PC 100902 - Laserfiche WebLink

- In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Arkin, Ms. Nerland confirmed that national and state flags were exempt from City review. The height of the flagpole with respect to the surrounding homes, the proportion of the flag to the pole, and the illumination were the important issues which are within the Commission's scope for design review. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Roberts, Ms. Nerland confirmed that a Jolly Roger flag or other commercial flags were not exempt under the Code. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Sullivan, Ms. Nerland noted that it was not entirely clear whether the size of the flag could be regulated. The Planning Commission has the latitude to determine whether the flag is in proportion to the flagpole, encroached on a neighbor's property line, created extreme noise, or a distraction to safety. She emphasized that the content of a state or national flag could not be regulated under current ordinance. A discussion regarding flag etiquette and the display of controversial flags ensued. Mr. Iserson advised that the local govemment did not enforce flag etiquette, and noted that the regulation of national or state flags would bring up free speech issues. Chairperson Maas noted that the Planning Commission would only address the issues of the design review. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. r- Jerry Wagner, Alisal Street, spoke in opposition to this matter. He noted that he had taken a poll among the tenants of his mobile home park, and concluded that they were uniformly against the proposal. He distributed a petition to the Commissioners to that effect. He believed that this flagpole amounted to a "spite pole," and that the applicant had originally intended to fly the Jolly Roger flag. Although the Jolly Roger reference had been removed from the proposal, but the applicant intended to fly flags other than the American flag. He believed that the applicant had displayed animosity toward the neighbors. He noted that there was ongoing legal action between the applicant and another neighbor. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Kameny, Mr. Iserson replied that the minimum setback for a flagpole was five feet in the rear yard, and three feet in the side yard. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Sedlak, Mr. Iserson confirmed that Mr. Ciesielski was not in attendance because he was party to a lawsuit which involved Mr. Wagner. In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Maas, Ms. Nerland replied that the applicant chose not to attend because of the history between the parties. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Sullivan, Mr. Iserson confirmed that the applicant was not required to attend the hearing. ,--. Emilie Cruzon, 4145 Stanley Blvd., noted that she lived across the street from the applicant. Because the applicant's home is one story, she requested that the Commission consider not approving a flag any taller than his home. Her windows face directly towards the applicant's house, and that the illumination would create a distraction and a nuisance. She expressed PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 9, 2002 Page 5