AT&T Sues Walla Walla to Force Approval of 65-Foot ‘Faux Tree’ Cell Tower

AT&T seeks declaratory and injunctive relief challenging a Washington city's denial of its application for a conditional use permit to build, operate and maintain a wireless telecommunication facility consisting of a 65-foot “faux tree” and accessory equipment on church property on the Walla Walla’s east side, said its complaint Friday (docket 4:23-cv-05162) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Washington in Richland.

Federal law limits local governments' ability to block installation of facilities such as the proposed facility, based on nationwide goals of promoting widespread availability of advanced, reliable wireless services, said the complaint. The proposed facility is needed to close a significant gap in AT&T’s wireless service, and is the least intrusive means to close that gap, it said.

The declaratory and injunctive relief requested is “necessary and appropriate” because the city has violated the Telecommunications Act “by effectively prohibiting AT&T from providing telecommunications services and personal wireless services in Walla Walla," said the complaint. Several courts, including the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, have ruled that a wireless carrier may demonstrate an effective prohibition by showing there is a significant gap in service and the proposed installation is the least intrusive means of closing that gap, it said.

The property where the facility will be located includes a church sanctuary building, education building and parking lot improvements, said the complaint. The property's western area is an undeveloped lawn area, with trees and grass, it said. The proposed facility includes the monopine pole disguised as a pine tree containing six stealth panel antennas, plus ground equipment boxes and an emergency backup generator within a fenced compound, it said.

The hearing examiner’s Nov. 2 decision rejected AT&T’s application, concluding that the proposed facility doesn’t look like a natural tree that blends in with the surrounding environment, said the complaint. Even if the city were to accept AT&T’s position that there are gaps in coverage, which the city rejects, there still has been no evidence that this is the only site that would eliminate all the alleged gaps, it said.

The city’s decision isn’t supported by substantial evidence, as the TCA requires, said the complaint. The city has effectively prohibited AT&T from providing wireless service to close its significant coverage gap, it said. That’s because there are no other available sites upon which AT&T can feasibly construct the proposed facility, it said. That’s also because the city hasn’t identified “any available, technically feasible, and less intrusive alternatives by which AT&T can address its significant service coverage gap,” it said.