A better planning process for Cell Tower expansion

On Wednesday June 19th, El Cerrito held a Public Hearing regarding AT&T's application to put cell towers in single family residential areas of El Cerrito. We had a chance to voice issues to the city and uncover information that was not shared previously. The citizens present were largely and vocally opposed to the cell towers from AT&T. Here are the facts as they were presented in the meeting:

1. AT&T's towers required that telephone poles would need, in some cases, to be raised by 9 feet, significantly cutting into homeowners view considering the installations are on in the El Cerrito hills. 
2. AT&T's towers would not improve coverage in El Cerrito, but rather in Kensington. This is from the AT&T provided maps showing the difference in coverage.
3. Proof was forwarded that the additional cell towers would hurt resident property values. (see below)
4. The City had no plan for how to compensate these residents for the loss of property values. Remember these are being installed in the hills where they become front and center outside someone's living room window.
5. The Senior Planner, Sean Moss, was actively telling people what they can't mention in the hearing. Not sure why a City employee was actively curtailing free speech.
6. All residents who spoke on the quality of cell coverage stated that AT&T's cell coverage is excellent and see no need for additional AT&T coverage in El Cerrito.
7. The city made no mention of AT&T paying any money for having the cell towers place in residential areas of the city.
8. AT&T said these were the "least invasive" solutions - a fact that was later proved false when Kensington, the city where the towers were aimed to improve coverage, denied towers in their own city. AT&T magically came up with a solution that included lower profile towers. http://elcerrito.patch.com/groups/opinion/p/kensington-community-meets-with-at-t-rep-on-cell-antennas
9. The AT&T paid engineer, when asked if there was lower profile technology that could be used, was unable (or unwilling) to directly answer the question.

• Why isn't the City Planning Commission backing the residents? - The citizens overwhelmingly said no and they were the ones to whom the solution was supposed to provide a benefit. Given AT&T provided maps that show no improvement in coverage, and no resident stating issues with coverage - in fact all of them, including multiple AT&T customers saying it's excellent, why would the city approve the plan?
• Is the City being transparent about what type of monetary compensation is being provided and to whom? - When asked to provide information on whether AT&T was paying, the city to plant their cell towers in El Cerrito, (who was this person) stated they did not know. If the city is going to take money and vote yes to the towers, shouldn't the plan include AT&T providing just compensation for those who's views/property values will be adversely affected?
• Why was the original meeting public hearing scheduled for the week after school ended for summer when many residents, especially families, are away on vacation?
• Why is the appeal hearing scheduled for the last week before school starts when many residents, especially families, are away on vacation?
• Why did AT&T state these were the "least invasive" options when, immediately after Kensington denied a similar plan, AT&T magically came back with lower profile options?
• If there is some reason the city planning commission voted against the citizens and for AT&T, and can we see their decision criteria?
• Why would the City approve a plan for a phone company cell towers when even the phone company made it clear there is no benefit for the city and the residents don't want it? Again, two people spoke in favor of the cell tower, however they did not state any issues with current cell service and one represented a group who may/may not receive money from AT&T.  
• Why isn't the City Planning Commission forcing AT&T to sit down with the residents to come up with a mutually acceptable plan?

1. Full transparency into the decision criteria for each City Planning member that influenced their decision on this matter, this includes all incentives AT&T has forwarded in order to get a "yes" decision.
2. The scheduling of the hearing after school is back in session and no change to the date upon less than 2 months notice.
3. The opportunity for El Cerrito residents to sit down with AT&T at the table and work on an acceptable proposal like AT&T is doing with Kensington because Kensington rejected the original proposal.