certain moneys received or collected by the board or paid to the district to be credited to the San Diego Unified Port District Revenue Fund, as specified. The act authorizes moneys in the fund to be used for, among other things, the acquisition, construction, completion, and maintenance of harbor and port improvements, works, utilities, appliances, facilities, and vessels.

This bill:

1. Specifies that the City of San Diego must, at the beginning of its process for appointing a commissioner, make an effort to reach out to portside communities and to the maritime and cargo handling industries, including impacted labor groups, to solicit the names of potential candidates.
2. Requires the commissioners to collectively possess a balance of qualifications that support the district’s complex and diverse needs. When appointing a commissioner, a city is encouraged to appoint a person who has several years of professional experience in one or more of the following fields: cargo handling, environmental stewardship, innovation, international trade, international trade logistics, land use and planning, legal, maritime, marine services, marketing, operations, real estate, shipping, technology, and tourism. However, a city may consider appointing a commissioner that does not have such experience if the city determines that the person is otherwise qualified.
3. Provides that a commissioner may continue to serve beyond an expired term for up to six months until a replacement has been appointed.
4. Prohibits a commissioner, for a period of one year after leaving office, represent any other person before a commissioner, the board, a committee or subcommittee of the board, the district, or an employee or officer of the board or district for specified purposes, including influencing port decisions, with specified exceptions.
5. Provides that a commissioner shall not serve as chairperson unless the commissioner has served on the board for at least one year.
6. Specifies that a commissioner receives compensation of $100 for each day the commissioner attends a meeting or performs duties related to the district, as specified. A commissioner cannot receive more than $600 of compensation in a month.
7. Allows the board, by order and after appropriate notice, to censure or remove a commissioner from a committee if it finds either of the following:
   1. That the commissioner committed a violation of the district’s code of ethics and that censure or removal, as applicable, is in the public interest.
   2. The commissioner committed conduct that caused, or will likely cause, material harm to the district.
8. Allows the board to waive the requirement for appropriate notice if the alleged conduct is egregious or criminal in nature and has caused material harm to the district.
9. Requires each lobbyist, as defined, to register with the district and may collect a registration fee in an amount not to exceed the reasonable cost of implementing this part of the bill.
10. Requires the district to establish a registry for lobbyists that meets all of the following criteria:
    1. Identifies each lobbyist, including their name, address, and telephone number.
    2. Describes the name, nature, and purpose of the organization employing the lobbyist and identifies each lobbyist authorized to lobby on behalf of the organization.
    3. Identifies each district decision the lobbyist seeks to influence, and the lobbyist’s desired outcome for each of those decisions.
11. Requires the district to make the registry publicly available on its internet website and update the registry no less frequently than every three months.
12. Establishes procedures for ethics complaints, as follows:
    1. Requires the board to adopt a code of ethics for the board, commissioners, and officers appointed by the board and says the board must accept and respond to ethics complaints.
    2. Requires the board of the port to establish a board of ethics, which must provide independent ethics advice to the board of the port and consist of three members. The board must appoint the members of the board of ethics during a properly noticed public meeting, and cannot appoint a commissioner or a district employee to the board of ethics. The board of ethics must have diverse perspectives and areas of expertise, have experience appropriate for review of ethical matters, and be of good general reputation and character.
    3. Requires the board of ethics to meet at least once per year for an organizational meeting. It must then meet as needed to address advisory questions pertaining to the application of the board’s code of ethics and to address any ethics complaint substantiated with a formal written complaint in a form consistent with a form provided on the district’s website and with a sworn affidavit under penalty of perjury.
    4. Requires the board to submit any ethics complaint to the board of ethics during an open meeting, and can submit any other ethical matter to the board of ethics. The board of ethics must then provide advice on an ethics complaint to the board during a closed meeting. The board and the board of ethics shall treat a matter submitted to the board of ethics as confidential until the board responds to the complaint. The board and board of ethics shall ensure that any investigation, discussion, deliberation, recommendation, and public disclosure is consistent with applicable personnel rules and federal and state law, and board of the port must only comply with these requirements to the extent permissible under the Ralph M. Brown Act and the California Public Records Act.
    5. Requires the board to respond to an ethics complaint in a public meeting after receiving advice from the board of ethics, and make public the advice provided to the board within 24 hours of the conclusion of the public meeting during which it responds to the ethics complaint.
    6. Specifies that upon the conclusion of an investigation into the conduct of a commissioner, the board of ethics must provide all findings from the investigation to the State Lands Commission and, if applicable, the city that appointed the commissioner that was subject to the investigation.
13. Authorize moneys in the San Diego Unified Port District Revenue Fund to also be used for electrification projects, human-operated zero-emission cargo handling equipment, and infrastructure to support human-operated zero-emission cargo handling equipment associated with the district’s marine terminals.
14. Defines its terms and makes technical and conforming changes.
15. Includes findings and declarations to support its purposes.

Background

The district was created by the Legislature to manage San Diego Bay and surrounding waterfront land on December 18, 1962. The Port of San Diego is the fourth largest of the 11 ports in California. The District includes five member cities – San Diego, Chula Vista, Coronado, National City, and Imperial Beach. The District currently oversees two maritime cargo terminals, two cruise ship terminals, 22 public parks, the Harbor Police Department and the leases of hundreds of tenant and subtenant businesses around San Diego Bay.

The San Diego County Grand Jury has issued three reports concerning the District in the last 40 years, highlighting concerns over lack of accountability and representation. A 2023 report made 15 different recommendations to the city councils of the member cities of the district, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors, and the district board of commissioners. Among the recommendations were to:

• Institute formal policies or procedures for appeal of any action taken by the district;
• Consider placing a two-term limit on the number of terms a district commissioner can serve;
• Institute ordinances or formal policies requiring the appointed commissioners to give regular updates to their respective city councils; and
• Explore an alternate form of governance for the district allowing for participation in, and oversight of, district activities, among others.

The author wants to increase oversight over the district.

Comments

1. According to the author, “The Port of San Diego was created by the State Legislature in 1962 to serve as a steward of San Diego Bay for the benefit of California. It is a unique Special District that includes multiple member-cities that appoint Port Commissioners to serve on their behalf and, despite being reviewed by no less than three grand jury reports in the past 35 years, has very little statutory oversight.

“AB 2783 provides needed transparency and oversight reforms to the Port of San Diego by addressing issues identified in the 2022-2023 Grand Jury report. Other Port Districts on the west coast have adopted similar governance and accountability measures, which recent incidents within the Port of San Diego suggest is needed. In the past year, the CEO and CFO have left for reasons that have not been publicly disclosed, one commissioner got an unprecedented censure, and the former Port Chairman abruptly resigned.

“AB 2783 introduces an essential layer of independent oversight regarding ethical conduct and conflict of interest issues, and enhances the Port's role as a collaborative stakeholder. These measures are designed to align decision-making processes more closely with the welfare of the State and its citizenry.”

1. Leave it to the locals. There are over 4,000 local governments across California. For the most part, their principal acts setting out their powers and duties are broad and grant them flexibility in how they operate. When concerns arise with local agencies, the Legislature sometimes steps in and restricts their flexibility by imposing additional requirements. This bill intends to address concerns with how the Port of San Diego has handled ethics inquiries and other issues of representation. In doing so, it imposes highly specific requirements, such as a requirement that the ethics board be composed of three members and requirements for when details of inquiries must be made public or kept confidential. By codifying many of these requirements with this degree of specificity, this bill sets the district or others up to have to return to the Legislature in future years to make any changes. Does this bill adequately balance the need for oversight with reasonable flexibility and local control?

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

Unknown state-mandated local costs for the San Diego Unified Port District (District) to establish a lobbyist registry and board of ethics, with associated duties and requirements, and make other governance changes. These costs are not likely to be reimbursable by the state as maritime ports have the authority to charge fees to users of the ports that can be used to offset any increased administrative costs. The bill also requires ethics complaints to be filed with a sworn affidavit under penalty of perjury, thereby creating a new crime. Any local costs related to the creation of a new crime are not state-reimbursable. (Local funds)

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/19/24)

Alonso Gonzalez - Deputy Mayor, City of Chula Vista
City of Chula Vista
City of La Mesa
International Longshore & Warehouse Union Local 94
International Longshore and Warehouse Union, Local 29
League of Women Voters of California

Luz Molina - Councilmember, National City

Nora Vargas - Supervisor, San Diego County

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/19/24)

None received

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 61-0, 5/22/24

AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Connolly, Davies, Mike Fong, Vince Fong, Gabriel, Garcia, Grayson, Haney, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, McCarty, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Rendon, Reyes, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Waldron, Wallis, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Robert Rivas

NO VOTE RECORDED: Calderon, Cervantes, Chen, Megan Dahle, Dixon, Essayli, Flora, Friedman, Gallagher, Gipson, Hart, Holden, Lackey, Mathis, McKinnor, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Luz Rivas, Ta

Prepared by: Anton Favorini-Csorba / L. GOV. / (916) 651-4119

8/19/24 12:35:59

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Anna Caballero, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular Session

AB 2783 (Alvarez) - San Diego Unified Port District

Bill Summary:

AB 2783 would make specified changes to the San Diego Unified Port District Act, including requirements to establish a lobbyist registry, a board of ethics, and a Maritime Industrial Impact Fund (MIIF), as specified.

*********** ANALYSIS ADDENDUM – SUSPENSE FILE ***********

The following information is revised to reflect amendments

adopted by the committee on August 15, 2024

Fiscal Impact:

• Unknown state-mandated local costs for the San Diego Unified Port District (District) to establish a lobbyist registry and board of ethics, with associated duties and requirements, and make other governance changes. These costs are not likely to be reimbursable by the state as maritime ports have the authority to charge fees to users of the ports that can be used to offset any increased administrative costs. The bill also requires ethics complaints to be filed with a sworn affidavit under penalty of perjury, thereby creating a new crime. Any local costs related to the creation of a new crime are not state-reimbursable. (Local funds)

Author Amendments:

• Delete provisions requiring the District’s board to establish a Maritime Industrial Impact Fund and the deposit of at least 2% of the District’s maritime industrial operating revenue into the fund for specified purposes.
• Authorize moneys in the San Diego Unified Port District Revenue Fund to be used for electrification projects, human-operated zero-emission cargo handling equipment, and infrastructure to support that equipment associated with the District’s marine terminals.
• Revise requirements related to the City of San Diego’s appointment of commissioners to the District’s board, and specify the qualifications of appointees.
• Revise and clarify the requirements and prohibitions related to the one-year revolving door provisions for former commissioners.
• Revise the provisions regarding the censure or removal of a commissioner by authorizing the board to censure or remove a commissioner by order, after appropriate notice, as specified, if it finds either of the following:
  • That the commissioner committed a violation of the code of ethics and that censure or removal is in the public interest.
  • The commissioner committed conduct that cause, or will likely cause, material harm to the District.
• Require the board to accept and respond to an ethics complaint regarding an officer appointed by the board, and delete the requirement to respond to ethics complaints regarding an unrepresented District employee.
• Require ethics complaints to be substantiated with a formal written complaint form with a sworn affidavit under penalty of perjury.
• Require the board and board of ethics to ensure that any investigation, discussion, deliberation, recommendation, and public disclosure is consistent with applicable personnel rules and federal and state laws, and require the board of ethics to provide all findings from an investigation into the conduct of an officer appointed by the board to the State Lands Commission.
• Require the board of ethics to compile an annual report of each formally submitted complaint and actions taken in response to complaints and make the report available on the District’s website.
  

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Anna Caballero, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular Session

AB 2783 (Alvarez) - San Diego Unified Port District

Bill Summary:

AB 2783 would make specified changes to the San Diego Unified Port District Act, including requirements to establish a lobbyist registry, a board of ethics, and a Maritime Industrial Impact Fund (MIIF), as specified.

Fiscal Impact:

• Unknown state-mandated local costs for the San Diego Unified Port District (District) to establish a Maritime Industrial Impact Fund (MIIF), adopt policies and procedures regarding the administration and operation of the MIIF and associated activities, and dedicate at least 2% of District maritime industrial operating revenue to fund projects that mitigate off-tideland impacts. District costs associated with the establishment and administration of the MIIF and associated activities may be state-reimbursable, subject to a determination by the Commission on State Mandates. (General Fund)
  
• Unknown, likely moderate one-time and ongoing State Lands Commission (SLC) costs to review policies and procedures regarding the operation of the MIIF, and to review and approve specified documents for MIIF-related projects that would mitigate off-tideland impacts to ensure consistency with the public trust doctrine. SLC costs would depend upon the frequency, scope, and complexity of projects proposing to spend MIIF revenues for off-tideland mitigation. These SLC costs would recovered through a reimbursement agreement with the District.

Background:

The San Diego Unified Port District (District) was created to manage San Diego Bay and the surrounding waterfront land. The Port of San Diego is the fourth largest of the State’s 11 ports, and includes five member cities, including San Diego, Chula Vista, Coronado, National City, and Imperial Beach. The District currently oversees two maritime cargo terminals and two cruise ship terminals, in addition to 22 public parks, the Harbor Police Department, and the leases of hundreds of tenant and subtenant businesses around San Diego Bay.

Existing law establishes the District as the trustee of public lands within San Diego Bay. The District was created for the acquisition, construction, maintenance, operation, development, and regulation of harbor works and improvements, including rail and water, as well as for the development, operation, maintenance, and management of the harbor of San Diego upon the tidelands and lands lying under the inland navigable waters of San Diego Bay. The District also oversees the promotion of commerce, navigation, fisheries, and recreation.

The District is governed by a seven-member Board of Port Commissioners (Board); one commissioner is appointed by each of the city councils of Chula Vista, Coronado, Imperial Beach and National City, and three commissioners are appointed by the San Diego City Council. The terms of each commissioner of the District is four years.

The San Diego Unified Port District Act requires the Board to draft a master plan for harbor and port improvement and for the use of all of the tidelands and submerged lands which are conveyed to the district. A two-thirds vote of the Board is required to adopt the plan and to amend it. According to the District, on February 28, 2024, the board unanimously certified the Final Program Environmental Impact Report and approved the Port Master Plan Update (PMPU). District staff will process the PMPU document with the California Coastal Commission with the goal of certification in late 2024.

In 2010, the District created the Maritime Industrial Impact Fund (MIIF) with the aim of offsetting adverse impacts to neighboring communities from maritime industrial activity, spending more than $2 million from the MIIF on projects. The District indicates that the Board voted in 2023 to increase the annual funding to 2 percent of its annual gross maritime industrial revenue. The District estimates that more than $4.8 million will be placed into the MIIF over the next six years.

The Public Trust Doctrine protects the public's right to use California's waterways for commerce, navigation, fishing, boating, natural habitat protection, and other water-oriented activities. The Public Trust Doctrine provides that filled and unfilled tide and submerged lands and the beds of lakes, streams, and other navigable waterways, known as public trust lands, are to be held in trust by the state for the benefit of the people of California.

For over 100 years, the Legislature has granted public trust lands to local trustees so the lands can be managed locally in a manner that is consistent with the Public Trust Doctrine. There are more than 80 trustees in the State, including the ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, San Diego, San Francisco, Oakland, Richmond, Benicia, and Eureka. Port and harbor facilities operate pursuant to long-term leases on state lands that are exempt from property taxes. Private use of public property may be taxed if those uses constitute a possessory interest, so harbor and port tenants pay a possessory interest tax in lieu of a property tax. While these trust lands are managed locally, SLC has oversight authority to ensure those local trustees are complying with the Public Trust Doctrine and the applicable granting statutes.

Proposed Law:

This bill would, among other things, make the following changes to the San Diego Unified Port District Act:

• Specify that the City of San Diego must make a good faith attempt to appoint at least one commissioner that resides in one of the City of San Diego neighborhoods of Barrio Logan, Logan Heights, Shelltown, Sherman Heights, or Southcrest, and is a current or former member of the maritime and cargo handling industry.
• Provide that a commissioner shall not serve as chairperson unless the commissioner has served on the board for at least one year.
• Specify that a commissioner receives compensation of $100 for each day the commissioner attends a meeting or performs duties related to the district, up to a maximum of $600 of compensation in a month, as specified.
  
• Require the District to establish a registry for lobbyists that meets specified criteria, require each lobbyist to register, and authorize the District to charge a registration fee. The District must make the registry publicly available on its internet website and update the registry at least every three months.
• Prohibit a commissioner from lobbying, contracting with, or being employed by the board or the district until after the expiration of one year, beginning January 1 of the year following a commissioner’s end of term or resignation.
  
• Require the Board to adopt a code of ethics for the board, commissioners, and unrepresented district employees and further requires the board to accept and respond to ethics complaints.
• Require the Board to establish a board of ethics, which must provide independent ethics advice to the Board and consist of three members, as specified. The Board must appoint the members of the board of ethics during a noticed public meeting, and cannot appoint a commissioner or a district employee to the board of ethics.
• Require the board of ethics to meet at least once per year for an organizational meeting, and then meet as needed to address advisory questions pertaining to the application of the board’s code of ethics and to address an ethics complaint submitted to the board.
• Require the Board to submit any ethics complaint to the board of ethics during an open meeting, and authorize the Board to submit other ethical matters, as specified. The board of ethics must then provide advice on an ethics complaint to the Board during a closed meeting. The Board and the board of ethics shall treat a matter submitted to the board of ethics as confidential until the Board responds, as specified.
• Require the Board to respond to an ethics complaint in a public meeting after receiving advice from the board of ethics, and make public the advice provided to the Board within 24 hours of the conclusion of the public meeting during which it responds to the ethics complaint. Upon the conclusion of an investigation into the conduct of a commissioner, the board of ethics must provide all findings from the investigation to the city that appointed that commissioner.
• Require the Board, if it acts to censure or strip a commissioner of their duties based on alleged unethical or unlawful conduct, to disclose all documents and evidence related to the alleged conduct in accordance with the requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act and the California Public Records Act.
  
• Require the Board to establish a Maritime Industrial Impact Fund (MIIF) in lieu of the fund established by the Board of Port Commissioners Policy No. 773 to address off-tideland impacts. The minimum annual funding for the MIIF must be two percent of the district’s gross maritime industrial operating revenue, and the Board may allocate additional funds to the MIIF. A project that receives funding from the MIIF may receive additional funding from other sources.
• Require the District to fund the MIIF on a fiscal year basis, but allows the district to postpone a payment to the MIIF for no more than seven fiscal years if the district cannot fund the MIIF due to extraordinary circumstances, including, but not limited to, a recession, pandemic, natural disaster, or other financial constraints.
• Require the MIIF to fund projects to mitigate off-tideland impacts from the district’s maritime industrial and terminal activities. The MIIF may be used for electrification projects and human-operated zero-emissions cargo handling equipment and infrastructure to support human-operated zero-emissions cargo handling equipment associated with the district’s two marine terminals and its maritime industrial tenants located between the two terminals.
• Require MIIF moneys to be expended for projects consistent with the public trust doctrine and meet the existing requirements in the port district’s act that govern off-tidelands expenditures and activities, including that the SLC approve expenditures of more than $1 million on off-tideland activities or investments.
• Require the District to report annually on the MIIF to the cities of Chula Vista, Coronado, Imperial Beach, National City, and San Diego.

Related Legislation:

SB 507 (Atkins), Chap. 372/2019, granted certain tidelands in San Diego Bay to the District, and granted certain public trust lands to the City of San Diego, subject to specified terms and conditions.

AB 2646 (Gonzalez Fletcher), Chap. 192/2018, granted certain public trust lands in Chula Vista to the District that had been subject to an earlier exchange approved by the SLC.

SB 1039 (Ducheny), which was approved by the Senate in 2010 but never heard in the Assembly, would have required the District, as part of implementing its master plan, to include funding for cooperative infrastructure and capital projects on and off tidelands and submerged lands, consistent with the Public Trust Doctrine, that directly address maritime industrial impacts by the District in cities that host maritime terminals.

Staff Comments:

Staff notes a concern that the bill could result in a potential loss of tideland funds, to the extent the District proposed to fund projects with MIIF revenues in an amount that is not directly proportional to the impacts caused the District’s maritime operations. The Committee may wish to consider whether the bill should be amended to clarify that the use of tideland funds to mitigate off-tideland impacts is proportional to the impacts caused by the District to ensure tideland funds are not used to mitigate impacts caused by other parties.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Senator María Elena Durazo, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular

San Diego Unified Port District

Makes numerous changes to the San Diego Unified Port District Act.

Background

Public Trust. The foundational principle of the common law Public Trust Doctrine is that it is an affirmative duty of the state to protect the people’s common heritage in navigable waters for their common use. The traditional uses allowed under the Public Trust Doctrine were described as water-related commerce, navigation, and fisheries. As a common law doctrine, the courts have significantly shaped the Public Trust Doctrine in a number of important ways. Courts have found that the public uses to which sovereign lands are subject are sufficiently flexible to encompass changing public needs. The Public Trust Doctrine provides that tide and submerged lands and the beds of lakes, streams and other navigable waterways are to be held in trust by the State for the benefit of the people of California.

For more than 100 years, the Legislature has granted public trust lands to local governments so the lands can be managed locally for the benefit of the people of California. There are more than 80 trustees in the state, including the ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, San Diego, San Francisco, Oakland, Richmond, Benicia, and Eureka. While these trust lands are managed locally, the California State Lands Commission (SLC) has oversight authority to ensure those local trustees are complying with the Public Trust Doctrine and the applicable granting statutes.

San Diego Unified Port District. The San Diego Unified Port District (district) was created by the Legislature to manage San Diego Bay and surrounding waterfront land on December 18, 1962. The Port of San Diego is the fourth largest of the 11 ports in California. The District includes five member cities – San Diego, Chula Vista, Coronado, National City, and Imperial Beach. The District currently oversees two maritime cargo terminals, two cruise ship terminals, 22 public parks, the Harbor Police Department and the leases of hundreds of tenant and subtenant businesses around San Diego Bay.

Existing law establishes the district as the trustee of public lands within San Diego Bay. The district was created for the acquisition, construction, maintenance, operation, development and regulation of harbor works and improvements, including rail and water, for the development, operation, maintenance, control, regulation, and management of the harbor of San Diego upon the tidelands and lands lying under the inland navigable waters of San Diego Bay, and for the promotion of commerce, navigation, fisheries, and recreation.

A seven member Board of Port Commissioners governs the district: one commissioner each is appointed by the city councils of Chula Vista, Coronado, Imperial Beach and National City, and three commissioners are appointed by the San Diego City Council.

The terms of each commissioner is four years, and a commissioner may be removed from the board by a majority vote of the city council which appointed the commissioner. The board must annually elect one of its members as chairperson and another as vice chairperson, and must also elect annually a secretary, who may or may not be a member of the board. A majority of the board constitutes a quorum for the transaction of business.

The board is required to make rules and regulations for its own government and procedure and must hold at least one regular meeting each month, and may hold any special meetings it deems necessary. The commissioners must be officers of the district and cannot receive salaries but can receive reimbursement for necessary traveling and other expenses incurred while engaged in the performance of their duties.

In 2010, the district created the Maritime Industrial Impact Fund (MIIF) with the aim of offsetting adverse impacts to neighboring communities from maritime industrial activity, spending more than $2 million from the MIIF on projects. According to the district, in 2023, the board voted to increase the annual funding to 2 percent of the district’s annual gross maritime industrial revenue. The district estimates that more than $4.8 million will be placed into the MIIF over the next six years.

Grand Jury reports. The San Diego County Grand Jury has issued three reports concerning the District in the last 40 years, highlighting concerns over lack of accountability and representation. The most recent report, issued on June 7, 2023, stated:

“The 1986-87 Grand Jury Report concluded, ‘An enterprise of the scope and importance of the Port District must include a strong concern for community relations, public input and accountability … yet, in the public’s mind, it conducts itself as does a private company, responsible only to its stockholders. The fact is that it is a public corporation, guarding a public trust and spending public money.’ Similarly, the synopsis of the 1997-98 Grand Jury report concluded that the seven commissioners of the Port District ‘are viewed as operating with almost unlimited discretion regarding how they spend money with minimal accountability. Commissioners are not required to gain approval for their actions from the voting public or even from the city councils which appoint them.’

“In practice, the Port District requires a fiduciary oath of its 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 as commissioner.

“In representing the interests of the Port District but only the perspectives of the port cities appointing them, a dichotomy is created. The dichotomy allows port commissioners to manage the valuable resources of San Diego Bay in a unified, comprehensive manner but limits elected governments of the Port Cities and their constituents in making their views known or in determining the actions that are in their best interests. As a result, this dichotomy leads not only to voter disenfranchisement, but to a disconnection between elected municipal governments and their constituents, who must subordinate and subject their interests to the interpretations of the unelected Board of Port Commissioners.”

The 2023 report made 15 different recommendations to the city councils of the member cities of the district, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors, and the district board of commissioners. Among the recommendations were to:

• Institute formal policies or procedures for appeal of any action taken by the district;
• Consider placing a two-term limit on the number of terms a district commissioner can serve;
• Institute ordinances or formal policies requiring the appointed commissioners to give regular updates to their respective city councils; and
• Explore an alternate form of governance for the district allowing for participation in, and oversight of, district activities, among others.

Recent censure. On October 10, 2023, a district board commissioner, Sandy Naranjo, was censured and stripped of the vice chair role. The board approved the formal reprimand was approved 6-0. According to an October 11, 2023, San Diego Union-Tribune article:

“Although specifics were not made known prior to the meeting, Naranjo is accused of making false accusations against a port staffer - likely Port General Counsel Thomas Russell, as revealed during the meeting. Naranjo also repeatedly retaliated against the employee, failed to make proper disclosures, obstructed staff’s efforts to obtain records of her external financial dealings, affected the agency's ability to enter into lawful contracts and violated the Brown Act, according to high-level findings released following a confidential personnel investigation conducted by HR Law Consultants.

“The remedy of censure is an appropriate remedy in this case as the investigator concluded that Commissioner Naranjo continues to exhibit retaliation in response to the district's actions,’ said Sonia Carvalho, an outside attorney with Best & Krieger, who presented the board with the findings. ‘In our opinion, the report obligates the port to act in an effort to stress to Commissioner Naranjo the seriousness of her actions and to deter further poor behavior, which could subject the district and individuals to liability.

“Naranjo was sworn into office in January 2021 and represents National City on the seven-member board. She served as vice chair of the board this year, until she was stripped of the role Tuesday. Commissioner Frank Urtasun was selected to replace Naranjo as vice chair. The vice chair role often leads to serving as board chair in the following year. Naranjo is a South Bay native and a self-described environmental justice activist. She received an avalanche of support from meeting attendees who praised her efforts to shape the agency's air quality policies and industrial practices, which often affect National City, Barrio Logan, Sherman Heights and Logan Heights neighborhoods.

“After pressure from public speakers, Port of San Diego Commissioners voted separately in closed session to release a redacted version of what was described as a lengthy and comprehensive investigation. The document is expected to be released to the public today. ‘We don't know what this report (says). They say they'll release it tomorrow. There's never going to be another meeting. My client is never going to get a chance to go and clear her name. So that part of this remains completely bogus,’ said Cory Briggs, the lawyer representing Naranjo in the matter. The National City Council will meet Thursday in closed session to discuss the matter."

The author wants to increase oversight over the district.

Proposed Law

Assembly Bill 2783 makes numerous changes to the San Diego Unified Port District Act.

Board changes. AB 2783 specifies that the City of San Diego must make a good faith attempt to appoint at least one commissioner that resides in one of the City of San Diego neighborhoods of Barrio Logan, Logan Heights, Shelltown, Sherman Heights, or Southcrest, and at least one commissioner that is a current or former member of the maritime and cargo handling industry.

The bill also:

• Provides that a commissioner may continue to serve beyond an expired term for up to six months until a replacement has been appointed;
• Prohibits a commissioner from lobbying, contracting with, or being employed by the board or the district until after the expiration of one year, beginning January 1 of the year following a commissioner’s end of term or resignation;
• Provides that a commissioner shall not serve as chairperson unless the commissioner has served on the board for at least one year; and
• Specifies that a commissioner receives compensation of $100 for each day the commissioner attends a meeting or performs duties related to the district, as specified. A commissioner cannot receive more than $600 of compensation in a month.

AB 2783 places limitations on censure of board members, specifically:

• If the board acts to censure or strip a commissioner of their duties based on alleged unethical or unlawful conduct, then the board must disclose to the public all documents and evidence related to the alleged conduct in accordance with the requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act and the California Public Records Act; and
• Before the board acts to censure or strip a commissioner of their duties, the board shall provide at least 72 hours’ notice of the proposed action to censure or strip a commissioner of their duties to the city council and the mayor of the city that appointed the commissioner.

Lobbyist registry. AB 2783 requires the district to establish a registry for lobbyists that meets all of the following criteria:

• Identifies each lobbyist, including their name, address, and telephone number;
• Describes the name, nature, and purpose of the organization employing the lobbyist and identifies each lobbyist authorized to lobby on behalf of the organization; and
• Identifies the client on whose behalf the lobbyist is lobbying, each district decision the client seeks to influence, and the client’s desired outcome for each of those decisions.

The district must make the registry publicly available on its internet website and update the registry no less frequently than every three months.

The district must require each lobbyist to register with the district and may collect a registration fee in an amount not to exceed the reasonable cost of implementing this part of the bill. AB 2783 defines “lobbyist” to mean any individual who receives $2,000 or more in economic consideration in a calendar month, other than reimbursement for reasonable travel expenses, or whose principal duties as an employee are, to communicate directly or through that individual’s agents with any commissioner, district official, or district employee for the purpose of influencing district action. However, it excludes anyone who is exempt from being considered a lobbyist under the Political Reform Act, as specified.

Ethics requirements. AB 2783 requires the board to adopt a code of ethics for the board, commissioners, and unrepresented district employees and says the board must accept and respond to ethics complaints.

It also requires the board of the port to establish a board of ethics, which must provide independent ethics advice to the board of the port and consist of three members. The board must appoint the members of the board of ethics during a properly noticed public meeting, and cannot appoint a commissioner or a district employee to the board of ethics. The board of ethics must have diverse perspectives and areas of expertise, have experience appropriate for review of ethical matters, and be of good general reputation and character.

AB 2783 requires the board of ethics to meet at least once per year for an organizational meeting. It must then meet as needed to address advisory questions pertaining to the application of the board’s code of ethics and to address an ethics complaint submitted to the board.

The board must submit any ethics complaint to the board of ethics during an open meeting, and can submit any other ethical matter to the board of ethics. The board of ethics must then provide advice on an ethics complaint to the board during a closed meeting. The board and the board of ethics shall treat a matter submitted to the board of ethics as confidential until the board responds, as specified. However, the board of the port must only comply with these requirements to the extent permissible under the Ralph M. Brown Act and the California Public Records Act.

AB 2783 requires the board to respond to an ethics complaint in a public meeting after receiving advice from the board of ethics, and make public the advice provided to the board within 24 hours of the conclusion of the public meeting during which it responds to the ethics complaint.

The bill specifies that upon the conclusion of an investigation into the conduct of a commissioner, the board of ethics must provide all findings from the investigation to the city that appointed the commissioner that was subject to the investigation.

Maritime Industrial Impact Fund (MIIF). AB 2783 requires the board to establish a MIIF in lieu of the fund established by the Board of Port Commissioners Policy No. 773 to address off-tideland impacts. The minimum annual funding for the MIIF must be 2 percent of the district’s gross maritime industrial operating revenue. The board may allocate additional funds to the MIIF at its discretion. A project that receives funding from the MIIF may receive additional funding from other sources.

AB 2783 requires the district to fund the MIIF on a fiscal year basis, but allows the district to postpone a payment to the MIIF for no more than seven fiscal years if the district cannot fund the MIIF due to extraordinary circumstances, including, but not limited to, a recession, pandemic, natural disaster, or other financial constraints.

The bill requires the moneys in the MIIF to be used to fund projects to mitigate off-tideland impacts from the district’s maritime industrial and terminal activities. The moneys in the MIIF may be used for electrification projects and human-operated zero-emissions cargo handling equipment and infrastructure to support human-operated zero-emissions cargo handling equipment associated with the district’s two marine terminals and its maritime industrial tenants located between the two terminals.

The board must adopt policies and procedures that define the requirements and operations of the MIIF, including the requirements for the board’s consideration and approval of MIIF projects, at a publicly noticed board meeting. The district must report annually on the MIIF to the cities of Chula Vista, Coronado, Imperial Beach, National City, and San Diego.

MIIF moneys must be expended for projects consistent with the public trust doctrine and meet the existing requirements in the port district’s act that govern off-tidelands expenditures and activities, including that the SLC approve expenditures of more than $1 million on off-tideland activities or investments.

AB 2783 makes numerous other technical and clarifying changes.

Comments

1. Purpose of the bill. According to the author, “The Port of San Diego was created by the State Legislature in 1962 to serve as a steward of San Diego Bay for the benefit of California. It is a unique Special District that includes multiple member-cities that appoint Port Commissioners to serve on their behalf and, despite being reviewed by no less than three grand jury reports in the past 35 years, has very little statutory oversight.

“AB 2783 provides needed transparency and oversight reforms to the Port of San Diego by addressing issues identified in the 2022-2023 Grand Jury report. Other Port Districts on the west coast have adopted similar governance and accountability measures, which recent incidents within the Port of San Diego suggest is needed. In the past year, the CEO and CFO have left for reasons that have not been publicly disclosed, one commissioner got an unprecedented censure, and the former Port Chairman abruptly resigned.

“Section 4, Article 10 of the California Constitution guarantees maximum public access and recreational opportunities on the coast. Since the State Legislature created the Port of San Diego in 1962, the Port has removed and limited opportunity for public access in favor of maritime industrial activity in the majority-minority communities along the Port. These communities have been heavily impacted by the maritime industrial activity, which is demonstrated in the CalEnviroScreen 4.0 scores: 94th percentile in exposure to Diesel Particulate Matter, 97th percentile in Poverty and 93rd Percentile in Asthma rate. AB 2783 addresses this issue by increasing the Port’s set-aside for projects that help mitigate maritime industrial impacts.

“AB 2783 introduces an essential layer of independent oversight regarding ethical conduct and conflict of interest issues, and enhances the Port's role as a collaborative stakeholder. These measures are designed to align decision-making processes more closely with the welfare of the State and its citizenry.”

2. Leave it to the locals. There are over 4,000 local governments across California. For the most part, their principal acts setting out their powers and duties are broad and grant them flexibility in how they operate. When concerns arise with local agencies, the Legislature sometimes steps in and restricts their flexibility by imposing additional requirements. AB 2783 intends to address concerns with how the Port of San Diego has handled ethics inquiries and funds for off-tidelands impacts. In doing so, it imposes highly specific requirements, such as a requirement that the ethics board be composed of three members and requirements for when details of inquiries must be made public or kept confidential. Similarly, in the case of the MIIF, the provisions of AB 2783 mirror the port district’s existing policies for expenditures on off-tidelands impacts. By codifying many of these requirements with this degree of specificity, AB 2783 sets the district or others up to have to return to the Legislature in future years to make any changes. The Committee may wish to consider amending AB 2783 to remove some of the specificity in its provisions and instead couch its requirements in more general terms to allow for greater flexibility and local control.

3. Censure. AB 2783 requires the board to give 72 hours’ notice before censuring or stripping a commissioner of its duties. However, this requirement could end up hindering the bill’s goal of improving accountability by mandating a delay, and potentially allowing a commissioner to continue to exercise their authority and show up to board meetings following even the most egregious conduct (for example, commission of a crime). The Committee may wish to consider amending AB 2783 to delete the 72-hour notice requirement.

4. Special legislation. Section 16 of Article IV of the California Constitution prohibits special legislation when a general law can apply. AB 2783 contains findings and declarations explaining the need for legislation that applies only to the San Diego Unified Port District because of the unique geography and circumstances relative to the development of harbor and port facilities.

5. Mandate. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local governments for the costs of new or expanded state mandated local programs. Because AB 2783 requires the port to provide funding, Legislative Counsel says it imposes a new state mandate. AB 2783 provides that if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement must be made pursuant to existing statutory provisions.

6. Prior legislation. SB 1039 (Ducheny, 2010) would have required district, as part of implementing its master plan, to include funding for cooperative infrastructure and capital projects on and off tidelands and submerged lands, consistent with the Public Trust Doctrine, that directly address maritime industrial impacts by the district in cities that host maritime terminals. SB 1039 contained some similar funding provisions, but it differed in a noteworthy way. SB 1039 would have required the district to make a good faith effort to fund projects that address maritime industrial impacts that are proposed by eligible cities. AB 2783 instead requires the district to create the MIIF to pay for activities to mitigate off-tideland impacts from the district’s maritime industrial and terminal activities. SB 1039 was not heard by the Assembly Local Government Committee.

Assembly Actions

Assembly Local Government Committee: 5-1

Assembly Appropriations Committee: 12-1

Assembly Floor: 61-19

Support and Opposition

(6/28/24)

Support: Alonso Gonzalez - Deputy Mayor, City of Chula Vista
Luz Molina - Councilmember, National City
Nora Vargas - Supervisor, San Diego County
City of Chula Vista
City of La Mesa
International Longshore & Warehouse Union Local 94
International Longshore and Warehouse Union, Local 29
League of Women Voters of California

Opposition: California Association of Port Authorities
San Diego Unified Port Distric

-- END --

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 2783

Author:(Alvarez)

As Amended Ver:May 16, 2024

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Makes numerous changes to the San Diego Unified Port District (District) Act (Act).

Major Provisions

1. Specifies that the City of San Diego shall make a good faith attempt to appoint at least one commissioner that resides in one of the City of San Diego neighborhoods of Barrio Logan, Logan Heights, Shelltown, Sherman Heights, or Southcrest, and at least one commissioner that is a current or former member of the maritime and cargo handling industry.
2. Provides that a commissioner shall not lobby, contract with, or be employed by the board or the District until after the expiration of one year, beginning January 1 of the year following a commissioner's end of term or resignation.
3. Requires that before the board acts to censure or strip a commissioner of their duties, the board shall provide at least 72 hours' notice of the proposed action to censure or strip a commissioner of their duties to the city council and the mayor of the city that appointed the commissioner.
4. Specifies that a commissioner shall receive compensation of $100 for each day the commissioner attends a meeting or performs duties related to the district, as specified. A commissioner shall not receive more than $600 of compensation in a month.
5. Requires the District shall establish a registry for lobbyists that meets specified criteria.
6. Requires the board of the District to adopt a code of ethics for the board, commissioners, and unrepresented district employees.
7. Specifies that the District shall establish a board of ethics, which shall provide independent ethics advice to the board. Provides for the membership and the duties of the board of ethics.
8. Requires the District to establish a Maritime Industrial Impact Fund (MIIF) in-lieu of the fund established by the Board Policy No. 773 to address off-tideland impacts. The minimum annual funding for the MIIF shall be 2% of the district's gross maritime industrial operating revenue. The board may allocate additional funds to the MIIF at its discretion. A project that receives funding from the MIIF may receive additional funding from other sources. The district shall fund the MIIF on a fiscal year basis. The district may postpone a payment to the MIIF for no more than seven fiscal years if the district cannot fund the MIIF due to extraordinary circumstances, including, but not limited to, a recession, pandemic, natural disaster, or other financial constraints.
9. Specifies that the moneys in the MIIF shall be used to fund projects to mitigate off-tideland impacts from the district's maritime industrial and terminal activities. The moneys in the MIIF may be used for electrification projects and human-operated zero-emissions cargo handling equipment and infrastructure to support human-operated zero-emissions cargo handling equipment associated with the district's two marine terminals and its maritime industrial tenants located between the two terminals.
10. Provides that the District shall adopt policies and procedures for the MIIF at a publicly noticed board meeting. The policies and procedures shall define the requirements, procedures, and operation of the MIIF. The policies and procedures shall set forth the process and requirements for the board's consideration and approval of MIIF projects. The policies and procedures shall include an annual reporting requirement on the MIIF to the Cities of Chula Vista, Coronado, Imperial Beach, National City, and San Diego.
11. Defines "district's gross maritime industrial operating revenue" as the district's annual revenues earned from the operation of the Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal and the National City Marine Terminal and district's revenue from its maritime industrial tenants located between the two terminals, but does not include grants, legal settlements, or other federal or state funding received by the district.
12. Defines "off-tideland impacts" as impacts to communities adjacent to, directly associated with, or resulting from the district's maritime industry and terminals, which are of a unique, adverse, or exclusionary in nature and have a direct relationship or nexus between the district's on-tideland maritime industrial operations.

COMMENTS

Public Trust. The foundational principle of the common law Public Trust Doctrine is that it is an affirmative duty of the state to protect the people's common heritage in navigable waters for their common use. The traditional uses allowed under the Public Trust Doctrine were described as water-related commerce, navigation, and fisheries. As a common law doctrine, the courts have significantly shaped the Public Trust Doctrine in a number of important ways. Courts have found that the public uses to which sovereign lands are subject are sufficiently flexible to encompass changing public needs. According to the SLC, more recently, the doctrine has been broadened by various landmark court decisions to include the right to swim, boat, and engage in other forms of water recreation, and even to preserve lands in their natural state in order to protect scenic and wildlife habitat values. The Public Trust Doctrine provides that tide and submerged lands and the beds of lakes, streams and other navigable waterways are to be held in trust by the State for the benefit of the people of California. The Public Trust Doctrine, as a common law doctrine, is not static but is continuously evolving to protect the public's use and needs in California's waterways.

For more than 100 years, the Legislature has granted public trust lands to local governments so the lands can be managed locally for the benefit of the people of California. There are more than 80 trustees in the state, including the ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, San Diego, San Francisco, Oakland, Richmond, Benicia, and Eureka. While these trust lands are managed locally, SLC has oversight authority to ensure those local trustees are complying with the Public Trust Doctrine and the applicable granting statutes.

San Diego Unified Port District. According to the District, the Port of San Diego was created by the California State Legislature to manage San Diego Bay and surrounding waterfront land on December 18, 1962 and the voters approved the District's creation. The Port of San Diego is the fourth largest of the 11 ports in California. The District includes five member cities, including San Diego, Chula Vista, Coronado, National City, and Imperial Beach. The District currently oversees two maritime cargo terminals, two cruise ship terminals, 22 public parks, the Harbor Police Department and the leases of hundreds of tenant and subtenant businesses around San Diego Bay. These include 17 hotels, 74 restaurants, three specialty retail centers and numerous other attractions including museums and bay tours.

Existing law establishes the District as the trustee of public lands within San Diego Bay. The Port District was created for the acquisition, construction, maintenance, operation, development and regulation of harbor works and improvements, including rail and water, for the development, operation, maintenance, control, regulation, and management of the harbor of San Diego upon the tidelands and lands lying under the inland navigable waters of San Diego Bay, and for the promotion of commerce, navigation, fisheries, and recreation. The District is governed by a seven-member Board of Port Commissioners; one commissioner each is appointed by the city councils of Chula Vista, Coronado, Imperial Beach and National City, and three commissioners are appointed by the San Diego City Council.

The terms of each commissioner of the District is 4 years, and a commissioner may be removed from the board by a majority vote of the city council which appointed the commissioner. The board must annually elect one of its members as chairperson and another as vice chairperson, and shall also elect annually a secretary, who may or may not be a member of the board. A majority of the board constitutes a quorum for the transaction of business, the board is required to make rules and regulations for its own government and procedure and must hold at least one regular meeting each month, and may hold any special meetings it deems necessary. The commissioners must be officers of the district and cannot receive salaries but can receive reimbursement for necessary traveling and other expenses incurred while engaged in the performance of their duties.

The Act requires the board to draft a master plan for harbor and port improvement and for the use of all of the tidelands and submerged lands which are conveyed to the district. A two-thirds vote of the board is required to adopt the plan and to amend the plan. According to the District, on February 28, 2024, the board unanimously certified the Final Program Environmental Impact Report and approved the Port Master Plan Update (PMPU). Next, District staff will process the PMPU document with the California Coastal Commission with the goal of certification in late 2024.

In 2010, the District created the MIIF with the aim of offsetting adverse impacts to neighboring communities from maritime industrial activity, spending more than $2 million from the MIIF on projects. According to the District, in 2023, the board voted to increase the annual funding to 2% of the District’s annual gross maritime industrial revenue. The District estimates that more than $4.8 million will be placed into the MIIF over the next six years.

According to the Author

According to the author, "The Port of San Diego was created by the State Legislature in 1962 to serve as a steward of San Diego Bay for the benefit of California. It is a unique Special District that includes multiple member-cities that appoints Port Commissioners to serve on their behalf and, despite being reviewed by no less than three grand jury reports in the past 35 years, has very little statutory oversight.

"AB 2783 provides needed transparency and oversight reforms to the Port of San Diego by adopting recommendations identified in the 2022-2023 Grand Jury report. Other Port Districts on the west coast have adopted similar governance and accountability measures, which recent incidents within the Port of San Diego suggest is needed. In the past year, the CEO and CFO have left for reasons that have not been publicly disclosed, one commissioner got an unprecedented censure, and the former Port Chairman abruptly resigned.

"Section 4, Article 10 of the California Constitution guarantees maximum public access and recreational opportunities on the coast. Since the State Legislature created the Port of San Diego in 1962, the Port has removed and limited opportunity for public access in favor of maritime industrial activity in the majority-minority communities along the Port. These communities have been heavily impacted by the maritime industrial activity, which is demonstrated in the CalEnviroScreen 4.0 scores: 94^th percentile in exposure to Diesel Particulate Matter, 97^th percentile in Poverty and 93^rd Percentile in Asthma rate. AB 2783 addresses this issue by increasing the Port’s set-aside for projects that help mitigate maritime industrial impacts.

"AB-2783 introduces an essential layer of independent oversight regarding ethical conduct and conflict of interest issues, institutes tenure restrictions, and enhance the Port's role as a collaborative stakeholder. These measures are designed to align decision-making processes more closely with the welfare of the State and its citizenry."

Arguments in Support

According to National City Councilmember Luz Molina on a previous version of the bill, "I am a National City councilmember and represent a district that includes our city's waterfront. I am concerned with the recent actions of the San Diego Unified Port District (the Port), and I strongly support Assembly Bill 2783, for reform of the Port. Of special interest to me is the provision that would establish an independent ethics committee to monitor and guide the work of this very important and very powerful agency.

"As one of five cities that make up the Port, the City of National City is committed to working with the Port on our shared interests. The decisions that are made by the Port have a direct impact to our city's economy, recreational access, and environmental health. I believe this bill is a step in the right direction to establish a mechanism to give the communities most impact by the Port a stronger voice without impeding the Port's operation.

"AB 2783 would not impact operations. AB 2783 aims to improve transparency, accountability, and oversight by establishing clear guidelines for ethical standards. An independent ethics committee would promote fair policies and procedures that maximize the likelihood of achieving balanced outcomes for National City and the region as a whole."

Arguments in Opposition

According to the District with a position of oppose unless amended on a previous version of this bill, "As written, Assembly Bill 2783 would 1) erode the Port's ability to generate future regional benefits and community investments and 2) conflict with existing laws, the Constitution and the significant statutory purpose of the maritime public infrastructure and coastal-dependent facilities located on these state tidelands. Moreover, AB 2783 applies a series of unprecedented mandates that have been placed on no other California public port and, by rolling back its autonomy, overrules the self-determination of thousands of San Diego County voters who established the Port.

"A self-sustaining public agency, the Port collects no taxes, yet it has invested nearly $1.9 billion into the region through public infrastructure projects of all sizes. Today, the Port supports a total economic impact of $20.9 billion and 114,530 jobs in California and manages a diverse portfolio that generates revenues to support vital public services and amenities. From building ships for the US Navy and bolstering California's cargo supply chain to demonstrating new, clean technologies, San Diego's waterfront provides jobs and revenue that flow into communities around the Bay. Unless the measure is amended to be consistent with state and federal law, prevent encroachment upon public infrastructure and coastal-dependent facilities, mitigate the economic harm of lost jobs, and offset lost revenue from leaseholds by increased state funding to Portside community projects, the Port must oppose this measure."

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, "State-mandated local costs (General Fund, local funds) to the Port Board of Commissioners of an unknown amount, but potentially in the mid- to high-hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, to fund projects to mitigate off-tideland impacts from the port district's maritime industrial and terminal activities, as specified. The bill requires the port board to annually deposit a minimum of 2% of the district's gross maritime industrial operating revenue, as defined. These costs are potentially reimbursable by the state, subject to a determination by the Commission on State Mandates.

"According to the Legislative Analyst's Office, the General Fund faces a structural deficit in the tens of billions of dollars over the next several fiscal years."

VOTES

ASM LOCAL GOVERNMENT: 5-1-3

YES: Juan Carrillo, Haney, Pacheco, Ramos, Wilson

NO: Essayli

ABS, ABST OR NV: Waldron, Kalra, Ward

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 12-1-2

YES: Wicks, Sanchez, Arambula, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Mike Fong, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Pellerin, Villapudua

NO: Dixon

ABS, ABST OR NV: Jim Patterson, Ta

UPDATED

VERSION: May 16, 2024

CONSULTANT: Jimmy MacDonald / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958 FN: 0003356

Date of Hearing: May 15, 2024

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2783

Author:(Alvarez) – As Amended Ver:April 15, 2024

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: Yes

SUMMARY:

This bill makes numerous changes to the San Diego Unified Port District (District) Act and the Port Board of Commissioners.

Among its major provisions, this bill:

1. Requires the City of San Diego to make a good faith attempt to appoint at least one port commissioner that resides in one of the following City of San Diego neighborhoods: Barrio Logan, Logan Heights, Shelltown, Sherman Heights, or Southcrest.
2. Prohibits a port commissioner from serving more than three terms. A commissioner may continue to serve beyond an expired term for up to six months until a replacement has been appointed.
3. Prohibits a port commissioner from lobbying, contracting with, or being employed by the port board or the district for two years after serving as a commissioner.
4. Prohibits a port commissioner from serving as chairperson of the port board unless the commissioner has served on the board for at least one year. A commissioner who has served as chairperson may not be elected chairperson for a second time unless all commissioners have already served as chairperson.
5. Requires the port board, if the board acts to censure or strip a port commissioner of their duties based on alleged unethical or unlawful conduct, to disclose to the public all documents and evidence related to the alleged conduct in accordance with the requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act and the California Public Records Act.
6. Requires the port board, before the board acts to censure or strip a port commissioner of their duties, to provide at least 72 hours’ notice of the proposed action to censure or strip a commissioner of their duties to the city council and the mayor of the city that appointed the commissioner.
7. Requires a port commissioner to receive compensation of $100 for each day the commissioner attends a meeting or performs duties related to the district, as specified. A commissioner may not receive more than $600 of compensation in a month.
8. Requires the port board to adopt a code of ethics and to accept and respond to ethics complaints.
9. Requires the port board to establish a board of ethics to provide independent ethics advice to the board.
10. Requires the port board to create the “Community Impact Fund” and deposit 1% of all non-tax port district gross revenue into that fund. In addition to other funds, requires the board to use the moneys in the fund to pay for projects that address maritime industrial impacts proposed by eligible cities.
11. Requires the State Lands Commission (SLC) to be the final arbiter of any disputes with regard to the eligibility and approval of projects, consistent with the commission’s authority over projects on and off tidelands and submerged lands, as specified.
12. Requires the port board to create the “Future Public Access Fund” and deposit 1% of eligible rents into that fund. Requires the board to use the moneys in the fund to convert industrial property in disadvantaged communities within the district to open space including, but not limited to, parks, plazas, and promenades.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. State-mandated local costs (General Fund, local funds) to the Port Board of Commissioners of an unknown amount, but potentially in the high hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, to include funding for cooperative infrastructure and capital projects that directly address maritime industrial impacts by the port in cities that host maritime terminals, as specified.

In addition, this bill requires the port board to dedicate 1% of the port’s non-tax revenue, as specified, for those cooperative infrastructure and capital projects, and to dedicate 1% of the port district’s eligible rental income, as specified, to converting industrial properties to open space in disadvantaged communities, as defined, within the district.

These costs are potentially reimbursable by the state, subject to a determination by the Commission on State Mandates.

1. Potential General Fund costs, of an unknown amount, to the SLC in its role as final arbiter of any disputes with regard to the eligibility and approval of projects on and off tidelands and submerged lands.

According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the General Fund faces a structural deficit in the tens of billions of dollars over the next several fiscal years. 

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author:

The Port of San Diego was created by the State Legislature in 1962 to serve as a steward of San Diego Bay for the benefit of California. It is a unique Special District that includes multiple member-cities that appoints Port Commissioners to serve on their behalf and, despite being reviewed by no less than three grand jury reports in the past 35 years, has very little statutory oversight. [This bill] provides needed transparency and oversight reforms to the Port of San Diego by adopting recommendations identified in the 2022-2023 Grand Jury report. Other Port Districts on the west coast have adopted similar governance and accountability measures, which recent incidents within the Port of San Diego suggest is needed.

1. Background. San Diego Unified Port District. The District was created by the California State Legislature to manage San Diego Bay and the surrounding waterfront land. The Port of San Diego is the fourth largest of the 11 ports in California. The District includes five member cities, including San Diego, Chula Vista, Coronado, National City, and Imperial Beach. The District currently oversees two maritime cargo terminals and two cruise ship terminals, in addition to 22 public parks, the Harbor Police Department, and the leases of hundreds of tenant and subtenant businesses around San Diego Bay.

Existing law establishes the District as the trustee of public lands within San Diego Bay. The District was created for the acquisition, construction, maintenance, operation, development, and regulation of harbor works and improvements, including rail and water, as well as for the development, operation, maintenance, and management of the harbor of San Diego upon the tidelands and lands lying under the inland navigable waters of San Diego Bay. The District also oversees the promotion of commerce, navigation, fisheries, and recreation.

The District is governed by a seven-member Board of Port Commissioners; one commissioner is appointed by each of the city councils of Chula Vista, Coronado, Imperial Beach and National City, and three commissioners are appointed by the San Diego City Council. The terms of each commissioner of the District is four years.

The San Diego Unified Port District Act requires the board to draft a master plan for harbor and port improvement and for the use of all of the tidelands and submerged lands which are conveyed to the district. A two-thirds vote of the board is required to adopt the plan and to amend the plan. According to the District, on February 28, 2024, the board unanimously certified the Final Program Environmental Impact Report and approved the Port Master Plan Update (PMPU). District staff will process the PMPU document with the California Coastal Commission with the goal of certification in late 2024.

In 2010, the District created the Maritime Industrial Impact Fund (MIIF) with the aim of offsetting adverse impacts to neighboring communities from maritime industrial activity, spending more than $2 million from the MIIF on projects. According to the District, in 2023, the board voted to increase the annual funding to 2% of the District’s annual gross maritime industrial revenue. The District estimates that more than $4.8 million will be placed into the MIIF over the next six years.

Public Trust Doctrine. For more than 100 years, the Legislature has granted public trust lands to local governments so the lands can be managed locally for the benefit of the people of California. There are more than 80 trustees in the state, including the ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, San Diego, San Francisco, Oakland, Richmond, Benicia, and Eureka. While these trust lands are managed locally, SLC has oversight authority to ensure those local trustees are complying with the Public Trust Doctrine and the applicable granting statutes.

1. Support and Opposition. This bill is supported by two individual city councilmembers and the League of Women Voters of California, which support the aim to increase transparency, accountability, and oversight of the board. This bill is opposed unless amended by the District and the California Association of Port Authorities, which are concerned the bill erodes the Port’s ability to generate future regional benefits and community investments, and conflicts with existing laws, the Constitution, and the statutory purpose of the maritime public infrastructure and coastal-dependent facilities located on state tidelands. The bill is also opposed by several labor groups, which are concerned about the impact on port jobs by shifting funds away from port operations.
2. Related Legislation. AB 1153 (Alvarez), of this legislative session, requires the District, in implementing the master plan, to include funding for cooperative infrastructure and capital projects that directly address maritime industrial impacts by the Port in cities that host maritime terminals, as specified. In addition, AB 1153 requires the District to dedicate 1% of the Port’s revenue, as specified, for those cooperative infrastructure and capital projects. AB 1153 was referred to, but never heard in, the Assembly Committee on Jobs, Economic Development, and the Economy.
3. Prior Legislation. SB 507 (Atkins), Chapter 372, Statutes of 2019, granted certain previously ungranted tidelands in San Diego Bay to the District, and granted certain public trust lands to the City of San Diego, subject to specified terms and conditions in both instances.

AB 2646 (Gonzalez Fletcher), Chapter 192, Statutes of 2018, granted certain public trust lands in Chula Vista to the District that had been subject to an earlier exchange approved by the SLC.

SB 1039 (Ducheny), of the 2009-10 Legislative Session, would have required the District, as part of implementing its master plan, to include funding for cooperative infrastructure and capital projects on and off tidelands and submerged lands, consistent with the Public Trust Doctrine, that directly address maritime industrial impacts by the District in cities that host maritime terminals. SB 1039 was similar to this bill but instead required the District to make a good faith effort to fund projects that address maritime industrial impacts that are proposed by eligible cities.

Analysis Prepared by: Jennifer Swenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 10, 2024

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Juan Carrillo, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2783 (

Author:Alvarez) – As Amended Ver:April 1, 2024

SUBJECT: San Diego Unified Port District.

SUMMARY: Makes numerous changes to the San Diego Unified Port District (District) Act (Act). Specifically, this bill:

1. Specifies that the City of San Diego shall make a good faith attempt to appoint at least one commissioner that resides in one of the City of San Diego neighborhoods of Barrio Logan, Logan Heights, Shelltown, Sherman Heights, or Southcrest.
2. Provides that a commissioner shall serve no more than three terms. A commissioner may continue to serve beyond an expired term for up to six months until a replacement has been appointed.
3. Specifies that a commissioner shall not lobby, contract with, or be employed by the board or the district for two years after serving as a commissioner.
4. Provides that a commissioner shall not serve as chairperson unless the commissioner has served on the board for at least one year. A commissioner who has served as chairperson shall not be elected chairperson for a second time unless all the commissioners have already served as chairperson. A commissioner who has served as vice chairperson shall not be elected vice chairperson for a second time unless all commissioners have already served as vice chairperson.
5. Specifies that if the board acts to censure or strip a commissioner of their duties based on alleged unethical or unlawful conduct, then the board shall disclose to the public all documents and evidence related to the alleged conduct in accordance with the requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act and the California Public Records Act.
6. Requires that before the board acts to censure or strip a commissioner of their duties, the board shall provide at least 72 hours’ notice of the proposed action to censure or strip a commissioner of their duties to the city council and the mayor of the city that appointed the commissioner.
7. Specifies that a commissioner shall receive compensation of $100 for each day the commissioner attends a meeting or performs duties related to the district, as specified. A commissioner shall not receive more than $600 of compensation in a month.
8. Requires the board to publish a report that contains both the following:
   1. The name of each lobbyist employed or contracted by the district.
   2. The amounts the district paid to each lobbyist.
9. Specifies that the board shall update the report required by 8) above, every 90 days and shall make the report available to the public by posting it on the district’s internet website.
10. Provides that “lobbyist” has the same meaning as in the California Political Reform Act of 1974.
11. Specifies that the board shall adopt a code of ethics and shall accept and respond to ethics complaints.
12. Requires the board to establish a board of ethics, which shall provide independent ethics advice to the board.
13. Provides that the board of ethics shall consist of three members. The board shall appoint the members of the board of ethics during a properly noticed public meeting. The board shall not appoint a commissioner or a district employee to the board of ethics.
14. Requires the board of ethics to have diverse perspectives and areas of expertise, have experience appropriate for review of ethical matters, and be of good general reputation and character.
15. Specifies that the board of ethics shall meet at least once per year for an organizational meeting. It shall then meet as needed to address advisory questions pertaining to the application of the board’s code of ethics and to address an ethics complaint submitted to the board.
16. Requires the board to submit an ethics complaint to the board of ethics during an open meeting. The board may submit any other ethical matter to the board of ethics. The board and the board of ethics shall treat a matter submitted to the board of ethics as confidential until the board responds, as specified.
17. Specifies that the board of ethics shall provide advice on an ethics complaint to the board during a closed meeting.
18. Requires the board to respond to an ethics complaint in a public meeting after receiving advice from the board of ethics. The board shall make public the advice provided to the board within 24 hours of the conclusion of the public meeting during which it responds to the ethics complaint.
19. Specifies that upon the conclusion of an investigation into the conduct of a commissioner, the board of ethics shall provide all findings from the investigation to the city that appointed the commissioner that was subject to the investigation.
20. Requires the board to comply with the requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act and the California Public Records Act.
21. Provides that in order to protect and enhance the economic benefits of import and export activities for the San Diego region and the state, it is necessary to provide incentives to communities that experience the adverse environmental, economic, quality of life, and other impacts that result from hosting a working waterfront, such as a decrease in recreational opportunities, the loss of municipal revenue opportunities, increased noise and traffic, and negative effects of air quality. These impacts are also described generally as “maritime industrial impacts.”
22. Specifies that in implementing the master plan adopted pursuant to the Act, the board shall include funding for cooperative infrastructure and capital projects on and off tidelands and submerged lands, consistent with the public trust doctrine, that directly addresses maritime industrial impacts by the port in the cities that host maritime terminals.
23. Requires cities that demonstrate all of the following to be eligible to receive maritime industrial impacts funding from the board for cooperative infrastructure and capital projects.
    1. Host at least one maritime terminal.
    2. Have census tracts near maritime terminals that exceed state standards for average annual particulate matter exposure and have been designated as environmental justice communities, as determined by the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District.
    3. Have census tracts near maritime terminals that are less than or equal to 80 percent of regional median income.
    4. Have a planning area near the maritime terminal, with residential zones that have restricted public access to the tidelands and submerged lands and waterfront that are within close proximity to the planning area.
24. Specifies that the board shall create the “Community Impact Fund” and deposit 1% of all nontax port district gross revenue into that fund. In addition to the funding required in 22) above, the board shall use the moneys in the fund to pay for projects that address maritime industrial impacts that are proposed by eligible cities.
25. Provides that the State Lands Commission (SLC) shall be the final arbiter of any disputes with regard to the eligibility and approval of projects, consistent with the commission’s authority over projects on and off tidelands and submerged lands, as specified. The SLC shall, to the extent feasible, rely on both of the following:
    1. Existing local, state, and federal agency studies.
    2. Port studies conducted on port impacts.
26. Requires the board to create the “Future Public Access Fund” and deposit 1% of eligible rents into that fund. The board shall use the moneys in the fund to convert industrial property in disadvantaged communities within the district to open space including, but not limited to, parks, plazas, and promenades.
27. Specifies that for the purposes of 26) above, the following terms have the following meanings:
    1. “Disadvantaged community” means a community identified by the California Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to existing law.
    2. “Eligible rents” means payments to the port district for the lease of real property located in the district and not located in a disadvantaged community.
28. Makes numerous other technical and clarifying changes.
29. Finds and declares that a special statute is necessary and that a general statute cannot be made applicable because of the unique geography and circumstances relative to the development of harbor and port facilities within the District.
30. Specifies that if the Commission on State mandates determines that this bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Protects, pursuant to the common law doctrine of the public trust (Public Trust Doctrine), the public's right to use California's waterways for commerce, navigation, fishing, boating, natural habitat protection, and other water oriented activities. The Public Trust Doctrine provides that filled and unfilled tide and submerged lands and the beds of lakes, streams, and other navigable waterways (public trust lands) are to be held in trust by the state for the benefit of the people of California. (National Audubon Society v. Superior Court (1983) 33 Cal.3d 419)
2. Establishes that the SLC is the steward and manager of the state's public trust lands. The SLC has direct administrative control over the state's public trust lands and oversight authority over public trust lands granted by the Legislature to local public agencies (granted lands). [Public Resources Code (PRC) § 6009]
3. Authorizes the SLC to enter into an exchange, with any person or any private or public entity, of filled or reclaimed tide and submerged lands or beds of navigable waterways, or interests in these lands, that are subject to the public trust for commerce, navigation, and fisheries, for other lands or interests in lands, if specified conditions are met. (PRC § 6307)
   
4. Specifies that a local elected official, chief administrative officer of a county, city manager, or general manager or chief administrator of a special district who held a position with a local government agency, as defined, shall not, for a period of one year after leaving that office or employment, act as agent or attorney for, or otherwise represent, for compensation, any other person, by making any formal or informal appearance before, or by making any oral or written communication to, that local government agency, or any committee, subcommittee, or present member of that local government agency, or any officer or employee of the local government agency, if the appearance or communication is made for the purpose of influencing administrative or legislative action, or influencing any action or proceeding involving the issuance, amendment, awarding, or revocation of a permit, license, grant, or contract, or the sale or purchase of goods or property. [Government Code (GC) § 87406.3]
   
5. Provides that 4) above, does not apply to an individual who is, at the time of the appearance or communication, a board member, officer, or employee of another local government agency or an employee or representative of a public agency and is appearing or communicating on behalf of that agency. (GC § 87406.3)
   
6. Specifies that 4) above, applies to an individual who is, at the time of the appearance or communication, an independent contractor of a local government agency or a public agency and is appearing or communicating on behalf of that agency.

FISCAL EFFECT: This bill is keyed fiscal and contains a state mandated local program.

COMMENTS:

1. Public Trust. The foundational principle of the common law Public Trust Doctrine is that it is an affirmative duty of the state to protect the people’s common heritage in navigable waters for their common use. The traditional uses allowed under the Public Trust Doctrine were described as water-related commerce, navigation, and fisheries. As a common law doctrine, the courts have significantly shaped the Public Trust Doctrine in a number of important ways. Courts have found that the public uses to which sovereign lands are subject are sufficiently flexible to encompass changing public needs. According to the SLC, more recently, the doctrine has been broadened by various landmark court decisions to include the right to swim, boat, and engage in other forms of water recreation, and even to preserve lands in their natural state in order to protect scenic and wildlife habitat values. The Public Trust Doctrine provides that tide and submerged lands and the beds of lakes, streams and other navigable waterways are to be held in trust by the State for the benefit of the people of California. The Public Trust Doctrine, as a common law doctrine, is not static but is continuously evolving to protect the public’s use and needs in California’s waterways.

For more than 100 years, the Legislature has granted public trust lands to local governments so the lands can be managed locally for the benefit of the people of California. There are more than 80 trustees in the state, including the ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, San Diego, San Francisco, Oakland, Richmond, Benicia, and Eureka. While these trust lands are managed locally, SLC has oversight authority to ensure those local trustees are complying with the Public Trust Doctrine and the applicable granting statutes.

1. San Diego Unified Port District. According to the District, the Port of San Diego was created by the California State Legislature to manage San Diego Bay and surrounding waterfront land on December 18, 1962 and the voters approved the District’s creation. The Port of San Diego is the fourth largest of the 11 ports in California. The District includes five member cities, including San Diego, Chula Vista, Coronado, National City, and Imperial Beach. The District currently oversees two maritime cargo terminals, two cruise ship terminals, 22 public parks, the Harbor Police Department and the leases of hundreds of tenant and subtenant businesses around San Diego Bay. These include 17 hotels, 74 restaurants, three specialty retail centers and numerous other attractions including museums and bay tours.

Existing law establishes the District as the trustee of public lands within San Diego Bay. The Port District was created for the acquisition, construction, maintenance, operation, development and regulation of harbor works and improvements, including rail and water, for the development, operation, maintenance, control, regulation, and management of the harbor of San Diego upon the tidelands and lands lying under the inland navigable waters of San Diego Bay, and for the promotion of commerce, navigation, fisheries, and recreation. The District is governed by a seven-member Board of Port Commissioners; one commissioner each is appointed by the city councils of Chula Vista, Coronado, Imperial Beach and National City, and three commissioners are appointed by the San Diego City Council.

The terms of each commissioner of the District is 4 years, and a commissioner may be removed from the board by a majority vote of the city council which appointed the commissioner. The board must annually elect one of its members as chairperson and another as vice chairperson, and shall also elect annually a secretary, who may or may not be a member of the board. A majority of the board constitutes a quorum for the transaction of business, the board is required to make rules and regulations for its own government and procedure and must hold at least one regular meeting each month, and may hold any special meetings it deems necessary. The commissioners must be officers of the district and cannot receive salaries but can receive reimbursement for necessary traveling and other expenses incurred while engaged in the performance of their duties.

The Act requires the board to draft a master plan for harbor and port improvement and for the use of all of the tidelands and submerged lands which are conveyed to the district. A two-thirds vote of the board is required to adopt the plan and to amend the plan. According to the District, on February 28, 2024, the board unanimously certified the Final Program Environmental Impact Report and approved the Port Master Plan Update (PMPU). Next, District staff will process the PMPU document with the California Coastal Commission with the goal of certification in late 2024.

In 2010, the District created the Maritime Industrial Impact Fund (MIIF) with the aim of offsetting adverse impacts to neighboring communities from maritime industrial activity, spending more than $2 million from the MIIF on projects. According to the District, in 2023, the board voted to increase the annual funding to 2% of the District’s annual gross maritime industrial revenue. The District estimates that more than $4.8 million will be placed into the MIIF over the next six years.

1. Grand Jury Reports. The San Diego County Grand Jury has issued three reports concerning the District in the last 40 years. The June 7, 2023 report proclaimed that, “The 2022-23 San Diego County Grand Jury (Grand Jury) is not alone in its concern over the lack of oversight, transparency and accountability of an organization with such far reaching power and jurisdiction. Over the last several decades, two separate San Diego County Grand Juries have reached similar conclusions, the earliest being the 1986-87 Grand Jury and more recently the 1997-98 Grand Jury.
   

“The 1986-87 Grand Jury Report concluded, ‘An enterprise of the scope and importance of the Port District must include a strong concern for community relations, public input and accountability … yet, in the public’s mind, it conducts itself as does a private company, responsible only to its stockholders. The fact is that it is a public corporation, guarding a public trust and spending public money.’ Similarly, the synopsis of the 1997-98 Grand Jury report concluded that the seven commissioners of the Port District ‘are viewed as operating with almost unlimited discretion regarding how they spend money with minimal accountability. Commissioners are not required to gain approval for their actions from the voting public or even from the city councils which appoint them.’

“In practice, the Port District requires a fiduciary oath of its 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 as commissioner.

“In representing the interests of the Port District but only the perspectives of the port cities appointing them, a dichotomy is created. The dichotomy allows port commissioners to manage the valuable resources of San Diego Bay in a unified, comprehensive manner but limits elected governments of the Port Cities and their constituents in making their views known or in determining the actions that are in their best interests. As a result, this dichotomy leads not only to voter disenfranchisement, but to a disconnection between elected municipal governments and their constituents, who must subordinate and subject their interests to the interpretations of the unelected Board of Port Commissioners.” (Citations omitted)

In the 2023 San Diego County Grand Jury report, 15 different recommendations were made to the city councils of the member cities of the District, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors, and the District board of commissioners. Among the recommendations were:

• 1. Institute formal policies or procedures for appeal of any action taken by the District.
  2. Consider placing a two-term limit on the number of terms a District commissioner can serve.
  3. Institute ordinances or formal policies requiring the appointed commissioners to give regular updates to their respective city councils.
  4. Institute formal polices to enable port cities and San Diego County to ratify the Port Master Plan, propose Port Master Plan Updates, or amendment to the Port Master Plan for planning districts within the boundaries of each city and county.
  5. Explore an alternate form of governance for the District allowing for participation in, and oversight of, District activities, among others.

1. District’s Response to 2023 Grand Jury Report. In response to the 2023 San Diego County Grand Jury Report, the District proclaimed, “The Citizen Civil Grand Jury (Grand Jury) based many of its recommendations along philosophical lines, with an expressed desire for more control from San Diego County and the member cities of San Diego Unified Port (Port) by granting San Diego County oversight of the Port through State Legislation, or an alternative form of governance. However, this desire is at odds with the Public Trust Doctrine, the intent of the Legislature and the legal purpose of the Port.

“Consistent with the Public Trust Doctrine, the Port was created for the benefit of the entire State when in 1962, the Legislature enacted the San Diego Unified Port Act (Port Act) and the voters of San Diego County approved its creation. The Port serves all Californians, not only those from our region – to do otherwise would turn the Port Act, California Coastal Act, and most importantly, the Public Trust Doctrine on their heads. The Public Trust Doctrine provides the tidal and submerged lands and other navigable waterways (collectively, Tidelands), such as in and around San Diego Bay, are held to be in trust by the State for the benefit of the people of California and not limited to the benefit or interests of local municipalities adjacent to Tidelands. As found by the California Supreme Court in the long-held Mallon v. City of Long Beach (1955) 44 Cal.2d 199 case, a grant of Tidelands is subject to the Public Trust for the benefit of the entire state and not a ‘municipal affair.’

“Many of the findings offered up by the Grand Jury may come from a lack of understanding and background about legal principles that dictate the Port’s governance pursuant to the Public Trust Doctrine and Port Act, the function of California State agencies such as the State Lands Commission and the California Coastal Commission, and other port commissions around California.” (Citations omitted)

1. SB 1039 of 2010. SB 1039 (Ducheny) of 2010 would have required District, as part of implementing its master plan, to include funding for cooperative infrastructure and capital projects on and off tidelands and submerged lands, consistent with the Public Trust Doctrine, that directly address maritime industrial impacts by the District in cities that host maritime terminals. SB 1039 contained similar provisions to this bill, but it differed in a noteworthy way. This bill requires the District to create the Community Impact Fund and deposit 1% of all nontax port district gross revenue into that fund, and requires the District to pay for projects to address maritime industrial impacts that are proposed by eligible cities. SB 1039 instead required the District to make a good faith effort to fund projects that address maritime industrial impacts that are proposed by eligible cities.

In the Assembly Local Government Committee analysis for SB 1039, the Committee noted that, “In the long-held 1955 Mallon v. City of Long Beach 44 Cal. 2d 199 case, the California Supreme Court found that the City of Long Beach's interest in the tidelands was acquired not as a ‘municipal affair,’ but subject to a public trust to develop its harbor and navigation facilities for the benefit of the entire state and was therefore subject to the control of the Legislature. The Court concluded that the expenditures by the City of Long Beach for storm drains, a city incinerator, a public library, public hospitals, public parks, a fire alarm system, and many other items were purely ‘municipal affairs’ within the meaning of California Constitution Article XI, § 6. Moreover, they were normal expenditures for a municipal corporation to make. Thus, the City of Long Beach was unable to use public monies for general municipal purposes because the monies were to be used to benefit the entire state and would therefore violate the prohibition against using public monies as a gift. SB 1039 would specifically require the Port to provide financial incentives to the Cities of National City and San Diego to help address maritime industrial impacts, including the loss of municipal revenue opportunities.” SB 1039 was not heard by the Assembly Local Government Committee.

1. Lobbyist Reporting. In 1974, California voters approved Proposition 9, also known as the Political Reform Act, which among other things, requires the disclosure of campaign contributions and expenditures and state lobbying activities. The requirements were enacted to ensure receipts and expenditures in election campaigns are fully and truthfully disclosed in order that the voters may be fully informed and improper practices may be inhibited, and that the activities of lobbyists are regulated and their finances disclosed in order that improper influences will not be directed at public officials.

The Political Reform Act requires individuals, businesses and other organizations that make or receive payments to influence state governmental decisions, such as advocating for or against legislative bills and state agency regulations, to register as lobbyists and submit periodic reports of their lobbying activity. However, the Political Reform Act does not regulate individuals or other entities that lobby the federal government, or city, county or other local government agencies.

1. Recent Censure. October 10, 2023, a District board commissioner was censured and stripped of the vice chair role. The formal reprimand was approved 6-0.

According to an October 11, 2023 San Diego Union-Tribune article, “Although specifics were not made known prior to the meeting, Naranjo is accused of making false accusations against a port staffer - likely Port General Counsel Thomas Russell, as revealed during the meeting. Naranjo also repeatedly retaliated against the employee, failed to make proper disclosures, obstructed staff 's efforts to obtain records of her external financial dealings, affected the agency's ability to enter into lawful contracts and violated the Brown Act, according to high-level findings released following a confidential personnel investigation conducted by HR Law Consultants.

"The remedy of censure is an appropriate remedy in this case as the investigator concluded that Commissioner Naranjo continues to exhibit retaliation in response to the district's actions,’ said Sonia Carvalho, an outside attorney with Best & Krieger, who presented the board with the findings. ‘In our opinion, the report obligates the port to act in an effort to stress to Commissioner Naranjo the seriousness of her actions and to deter further poor behavior, which could subject the district and individuals to liability.

“Naranjo was sworn into office in January 2021 and represents National City on the seven-member board. She served as vice chair of the board this year, until she was stripped of the role Tuesday. Commissioner Frank Urtasun was selected to replace Naranjo as vice chair. The vice chair role often leads to serving as board chair in the following year. Naranjo is a South Bay native and a self-described environmental justice activist. She received an avalanche of support from meeting attendees who praised her efforts to shape the agency's air quality policies and industrial practices, which often affect National City, Barrio Logan, Sherman Heights and Logan Heights neighborhoods.

“After pressure from public speakers, Port of San Diego Commissioners voted separately in closed session to release a redacted version of what was described as a lengthy and comprehensive investigation. The document is expected to be released to the public today. ‘We don't know what this report (says). They say they'll release it tomorrow. There's never going to be another meeting. My client is never going to get a chance to go and clear her name. So that part of this remains completely bogus,’ said Cory Briggs, the lawyer representing Naranjo in the matter. The National City Council will meet Thursday in closed session to discuss the matter."

1. Bill Summary. This bill makes a number of changes to the Act. It requires the City of San Diego to make a good faith effort to appoint one of its three commissioners from one of five specified neighborhoods within the City. This bill also requires the District to adopt a code of ethics and to appoint a board of ethics to provide independent ethics advice, among other duties. Additionally, this bill prohibits a commissioner from lobbying, contracting with, or being employed by the District for 2 years after serving as a commissioner; requires the District to publish a report regarding its lobbying activities; limits commissioners to three terms; requires regular rotation of board chairpersons and vice chairpersons; requires the board, before acting to censure or strip a commissioner of their duties, to provide 72 hours’ notice of the proposed action to the city council and mayor of the city that appointed the commissioner; and, requires the District to compensate a commissioner $100 for each day that a commissioner attends a meeting, but not more than $600 per month.

Lastly, this bill requires the creation of two funds: The Community Impact Fund and the Future Public Access Fund. The District is required to deposit 1% of all nontax port district gross revenue into the Community Impact Fund to pay for projects that address maritime industrial impacts that are proposed by specified eligible cities. The District is also required to place 1% of eligible rents into the Future Public Access Fund to convert industrial property in disadvantaged communities, as defined, within the District to open space, including, but not limited to, parks, plazas, and promenades. The author is the sponsor of this bill.

1. Author’s Statement. According to the author, “The Port of San Diego was created by the State Legislature in 1962 to serve as a steward of San Diego Bay for the benefit of California. It is a unique Special District that includes multiple member-cities that appoints Port Commissioners to serve on their behalf and, despite being reviewed by no less than three grand jury reports in the past 35 years, has very little statutory oversight.

“AB 2783 provides needed transparency and oversight reforms to the Port of San Diego by adopting recommendations identified in the 2022-2023 Grand Jury report. Other Port Districts on the west coast have adopted similar governance and accountability measures, which recent incidents within the Port of San Diego suggest is needed. In the past year, the CEO and CFO have left for reasons that have not been publicly disclosed, one commissioner got an unprecedented censure, and the former Port Chairman abruptly resigned.

“Section 4, Article 10 of the California Constitution guarantees maximum public access and recreational opportunities on the coast. Since the State Legislature created the Port of San Diego in 1962, the Port has removed and limited opportunity for public access in favor of maritime industrial activity in the majority-minority communities along the Port. These communities have been heavily impacted by the maritime industrial activity, which is demonstrated in the CalEnviroScreen 4.0 scores: 94^th percentile in exposure to Diesel Particulate Matter, 97^th percentile in Poverty and 93^rd Percentile in Asthma rate. AB 2783 addresses this issue by increasing the Port’s set-aside for projects that help mitigate maritime industrial impacts.

“AB-2783 introduces an essential layer of independent oversight regarding ethical conduct and conflict of interest issues, institutes tenure restrictions, and enhance the Port's role as a collaborative stakeholder. These measures are designed to align decision-making processes more closely with the welfare of the State and its citizenry.”

1. Policy Considerations. The Committee may wish to consider the following:
   1. Public Trust Doctrine. The District is a state tidelands trustee and the tidelands are held in trust by the State for the benefit of the people of California. Uses of trust lands, whether granted to a local agency or administered by the state directly, are generally limited to those that are water dependent or related, and include commerce, fisheries, and navigation, environmental preservation and recreation. Additionally, the District’s revenues generated from its public trust lands are subject to the Public Trust Doctrine. This bill states that it is necessary to provide incentives to communities that experience the adverse environmental, economic, quality of life, and other impacts that result from hosting a working waterfront, such as a decrease in recreational opportunities, the loss of municipal revenue opportunities, increased noise and traffic, and negative effects on air quality. Such impacts are described generally in this bill as “maritime industrial impacts.” However, some of these incentives may not be consist with the Public Trust Doctrine or other state law. For example, would including “the loss of municipal revenue opportunities” interfere with the District’s ability to manage portions of its lands for environmental preservation, public access, or other water-related recreation if a city could claim that the trust land could instead be used for revenue generating projects? Given the existing limitations on the use of trust lands, the Committee may wish to consider if this bill could ultimately encourage projects in violation of the Public Trust Doctrine, and if additional clarity is needed.
   2. District’s Discretion. Local agencies are generally able to manage their resources through decisions made by their governing boards. While limitations on this discretion often do exist, this bill would further limit the District’s ability to decide how to administer its resources. According to the District, “The Port fundamentally opposes AB 2783 since the bill language would effectively remove the agency’s discretion to make decisions that balance the needs of the Port’s five member cities, its represented employees, its environmental mission, and protect the State’s tideland interests. Additionally, language in AB 2783 diverts existing Port revenues to ‘convert industrial property in disadvantaged communities within the Port to open space, including, but not limited to, parks, plazas, and promenades,’ effectively shifting the Port away from maritime operations and siphons state resources that are managed on behalf of the people of the State of California. Additionally, as one of eighteen military strategic ports in the nation, the Port and its terminals provides a vital service to the U.S.’s national security. Yet, the bill would require these terminals to be converted to open space.’ Given the concerns of the District, the Committee may wish to consider if the limitations this bill could place on the District’s decision-making authority strike a reasonable balance.
   3. Term Limits. This bill would limit the District board commissioners to three terms. The San Diego County Grand Jury recommended the implementation of a two-term limit The Grand Jury asserted that 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 commissioner responsive to the community. However, others may argue that the enactment of term limits could reduce the institutional knowledge and experience of those serving on the District’s governing board. The Committee may wish to consider if instituting term limits would be detrimental or beneficial to the governance of the District.
   4. Which Revenue? This bill would require the District to create the “Community Impact Fund” and deposit 1% of all nontax port district gross revenue into that fund. As currently drafted, it is not clear what revenue would be included when being deposited into the fund. Would this include grant or settlement revenue, state and federal funding, or other restricted revenue? The Committee may wish to consider if additional clarification is needed to ensure revenue is utilized in accordance with the District’s purpose.
   5. Revolving Door. Existing law restricts the post-governmental activities of certain former public officials. These restrictions are commonly known as a "revolving door ban." One of the main types of revolving door restrictions in the PRA is a one-year ban that prohibits certain officials, for one year after leaving public service, from representing any other person by appearing before or communicating with, for compensation, their former agency in an attempt to influence agency decisions that involve the making of general rules (such as regulations or legislation), or to influence certain proceedings involving a permit, license, contract, or transaction involving the sale or purchase of property or goods. This bill specifies that a board commissioner shall not lobby, contract with, or be employed by the board or the district for two years after serving as commissioner. The Committee may wish to consider if a two-year prohibition is unwarranted considering existing lobbying prohibitions.
2. Committee Amendments. In order to address some of the above policy considerations, the Committee may wish to amend the bill as follows:

Sec. 17. (c) A commissioner shall not lobby, contract with, or be employed by the board or the district for two year after serving as a commissioner. A commissioner shall not lobby, contract with, or be employed by the board or the district until after the expiration of one year, beginning January 1 of the year following a commissioner’s end of term or resignation.

Sec. 19.5(d) The board shall create the “Community Impact Fund” and deposit 1 percent of all nontax port district gross operating revenue into that fund. In addition to the funding required in subdivision (b), the board shall use the moneys in the fund to pay for projects that address maritime industrial impacts that are proposed by eligible cities.

1. Author Amendment. The author has requested the Committee accept amendments as follows:
   
   Sec. 18. (b) If the board acts to censure or strip a commissioner of their duties based on alleged unethical or unlawful conduct, then the board shall disclose to the public all documents and evidence related to the alleged conduct in accordance with the requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act (Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 54950) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code). and All records related to the alleged conduct are public records that are subject to the disclosure requirements of the California Public Records Act (Division 10 (commencing with Section 7920.000) of Title 1 of the Government Code.
2. Previous Legislation. AB 1153 (Alvarez) of 2023 would have required the District, in implementing the master plan, to include funding for cooperative infrastructure and capital projects that directly address maritime industrial impacts by the Port in cities that host maritime terminals, as specified. In addition to that funding, AB 1153 would have required the District to dedicate 1% of the Port’s revenue, as specified, for those cooperative infrastructure and capital projects. AB 1153 was never heard in the Assembly Committee on Jobs, Economic Development, and the Economy.

SB 507 (Atkins), Chapter 372, Statutes of 2019, granted certain previously ungranted tidelands in San Diego Bay to the District, and granted certain public trust lands to the City of San Diego, subject to specified terms and conditions in both instances.

AB 2646 (Gonzalez Fletcher), Chapter 192, Statutes of 2018, granted certain public trust lands in Chula Vista to the District that had been subject to an earlier exchange approved by the SLC.

AB 729 (Atkins) of 2016 would have granted the tidelands in the center of San Diego Bay to the Port. This bill was never heard in the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources.

AB 93 (Wayne), Chapter 946, Statutes of 2001, created the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority and required the District to transfer the San Diego International Airport to the authority, among other things.

SB 698 (Peace), Chapter 714, Statutes of 2000, authorized the SLC to carry out an exchange of public trust lands within the Naval Training Center, San Diego, with the City of San Diego and the District.

Arguments in Support. According to National City Councilmember Luz Molina, “I am a National City councilmember and represent a district that includes our city’s waterfront. I am concerned with the recent actions of the San Diego Unified Port District (the Port), and I strongly support Assembly Bill 2783, for reform of the Port. Of special interest to me is the provision that would establish an independent ethics committee to monitor and guide the work of this very important and very powerful agency.

“As one of five cities that make up the Port, the City of National City is committed to working with the Port on our shared interests. The decisions that are made by the Port have a direct impact to our city’s economy, recreational access, and environmental health. I believe this bill is a step in the right direction to establish a mechanism to give the communities most impact by the Port a stronger voice without impeding the Port’s operation.

“AB 2783 would not impact operations. AB 2783 aims to improve transparency, accountability, and oversight by establishing clear guidelines for ethical standards. An independent ethics committee would promote fair policies and procedures that maximize the likelihood of achieving balanced outcomes for National City and the region as a whole.”

1. Arguments in Opposition. According to the District with a position of oppose unless amended, “As written, Assembly Bill 2783 would 1) erode the Port’s ability to generate future regional benefits and community investments and 2) conflict with existing laws, the Constitution and the significant statutory purpose of the maritime public infrastructure and coastal-dependent facilities located on these state tidelands. Moreover, AB 2783 applies a series of unprecedented mandates that have been placed on no other California public port and, by rolling back its autonomy, overrules the self-determination of thousands of San Diego County voters who established the Port.

“A self-sustaining public agency, the Port collects no taxes, yet it has invested nearly $1.9 billion into the region through public infrastructure projects of all sizes. Today, the Port supports a total economic impact of $20.9 billion and 114,530 jobs in California and manages a diverse portfolio that generates revenues to support vital public services and amenities. From building ships for the US Navy and bolstering California’s cargo supply chain to demonstrating new, clean technologies, San Diego’s waterfront provides jobs and revenue that flow into communities around the Bay. Unless the measure is amended to be consistent with state and federal law, prevent encroachment upon public infrastructure and coastal-dependent facilities, mitigate the economic harm of lost jobs, and offset lost revenue from leaseholds by increased state funding to Portside community projects, the Port must oppose this measure.”

1. Double-Referral. This bill is double-referred to the Assembly Committee on Judiciary.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

City Councilmember Jack Shu, La Mesa (If Amended)
City Councilmember Luz Molina, National City

One Individual

Opposition

California Teamsters Public Affairs Council

San Diego Unified Port District (unless amended)

Analysis Prepared by: Jimmy MacDonald / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958