CCMIN111902 - Laserfiche WebLink

land and he questioned whether the neighbors are impacted. This whole issue is not about the pole, it is about that land. He was concerned that no one has talked about Mr. Ciesielski's First Amendment rights. This is not a chicken coop in the back, but about the flag. Ms. Dennis referred to the Government Code and asked about aesthetic considerations. Mr. Devane said no restrictions solely to promote aesthetic considerations may be imposed. Ms. Ayala asked if the land belongs to Mr. Ciesielski. Mr. Devane said Mr. Ciesielski has paid for the property and is in control of the property, however that is being appealed by the neighbors and that appeal has not yet been heard. However, the flagpole is not on that property purchased from the city, so it is irrelevant to this issue. Mr. Roush said the land has been transferred to Mr. Ciesielski. Part of the court order is that in the event that the decision in Superior Court, which upheld the decision of the Council to sell the land as surplus, is reversed, then the deal would be set aside. Jerry Wagner, 6344 Alisal Street, referred to a Channel 7 report and quoted some remarks of Mr. Ciesielski. He also referred to a newspaper article which quoted Mr. Ciesielski as saying he would build the flagpole no matter what the outcome of the heating. He said Juanita Bianchi collected signatures from 40 people who do not want the flagpole or the illumination. He said he collected signatures from the people who live at the Pleasanton Mobile Home Park and 25 people said they do not want the flagpole or the illumination. He believed that if the flagpole is allowed, many different flags will be flown, including the skull and crossbones (a symbol of death) and others. Mr. Ciesielski could fly the US flag on the front of his house as other people in Pleasanton do. In his opinion, this was a "spite pole" and has nothing to do with patriotism. He said Mrs. Bianchi filed a police report regarding a threatening phone call received today and was afraid to come to the meeting. Jack Chestnut, 4128 Stanley Boulevard, agreed Mr. Ciesielski has a right to a flagpole as does everyone in the City. He would like to find a reasonable solution to the problem that would work for Mr. Ciesielski and the neighbors. He reminded Council that in 1999 he was required by Council, because of the concerns of a few neighbors, to meet with those concerned and to redesign his house. That cost him over $100,000. He did that in good faith and worked out a solution. He suggested the same thing be done in this instance. He believed that Mr. Ciesielski and his neighbors should get together and discuss the concerns. Mr. Chestnut said the light from the flagpole will not shine in his windows, but he will definitely see it. He is a light sleeper and the motion sensor activated light in Mr. Ciesieiski's yard wakes him up now. He referred to a comment by Mr. Ciesielski that his neighbors would object to whatever he wanted to do. Mr. Chestnut acknowledged they do have a difficult relationship. He related a recent incident with a fence and the solution he reached. Mr. Chestnut believed if people talked to each other they could find a solution. He asked Council to make no decision, but to require the neighbors to get together and find a solution. Pleasanton City Council 21 11/19/02 Minutes