Case 3:20-cv-08139 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 1 of 21
`
`Evan S. Nadel (SBN 213230)
`enadel@mintz.com
`MINTZ LEVIN COHN FERRIS GLOVSKY AND POPEO P.C.
`44 Montgomery Street, 36th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`Telephone: 415-432-6000
`
`T. Scott Thompson (pro hac vice forthcoming)
`sthompson@mintz.com
`Jonathan P. Garvin (pro hac vice forthcoming)
`jpgarvin@mintz.com
`MINTZ LEVIN COHN FERRIS GLOVSKY AND POPEO P.C.
`701 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 900
`Washington, D.C. 20004
`Telephone: 202-434-7440
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff,
`T-MOBILE WEST LLC
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`T-MOBILE WEST LLC, a Delaware
`corporation,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
`FRANCISCO, and THE CITY AND
`COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
`DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING
`INSPECTION; public entities organized and
`existing under the laws of the State of
`California,
`
`Defendants.
`
` Case No.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR
`DECLARATORY AND
`INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`Complaint Filed
`Trial Date:
`
`
` Not set
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`3:20-cv-8139
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - CASE NO. 3:20-cv-8139
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08139 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 2 of 21
`
`Plaintiff T-Mobile West LLC (“T-Mobile”), alleges as follows:
`INTRODUCTION
`Plaintiff T-Mobile seeks a declaratory ruling affirming the “deemed granted” status
`1.
`of sixteen Eligible Facilities Request applications T-Mobile made to the City of San Francisco for
`the modification of T-Mobile’s wireless transmission facilities pursuant to Section 6409(a) of the
`Spectrum Act (which is codified at 47 U.S.C. § 1455(a)). To improve and enhance its ability to
`serve its customers, particularly in light of the significant increase in demand driven by the
`Covid-19 pandemic, which has emphasized the importance of new technologies, such as 5G,
`distance learning, and a robust network, T-Mobile needs to modify and upgrade many of its
`existing wireless installations in the City of San Francisco. The modifications that T-Mobile
`needs to make are minor, frequently involving only swapping existing antennas and perhaps
`adding a small number of new antennas and associated equipment to existing rooftop
`installations. To accomplish those upgrades, starting as early as June 2020, T-Mobile submitted
`applications to the City via the City’s electronic planning review process to obtain approval of T-
`Mobile’s proposed modifications. However, T-Mobile has encountered significant delays by the
`City. Under Section 6409(a) of the Spectrum Act, the City must act on T-Mobile’s modification
`applications within 60 days. Yet, for a group of 27 applications submitted by T-Mobile between
`June 24, 2020 and August 14, 2020, the City had not acted on the applications even by late
`October 2020, well over 60 days after they were submitted. The City also had not notified T-
`Mobile that any of those applications were incomplete. As of October 20, 2020, the City still had
`not acted on at least 27 of T-Mobile’s applications. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 6409(a) and
`the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) rules implementing the statute, on October
`20, 2020, T-Mobile notified the City in writing that the 27 applications were deemed granted.
`Since T-Mobile sent the deemed granted notice, the City has issued permits for 11 of the 27
`applications, but for the remaining 16 applications, the City has not issued the permits necessary
`for T-Mobile to perform the modifications. Pursuant to the FCC’s rules, T-Mobile now files this
`Complaint seeking a declaratory judgment providing the Court’s imprimatur on the applications’
`
`-1-
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - CASE NO. 3:20-cv-8139
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08139 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 3 of 21
`
`deemed granted status, and injunctive relief compelling the City to issue the permits for the
`outstanding applications.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331
`2.
`because of the federal questions arising under the Communications Act of 1934, as amended by
`Section 6409 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (“Spectrum Act”), 47
`U.S.C. § 1455(a). This Court has the authority to issue declaratory judgment relief pursuant to 28
`U.S.C. § 2201(a).
`3.
`Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) since the property that is
`subject to this action is situated in this District.
`PARTIES
`Plaintiff T-Mobile West, LLC ("T-Mobile") is a limited liability corporation duly
`4.
`organized, existing, and operating under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal
`place of business in Bellevue, Washington. T-Mobile is authorized to do, and is doing, business
`within the State of California, and in the City and County of San Francisco. T-Mobile is the
`operating entity in California for T-Mobile USA Inc. T-Mobile is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
`T-Mobile USA, Inc. Both T-Mobile and T-Mobile USA, Inc. are Delaware corporations, with
`their principal places of business in Bellevue, Washington. T-Mobile uses FCC licenses held by
`related T-Mobile USA, Inc. entities to provide commercial mobile radio service within the City
`and County of San Francisco, and surrounding areas, as part of T-Mobile USA, Inc.'s national
`wireless network. Among other things, T-Mobile is a "common carrier" and
`"telecommunications carrier" which provides "personal wireless services" and "advanced wireless
`services," as those terms are defined and commonly used in the Communications Act and the
`rules, regulations and orders promulgated by the FCC pursuant to this overall statutory scheme.
`5.
`Defendant City and County of San Francisco ("San Francisco") is a charter city,
`duly organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of California.
`6.
`Defendant City and County of San Francisco Department of Building Inspection is
`
`-2-
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - CASE NO. 3:20-cv-8139
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08139 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 4 of 21
`
`an agency of the City and County of San Francisco.
`BACKGROUND AND FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`Federal Control over Wireless Facilities Modification
`The demand for mobile services has never been higher. Technological changes
`7.
`have revolutionized the wireless network landscape. One such change is the advent of 5G
`wireless networks.
`8.
`Section 151 of the Communications Act establishes a national policy to “make
`available, so far as possible, to all people of the United States, without discrimination … a rapid,
`efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate
`facilities at reasonable charges, for the purpose of national defense, [and] for the purpose of
`promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communications . . . .” 47
`U.S.C. § 151.
`9.
`Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides that “[t]he
`Commission and each State commission with regulatory jurisdiction over telecommunications
`services shall encourage the deployment on a reasonable and timely basis of advanced
`telecommunications capability to all Americans . . . by utilizing, in a manner consistent with the
`public interest, convenience and necessity . . . regulating methods that remove barriers to
`infrastructure investment.” 47 U.S.C. § 1302(a).
`10. Consistent with these policies, Congress and the FCC have sought to eliminate
`barriers and streamline the regulatory review process to facilitate deployment and modification of
`wireless communications infrastructure necessary for the efficient creation of new and upgraded
`wireless networks such as 5G.
`In 2012, Congress enacted Section 6409 of the Spectrum Act.1 Under Section
`11.
`6409(a) of the Spectrum Act, “a State or local government may not deny, and shall approve any
`eligible facilities request for a modification of an existing tower or base station that does not
`
`1 Section 6409 has been codified in the Communications Act as 47 U.S.C. § 1455, however the it
`is commonly referred to as “Section 6409” in reference to its location in the Spectrum Act.
`-3-
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - CASE NO. 3:20-cv-8139
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08139 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 5 of 21
`
`substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station.” 47 U.S.C. § 1455(a).
`12.
`In 2014, the FCC adopted rules implementing section 6409(a). Acceleration of
`Broadband Deployment by Improving Wireless Facilities Siting Policies, Report and Order, 29
`FCC Rcd 12865, ¶¶ 135-242 (2014) (2014 Infrastructure Order). The Rules were affirmed on
`appeal in Montgomery County v. FCC, 811 F.3d 121 (4th Cir. 2015).
`13.
`The rules provide that a State or local government must approve an eligible
`facilities request within 60 days from the date that an applicant submits its request. 47 C.F.R.
`§ 1.6100(c)(2). As the FCC explained in the 2014 Infrastructure Order, Section 6409(a) applies
`to towers, base stations, and transmission equipment so long as they are used “in connection with
`any Commission-authorized wireless communications service.” 2014 Infrastructure Order, 29
`FCC Rcd at ¶ 149.
`14.
`In a June 2020 Declaratory Ruling, the Commission further clarified Section 6409,
`clarifying that the 60-day “shot clock” begins to run “when an applicant takes the first procedural
`step in a locality’s application process and submits written documentation showing that proposed
`modification is an eligible facilities request.” Implementation of State and Local Governments’
`Obligation to Approve Certain Wireless Facility Modification Requests Under Section 6409(a) of
`the Spectrum Act of 2012, Declaratory Ruling and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 35 FCC Rcd
`5977, ¶ 12 (2020) (“2020 Declaratory Ruling”). The FCC explained that this clarification would
`provide certainty regarding the commencement of the 60-day timeline, especially in localities
`where applications may need approval from multiple, separate entities. Id. at ¶ 15.
`15.
`In the 2020 Declaratory Ruling, the FCC also clarified that State and local
`reviewing authorities may not delay the commencement of the 60-day review timeline by (1)
`establishing a “first step” that is outside an applicant’s control; (2) defining a “first step” that is a
`combination or sequence of steps rather than a single action; or (3) refusing to accept an
`applicant’s submission intended to satisfy the written eligible facilities request requirement. Id. at
`¶¶ 18–22.
`16.
`
`Pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100(b)(3), an “eligible facilities request” is “any request
`
`-4-
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - CASE NO. 3:20-cv-8139
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08139 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 6 of 21
`
`for modification of an existing tower or base station that does not substantially change the
`physical dimensions of the tower or base station, involving (i) Collocation of new transmission
`equipment; (ii) Removal of transmission equipment; or (iii) Replacement of transmission
`equipment. 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100(b)(3); 47 U.S.C. § 1455(a)(2).
`17.
`Pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100(b)(5), “existing” means, a
`constructed base station that “has been reviewed and approved under the applicable zoning or
`siting process, or under another State or local regulatory review process, provided
`that a tower that has not been reviewed and approved because it was not in a zoned area when it
`was built, but was lawfully constructed, is existing for purposes of this definition.” 47 C.F.R.
`1.6100(b)(5).
`18.
`Pursuant to Section 1.6100(b)(9), a “Tower” is defined as “Any structure built for
`the sole or primary purpose of supporting any Commission-licensed or authorized antennas and
`their associated facilities, including structures that are constructed for wireless communications
`services including, but not limited to, private, broadcast, and public safety services, as well as
`unlicensed wireless services and fixed wireless services such as microwave backhaul, and the
`associated site.” 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100(b)(9).
`19. Any tower or base station as defined by the Commission’s rules in Section 1.6100,
`is considered an “eligible support structure” if that tower or base station existed at the time the
`application for modification was submitted under the rules outlined in Section 1.6100. 47 C.F.R.
`§ 1.6100(b)(4).
`20.
`Pursuant to 47 C.F.R § 1.6100(b)(7), a modification substantially changes the
`physical dimensions of a tower or base station, or eligible support structure, when the
`modification:
`(i) For towers other than towers in the public rights-of-way, it increases the height
`of the tower by more than 10% or by the height of one additional antenna array with
`separation from the nearest existing antenna not to exceed twenty feet, whichever is
`greater; for other eligible support structures, it increases the height of the structure by more
`than 10% or more than ten feet, whichever is greater;
`
`(ii) For towers other than towers in the public rights-of-way, it involves adding an
`appurtenance to the body of the tower that would protrude from the edge of the tower
`more than twenty feet, or more than the width of the tower structure at the level of the
`-5-
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - CASE NO. 3:20-cv-8139
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08139 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 7 of 21
`
`appurtenance, whichever is greater; for other eligible support structures, it involves
`adding an appurtenance to the body of the structure that would protrude from the edge of
`the structure by more than six feet;
`
`(iii) For any eligible support structure, it involves installation of more than the
`standard number of new equipment cabinets for the technology involved, but not to
`exceed four cabinets; or, for towers in the public rights-of-way and base stations, it
`involves installation of any new equipment cabinets on the ground if there are no pre-
`existing ground cabinets associated with the structure, or else involves installation of
`ground cabinets that are more than 10% larger in height or overall volume than any other
`ground cabinets associated with the structure;
`
`(iv) It entails any excavation or deployment outside the current site;
`
`(v) It would defeat the concealment elements of the eligible support structure; or
`
`(vi) It does not comply with conditions associated with the siting approval of the
`construction or modification of the eligible support structure or base station equipment,
`provided however that this limitation does not apply to any modification that is non-
`compliant only in a manner that would not exceed the thresholds identified in
`§1.40001(b)(7)(i) through (iv).
`
`47 C.F.R. § 1.6100(b)(7)(i)–(vi).
`21.
`Pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100(b)(8), “transmission equipment” is defined as
`“equipment that facilitates transmission for any Commission-licensed or authorized wireless
`communications service.” 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100(b)(8). The FCC has interpreted this to include
`“antennas and other equipment associated with and necessary to their operation, including power
`supply cable and backup power equipment.” 2014 Infrastructure Order 29 FCC Rcd at ¶ 158.
`22.
`Pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100(b)(2), “collocation” is the mounting or installation
`of transmission equipment on a tower for the purpose of transmitting and/or receiving radio
`frequency signals for communications purposes. 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100(b)(2).
`23.
`Pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100(c)(1), “[w]hen an applicant asserts in writing that a
`request for modification is covered by this section, a State or local government may require
`the applicant to provide documentation or information only to the extent reasonably related to
`determining whether the request meets the requirements of this section. A State or local
`government may not require an applicant to submit any other documentation, including but not
`limited to documentation intended to illustrate the need for such wireless facilities or to justify the
`business decision to modify such wireless facilities.” 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100(c)(1).
`
`-6-
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - CASE NO. 3:20-cv-8139
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08139 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 8 of 21
`
`24. Although the 60-day period commences when the application is filed, the
`timeframe may only be tolled by either mutual agreement or in cases where the reviewing
`authority determines that the application is incomplete. Notably, the deadline is not tolled by a
`moratorium on review of applications. Pursuant to Section 1.6100(c)(3)(i), “to toll the timeframe
`for incompleteness, the reviewing State or local government must provide written notice to the
`applicant within 30 days of receipt of the application.” 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100(c)(3)(i). The notice
`must “clearly and specifically delineat[e] all missing documents or information.” Id. A
`reviewing authority may only toll the shot clock for missing information that complies with
`Section 1.6100(c)(1). Id.
`25. Under the FCC’s rules, if the State or local reviewing authority fails to act on an
`eligible facilities request application within 60 days, the applicant may notify the reviewing
`jurisdiction that the application has been “deemed granted.” The applicant must notify the
`reviewing authority, as the deemed grant does not become effective until notice is given in
`writing. 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100(c)(2); see also 2014 Infrastructure Order at ¶ 215; see also 2020
`Declaratory Ruling at ¶ 16.
`26.
`In the 2014 Infrastructure Order, the Commission outlined the remedies available
`when a modification or collocation application has been deemed granted. The Commission found
`that the most appropriate recourse for an aggrieved party was to seek relief from a court of
`competent jurisdiction. The Commission noted claims for relief would typically be one of three
`options: (1) an applicant might seek to challenge the denial of an application; (2) an applicant
`may invoke its right to deem granted its application, upon which the reviewing authority might
`seek to challenge the applicant’s deemed grant; or (3) an applicant that deems granted its
`application might seek some form of judicial imprimatur for the grant by filing a request for
`declaratory judgment or other relief as the court might find appropriate. 2014 Infrastructure
`Order at ¶ 236.
`
`T-Mobile’s Wireless Communications Service
`T-Mobile provides commercial mobile radio services, personal and advanced
`
`27.
`
`-7-
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - CASE NO. 3:20-cv-8139
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08139 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 9 of 21
`
`wireless services, as well as other telecommunications services, as those terms are defined under
`federal law, in and around the city of San Francisco.
`28.
`T-Mobile West, as the operating entity of T-Mobile USA, uses licenses issued by
`the FCC pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 151 to provide wireless communications services in an around
`the city of San Francisco.
`29.
`T-Mobile seeks to provide a variety of wireless communications services to local
`businesses, public safety entities, and the general public. To achieve these goals, and consistent
`with the FCC’s national policies enumerated by 47 U.S.C. § 151 and Section 706 of the
`Communications Act, T-Mobile maintains a network of “cell sites” each of which consist of
`antennas and other electronic communications equipment designed to send and receive radio
`signals for the purpose of creating and maintaining a wireless communications network.
`30.
`The antennas located at T-Mobile’s cell sites transmit and receive radio frequency
`signals that provide wireless communications services to personal communications devices, such
`as cellular telephones.
`31.
`To provide reliable service to these devices, coverage from the transmissions of
`each cell site must overlap in a specific pattern, within a geographic area, and cell cites need to
`maintain sufficient capacity to receive and send transmissions so as to handle the demand for
`limited wireless spectrum.
`32. Meeting capacity demands for service, in part, relies on maintaining a sufficient
`number of functioning antennas at any given cell site. Consumers of wireless communications
`services not only demand reliable service but also high capacity service in terms of download
`speeds and data transmission. Newer technologies or additional spectrum allow T-Mobile to
`provide such service, but require additional as well as newer antennas designed for this purpose.
`In order to maintain a reliable and high capacity wireless communications network, T-Mobile
`must periodically add additional or replace older antennas at its sites.
`T-Mobile’s Eligible Facilities Requests
`T-Mobile has identified a number of its sites within the City of San Francisco that
`
`33.
`
`-8-
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - CASE NO. 3:20-cv-8139
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08139 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 10 of 21
`
`must be modified, consistent with T-Mobile’s goals of providing reliable and high capacity
`wireless services. As discussed below, none of T-Mobile’s modifications involve substantial
`changes to the current base station. Each application proposes to modify an existing base station,
`or eligible structure, by adding or replacing one or more antennas designed to facilitate
`transmission of T-Mobile’s licenses wireless communications service and by adding or replacing
`related equipment.
`34. As set forth in detail below, in order to effectuate at least some of its facilities
`upgrades, prior to and up to August 14, 2020, T-Mobile submitted to the electronic planning
`review 38 Eligible Facilities Request applications seeking to modify sites.
`35.
`Each application proposed a modification that meets the definition of an Eligible
`Facilities request, and no proposed modification would, consistent with the statute and the FCC’s
`rules, substantially increase the physical dimensions of the existing base station.
`36. As set forth below, this case addresses some, but not all, of the applications
`submitted prior to August 14, 2020. Each of the Eligible Facilities Request applications at issue
`in this Complaint was submitted over 60 days prior to October 20, 2020. On October 20, 2020,
`T-Mobile sent the City written notice that the applications that are the topic of this Complaint, set
`forth, below were deemed granted. A copy of the October 20, 2020 deemed granted notice is
`attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`37. As of November 18, 2020, 16 Eligible Facilities Request applications, submitted
`between June 24, 2020 and August 14, 2020 the City has not acted on the 16 applications set
`forth below.
`Pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100(c)(5), T-Mobile may bring claims related to Section
`38.
`6409(a) to any court of competent jurisdictions. 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100(c)(5). This includes claims
`for judicial imprimatur of T-Mobile’s deemed granted status and a judicial declaration to that
`effect.
`
`The Applications At Issue
`39. On June 24, 2020, T-Mobile Submitted an eligible facilities request application to
`
`-9-
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - CASE NO. 3:20-cv-8139
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08139 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 11 of 21
`
`modify its existing wireless transmission facility located on the roof of a building at 965 Sutter St.
`(Site ID SF70072M/Permit # 202008282887). The application proposed to modify the existing
`base station by replacing 6 existing antennas and adding 4 new antennas, 6 remote radio units
`(RRUs) and 2 equipment cabinets. The proposed modification would not substantially change
`the physical dimensions of the support structure. The proposed modification would not increase
`the height of the support structure by 10% or 10 feet; the modification would not add an
`appurtenance to the body of the support structure that would protrude from the edge of the
`structure by more than 6 feet; the modification does not install more than the standard number of
`new equipment cabinets for the technology involved, not to exceed four cabinets; the
`modification does not involve any excavation or deployment outside the current site; the
`modification does not defeat any concealment elements; and the modification does not violate
`any conditions associated with the siting approval. San Francisco did not notify T-Mobile in
`writing of any incompleteness in its application. San Francisco did not act on the application
`within 60 days after June 24, 2020. Consequently, on October 20, 2020, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §
`1455(a) and 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100, T-Mobile notified San Francisco that it deemed this application
`granted.
`40. On June 25, 2020, T-Mobile Submitted an eligible facilities request application to
`modify its existing wireless transmission facility located on the roof of a building at 1398 Bryant
`St. (Site ID SF03022A/Permit # 202008262665). The application proposed to modify the
`existing base station by replacing 3 antennas and removing 3 RRUs and replacing 3 RRS. The
`modification would not substantially change the physical dimensions of the support structure.
`The proposed modification would not increase the height of the support structure by 10% or 10
`feet; the modification would not add an appurtenance to the body of the support structure that
`would protrude from the edge of the structure by more than 6 feet; the modification does not
`install more than the standard number of new equipment cabinets for the technology involved, not
`to exceed four cabinets; the modification does not involve any excavation or deployment outside
`the current site; the modification does not defeat any concealment elements; and the modification
`
`-10-
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - CASE NO. 3:20-cv-8139
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08139 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 12 of 21
`
`does not violate any conditions associated with the siting approval. San Francisco did not notify
`T-Mobile in writing of any incompleteness in its application. San Francisco did not act on the
`application within 60 days after June 25, 2020. Consequently, on October 20, 2020, pursuant to
`47 U.S.C. § 1455(a) and 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100, T-Mobile notified San Francisco that it deemed this
`application granted.
`41. On July 2, 2020, T-Mobile Submitted an eligible facilities request application to
`modify its existing wireless transmission facility located on the roof of a building at 965 Mission
`St. (Site ID SF70039M/Permit # 202009093747). The application proposed to modify the
`existing base station by replacing 3 antennas and adding 3 RRUs. The modification would not
`substantially change the physical dimensions of the support structure. The proposed modification
`would not increase the height of the support structure by 10% or 10 feet; the modification would
`not add an appurtenance to the body of the support structure that would protrude from the edge of
`the structure by more than 6 feet; the modification does not install more than the standard number
`of new equipment cabinets for the technology involved, not to exceed four cabinets; the
`modification does not involve any excavation or deployment outside the current site; the
`modification does not defeat any concealment elements; and the modification does not violate
`any conditions associated with the siting approval. San Francisco did not notify T-Mobile in
`writing of any incompleteness in its application. San Francisco did not act on the application
`within 60 days after July 2, 2020. Consequently, on October 20, 2020, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §
`1455(a) and 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100, T-Mobile notified San Francisco that it deemed this application
`granted.
`42. On July 16, 2020, T-Mobile Submitted an eligible facilities request application to
`modify its existing wireless transmission facility located on the roof of a building at 510 26th Ave.
`(Site ID SF03581A/Permit # 202009043504). The application proposed to modify the existing
`base station by adding 3 antennas, adding 3 RRUs, removing one equipment cabinet, and adding
`2 equipment cabinets. The modification would not substantially change the physical dimensions
`of the support structure. The proposed modification would not increase the height of the support
`
`-11-
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - CASE NO. 3:20-cv-8139
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08139 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 13 of 21
`
`structure by 10% or 10 feet; the modification would not add an appurtenance to the body of the
`support structure that would protrude from the edge of the structure by more than 6 feet; the
`modification does not install more than the standard number of new equipment cabinets for the
`technology involved, not to exceed four cabinets; the modification does not involve any
`excavation or deployment outside the current site; the modification does not defeat any
`concealment elements; and the modification does not violate any conditions associated with the
`siting approval. San Francisco did not notify T-Mobile in writing of any incompleteness in its
`application. San Francisco did not act on the application within 60 days after July 16, 2020.
`Consequently, on October 20, 2020, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 1455(a) and 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100, T-
`Mobile notified San Francisco that it deemed this application granted.
`43. On July 20, 2020, T-Mobile Submitted an eligible facilities request application to
`modify its existing wireless transmission facility located on the roof of a building at 2601
`Mariposa St. (Site ID SF03456A/Permit # 202010076130). The application proposed to
`modifying the existing base station by adding 3 antennas, removing and replacing 3 RRUs,
`removing 1 equipment cabinet, and adding 2 cabinets. The modification would not substantially
`change the physical dimensions of the support structure. The proposed modification would not
`increase the height of the support structure by 10% or 10 feet; the modification would not add an
`appurtenance to the body of the support structure that would protrude from the edge of the
`structure by more than 6 feet; the modification does not install more than the standard number of
`new equipment cabinets for the technology involved, not to exceed four cabinets; the
`modification does not involve any excavation or deployment outside the current site; the
`modification does not defeat any concealment elements; and the modification does not violate
`any conditions associated with the siting approval. San Francisco did not notify T-Mobile in
`writing of any incompleteness in its application. San Francisco did not act on the application
`within 60 days after July 20, 2020. Consequently, on October 20, 2020, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §
`1455(a) and 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100, T-Mobile notified San Francisco that it deemed this application
`granted.
`
`-12-
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - CASE NO. 3:20-cv-8139
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08139 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 14 of 21
`
`44. On July 29, 2020, T-Mobile Submitted an eligible facilities request application to
`modify its existing wireless transmission facility located on the roof of a building at 555 Market
`St. (Site ID SF53572B/Permit # 202009033415). The application proposed to modify the
`existing base station by replacing 3 antennas, adding 3 new antennas, and removing and replacing
`3 RRUs. The modification would not substantially change the physical dimensions of the support
`structure. The proposed modification would not increase the height of the support structure by
`10% or 10 feet; the modification