Residents press commission on cell-tower process, transparency and posting of minutes

Several residents used public comment to criticize the county’s handling of a proposed cell tower and to urge greater transparency in notice, meeting minutes and the protest petition process.

Jim Endershot of Tanglewood said he filed an open records request related to animal-control issues and criticized the county clerk’s response time and a $44 fee, which he asked be reimbursed. Endershot also said meeting minutes and agendas were not posted in a timely manner, leaving residents unable to follow the process.

Angie Randall of Pleasanton urged the commission to adopt a local ordinance addressing public exposure to nudity (speaker used a term that the transcript redacted). Randall said law enforcement was hindered in addressing people under the influence and urged passage of a local ordinance she characterized as necessary for deputies to act.

Marge Wake of Tanglewood said the cell-tower debate had been confusing and thanked the one commissioner who voted against the modification; she called for clearer procedures, more timely postings of minutes and more complete information on protest petitions.

Several speakers and a later public commenter outlined the zoning process: the planning commission holds the public hearing and issues a recommendation, a 14-day protest period follows, and then the county commission may vote or remand the case back to planning and zoning. A member of the public who said he represents a citizen group summarized the timeline and said the planning commission amendments are now part of the county’s regulations; he asked for guidance on whether his organization could proceed under the amended code. County staff said the amended regulations were approved and could be relied on by applicants where applicable.

Speakers requested clearer publication of agendas and minutes and better public notice when hearings and protest periods are pending.