The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutEx 10 HORIZON - MAT MATS BAY - ALTERNATE SITE ANALYSISV2WIRELESS NETWORK CONSULTING ALTERNATE SITE ANALYSIS Horizon Mat Mats Bay Capacity Site 2026 Exhibit 10 Zon2025-00011 2026 Alternate Sites Requested to review alternative candidates that were analyzed by Horizon Also requested to review alternates the community provided Primary objective is to offload sites that surround the proposed and are over capacity around Swansonville / Port Ludlow 2026 Capacity – an analogy Water pipeline – Imagine a water pipe that feeds a residential street If only 1 house connects to the pipe they get 100% of the capacity (gallons per minute / GPM) If (2) houses connect each gets 50% of the GPM, if (4) houses connect each gets 25% of the GPM, if (8) houses connect each gets 12.5% of the GPM Take that analogy and compare it to a radio channel A radio channel is a finite resource with a limit and much like the water pipe users share that resource. The more users in an area on a channel the less GPM (Throughput) per user This is what is happening in the area around the proposed, there are so many users requiring the throughput that the amount per user (throughput) is far below the quality standards for the wireless carrier What is an Offload (Capacity) Site? •Notice the (2) existing sites to the SE and West of the proposed cover the area of the proposed currently •Mobiles around the proposed are jumping between these (3) sectors for service (coverage and bandwidth (throughput), this is shown by seeing the multiple colors mixed up in the area around the proposed •This is causing a lower amount of throughput per user because they are on cell edge •This is causing higher amount of power required to make link per user •The number of users in the area are above what the current sites can handle so it is low throughput per user and low quality for wireless customers •To resolve this issue of low throughput wireless carriers design cell splits (capacity sites) to alleviate this problem 2026 Proposed Site 2026 Existing Verizon Sites Proposed & Alternate Horizon Candidates Proposed Site .02 miles .49 miles .16 miles 2026 Existing Verizon SitesProposed & Alternate Community Candidates Proposed Site 2.78 miles 2.43 miles Verizon already exists on this site 2026 Alternate Sites (Horizon Candidates) Alternate #1 – New Tower –150’ AGL Tower Latitude: 47.939032 Longitude: -122.693349 AMSL: approximately 365’ Alternate #2 – New Tower –150’ AGL Tower Latitude: 47.944047 Longitude: -122.691930 AMSL: approximately 246’ 2026 Alternate Sites (Community Provided) Alternate #4 – Water Tank –Approximately 70’ AGL Water tank –Ran antennas at 150’ assuming new tower Latitude: 47.902145 Longitude: -122.697028 AMSL: approximately 328’ Alternate #5 – Existing Tower –Verizon already has antennas active on this site –This is one of the sites that need capacity offload –Approximately 158’ AGL Tower Latitude: 47.901000 Longitude: -122.670533 AMSL: approximately 495’ 2026 Focus Zone Green square shows area of calculations for coverage levels 2026 Sector (km2)% of covered area 1 10.17 94.6 2 2.56 23.8 3 0.43 4 Total Surface Area of Focus Zone Best Server – low band Existing Coverage Graphic to left shows coverage and capacity provided by existing sites in focus zone Table below shows what each overloaded sector provides in the focus zone 1 2 1 2 3 3 2026 Sector (km2)% of covered area 1 4.65 43.3 2 1.18 11.0 3 0.42 3.9 Total Surface Area of Focus Zone Best Server – low band Proposed Coverage Graphic to left shows coverage and capacity provided by existing sites in focus zone Notice that the overloaded sector (blue) is being offloaded by the (3) sectors of the proposed site (Green/Yellow/Red) 1 2 1 2 3 3 2026 Sector (km2)% of covered area 1 5.35 49.8 2 1.66 15.4 3 0.43 4 Total Surface Area of Focus Zone Best Server – low band Alternate #1 Coverage Graphic to left shows coverage and capacity provided by existing sites in focus zone Notice that the overloaded sector (blue) is not capacity offloaded by the Alt 1 site due to it being farther North (Green/Yellow/Red) 1 2 1 2 3 3 2026 Sector (km2)% of covered area 1 5.35 49.8 2 1.66 15.4 3 0.43 4 Total Surface Area of Focus Zone Best Server – low band Alternate #2 Coverage Graphic to left shows coverage and capacity provided by existing sites in focus zone Notice that the overloaded sector (blue) is not capacity offloaded by the Alt 2 site due to it being farther North (Green/Yellow/Red) 1 2 1 2 3 3 2026 Sector (km2)% of covered area 1 7.68 71.4 2 2.04 19 3 0.19 1.8 Total Surface Area of Focus Zone Best Server – low band Alternate #4 Coverage Graphic to left shows coverage and capacity provided by existing sites in focus zone Notice that the overloaded sector (blue) is not offloaded as much by Alt 4 as compared to the proposed 1 2 1 2 3 3 2026 Sector Current km2 Proposed km2 Alt #1 km 2 Alt #2 km 2 Alt #4 km 2 1 10.21 4.24 4.21 4.54 7.68 2 2.58 0.88 1.39 1.41 2.04 3 0.41 0.36 0.37 0.37 0.19 Total 13.2 5.48 5.97 6.32 9.91 58%55%52%25% Sector Current km2 Proposed km2 Alt #1 km 2 Alt #2 km 2 Alt #4 km 2 1 94.9 39.5 39.2 42.3 71.4 2 24 8.2 12.9 13.1 19 3 3.8 3.4 3.5 3.5 1.8 Offload Difference mid Band offload comparison mid Band % Covered Area Comparison Best Server ComparisonLow Band Primary Goal is that proposed site provides needed overlap/offload of capacity/users to the (2) site/sectors in the area Alternate 1 and 2, provides slightly less offload than the proposed, Alternative #4 provides 25% offload as compared to 53% offload from the proposed. Alternative #4 does not provide the capacity offload compared to the proposed. 2026 Conclusion Alternate #1 – 2 show comparable capacity offload to the proposed Alternate #4 does not provide the capacity offload needed for the over capacity sites Alternate #5 tower already has Verizon located on it and this is the site that needs the proposed to provide the capacity offload needed The proposed provides the greatest amount of capacity offload on the over capacity sites