Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Roush said the City is the defendant and Mr. Ciesielski is not named in the lawsuit. <br />His office would be defending the litigation. If the City is not successful, there could be a <br />demand for attorney's fees. <br /> <br /> Mayor Pico asked if the Council could still determine whether or not to enter into the <br />Sales Agreement. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush said the primary issues before Council are the terms of the sale agreement, but <br />Council can still decide not to sell the property, although staff is not recommending that. <br /> <br /> Mr. Campbell asked if there was some precedent for selling the property under fair <br />market value? <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush believed the court will look at how close the sales price is to the appraisal. <br />Was a rational basis used to determine the purchase price, were other factors used in determining <br />the buyer of the property? He believed the court would conclude that the City used a rational <br />basis for disposing of the property. The plaintiffs will probably argue it is merely a matter of <br />dollars and the City should sell to the highest bidder. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ayala pointed out that when the original decision was made to surplus the property, <br />there was no pending litigation. In making the present recommendation, staff must have <br />considered the reasons to sell the property versus the money involved in fighting a lawsuit, etc. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush said staff still feels that it is the better course of action to declare the property <br />surplus and sell it to the property owner to the north. <br /> <br />Mayor Pico declared the public hearing open. <br /> <br /> Philip Ciesielski, 4160 Stanley Boulevard, indicated this has been a family matter for <br />over thirty years. He talked about his grandmother, her purchase of her home, and her efforts to <br />acquire this City property. Unfortunately, she died before that goal was reached. He has been <br />fighting this battle for eight years, long before the other parties who filed the lawsuit either <br />owned property or lived there. He believed he had complied with every request fi.om the City <br />and he felt it was time to conclude this. In 1999, a decision was made to refer this property for <br />review by the Downtown Specific Plan Committee and the Parks and Trails Master Plan <br />Committee. If these Committees did not find a use for the property, then it was to go back to the <br />parcel it originally came from, which is the lot he lives on. He spoke at these Committee <br />hearings and they voted unanimously that there was no public use for this parcel. <br /> <br /> Joe Devane, Jr., 7080 Donlon Way, Suite 122, Dublin, attorney for Mr. Ciesielski, <br />indicated that Mr. Ciesielski has been agreeable on all points. He signed the first agreement. <br />Then allegations started flying, and a new agreement was drafted and Mr. Ciesielski is willing to <br />sign it too. Mr. Devane believed there is no further issue to be resolved and the agreement <br />should be approved tonight. There is no public use for this property. The lawsuit was filed when <br />the neighbors did not get what they wanted. It is a dangerous precedent for people to think if you <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 5 02/19/02 <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />