HomeMy WebLinkAbout1954 11-24 CC MIN144
National City, California, November 24, 1954
Special meeting of the City Louncil was called to order by Mayor
Hodge at 9:00 A.M. o'clock. Council members present: Hollings-
worth, Jensen, Parchen, Hodge. Council members absent: Heck.
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS present: Alston, Bird, Warwick, Wagner,
urThe meeting was opened with the pledge of allegiance to the Flag,
followed by invocation by Councilman Parchen.
CITY CLERK ALS'I'ON stated the meeting was called by Mayor Hodge
for the purpose of deciding what, if any, action should be taken
to intervene in the suit brought by the United States of America
to condemn certain tidelands claimed by the City of Coronado,
said suit now being tried in the Federal Court.
COUNCILMAN PARCHEN asked Attorney Curran what steps could be tak-
en to protect National City. ATTORNEY CURRAN stated it might be
advantageous at this time to review the situation, particularly
the facts in the rules of law applicable. In the past we have
discussed the claim of National City to certain portions of San
Diego Bay, certain portions of the City of San Diego, parts of
Point Loma and out into the Pacific Ocean. All of our discus-
sion from which this special meeting stems revolves around the
contention that National City's City limits originally did ex-
tend out into the Pacific Ocean past Point Loma. It has come to
the attention of National City officials that the trial is being
held in the Federal Court in which the United States of America
is condemning certain tidelands along with other parcels of land
for use of the Amphibious Base in Ean Diego Bay. That suit was
filed about June or July 1953. For a number of years prior to
filing of the suit the Federal Government had a lease on that
property and other property on the strand. The reason for the
condemnation suit was that the State and the Federal Government
and the City of Coronado were unable to agree on a new lease,
as a result of which the Federal Government filed a condemnation
suit. The matter of going through the judicial procedure came
up to be tried and just immediately prior to the time of trial
the Attorney General of California, representing the Divisor. of
Beaches and Parks, settled their portion of that suit by enter-
ing into a new lease ,ith the Federal Government. The City of
Coronado did not settle and went to trial and the Jury was giv-
en the case yesterday. That wad to decide the fair value of the
land taken. The question which arises is, in the event that
National City's claim that its boundaries extend out past Point
Loma is sound, what, if any, rights are beingiput in jeopardy by
this present Federal Court action. And if we have any rights that
are being put in jeopardy, What, if any, steps should we take to
protect those rights. The Federal Government can come in and
take any land it wants, all it needs to do is file a declaration
of taking, deposit the money in Court, get an order from the Court
and it take the property. After the money is deposited in Court
and the owners of the title do not like the sum awarded, they can
come in and demand a jury trial. It is the question of who act-
ually owns the fee simple title to the land as distinguished from
who exercises policital jurisdiction. ATTORNEY CURRAN stated the
state Legislature in 1923 made a conveyance of tide and certain
submerged lands to the City of Coronado. The decision of the
courts involving the City of Long Beach against Marshall was read.
The rule is that when the Legislature conveys tidelands, as they
did to Coronado in 1923, the City that gets those tidelands has
all right, title and interest, there is to those tidelands and
that is the very thing which the Federal Government in the condem-
11/24
145
nation suit is taking. If_that is the case even though National
Cityls boundaries did include those tid.el ids, the mere fact
that National City has governmental authority and jurisdiction
over those tidelands, would avail National City nothing. There
is no further title to give to anybody. The title was origin-
ally vested in the State of California when it became a member
of the Union, it retained title until such time after the Leg-
islature, it gave a fee simple title to the various citiesi and
in this case gave it to the City of Coronado. That being the
case, it appears very clear, that as a matter of law, even though
National Cityts boundaries did extend out into the Pacific Ocean
and included all of these lands which was taken by this condem-
nation suit, that the title to those lands in question is vested
in the City, of Coronado, _and therefore the City _of Coronado would
be entitled to whatever award is made as a result of the condem-
nation suit, and National City would have no valid claim,to any
part of " the award. ED���`OND LaCASSE, 2020 Highland Avenue , was
present, and stated that since National City on Sept. 1.0, 1887
was given a grant within these boundaries, why did the State af-
terwards give Coronado a legal right to the ,Iro,,erty they now
claim. Was there any action between the State and National. City
at that time. COUNCIUTOITAN JENSEN asked the Attorney if it is
his opinion that suit which is Wending on the boundaries has no
jurisdiction over this at all, we can do nothing about that which
comes within that boundary. ATTORNEY CU'RAN stated that was cor-
rect. Even though it were our boundary it would give us no right
to claim any part of the money which the Federal Government has
to nay to take that Land..
Moved by Hollingsworth, seconded by Parchen, that the meeting be
closed. Carried, all. the Council present voting aye.
MAY07, CITY OF NATIONAL CITY CALI407i'TIA
ATTEST:
CITY CL'-"p.K
71/2L