Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Port Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves additional funds for port‑related legal services amid mixed votes and calls for faster progress
Summary
The council approved a contract amendment for outside counsel to continue work on port negotiations and the municipal surplus lands analysis by a 3–2 vote after council members debated costs, invoices and perceived slow progress.
The City Council approved a contract amendment with Devaney, Pate, Morris & Cameron LLP to continue specialized legal work on land‑use and business matters related to the Port of San Diego by a 3‑2 vote. The item prompted debate on attorney hourly rates, invoices, progress on a Municipal Services Agreement (MSA) white paper and the pace of work needed to secure development and revenue for the city.
Public commenters questioned billing and hours. Thomas Reich and Edward Neto urged scrutiny of legal fees and asked whether travel and other charges were appropriate. Council Member Rodriguez and others said the MSA work has been slow and asked for clearer deliverables. Council Member Molina and other supporters of the agreement said the firm brings unique port and public‑trust experience and has completed work on compliance with the Surplus Lands Act and coordination with the state HCD, enabling future requests for proposals on port property.
City staff, including the city attorney, clarified the rate and scope: the firm’s hourly rate was stated in the meeting as $250 an hour (correcting earlier public statements that cited $400), and staff said the vendor had previously negotiated with state agencies and ports and had produced a white paper used as the basis for further analysis. Staff said a draft of the Cosmon and Associates (consultant) follow‑on report was expected to be available to the MSA subcommittee in early April.
Council members split: the motion to fund the amendment carried 3‑2 after a lengthy discussion about progress, invoices and whether city staff could accelerate the process. Supporters described the additional legal work as an investment in securing port‑area development and future revenue; opponents said the city’s budget deficit and past delays required greater demonstration of forward movement and closer oversight.
Why it matters: Port area negotiations and the MSA have potential long‑term fiscal implications for the city if development yields jobs and tax revenues; council approval continues outside legal support while staff and subcommittees pursue the MSA draft and negotiations.
Next steps: Staff said they would push for a draft report from consultants and continue MSA subcommittee review. Council members asked for additional briefings and more frequent status reporting on consultant deliverables and invoices.
