Last-minute chaos in state Legislature dooms San Diego port reform bill – for now

A bill that would have been one of the biggest reforms to governance of the Port District of San Diego in 60 years died in the waning hours of the end of the legislative session on Saturday.

AB 2783 from San Diego Assemblymember David Alvarez had passed both the Assembly and Senate floors, with no recorded opposition. But the bill — which had been much amended from its initial form in several committee hearings since it was unveiled in February — was apparently the victim of the chaotic, last-minute maneuverings in the Assembly as lawmakers raced to pass bills before a midnight deadline.

Alvarez said he plans to re-introduce the bill in the next legislative session. Because its final version received unanimous votes in both chambers, he said he hoped it would pass with little resistance. 

The bill was passed by the Senate on Aug. 28, and had to return to the Assembly — which passed it in May — for what is normally a routine concurrence vote that would send it on to Gov. Gavin Newsom. 

Alvarez said that the approved bill from the Senate never made it physically in the hands of the Assembly clerk before midnight Saturday — an archaic but required step for any legislation to be voted upon.

“The bill never physically came to the Assembly side,” he said Tuesday. “I don’t know why. We’re trying to figure that out.” 

It may have been the victim of maneuvering between the leadership of the two chambers jockeying over several bills. Whatever the reason Alvarez will have to start over next year. 

The bill would have been the first major change to how the port governs itself and was focused on reforming ethics, lobbying rules, and the criteria for how the city of San Diego selects one of its three commissioners. 

When it was introduced in February, it featured term limits for commissioners, a requirement that one commissioner from San Diego come from a city neighborhood impacted by port operations, and an extended cooling off period banning ex-commissioners from lobbying for up to two years. 

But in its most recent version, the provision restricting commissioners to three, four-year terms was eliminated.

Instead of the requirement that one San Diego commissioner come from one of the impacted neighborhoods — Barrio Logan, Sherman Heights, Shelltown, Logan Heights or Southcrest — it required the city only to “make an effort to reach out to portside communities and to the maritime and cargo handling industries,” and gather names of potential candidates.

Further, the final language says the city is “encouraged” to select a person with experience in designated areas such as cargo handling, environmental stewardship, trade, land use planning, and several others.

The bill retained the requirement that the Port District form an independent ethics commission, which was among several provisions that the port resisted. It required any ethics complaint to be made by a sworn affidavit under penalty of perjury, a similar requirement that the city of San Diego Ethics Commission has for formal ethics complaints filed there.

Alvarez said that the language was designed to discourage people who would make frivolous complaints, and that legitimate whistleblowers would still be protected under state and federal laws. 

The bill also would have required all lobbyists to register with the Port District, and require the district to make that registry available on the website. Lobbyists would have to identify the organization they are working for and what decisions they are asking to influence. 

The port district vigorously opposed the bill until the final version took shape after hearings in Senate government and appropriations committees. It formally dropped its opposition on Aug. 13.  

The port had opposed the mandate for an independent ethics commission and ethics code, saying it already has an ethics code. In a statement the district said it was continuing to review the code which has been in place since 2002. 

The port controls activity on tidelands in five cities — San Diego, Coronado, National City, Imperial Beach and Chula Vista. Each city appoints a representative to the commission, though as the largest member city San Diego gets three appointments. 

The port operates as an independent special district formed under state law passed in 1962. Its decisions are not subject to ratification by elected officials or residents of the five cities. 

Alvarez had sponsored the bill after several recent controversies in the district. Former National City Commissioner Sandy Naranjo was censured in October by her fellow commissioners on the grounds that she had supposedly retaliated against the port’s top lawyer Thomas Russell after he raised questions about possible conflicts of interest she had stemming from outside business dealings.

It was later determined that Naranjo had no conflicts. But the censure, which also stripped her of much of her authority as a commissioner, eventually led the City Council of National City to replace her as its representative. 

In 2023 a San Diego County Grand Jury report called for more oversight and transparency from the powerful agency, which the port in a formal response largely brushed off. 

Also in 2023, the chief financial executive left in May without explanation, and the former president and CEO was put on administrative leave when an internal investigation was launched. 

The reason for the investigation has never been revealed, even after the executive reached a separation agreement in January that paid out $371,000 in severance.