Loading...
1939-12-28 Adjourned Regular CC MinutesADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA' LD THURSDAY EVENING DECEMBER 28 - - - 1932 The meeting convened at 7:32 o'clock P. M. with President Weichhart presiding. ROLL CALL: 1. The roll was called and Councilmen Godfrey, Maurer, Morris and President Weichhart, (4), were noted present. Absent: Councilman Carrington, (1). WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 2. The Clerk read the following letter dated December 28, 1939, addressed to the Board of Supervisors of Alameda County: "The letter of your Board, addressed to this Council under date of December 26, 1939, in connection with the matter of the abandonment by the County of the operation of the Fruitvale Avenue Bridge at midnight, December 31, 1939, and wherein your Board of Supervisors requests this Council to reconsider its decision of December 22, 1939, has been received and con- sidered at an adjourned regular meeting held this day. "This Council adheres to its action originally taken on this matter, to the effect that the City of Alameda cannot accept the proposal of the Board of Supervisors of Alameda County for the joint operation of the Fruitvale Avenue Bridge and to furnish one-half of the personnel, materials and services necessary for such operation, for the reason that the expendi- ture by the City of Alameda of public funds for such purposes would be unlawful. "This Council is of the opinion that the position of the City of Alameda differs materially from the position of the County of Alameda in connection with the operation of this Bridge. The City of Alameda has no propriatary or legal or equitable rights in the Bridge structure and no easements, license to operate or rights of any kind whatsoever in or over this Bridge; nor is the Bridge a part of the City's highway system. Were the City to attempt to operate this Bridge through its agents and employees, it would do so as a trespasser in assum- ing control of a structure the title of which is now in the Government of the United States and for which it holds no valid permit or license so to operate. "Your Board has been made aware of the fact that this Council did not know, until December 19, 1939, of the action taken by your Board in setting midnight, December 31, 1939, as the deadline when the County's operation of the Fruitvale Avenue Bridge would cease. We are informed that knowledge of this action was purposely withheld by your Board from the City of Alameda on the ground that you considered the United States Government and the Southern Pacific Company were the only parties interested in the contemplated action, and that the City of Alameda was not an interested party. "Since learning of the action taken by your Honorable Board with reference to abandonment of the Bridge in question, the officers of the City of Alameda have done everything that lay within their power to bring about some definite action on the part of the United States Government and other parties involved, to the end of averting the disastrous consequences which the closing of the Fruitvale Bridge would have upon the public at large. As a result of our concentrated efforts assurances have been formally given to the Board of Supervisors of Alameda County that the United States Government would institute within a period of thirty days appropriate action in the Federal Courts to determine the respective rights of the parties involved; and that assurances that the continued operation of the Bridge by the County would not jeopardize the County's rights have been given, or will be forthcoming, immediately. "We reiterate, the position of the City of Alameda, that the City of Alameda has been deprived by your actions of sufficient time to take action which would aid in bringing about the necessary arrangements protecting the County and at the same time insuring the continued operation of the Bridge. "We respectfully urge the County of Alameda to extend the date for ceasing operation of the Bridge for another period of thirty days, in the firm belief that within such a period of time a solution satisfactory to all parties concerned can be found. Any other action on the part of your Board could only be con- sidered as an arbitrary attitude and an action detrimental to public interest." Councilman Maurer moved that, after hearing the letter from the Board of Supervisors dated December 26, 1939, which was read at the adjourned regular meeting of the Council held at 5:05 o'clock P. M. this afternoon, and the Council having adjourned to meet again in ad- journed regular session at 7 :32 o'clock P. M. in order that the matter might be more thoroughly considered during the interim and a reply prepared to the Board of Supervisors' letter, the Mayor be authorized to sign said letter and that it be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors of Alameda County. Councilman Morris asked if anyone present knew upon what basis Mr. Harry Bartell, member of the Board of Supervisors, had made the statement which appeared in newspapers saying he personally would pledge the people of Alameda that the operation of the Fruitvale Avenue Bridge would continue. Councilman Morris received no reply to this question. Councilman Morris then seconded the motion made by Councilman Maurer. At this point Councilman Godfrey said that while he is aware of the time and thought that has been put into the preparation of the reply to the Board of Supervisors and he is in accord with the contents, with one exception, before he votes on the motion the Council must be prepared to face the facts as they are. While it has been belt all along that something would happen to guarantee the continued operation of the Fruitvale Avenue Bridge, in the event nothing does occur to keep the Bridge from closing, what will happen then? It is the City's job to see that the Bridge stays in operation, and what is to be done in the event the Board of Supervisors takes no more notice of this communication than it did of the previous one, dated December 23, 1939? Councilman Morris stated that all facts have been weighed before the preparation of the letter to the Board of Supervisors and in submitting the answer contained therein; that the legality of what the City may or may not do is the point in question and the Council is acting on the advice of its legal advisor, the City Attorney. Mayor Weichhart expressed the belief that the letter as prepared should be sent to the Board of Supervisors, to give it another opportunity to meet the request of the City of Alameda for additional time within which to make all possible arrangements to prevent the closing of the Fruitvale Bridge. Councilman Maurer offered the thought that if the County has determined it is legally impossible to operate the Bridge after the deadline which has been set as midnight, De- cember 31, 1939, how can it then legally operate the Bridge jointly with the City of Alameda; also, that the County has been operating the Bridge for some time since the Court decision, stating that the license agreement under which the County is operating the Bridge is void, and therefore he can see no reason why an additional thirty days will make any great difference. Councilman Morris stated he was sure each individual member of the Council personally wishes there were some means by which the City of Alameda could step in and legally operate the Bridge. He felt that the Council should be of a uniform mind and reiterated the fact that the attitude of the Council in this matter is guided by the City Attorney's ruling, that it is illegal for the City to participate in or spend public funds for operation of the Fruitvale Avenue Bridget and the Council can only proceed on these grounds, and there is nothing else the City can legally do about it. The City Attorney suggested that perhaps some other attorney would see this matter dif- ferently and asked if it were the Council's wish that he consult with another, or others, regarding the question of the City's legal right to participate in the operation of the Fruitvale Bridge. At this point Mr. Ben F. Lamborn addressed the Council, suggesting that the matter be referred to the Governor of the State of California, contending that it is an emergency measure. Mr. Lamborn also stated he believed the Southern Pacific Company should oper- ate the Bridge during the time settlement of the matter is pending. Mr. Lamborn suggested further that Mayor Weichhart declare this situation to be an emergency and assume the re- sponsibility. Mr. Frank A. Gottstein addressed the Council regarding the same topic. The City Attorney advised Mr. Lamborn and Mr. Gottstein that the Governor of California, representatives of the Toll Bridge Authority and Mr. Purcell, State Highway Engineer, had been personally contacted and the complete situation presented; that numerous con- sultations had been held with the Southern Pacific Company and the suggestions made by Mr. Lamborn and Mr. Gottstein had been presented to the proper parties more than a week previously. The roll was then called on the original motion by Councilman Maurer, to the effect that a letter be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors over Mayor Weichhart's signature, and which had been seconded by Councilman Morris. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Maurer, Morris and President Weichhart, (3). Reserving Vote: Coun- cilman Godfrey, (1). Noes: None. Absent: Councilman Carrington, (1). Councilman Morris inquired if he was correct in assuming there would not be a unanimous vote in the disposition of this motion. Councilman Godfrey then declared he would vote in favor of the motion, making the vote unanimous. The vote then stood as follows. Ayes: Councilman Godfrey, Maurer, Morris and President Weichhart, (4). Noes: None. Absent: Councilman Carrington, (1). Councilman Morris moved that the City Attorney be given authority to consult whatever legal aid he deemed advisable with regard to the matter of the threatened closing of the Fruitvale Avenue Bridge. The motion was seconded by Councilman Maurer and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Councilmen Godfrey, Maurer, Morris and President Weichhart, (4). Noes: None. Absent: Councilman Carrington, (1). There being no further business to transact, the motion was made by Councilman Maurer and seconded by Councilman Morris that the Council adjourn to meet in adjourned regular session on Saturday afternoon, December 30, 1939, at 1:00 ofolock P. M. The motion carried by the following vote. Ayes: Councilman Godfrey, Maurer Morris and President Weichhart, (4). Noes: None. Absent: Councilman Carrington, (1 . Respectftolly submitted,