Unalaska Land Use Plan: 2015 As a Component of the Comprehensive Plan 2020

CITY OF UNALASKA UNALASKA, ALASKA REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2015, 6:10 P.M. UNALASKA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS AGENDA ______CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE RECOGNITION OF VISITORS ADDITIONS TO AGENDA MINUTES: SEPTEMBER 22, 2015 FINANCIAL REPORT: BOARD/COMMISSION REPORTS: AWARDS/PRESENTATIONS: MANAGER’S REPORT COMMUNITY INPUT/ANNOUNCEMENTS PUBLIC INPUT ON AGENDA ITEMS

LEGISLATIVE

1. CANVASSING COMMITTEE REPORT: OCTOBER 6, 2015 MUNICIPAL ELECTION

2. CERTIFICATION: OCTOBER 6, 2015 MUNICIPAL ELECTION

3. OATHS OF OFFICE

WORK SESSION

1. PRESENTATION: THE UNALASKA LAND USE PLAN

2. PRESENTATION: AHFC ENERGY AUDITS FOR COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES

RECONVENE TO REGULAR SESSION

CONSENT AGENDA

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

NEW BUSINESS

1. ORDINANCE 2015-18 – FIRST READING: AN ORDINANCE OF THE UNALASKA CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE UNALASKA LAND USE PLAN: 2015 AS A COMPONENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2020

2. ORDINANCE 2015-19 – FIRST READING: CREATING BUDGET AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2016 BUDGET INCREASING THE PUBLIC SAFETY BUDGET FOR STATE SEIZURE FUNDS AND THE HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT; INCREASE THE WATER OPERATING BUDGET FOR TRAINING SERVICES; ADJUST ILIULIUK RIVER RESTORATION AND UNALASKA LAKE STORMWATER PROJECTS FOR THE GRANT CHANGES; AND ADD THE PORTABLE TIRE BALER PROJECT TO THE SOLID WASTE CAPITAL PROJECTS

3. ORDINANCE 2015-20 – FIRST READING: AMENDING UNALASKA CITY CODE CHAPTER 2.20 TO PERMIT PHYSICALLY ABSENT CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND THE MAYOR TO PARTICIPATE IN MEETINGS TELEPHONICALLY WITH PRIOR NOTICE

4. RESOLUTION 2015-52: AUTHORIZING A WAIVER OF NICHOLAI S. LEKANOFF, SR.’S FAILURE TO MAKE TIMELY APPLICATION FOR THE SENIOR CITIZENS PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION FOR 2014

5. RESTAURANT PERMIT REVIEW: REVIEW ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL APPLICATION FOR A RESTAURANT DESIGNATION PERMIT FOR M&M HOLDINGS, DOING BUSINESS AS THE NORWEGIAN RAT SALOON

COUNCIL DIRECTIVES TO MANAGER

COMMUNITY INPUT ANNOUNCEMENTS ADJOURNMENT CITY OF UNALASKA UNALASKA, ALASKA REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2015, 6:00 P.M. UNALASKA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS MINUTES ______The regular meeting of the Unalaska City Council was called to order at 6:03 pm, September 22, 2015, in the Unalaska City Hall council chambers. Roll was taken: PRESENT: Shirley Marquardt, Mayor Roger Rowland Alejandro Tungul David Gregory Yudelka Leclere

ABSENT: Tom Enlow (Excused) Zoya Johnson (Excused)

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Marquardt led the Pledge of Allegiance.

RECOGNITION OF VISITORS: • SWATP Planning Team: o Verne Skagerberg, South Coast o James Boyle, Central Region o Sara Mason, Headquarters o Rebecca Rauf, Statewide o Adison Smith, DOWL Engineers

• Patrick Munson, City Attorney, (telephonic)

ADDITIONS TO AGENDA: Resolution 2015-52 was removed from the agenda to be brought back at a later date.

MINUTES: The Council adopted the minutes of the September 9, 2015 City Council meeting as submitted.

FINANCIAL REPORT: None.

BOARD/COMMISSION REPORTS: None.

AWARDS/PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Marquardt acknowledged the following Unalaska City Employees for their service: Jeremiah Kirchhoffer – 15 years of service Joseph A Shaishnikoff – 15 years of service Michael L. Daniels – 20 years of service

Mayor Marquardt congratulated Frank Kelty, Natural Resource Analyst, on his retirement from the city.

MANAGER’S REPORT: Included in the packet. City Manager Moore also added: • Shell Seasonal De-Mobilization • Coast Guard Cutter Waesche o Port of Call activity o Civic Activities • Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) o Fecal Coliform levels in compliance o Chlorine and Flocculent level adjustments o Sludge Handling Equipment - installation

COMMUNITY INPUT/ANNOUNCEMENTS: • Frank Kelty o Fish Report • Ballyhoo Lions and OSI o Joint clean-up effort • Washington, DC Trip Recap o Mayor Marquardt and Council Member Leclere recapped their recent trip to Washington, DC • “Blueberry Bash” – September 27, 2015, UCSD High School Small Gym, sponsored by the CVB • Naturalization Ceremony – September 24, 2015, City Hall, City Council Chambers, the Honorable Kevin F. McCoy presiding • Unalaska Raider Cross Country Activities o Region 1 South Championships, Saturday, September 26, 2015 at 11:30 am

PUBLIC INPUT ON AGENDA ITEMS: None.

Mayor Marquardt opened the Public Hearing

PUBLIC HEARING

1. AN APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2015-19 WHICH APPROVED A VARIANCE FOR A LOT WIDTH REDUCTION FROM 60-FEET TO 20-FEET TO ACCOMMODATE HATFIELD SUBDIVISION, A RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 2, A.R.C. SUBDIVISION ADDITION NO. 1, LOCATED AT 1926 EAST BROADWAY AVENUE

• Public Comment: o Jay Hatfield, landowner, spoke in favor of upholding Platting Board Resolution 2015-19. o Rachelle Hatfield spoke in favor of upholding Platting Board Resolution 2015-19.

Mayor Marquardt closed the Public Hearing

Gregory made a motion to act on the appeal at this meeting after the Public Hearing; Rowland seconded.

Roll Call Vote: Rowland – yes; Tungul – yes; Gregory – yes; Leclere – yes. Motion passed 4-0.

The Council affirmed:

• Capable of rendering an unbiased decision in the matter set before them: o Rowland – Yes o Tungul – Yes o Gregory - Yes o Leclere – Yes

• Ex-Parte Communications in the matter set before them: o Rowland – No o Tungul – No o Gregory – No o Leclere – No

Planning Director Reinders presented a brief overview of events leading to the adoption of Platting Board Resolution 2015-19.

Rowland made a motion to uphold Platting Board Resolution 2015-19 approving the Hatfield Subdivision Plat and its associated variance; Leclere seconded.

Roll Call Vote: Tungul – yes; Gregory – yes; Leclere – yes; Rowland – yes. Motioned passed 4-0.

Rowland made a motion to adjourn into Work Session; Leclere seconded. Motion passed by consensus.

WORK SESSION

1. DISCUSSION: RESOLUTION 2015-54: AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT AND RESTATEMENT OF A TIDELANDS LEASE BETWEEN THE CITY OF UNALASKA AND UNISEA, INC

Mayor and Council acknowledged the efforts of Planning Director Reinders.

Rowland made a motion to adopt Resolution 2015-54; Tungul seconded.

Vote: Unanimous. Motion passed

2. PRESENTATION: CRUISE SHIPS • Report on Cruise Ship Activity – September 15, 2015 o Ports Director McLaughlin: . Acknowledged city wide effort . Concerns over future Cruise Ship ports of call in Unalaska • Safety • Manageability • Infrastructure

o CVB Director Jordan: . Acknowledged city wide effort . Impact on local resources . Revenue report from local retailers . Suggestions

• Mayor and Council acknowledged o CVB Director Jordan o Ports Director McLaughlin o Police Chief Director Sunderland o City wide volunteers 2

3. PRESENTATION: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION – SOUTHWEST AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN

• Adison Smith, DOWL Engineers and members of the SWATP team gave an update on the status of the Southwest Area Transportation Plan.

RECONVENE TO REGULAR SESSION

CONSENT AGENDA

1. RESOLUTION 2015-62: APPOINTING JUDGES AND CLERKS FOR THE REGULAR MUNICIPAL ELECTION ON OCTOBER 6, 2015 AND JUDGES TO SERVE ON THE CANVASS COMMITTEE

Hearing no objection, the consent agenda was adopted.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

NEW BUSINESS

1. RESOLUTION 2015-54: AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT AND RESTATEMENT OF A TIDELANDS LEASE BETWEEN THE CITY OF UNALASKA AND UNISEA, INC

Rowland made a motion to adopt Resolution 2015-54; Tungul seconded.

Vote: Unanimous. Motion passed.

2. RESOLUTION 2015-58: AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO DISPOSE OF CITY OF UNALASKA PERSONAL PROPERTY – POLICE HANDGUNS, SHOTGUNS AND RIFLES TO A GUN SHOP (GUNRUNNERS OF ANCHORAGE), AND TO NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS (ALASKA PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION & ALASKA ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE).

Rowland made a motion to adopt Resolution 2015-58; Leclere seconded.

Vote: Unanimous. Motion passed.

The Council adjourned into Executive Session at 9:00 pm.

EXECUTIVE SESSION: DISCUSSION OF CITY MANAGER CONTRACT: DAVID MARTINSON

Regular Session resumed at 9:17 pm.

4. RESOLUTION 2015-63: AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AN EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF UNALASKA AND DAVID A. MARTINSON, TO SERVE AS CITY MANAGER OF THE CITY OF UNALASKA

Rowland made a motion to adopt Resolution 2015-63; Tungul seconded.

Roll Call Vote: Rowland – yes; Leclere – yes; Gregory – yes; Tungul – yes. Motion passed 4-0.

COUNCIL DIRECTIVES TO MANAGER: None.

COMMUNITY INPUT: None.

ANNOUNCEMENTS: None.

ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:24 pm.

______Cat Hazen, City Clerk

CITY OF UNALASKA UNALASKA, ALASKA CANVASSING REPORT OCTOBER 9, 2015

POLLS

VOTES COUNTED ON ELECTION DAY - 279

QUESTIONED BALLOTS - 1

ABSENTEE

ABSENTEE-IN-PERSON BALLOTS (VOTERS ON PRECINCT REGISTER) - 27

QUESTIONED ABSENTEE-IN PERSON BALLOTS - 0

ABSENTEE-BY-MAIL BALLOTS REQUESTED - 1 ABSENTEE-BY-MAIL BALLOTS RETURNED - 1

ABSENTEE-BY-FAX BALLOTS - 0

CANVASSING COMMITTEE

A total of 28 absentee ballots were cast, none of which were questioned. There was 1 questioned ballot cast at the polls on Election Day. The questioned ballot was determined to be valid and was counted.

On Election Day there were 1849 voters on the precinct register for Unalaska. The total number of votes cast by qualified voters was 306, which is a 17% voter turnout.

The Canvassing Committee recommends certification of the election.

CITY OF UNALASKA GENERAL ELECTION CERTIFICATE OF FINAL ELECTION RESULTS OCTOBER 6, 2015

CANDIDATE POLL VOTES ABSENTEE/ TOTAL TOTAL PERCENT PERSONAL REP/ VOTES VOTES CAST QUESTIONED

CITY COUNCIL

Seat F Alejandro Tungul 211 26 237 274 86.5% Write Ins 35 2 37 274 13.5%

Seat G Frank V. Kelty 158 21 179 303 59.1% John J. Waldron 112 - 6 118 303 38.9% Write Ins 4 2 6 303 2.0%

SCHOOL BOARD

Seat A Tammy Pound 245 25 270 286 94.4% Write Ins 14 2 16 286 5.6%

Seat C Frank V. Kelty 235 27 262 276 94.9% Write Ins 13 I 14 276 5.1% CITY OF UNALASKA UNALASKA, ALASKA

ORDINANCE 2015-18

AN ORDINANCE OF THE UNALASKA CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE UNALASKA LAND USE PLAN: 2015 AS A COMPONENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2020

WHEREAS, the city desires to encourage sound orderly growth within the city limits and to avoid land use incompatibilities resulting from uncoordinated development, and to these ends and for these purposes, it is necessary that there should be prepared and maintained a Comprehensive Plan, rules, and ordinances to guide the development of the city (UCO §8.04.010); and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has prepared and adopted the Unalaska Land Use Plan: 2015 as a component/amendment of the Comprehensive Plan 2020, in order to accomplish the planning and land use goals stated in UCO §8.04.010, and recommended its approval to the City Council via Resolution 2015-20; and

WHEREAS, upon approval by the Unalaska City Council, the Unalaska Land Use Plan: 2015 with any amendments approved by the Council will become a component of the Unalaska Comprehensive Plan for the purposes set forth in Alaska Statutes 29.40.030.

BE IT ENACTED by the City Council of the City of Unalaska:

Section 1: Classification: This is a non-Code ordinance.

Section 2: Effective Date: This ordinance becomes effective upon adoption.

Section 3: Content: The Unalaska Land Use Plan: 2015 is hereby approved as a component of the Comprehensive Plan 2020 as defined in UCO §8.04.080 and Alaska Statutes 29.40.030.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY A DULY CONSTITUTED QUORUM OF THE UNALASKA CITY COUNCIL THIS _____ DAY OF ______2015. ______MAYOR ATTEST:

______CITY CLERK MEMORANDUM

TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBER THRU: DON MOORE, CITY MANAGER FROM: ERIN REINDERS, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING ANTHONY GRANDE, PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR DATE: AUGUST 25, 2015 RE: UNALASKA LAND USE PLAN: 2015 (ORDINANCE 2015-18)

SUMMARY: Included in this packet is the Final Draft Version of Unalaska Land Use Plan: 2015, recently adopted by the Planning Commission and recommended for approval by the City Council via Resolution 2015- 20. Once formally approved by the City Council, this Land Use Plan will supplement the Comprehensive Plan and serve as a resource for property owners, staff, as well as elected and appointed officials in planning for development and utilities, and when considering conditional use permits, rezoning, variance and ordinance change requests. Staff recommends approval.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: The City Council approved the Unalaska Comprehensive Plan 2020 via Ordinance 2010-17 in early 2011. In May of 2015, staff presented the final report from the Community Planning Assistance Team (CPAT) and announced that the land use planning process would be moving forward.

BACKGROUND: One of the tasks for the Planning Commission outlined in code is to prepare a Comprehensive Plan and keep it current. The Unalaska Comprehensive Plan 2020, including the Housing Plan, identifies the numerous values and action items addressing a range of issues important to our community. These include increasing housing options, making more land available for business and industry, broadening and diversifying the economy, keeping the environment pristine, and protecting the natural and historic resources. The Plan, however, does not offer much location specific guidance for these land uses.

An update to the Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan is a continuation of an effort to keep the Comprehensive Plan current, and will supplement the Comprehensive Plan from 2011. The update process provides an opportunity to gather input of the community members in identifying appropriate and desired locations for specific land uses. The Land Use Plan section will then serve as a resource for property owners, staff, as well as elected and appointed officials in planning for development and utilities or with conditional use permits, rezoning, variance and ordinance change requests.

The CPAT report entitled Future Land Use in Unalaska: Community & Partner Stakeholder Engagement was delivered this past May. This report provided an overview of and intensive week of community engagement activities, maps of current land uses and reoccurring themes suggested by community members for future land uses, an assessment of marine terminals and locations, an analysis housing needs and opportunities, and recommendations for the Land Use section update process. Some of the key takeaways related to the Land Use Plan included an outline of public engagement ideas for the future and a summary of the community members’ land use ideas.

In the past several months, the Planning Commission and Department have been actively working to create the Unalaska Land Use Plan: 2015. Worksessions were held in June and July to review the drafts, hear public 1 comment, and discuss how the feedback could best be addressed. An outreach campaign was held between mid-June and mid-July to garner input on the draft and consisted of the following: bulk mailing to every PO Box in Unalaska and Dutch Harbor; webpage with fillable forms and social media posts; kiosks at five locations with copies of the draft plan and feedback forms; information booths at three locations where staff talked to people and asked for feedback; email request for feedback to stakeholders and meeting with stakeholders; Public Service Announcements on KUCB and Channel 8 with information on how to provide feedback; drawing for door prizes at the July Planning Commission Meeting (if you provided a comment, you were entered to win!). Most recently, a Special Meeting and Public Hearing were held in August to adopt the plan and recommend to City Council.

DISCUSSION: The Land Use Plan includes a review of existing conditions, which reference the Land Use Inventory of 2014, the Unalaska Infill Development Analysis and the CPAT report itself. Land use trends are reviewed as well, highlighting past data from building permits and planning actions. The bulk of Land Use Plan addresses future land use recommendations, which include general land use guidance and several pages focusing on subareas of the more developed parts of Unalaska. These pages include maps, existing land use overview, ideas for future land uses, and guidance for adjacent lands and tidelands.

Again, one of the tasks for the Planning Commission outlined in code is to prepare and keep current a Comprehensive Plan. The Unalaska Land Use Plan: 2015 is a continuation of that effort, as a supplement to the Comprehensive Plan from 2011. This plan is a product of extensive community outreach, the CPAT report, public meetings, Planning Commission input and decision-making. It has now been adopted by the Planning Commission and recommended to the City Council for their final approval.

ALTERNATIVES: The City Council may approve the plan as presented or amend the plan by ordinance.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: There are no direct financial implications at this time.

LEGAL: The process of adoption and approval of this plan is in accordance with City Code.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval.

CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: The Manager recommends City Council approval of Ordinance 2015-18 to adopt and implement the Unalaska Land Use Plan-2015.

Attachments: • City Council Ordinance 2015-18 • Final Draft Unalaska Land Use Plan: 2015 • Planning Commission Resolution 2015-20

2 Unalaska Land Use Plan: 2015

City of Unalaska Department of Planning PO Box 610 Unalaska, Alaska 99685

Adopted and recommended to the City Council for approval as a component of the Unalaska Comprehensive Plan this 6th day of August, 2015 by the Unalaska Planning Commission via Resolution 2015-20. ~~ Commission Chair Secretary of the Commission

Passed and approved as a component of the Unalaska Comprehensive Plan this __ day of------' 2015 by the Unalaska City Council via Ordinance 2015-18.

Hon. Shirley Marquardt Cat Hazen Mayor City Clerk INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this document is to provide clear guidance for decisions related to land use in Unalaska. Having a well- documented vision of the future land use of the community is important for orderly growth and development. This plan component fills that important role, formalizing the community’s vision for land use. It is the product of many months of research and input from the public and is intended to be used by the public, as well as elected and appointed officials. Some public decisions require consultation with the Comprehensive Plan, which will involve consultation with this document, but a wide variety of processes can be informed by the Comprehensive Plan and this component of it.

This document is intended to be a component of the Unalaska Comprehensive Plan 2020 that was passed in 2011. Under the plan element “Comprehensive Plan: Land Use, Transportation, & Infrastructure,” there are sections titled “Description of Existing Land Uses” and “Existing Land Use Calculations” that run from page 130 to 135 of the document. Those sections are officially supplemented by this document, as of the date of passage of this document by the Unalaska City Council.

Referenced documents include: 1. Unalaska Land Use Inventory: 2014 2. Unalaska Infill Development Analysis: 2014 3. Future Land Use in Unalaska: Community & Partner Stakeholder Engagement, May 2014 (Community Planning Assistance Team).

EXISTING CONDITIONS

This document relies on existing conditions in two forms. 1) The study of the existing conditions of land use in Unalaska for this plan was conducted and reported in a separate document titled Unalaska Land Use Inventory: 2014. The land use data and overview presented in that document is the foundation for the planning presented here and should be used as the reference for existing conditions by readers of this planning document. The inventory was expanded by further research examining details of vacant properties, some of which are owned by the City including the Needle Subdivision and properties on Lear Road, which led to the Unalaska Infill Development Analysis: 2014. This is another useful document to assess existing conditions for land use, particularly looking at potential development opportunities. 2) Existing conditions are reported as a map and table on each page of the recommendation section of this document. Those data do not significantly vary from what was reported in the Unalaska Land Use Inventory: 2014. This is intended to provide the reader with a direct reference to existing land use without looking back at the inventory document while also giving more specific existing conditions for each subarea, which was not reported at that scale in the inventory document.

LAND USE TRENDS AND PROJECTIONS

In order to assess the recent trends affecting land use in Unalaska, building permits issued by the City over the past five years were researched. Looking at building permits issued from 2010 to 2014, those representing a change in land use were identified. Table 1 below reports the results. Out of the 28 such permits issued, the previous land use was vacant in all cases except two, which were both previous commercial uses. The result of the research shows that more than half of land, which gained a new land use in the past five years, was single-family or duplex residential. It is clear that a trend in Unalaska is expanding residential land. Minimal expansion of commercial and industrial manufacturing land was seen. One permit was issued for industrial storage, but its size accounted for nearly 20% of the total property permitted during the time period.

2 08.06.2015 FINAL DRAFT

Table 1: Building permits with a change of land use, 2010-2014 New Land Use # of Permits Issued Property Acreage Percentage of Property Single-Family/Duplex Residential 21 8.61 53.3% Multi-Family Residential 2 2.88 17.8% Commercial 2 0.90 5.6% Industrial Storage 1 2.82 17.5% Industrial Manufacturing/Processing 2 0.93 5.8% Total 28 16.15 100.0%

Another way to assess land use trends was to analyze the conditional use permits issued by the Planning Commission over the past five years, 2010 to 2014. The results are summarized in Table 2. Again, the results indicate a trend toward the use of single-family and duplex type of residential land, although the conditional use analysis shows that there are more new multi-family residential uses than revealed in the building permit analysis. There was also one additional industrial manufacturing use that was found in the conditional use permits that didn’t involve a building permit. The data in Table 2 should not be used as a definitive view of land use changes, as many of them didn’t represent a change in land use but rather represented an accessory use on a property. It should be used as a supplement to Table 1.

Table 2: Conditional Use Permits issued, 2010-2014 New Use # of Permits Issued Single-Family/Duplex Residential 7 Multi-Family Residential 4 Industrial Manufacturing/Proc. 1 Utilities/Transp./Roads 1 Total 13

Given the trends shown above, some general land use projections can be made for the next five years. The demand for housing appears to be steady, indicating that the housing trends will likely continue. At least 8 acres of new single-family or duplex property is expected to be created while at least 3 acres of multi-family residential land will be needed. With such low sample sizes in the data, it is difficult to predict the future of commercial, industrial storage, and industrial manufacturing/processing uses. Also many industrial uses are temporary, making it difficult to pinpoint specific numbers. However, the data points to an increase in industrial manufacturing/processing of about 1 to 2 acres, an increase in industrial storage of about 2 to 3 acres, and an increase in commercial of about 1 acre. The forces affecting commercial development are particularly interesting. Feedback from the public in the process of creating this document indicates that there is significant unmet demand for commercial retail and services, yet logistical issues appear to have limited a significant expansion of commerce in the community. The balance of these forces will ultimately determine whether the increase in commercial land is near the trend of 1 acre or is higher/lower. However, with increasing technology and innovations in transportation and communication potentially alleviating some of the logistical concerns, commerce could be stronger in the next five years compared to the last five years. For this reason, commercial land use is projected to increase in the range of 1 acre to 2 acres.

3 08.06.2015 FINAL DRAFT

METHODS

The first step in creating this land use plan document was to create an accurate, up-to-date, and thorough inventory of existing land use, mentioned above as the existing conditions of this document. This was a process that appeared to have never been conducted in Unalaska in recent times. The zoning code from 1996 seems to draw heavily from existing land uses as of 1996, indicating that an inventory of land use may have been conducted at that time, but there was no adequate land use inventory analysis to inform the 2011 comprehensive planning process. By completing the Unalaska Land Use Inventory: 2014, the Planning Department had created an entirely new type of document for this community while also beginning the initial stages of planning for land use in Unalaska.

The next phase of land use planning involved obtaining public input on future land use for the community. This was started in May 2014 with the visit of a professional community planning team through the American Planning Association’s Community Planning Assistance Team (CPAT) program. The team of planners from around the country was in Unalaska for one week and used that time to focus on gathering information and opinions from Unalaska residents. This was done through focused meetings with key stakeholders in the community, as well as two open-house style meetings held for the general public to weigh in on the future vision for the community. With preliminary maps of existing land use from the data gathered in the inventory, the public had a chance to communicate opinions on desirable land uses for specific areas in the city. They also provided feedback for the land use inventory itself prior to the department finalizing the document.

Once the Planning Department received the report from the CPAT team, outlining their findings, staff was able to begin drafting the recommendations for this plan. Recommendations were initially made based solely on feedback from the official CPAT report, as well as the raw data obtained from the public meetings, which showed individual comments from members of the public. After the plan document was drafted, the Planning Department began obtaining additional feedback from the public on the draft of the document. The Planning Commission held a public worksession dedicated to discussing the draft plan. Planning Department staff engaged the public to gather input on the draft, including the following efforts: 1) Mailing a flyer with information and a feedback form to every PO Box in Unalaska and Dutch Harbor; 2) Creating a feedback website and advertising it widely, including on social media pages; 3) Creating kiosks at five popular public locations in the community, where the draft plan was available and feedback forms were provided with a box into which users could submit the forms; 4) Holding information booth sessions at three different locations/times in which staff spoke to residents in the community about the plan and asked for feedback; 5) Emailing a copy of the draft plan with a request for feedback to stakeholders and those who provided input during the CPAT visit; and 6) Creating PSAs which ran on KUCB community radio and Channel 8 TV explaining how to access and provide feedback on the draft plan.

Comments from the public outreach were analyzed by Planning Staff and incorporated into a redraft that was presented to the Planning Commission on July 16, 2015 at which time a public worksession was held by the Commission. The worksession had been advertised and popularized through all of the outreach methods listed above. During this worksession, the public provided input to the Planning Commission on the redraft of the plan and the Commission directed Planning Staff to make certain edits and present a final draft of the plan at a special meeting on August 6, 2015.

Planning Commission Adoption: August 6, 2015

4 08.06.2015 FINAL DRAFT

RECOMMENDATIONS

Land use recommendations are presented for each subarea of the city in this section. The first page presents recommendations for Unalaska overall and for the outlying areas, including outlying water areas within the City limits. Each page following that is a page dedicated to one specific subarea within the developed part of Unalaska. Each subarea page includes the following elements: 1) An existing land use map, showing the land uses essentially as presented in the Unalaska Land Use Inventory: 2014; 2) An existing land use table, which is a numeric representation of the same data displayed on the map; 3) A future recommendations table, which displays percentages of each land use recommended in that subarea for the future and also shows whether such percentage would represent an increase, decrease, or no change compared with existing land use; and 4) A section of text that uses a narrative to describe the existing conditions and character of the subarea, as well as a narrative version of the recommendations to supplement the table above it. The text also includes any recommendations or information about adjacent lands or tidelands.

When using the recommendations in the subarea pages, the reader should use both the table and the text below it. Neither is intended to stand alone. The land use percentages presented in the future recommendations table are intended to be a general guide for the future. They are not a strict mathematical calculation of the exact land area required for each use. They are based on the needs and character of each subarea, as expressed by the residents of the community, and also correspond in a general sense to the projections shown in the previous section of this document. They do not account for scenarios in which land use demands in Unalaska are dramatically different from those presented in the projections section here, in which case the needs and desires of the community may vary. For this reason, continued reassessment of desired future land uses is necessary, especially if large-scale, unpredicted economic or social factors become prevalent in the community.

Both the existing and future recommendations tables refer to land use amounts and percentages that only account for developed land: not undeveloped and not vacant. Therefore the recommendations table doesn’t intend to make recommendations about undeveloped or vacant land, but generally assumes that some of the vacant land may be built up in the future. Therefore the recommended percentages represent the percentage of developed land in the future, even if that includes some currently vacant or undeveloped land. Refer to the Unalaska Land Use Inventory: 2014 for details about vacant and undeveloped land, including the distinction between the two, and the Unalaska Infill Development Analysis: 2014 for a discussion of the possibility for development on currently vacant land.

Land use categories for this document were derived from the Unalaska Land Use Inventory: 2014 with slight modification. The category for Mobile Home Residential was merged with Single-Family/Duplex Residential to provide for a clearer analysis. Categories had originally been established in the inventory to account for the unique land use distribution found in Unalaska. The prime example is the Industrial Company Town category, which accounts for the common industrial processing facility with a mix of uses on site, including housing and services for employees. Note that the categories do not align with the City’s current zoning code categories, but instead they are designed to most accurately represent the mix of land uses making up the community.

5 08.06.2015 FINAL DRAFT

OVERVIEW AND OUTLYING AREAS

The map summarizes how this document will make recommendations while also giving land uses for outlying areas, which are defined as areas outside the extent of the subareas. The subareas (shown in brown on the map) are individual areas in the city that will be investigated one-by-one in the following pages. The outlying areas are nearly all undeveloped land with the exceptions shown as outlying land uses. These include Open Space at the WWII site on Ballyhoo and at the Icy Creek watershed on the south edge of the city limits. A utility parcel exists on Summer Bay Road for the landfill, and one Mineral Extraction parcel exists for the quarry at the end of the Valley. The other large parcel outside of the subareas is the Unalaska Airport parcel, shown as Institutional. This was excluded from the subarea recommendation pages because it is covered under the airport’s master plan, which already serves as an effective land use plan for that parcel.

General Recommendations: For all land in the subareas, as well as outlying areas, land use in Unalaska should meet the needs of the community as determined by the residents. The goal is to maintain the character of each subarea, minimizing land use conflicts with existing land uses and infrastructure. Development in the outlying areas should be rational, organized, and well-correlated with the nearest subarea as defined in this document. In all areas, land use should be sensitive to environmental concerns, historic preservation, and subsistence activities.

Outlying Area Recommendations: Land uses in the subareas will get a thorough review in the following pages, but the outlying areas aren’t given strong recommendations in this document. The few exceptions are noted in the subarea pages where some guidance is given to how land use would be ideally designed in some areas directly adjacent to certain subareas. In other cases of development adjacent to a subarea, the needs of that subarea have to be considered in planning and zoning for the new development. Development not adjacent to subareas, off the existing network of development and utilities, may be the case with possible oil and gas industry development.

Oil and Gas Industry Potential: In the event that further activity occurs in Unalaska related to the oil and gas industry, the locations associated with this activity need to be carefully selected. Two key tidelands to be protected are identified in the subarea recommendations to follow, namely Summer Bay and the head of Captains Bay. In addition, tidelands and open water areas in Summer Bay, Iliuliuk Bay, Captains Bay, Nateekin Bay, Broad Bay, and Wide Bay are all analyzed in Table 1 of Future Land Use in Unalaska: Community & Partner Stakeholder Engagement, May 2014. These factors should be considered in location decisions.

6 08.06.2015 FINAL DRAFT

SUBAREA OVERVIEW

Legend

--Roads

Valley - East Broadway 2 Valley- Steward Road/Generals Hill 3 Nirvana Hill/Armstrong Ct 4 Downtown/Unalaska Townsite 5 Alyeska 6 Haystack Hill 7 Captains Bay (only partially shown) 8 Bunker Hill/Little South America UniSea

10 Amaknak Retail

11 Standard Oil Hill

12 East Point Road 13 Ballyhoo Road

14 Summer Bay (off the map)

0 0.5

Miles

7 08.06.2015 FINAL DRAFT

VALLEY – EAST BROADWAY SUBAREA

EXISTING Undeveloped Land: 67.35 acres Vacant Land: 25.89 acres Land Use Acres Percent Single-Family/Duplex Res. 17.13 24% Multi-Family Res. 4.82 7% Commercial 1.41 2% Commercial Storage 1.09 1% Industrial Storage 0.27 <1% Institutional 20.44 28% Open Space 10.93 15% Utilities/Transp./Roads 11.81 16% Mixed Use 4.93 7% Total (developed land) 72.82 100%

FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS Land Use Percent Change Single-Family/Duplex Res. 26% ↑ Multi-Family Res. 10% ↑ Commercial 5% ↑ Commercial Storage 0% ↓ Industrial Storage 0% ↓ Institutional 24% ↓ Open Space 15% - Utilities/Transp./Roads 16% - Mixed Use 4% ↓ Total (developed land) 100%

Existing: The Valley – East Broadway Subarea is primarily a residential area with recreational green space, as well as the City’s facility for Public Work/Utilities accounting for the 28% Institutional Land Use. There is a small amount of Commercial and Industrial Storage on East Broadway near Lear Road. There is about 93 acres of land that is undeveloped or vacant, which is more than the amount of used land in this area.

Recommendations: The recommendations, which are reflected in the future land use table above, include increases in Single-Family, Duplex, and Multi-Family Residential, as well as an increase in Commercial use. Land uses recommended to decrease include Commercial Storage, Industrial Storage, and Mixed Use. Institutional may also decrease as a percentage if more land is developed.

Location-Specific Recommendations: Along East Broadway from the north edge to Overland Drive should be the target for higher intensity recommendations from above, such as Commercial and Multi-Family Residential. All other areas, including Lear Road, Overland Drive, Choate Lane, Hawley Lane, and the section of East Broadway south of Overland Drive, should focus any future development on Single-Family or Duplex Residential use.

Adjacent Lands: The area along East Broadway past the southern edge of the Subarea shown above has been identified by the community as a desirable site for future residential development. If that area is developed, the recommendation is that it be a mix of Single-Family/Duplex Residential and Multi-Family Residential.

8 08.06.2015 FINAL DRAFT

VALLEY – STEWARD ROAD/GENERALS HILL SUBAREA

EXISTING Vacant Land: 25.65 acres Land Use Acres Percent Single-Family/Duplex Res. 41.84 82% Multi-Family Residential 0.94 2% Institutional 0.34 0.5% Utilities/Transp./Roads 7.39 15% Mixed Use 0.36 0.5% Total (developed land) 50.86 100.0%

FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS Land Use Percent Change Single-Family/Duplex Res. 82% - Multi-Family Residential 2% - Institutional 0.5% - Utilities/Transp./Roads 15% - Mixed Use 0.5% - Total (developed land) 100%

Existing: The Valley – Steward Road/Generals Hill Subarea is almost exclusively Single Family and Duplex Residential uses. Only 3% of land is used for any other activities, aside from roads. These include Multi-Family Residential, Institutional, and Mixed Use. There is about 26 acres of vacant land, some of which may be suitable for development.

Recommendations: The table above reflects no change to the land use in this subarea. The existing pattern of land use should be maintained with a continued emphasis on Single-Family/Duplex Residential.

Location-Specific Recommendations: The entirety of the subarea should be considered a target location for Single- Family and Duplex Residential uses. If there is going to be minor amounts of the other uses listed above, they should remain on Steward Road. Yatchmeneff Drive, Eagle Drive, Eagle Crest Court, Thompson Circle, Aerie Drive, and Adams Drive should all be reserved exclusively for Single-Family/Duplex Residential use.

9 08.06.2015 FINAL DRAFT

NIRVANA HILL/ARMSTRONG COURT SUBAREA

EXISTING Vacant Land: 19.72 acres Land Use Acres Percent Single-Family/Duplex Res. 48.84 44% Multi-Family Residential 5.99 5% Commercial 2.04 2% Commercial Storage 0.40 <1% Industrial Manufacturing/Proc. 0.32 <1% Institutional 28.13 26% Open Space 3.47 3% Utilities/Transp./Roads 17.34 16% Mixed Use 3.66 3% Total (developed land) 110.19 100%

FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS Land Use Percent Change Single-Family/Duplex Res. 47% ↑ Multi-Family Residential 7% ↑ Commercial 3% ↑ Commercial Storage 0% ↓ Industrial Manufacturing/Proc. 0% ↓ Institutional 23% ↓ Open Space 3% - Utilities/Transp./Roads 15% - Mixed Use 2% ↓ Total (developed land) 100%

Existing: The Nirvana Hill/Armstrong Court Subarea contains a mixture of uses. Its primary use is Single-Family/Duplex Residential with another large portion of land dedicated to Institutional uses, particularly Memorial Park and Cemetery, as well as the Elementary School. There is also a strong presence of Multi-Family Residential land use, as well as a minor presence of Commercial, Open Space, and Mixed Use. About 20 acres of vacant land was identified in this subarea, some of which may be developable.

Recommendations: Land uses recommended to increase in this subarea include Single-Family/Duplex Residential, Multi- Family Residential, and Commercial (low-impact commercial activity was identified as appropriate, but uses resembling industry or machinery are not identified as appropriate). Also recognized as desirable are Institutional, Open Space. Commercial Storage and Industrial Manufacturing/Processing do not fit the needs of this subarea. Mixed Use is recommended to decrease slightly. Institutional may decrease as a percentage if some vacant land is developed.

Location-Specific Recommendations: The more intense land uses recommended to increase in the table above (Commercial; Multi-Family Residential) should be targeted specifically along East Broadway Ave. Multi-Family Residential is also desirable on Ptarmigan Road, the west portion of Loop Road, and the portion of Dutton Road across from the lake. The rest of the subarea should be reserved for Single-Family/Duplex Residential or Open Space.

Adjacent Land and Tidelands: All adjacent tidelands are restricted from development and should remain undeveloped. The adjacent land on Ptarmigan Road in the Ski Bowl area is mostly used for recreation, but some area has been identified as desirable for housing. Any development must balance the need for recreation in the Ski Bowl area. 10 08.06.2015 FINAL DRAFT

DOWNTOWN/UNALASKA TOWNSITE SUBAREA

EXISTING Vacant Land: 2.11 acres Land Use Acres Percent Single-Family/Duplex Res. 8.41 18% Multi-Family Residential 4.39 10% Commercial 0.13 <1% Industrial Storage 1.93 4% Institutional 16.21 35% Open Space 0.34 1% Utilities/Transp./Roads 13.75 30% Mixed Use 1.05 2% Total (developed land) 46.21 100%

FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS Land Use Percent Change Single-Family/Duplex Res. 18% - Multi-Family Residential 10% - Commercial 3% ↑ Industrial Storage 0% ↓ Institutional 35% - Open Space 1% - Utilities/Transp./Roads 30% - Mixed Use 3% ↑ Total (developed land) 100%

Existing: The Downtown/Unalaska Townsite Subarea is the oldest and has the smallest lots and narrowest streets. The most prevalent land use is Institutional, including the High School, Community Center, Library, and the Church of the Holy Ascension. Because of the density, a large amount of the land is taken up by roads. A combination of Single-Family and Multi-Family Residential uses is also significant in this area. The Commercial activity mostly takes place on Mixed Use lots.

Recommendations: Land use recommendations for this subarea involve a reduction in Industrial Storage, and an emphasis on Commercial or Mixed Use land. The types of Commercial uses identified by the community include small scale retail and service establishments. Detailed recommendations for this area are already given in the Comprehensive Plan 2020 Economic Development section, and those recommendations are to be considered as they relate to future land use. The primary focus is on improving the availability of quality local businesses that enhance the downtown area as a walker-friendly, youth-oriented, central focal point for the community. Future land uses should reflect this goal.

Location-Specific Recommendations: All of the land use recommendations given above apply equally to the entire subarea.

Adjacent Tidelands: All adjacent tidelands are restricted from development and should remain undeveloped.

11 08.06.2015 FINAL DRAFT

ALYESKA SUBAREA

EXISTING Land Use Acres Percent Industrial Company Town 9.12 89% Utilities/Transp./Roads 1.16 11% Total 10.28 100%

FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS Land Use Percent Change Industrial Company Town 89% - Utilities/Transp./Roads 11% - Total 100%

Existing: The Alyeska Subarea is a small but distinct area containing the industrial complex of Alyeska Seafoods Inc. The entirety of the subarea is essentially one complex.

Recommendations: There are no recommended changes to the land use percentages in this subarea.

Adjacent Tidelands: A portion of the tidelands shown in the map above are developed as part of the upland industrial complex. The rest of the adjacent tidelands are restricted from development and should remain undeveloped. The Iliuliuk River is a particularly important historic asset for the community with opportunities for recreation and tourism.

12 08.06.2015 FINAL DRAFT

HAYSTACK HILL SUBAREA

EXISTING Undeveloped Land: 0.89 acres Vacant Land: 29.96 acres Land Use Acres Percent Single-Family/Duplex Res. 19.83 34% Multi-Family Residential 1.00 2% Commercial Storage 3.21 6% Industrial Storage 1.82 3% Institutional 7.41 13% Open Space 1.11 2% Utilities/Transp./Roads 22.42 39% Mixed Use 1.37 2% Total (developed land): 58.17 100%

FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS Land Use Percent Change Single-Family/Duplex Res. 37% ↑ Multi-Family Residential 2% - Commercial 8% ↑ Commercial Storage 0% ↓ Industrial Storage 0% ↓ Institutional 12% ↓ Open Space 2% - Utilities/Transp./Roads 37% ↓ Mixed Use 2% - Total (developed land): 100% Existing: The Haystack Hill Subarea is primarily a Single Family Residential area in the uphill areas while the low lying portion along Airport Beach Road is characterized by Institutional uses, including City Hall, the IFHS Clinic, and Public Safety, in addition to some Mixed use, Multi-Family Residential, and an area of abandoned buildings labeled as Commercial Storage here. About 30 acres of vacant land exists in this subarea, a portion of which may be developable.

Recommendations: Land uses that are not appropriate in this subarea include Commercial Storage and Industrial Storage, which are both shown as decreasing in the table above. Desirable land uses include Single-Family/Duplex Residential and Commercial uses, which are shown as increasing. There may be a decrease in the proportion of land used for Institutional and Utilities if there is development of any vacant land.

Location-Specific Recommendations: The potential for new residential development exists in the uphill areas along Raven Way, Trapper Drive, and Haystack Drive. These areas should be the focus of Single-Family/Duplex Residential uses and no other uses. All other uses, particularly Commercial, Multi-Family Residential, Institutional, Open Space, and Mixed Use, should be located along Airport Beach Road.

Adjacent Tidelands: One tideland parcel shown on the map is zoned for development but remains vacant, as it has not yet been developed. This area has been identified as an area appropriate for live-aboard vessels and a small boat marina. The rest of the tidelands are restricted from any development. There are no recommended changes to the status of tidelands in this subarea.

13 08.06.2015 FINAL DRAFT

CAPTAINS BAY SUBAREA

EXISTING Undeveloped Land: 43.33 acres Land Use Acres Percent Industrial Storage 43.11 20% Industrial Company Town 128.69 61% Mineral Extraction 30.52 14% Utilities/Transp./Roads 9.19 4% Total (developed land) 211.50 100%

FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS Land Use Percent Change Industrial Storage 20% - Industrial Company Town 61% - Mineral Extraction 14% - Utilities/Transp./Roads 4% - Total (developed land) 100%

Existing: The majority of the Captains Bay Subarea falls in the category of Industrial Company Town with onsite housing and services at industrial complexes. One large property is used for Mineral Extraction and another is used for Industrial Storage.

Recommendations: There are no recommended changes to the land use percentages in this subarea.

Adjacent Tidelands: The Unalaska City Council has determined the extent to which tidelands may be developed in this area through its zoning actions, and it is reflected in the land use map above with a long strip of tideland labeled “Vacant” and a small parcel of “Marine Transportation” at the end. All tidelands beyond that extent are restricted from any development, shown on the map as “Open Space,” and it is recommended that they remain restricted from development into the future. Tideland development in the future is best suited in the existing “Vacant” tideland area. There may be recreational value in some of these tidelands. While development may proceed in the area, consideration should be given to preserving a portion of these tidelands for recreation and subsistence.

Adjacent Lands: The community has identified the area behind Westward, along Pyramid Creek Road beyond the current Subarea boundary as a potential location for new development, including new housing, industrial expansion, or a new medical facility. The current zoning is for High-Density Residential uses, which would be appropriate for that area, but the other proposed uses could also be appropriate as determined by the public zoning process.

14 08.06.2015 FINAL DRAFT

BUNKER HILL/LITTLE SOUTH AMERICA SUBAREA

EXISTING Vacant Land: 1.05 acres Undeveloped Land: 169.36 acres Land Use Acres Percent Industrial Manufacturing/Proc. 6.35 21% Mineral Extraction 7.89 27% Utilities/Transp./Roads 15.30 52% Total (developed land) 29.54 100%

FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS Land Use Percent Change Industrial Manufacturing/Proc. 21% - Mineral Extraction 27% - Utilities/Transp./Roads 52% - Total (developed land) 100%

Existing: The Bunker Hill/Little South America Subarea is primarily undeveloped land with some Industrial uses on both the north and south ends. On the south end is an area used for Mineral Extraction, and on the north end is an area seasonally used for Industrial Manufacturing/Processing.

Recommendations: The table above reflects no change in the land use percentages of developed land. In regards to the vast expanse of undeveloped land in this subarea, a portion of it is identified by the community as an important recreation area worth preserving. It is recommended that any development in this subarea maintains recreational opportunities on and around Bunker Hill.

Location-Specific Recommendations: Although it is not reflected in the table above, there is potential for expansion of Industrial uses in the southern portion of the undeveloped land in this subarea, as well as Residential or Commercial development in the eastern portion near the corner of Airport Beach Road and Henry Swanson Drive. Such development would be consistent with the needs of the community and of this subarea.

Adjacent Tidelands: Essentially all of the tidelands adjacent to this subarea are zoned for development, but only one development exists, which is the City’s Carl E. Moses (C.E.M.) Boat Harbor. There may be recreational value in some of these tideland areas on the west shoreline. While future development plans exist for this area, consideration should be given to preserving a portion of these tidelands for recreational purposes. The tidelands at the southern tip of Little South America are reserved for required environmental mitigation associated with C.E.M. Harbor. An expanded C.E.M. Harbor and related activities could be an appropriate use in the tideland areas east of C.E.M. 15 08.06.2015 FINAL DRAFT

UNISEA SUBAREA

EXISTING Undeveloped Land: 0.26 acres Land Use Acres Percent Commercial 2.16 5% Industrial Company Town 22.80 58% Marine Transportation 3.28 8% Open Space 1.45 4% Utilities/Transp./Roads 7.32 18% Mixed Use 2.61 7% Total (developed land) 39.63 100%

FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS Land Use Percent Change Commercial 5% - Industrial Company Town 58% - Marine Transportation 8% - Open Space 4% - Utilities/Transp./Roads 18% - Mixed Use 7% - Total (developed land) 100%

Existing: The majority of the land in the UniSea Subarea is owned by UniSea Inc, and is categorized as Industrial Company Town land use. It also includes Expedition Park as Open Space, several marine industrial facilities, the City’s wastewater treatment plant, and a commercial complex. The Intersea Mall building on the north side of Gilman Road is a collection of commercial suites, rented out to businesses while the UniSea Inn/Harbor View building across the street is a restaurant/bar space owned and operated by UniSea with housing above.

Recommendations: There are no recommended changes to the land use percentages in this subarea.

Adjacent Tidelands: All of the tidelands adjacent to this subarea are either developed or are zoned for development, but remain vacant. There are no recommended changes to the status of tidelands in this subarea.

16 08.06.2015 FINAL DRAFT

AMAKNAK RETAIL SUBAREA

EXISTING Undeveloped Land: 39.18 acres Vacant Land: 6.84 acres Land Use Acres Percent Multi-Family Residential 1.25 2% Commercial 20.69 27% Industrial Manufacturing/Proc. 2.96 4% Industrial Storage 27.81 36% Institutional 5.10 7% Utilities/Transp./Roads 19.00 24% Mixed Use 0.85 1% Total (developed land) 77.66 100%

FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS Land Use Percent Change Multi-Family Residential 4% ↑ Commercial 35% ↑ Industrial Manufacturing/Proc. 4% - Industrial Storage 23% ↓ Institutional 8% ↑ Utilities/Transp./Roads 24% - Mixed Use 2% ↑ Total (developed land) 100%

Existing: The Amaknak Retail Subarea is Unalaska’s primary location for retail and commercial services. It is characterized by large-scale retail, restaurants, and the many services provided at the Grand Aleutian Hotel. The entire length of Airport Beach Road is used for Industrial Storage on the north side of the street. The area southwest of Salmon Way contains land used for industry, as well as a large portion of undeveloped land that is steep hills.

Recommendations: The most desirable land use in this subarea is Commercial, which is shown as increasing by 8% in the table above. Appropriate Commercial uses in this subarea are primarily larger-scale retail and services. Other desirable land uses include Multi-Family Residential, Institutional, and Mixed Use. Institutional uses in this subarea would be appropriate in the form of new recreational opportunities. Industrial Storage in this subarea is shown as decreasing in the table, as it is not consistent with the desires of the community to have such a large portion of this subarea used for Industrial Storage. The road right-of-way land is important to maintain for potential future pedestrian/bike trails.

Location-Specific Recommendations: All recommendations above apply equally to the entire subarea. The undeveloped area on the south edge of the subarea has been identified as a potential area for development. To whatever extent this area is developable, it would be most appropriate to develop Multi-Family Residential housing or an extension of the Commercial activity along Salmon Way.

Adjacent Tidelands: The tidelands along the northwest shore are restricted from development while the tideland in Margaret Bay is zoned for development but remains vacant. There are no recommended changes to the status of tidelands in this subarea. 17 08.06.2015 FINAL DRAFT

STANDARD OIL HILL SUBAREA

EXISTING Vacant Land: 7.13 acres Land Use Acres Percent Single-Family/Duplex Res. 8.29 28% Multi-Family Residential 6.60 22% Commercial 0.81 3% Industrial Storage 2.80 10% Open Space 4.52 15% Utilities/Transp./Roads 6.08 21% Mixed Use 0.28 1% Total (developed land) 29.38 100%

FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS Land Use Percent Change Single-Family/Duplex Res. 30% ↑ Multi-Family Residential 24% ↑ Commercial 3% - Industrial Storage 5% ↓ Open Space 16% ↑ Utilities/Transp./Roads 21% - Mixed Use 1% - Total (developed land) 100%

Existing: The Standard Oil Hill Subarea is primarily residential. Residential, Open Space, and Roads account for 86% of the area. The other 14% is used for Industrial Storage, Commercial, and Mixed Use. There is a distinct Single- Family/Duplex section in the center of the subarea while the northern portion near Driftwood Way is Multi-Family housing. Several vacant lots exist, some of which may be developable.

Recommendations: Residential uses in this subarea are most desirable, whether they are single-family or multi-family. The Open Space area known as Sitka Spruce Park is an important asset due to its designation as a National Historic Landmark, and it must be maintained. As shown in the table above, a small increase in Open Space uses would be desirable in this subarea, especially recreational opportunities for youth. Commercial uses and Mixed Use are also acceptable at a small scale. Industrial Storage is shown as decreasing because it is inconsistent with the desires of the community for this subarea.

Location-Specific Recommendations: Any of the higher-intensity uses (Commercial, Mixed Use, Industrial Storage, and Multi-Family Residential) are most appropriate along Biorka Drive. Multi-Family Residential is appropriate in the northern portion along Driftwood Way and the segment of Biorka Drive north of Makushin Drive. Areas that are not adjacent to Biorka Drive, but along Makushin Drive, Kashega Drive, and Chernofski Drive are best suited for Single- Family/Duplex Residential.

18 08.06.2015 FINAL DRAFT

EAST POINT ROAD SUBAREA

EXISTING Undeveloped Land: 88.53 acres Vacant Land: 9.46 acres Land Use Acres Percent Single-Family/Duplex Res. 0.89 1% Multi-Family Residential 4.17 3% Commercial 2.75 2% Industrial Storage 104.10 79% Marine Transportation 2.66 2% Utilities/Transp./Roads 16.69 13% Total (developed land) 131.27 100%

FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS Land Use Percent Change Single-Family/Duplex Res. 1% - Multi-Family Residential 3% - Commercial 2% - Industrial Storage 79% - Marine Transportation 2% - Utilities/Transp./Roads 13% - Total (developed land) 100%

Existing: Aside from the large undeveloped land of Strawberry Hill, the vast majority of the East Point Road Subarea is used for Industrial Storage. The character of this area is essentially industrial, particularly expansive container storage yards. A small pocket of housing exists in the southern portion of the subarea.

Recommendations: The current mix of uses is appropriate for this area for the spatial extent of current development. Strawberry Hill, which at this time contains about 88 acres of undeveloped land, has been identified as a potential area for future development. The Future Recommendations table above does not reflect the changes that could occur if Strawberry Hill were developed. Housing on Strawberry Hill would be most consistent with the desires of the community, but other consistent land uses include commercial businesses and services or a medical facility. The vision of the community is that the western portion of Strawberry Hill would be an extension of Standard Oil Hill with a similar character while the eastern portion would be more commerce-oriented.

Location-Specific Recommendations: Housing is most appropriate along the south edge of East Point Road, as it currently is. The current extent of Industrial uses is appropriate as is.

Adjacent Tidelands: The large shoreline of this subarea results in a large amount of tideland space. It is a mixture of developed tidelands, vacant tidelands, and tidelands restricted from development. There are no recommended changes to the status of tidelands in this subarea.

19 08.06.2015 FINAL DRAFT

BALLYHOO ROAD SUBAREA

EXISTING Vacant Land: 7.32 acres Land Use Acres Percent Multi-Family Residential 3.28 4% Industrial Storage 30.85 34% Marine Transportation 22.22 25% Open Space 18.71 21% Utilities/Transp./Roads 15.30 17% Total (developed land) 90.36 100%

FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS Land Use Percent Change Multi-Family Residential 4% - Industrial Storage 34% - Marine Transportation 25% - Open Space 21% - Utilities/Transp./Roads 17% - Total (developed land) 100%

Existing: The Ballyhoo Road Subarea is essentially Industrial in nature with a mixture of Industrial Storage facilities and Marine Transportation facilities. There is a small collection of residential buildings at the base of the spit. The map and table above show about 7 acres of vacant land, but that is essentially mountainous and undevelopable.

Recommendations: There are no recommended changes to the land use proportions listed above.

Location-Specific Recommendations: All land uses are equally appropriate throughout the subarea.

Adjacent Tidelands: All of the tidelands on the inside of Dutch Harbor are zoned for development and are mostly developed, but some remain yet to be developed. There is one Open Space tideland restricted from development near the base of the spit. There are no recommended changes to the status of tidelands in this area.

Adjacent Land: A majority of the land above this subarea, on Ballyhoo Mountain, is identified by the community as an important recreational and historic area that should be preserved. However, the area along Tundra Drive is an area for potential development. Appropriate land uses on Tundra Drive include housing, commercial services, or a medical facility. It is important that any development respect and preserve the need for trails that access the mountain for recreation.

20 08.06.2015 FINAL DRAFT

SUMMER BAY/MORRIS COVE SUBAREA

EXISTING Undeveloped Land: 506.25 acres

FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS Land Use Percent Change Open Space 100% ↑

Existing: The Summer Bay/Morris Cove Subarea is disconnected from the rest of the subareas and is located in the part of Unalaska labeled as Undeveloped in the land use inventory because it is outside of the developed part of the community. However, this location has particular importance to the community as it is used as a recreational site. Residents with an Ounalashka Corporation Land Use Permit are allowed to use most of the area for recreation.

Recommendations: No changes in the land use are recommended in this subarea. The table above reflects simply a change in the label from Undeveloped to the more accurate Open Space designation. Currently the zoning of the land in this area is Marine-Dependent/Industrial, which would allow for intense industrial uses to overtake the recreational spot. It is recommended that industry not be considered in this location, and that it is maintained as a recreation site for the community.

Adjacent Tidelands: All of the tidelands adjacent to this subarea are restricted from development, reserved for recreation and subsistence use. There is no recommended change to this status.

21 08.06.2015 FINAL DRAFT

Item 7: Adoption of Land Use Plan (Res. 2015-20) 08.06.2015

City of Unalaska, Alaska Planning Commission/Platting Board Resolution 2015-20

A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AND RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE UNALASKA CITY COUNCIL THE UNALASKA LAND USE PLAN: 2015 AS A COMPONENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

WHEREAS, the functions, powers, and duties of the Unalaska Planning Commission include preparing and keeping current a Comprehensive Plan for meeting present requirements and future needs for community growth and development as may be foreseen by the Commission/Board (UCO §8.04.050); and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has the responsibility of preparing and adopting the Comprehensive Plan for development in Unalaska for the purpose of guiding and accomplishing a coordinated, adjusted, and harmonious development of the city, and such adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, or of any amendment thereto, shall be by a resolution carried by the affirmative vote of not less than four members ofthe Commission (UCO §8.04.080); and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has prepared the Unalaska Land Use Plan: 2015- as presented and considered at the August 6, 2015 meeting of the Commission - as a component/amendment of the Comprehensive Plan as defined in UCO §8.04.080, in order to accomplish the planning and land use goals stated in UCO §8.04.010

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has solicited the input of the public through outreach efforts coordinated by the Planning Department staff and has conducted public hearings on July 16, 2015 and on August 6, 2015 to consider the input of the public;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Unalaska Planning Commission adopts the Unalaska Land Use Plan: 2015 as a component of the Comprehensive Plan as defined in UCO §8.04.080 and Alaska Statutes 29.40.030.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Unalaska Planning Commission recommends to the Unalaska City Council approval and adoption of the Unalaska Land Use Plan: 2015 as a component of the Comprehensive Plan as defined in UCO §8.04.080 and Alaska Statutes 29.40.030.

PASSED AND APPROVED THIS ,1 DAY OF ~ 2015, BY THE PLANNIN OMMISSION OF THE CITY OF UNALASKA, ALA KA.

Do Anthony Grande Chair Recording Secretary 1 CITY OF UNALASKA UNALASKA, ALASKA

ORDINANCE NO. 2015-19

CREATING BUDGET AMENDMENT #2 TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2016 BUDGET INCREASING THE PUBLIC SAFETY BUDGET FOR STATE SEIZURE FUNDS AND THE HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT; INCREASE THE WATER OPERATING BUDGET FOR TRAINING SERVICES; ADJUST ILIULIUK RIVER RESTORATION AND UNALASKA LAKE STORMWATER PROJECTS FOR THE GRANT CHANGES; AND ADD THE PORTABLE TIRE BALER PROJECT TO THE SOLID WASTE CAPITAL PROJECTS

BE IT ENACTED BY THE UNALASKA CITY COUNCIL

Section 1. Classification: This is a non-code ordinance. Section 2. Effective Date: This ordinance becomes effective upon adoption. Section 3. Content: The City of Unalaska FY15 Budget is amended as follows:

A. That the following sums of money are hereby accepted and the following sums of money are hereby authorized for expenditure. B. The following are the changes by account line item:

Amendment No. 2 to Ordinance #2015-10 Current Requested Revised I. OPERATING BUDGET A. General Fund

Sources Intergovernmental Revenue 278,301 142,449 420,750 Uses Public Safety 5,798,953 142,449 5,941,402

B. Water Fund

Sources Water Net Assets 556,874 40,000 596,874 Uses Water Operations Training Services 6,400 40,000 46,400

II. CAPITAL BUDGET C. General Fund Capital Projects

Sources Intergovernmental Revenues PW403 351,657 (252,657) 99,000 Intergovernmental Revenues PW404 626,657 258,739 885,396 Uses Lower Iliuliuk River Restoration PW403 351,657 (252,657) 99,000 Unalaska Lake Stormwater Management PW404 776,657 258,739 1,035,396

D. Enterprise Fund Capital Projects

Sources Solid Waste Net Assets 993,561 113,383 1,106,944 Uses Portable Tire Baler SW602 113,383 113,383

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY A DULY CONSTITUTED QUORUM OF THE UNALASKA CITY COUNCIL THIS ____ DAY OF ____ 2015.

______MAYOR ATTEST:

______CITY CLERK Summary of Budget Amendment and Schedule of Proposed Accounts Budget Amendment 2

1) Governmental Funds - Operating Increase both General Fund Revenues and Public Safety Operating Budget by the State Seizure Funds and the Homeland Security Grant.

2) Water Fund - Operating Increase Water Fund Operating for additional training courses for the water utility employees

3) General Fund - Capital Projects Move Deobligated funds from Iliuliuk River Restoration Grant and add additional fund released by DCCED to the Unalaska Lake Stormwater Management Grant.

4) Solid Waste - Capital Projects Adding the Portable Tire Baler project to the Solid Waste Capital Projects.

Org Object Project Current Requested Revised

1) Government Funds - Operating Budget Sources: Other State Revenue 01010041 42359 278,301.00 91,771.00 370,072.00 Misc State Operating Grants -PS 01011041 42199 - 50,678.00 50,678.00 Uses: State Seizure Funds 01021152 56460 - 91,771.00 91,771.00 Grants (Supplies) 01021152 56450 14,343.00 50,678.00 65,021.00

2) Water Fund - Operating Budget Sources: Water Fund Net Assets 40,000.00 40,000.00 Uses: Training Services 51024352 43260 6,400.00 40,000.00 46,400.00

3) General Fund - Capital Projects Sources: Misc State Capital Grants 3100941 42299 PW403 351,657.00 (252,657.30) 98,999.70 Misc State Capital Grants 3101041 42299 PW404 626,657.00 258,738.64 885,395.64 Uses: Salaries & Wages 3100953 51100 PW403 14,676.90 (14,676.90) - Engineering and Architectural 3100953 53240 PW403 100,000.00 (1,000.30) 98,999.70 Other Professional 3100953 53300 PW403 472.62 (472.62) - Construction Services 3100953 54500 PW403 236,507.48 (236,507.48) - Construction Services 3101053 54500 PW404 499,507.18 258,738.64 758,245.82

3) Enterprise Fund - Capital Projects Sources: Transfers to Enterprise Fund 53029854 59940 51982.59 113,383 165,366 Uses: Transfers from Enterprise Fund 53119848 49130 SW602 113,383 113,383 Machinery & Equipment 53126553 57400 SW602 113,383 113,383

MEMORANDUM TO COUNCIL

TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: JAMIE SUNDERLAND, DIRECTOR THRU: DON MOORE, CITY MANAGER FROM: DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY DATE: 09/30/2015 RE: ORDINANCE 2015-19: BUDGET AMENDMENT #2 INCREASING THE PUBLIC SAFETY AND REVENUE BUDGET BY THE $91,771 IN STATE SEIZURE FUNDS AND $50,578 FROM THE HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM

SUMMARY: During the October 13, 2015 meeting, we will be discussing the budget amendment necessary to record funds that were forfeited to the Unalaska Department of Public Safety during criminal sentencing. This amendment is to specifically reallocate these funds to the FY16 Police Operating Budget. This is a budget revision and will increase the police operating budget by the amount listed below. The total amount forfeited to the Department of Public Safety is $91,771.00.

Additionally, we will be discussing the budget amendment necessary to record grant revenues received from the Alaska Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management (DHS&EM) 2015 Grant State Homeland Security Grant Program, and to reallocate funds to the FY16 Police Operating Budget. This total amount received is $50,678.00.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: There has been no previous council action on either of these two items.

BACKGROUND: As part of the sentencing in several drug related criminal cases, the Unalaska Department of Public Safety has been awarded a total of $46,026.00 in cash, and several vehicles that were recently auctioned off for $45,745.00. These items were seized from individuals during criminal investigations; and upon conviction the court forfeited them to the Unalaska Department of Public Safety.

The $50,678.00 is a grant received from the Alaska Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, as part of the 2015 Homeland Security Grant Program. The grant is 100% funded and covers training activities, travel, and equipment. Specifically the money will provide; electronic door locks for building security at Public Safety, overtime and equipment to be used in the Alaska Shield 2016 Exercise, and travel for planning and after action review of the Alaska Shield 2016 Exercise.

DISCUSSION: The Department of Public Safety is requesting the forfeited funds amounting to $91,771.00 be placed in the FY16 police operating budget, under the ‘State Seizure Funds’ line item (01021152-56460). These funds were forfeited by Third Judicial District, State of Alaska Court as part of sentencing in various criminal cases and are required to be used by the Department of Public Safety for law enforcement related activities.

The Department of Public Safety is requesting that the $50,678.00 DHS&EM grant be placed into the FY16 police operating budget under the ‘Grants’ line item (01021152- 056450). The grant reimburses all expenses to the City of Unalaska upon purchase and submission of receipts. All funds are expected to be fully expended within the grant timelines. Local procurement rules must be followed.

ALTERNATIVES: The following are alternatives for the forfeited funds:

1. Refuse to accept the forfeited funds.

2. Return the funds to the defendant they were seized from.

The following is an alternative for the DHS&EM Grant:

1. Decline participation in the 2015 State Homeland Security Grant program.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: This first part of this budget amendment recognizes the receipt of forfeited funds. This amount is a budget revision and will increase the Department of Public Safety’s FY16 Police Operating Budget by $91,771.00.

The second part of the budget amendment recognizes the receipt of DHS&EM grant funds totaling $50,678.00. Depending on the grant requirements, either the remaining balances must be returned at the close of the granting period, or if the allocated funds are not expended by the end of the grant period, any expenses beyond that date may be bore entirely by the City.

LEGAL: The forfeited funds were awarded to the Unalaska Department of Public Safety through court order. Refusing to accept the money, or returning it to the various defendants, would cause legal complications with the court and the district attorney’s office.

The DHS&EM grant requires that the funds are expended in accordance with the scope of the grant. Remaining balances must be refunded unless the grant specifications are categorized as reimbursable. In that case, if the funds are not expended by the expiration of the grant period, the granting agency will not fund or reimburse the City

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Council approve the budget amendment request.

2 PROPOSED MOTION: Request a motion to approve Ordinance 2015-19, which includes a budget amendment to increase the Department of Public Safety FY16 police operating budget under the ‘State Seizure Funds’ line item in the amount of $91,771.00; and the police operating budget under the ‘Grants’ line item in the amount of $50,678.00.

CITY MANAGER’S COMMENTS: I recommend the approval of this budget amendment to accept these funds and increase the Department of Public Safety’s FY16 Police Operating Budget in the amount of $91,771.00 under the ‘State Seizure Funds’ line item (01021152-56460), and $50,678.00 under the ‘Grants’ line item (01021152- 56450).

3 Department of Public Safety Attachment

Description Amount BUDGET ACCOUNT

City of Unalaska General Fund $91,771.00 DPS – Police Budget ‘State Seizure Funds’ $91,771.00 01021152 - 56460

City of Unalaska General Fund $50,678.00

DPS – Police Budget ‘Grants’ $50,678.00 01021152 - 56450

4 Michael Holman

From: Ruth Marquez Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 3:40 PM To: Jamie Sunderland; Michael Holman Subject: FW: surplus sale break down

Grand Total$ 45,745.00

'R.~N. Mcvq~ Office Manager Department of Public Safety Phone: 907-581-1233 Fax: 907-581-5024 Email: [email protected] From: Pua Faailoga Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 3:29 PM To: Ruth Marquez Subject: surplus sale break down

1 Customer Copy 034 • Unalaska/Dutch Harbor OFFICIAL CHECK Dutch Harbor, Alaska 026796768 Date 09/30/2015 Remitter CITY OF UNALASKA

$ 42,563.00 *** Pay To The CITY OF UNALASKA Or

TERMS KEEP THIS COPY FOR YOUR RECORD OF THE TRANSACTION. TO REPORT A LOSS OR FOR ANY OTHER INFORMATION ABOUT THE INSTRUMENT, CONTACT THE INSTITUTION FROM WHICH YOU RECEIVED THE INSTRUMENT. • FORM NO. 80·0811-T21 (4/08)

., n n n 1 ., , ~ ... ------___ ._...... ,...~,....,., .. Customer Copy 034 - Unalaska/Dutch Harbor OFFICIAL CHECK Dutch Harbor, Alaska 026542490 Date 05/11/2015 Remitter UNALASKA DPS

$ 3,463.00 *** Pay To The CITY OF UNALASKA Order Of

Drawer: KeyBank

TERMS KEEP THIS COPY FOR YOUR RECORD OF THE TRANSACTION. TO REPORT A LOSS OR FOR ANY OTHER INFORMATION ABOUT THE INSTRUMENT, CONTACT THE INSTITUTION FROM WHICH YOU RECEIVED THE INSTRUMENT.

FORM NO 80-0811-T21 (4/08)

l_ OFFICIAL CHECK 026542490 62-20 Date 05/1 1/201 & :: 31 1 034 - Unalaska/Dutch Harbor Dutch Harbor, Alaska Remitter UNALASKA DPS $ 3,463.00 ***

Pay: THREE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED SIXTY THREE DOLLARS AND 00 CENTS

Issued by: Citibank N.A. One Penn's Way, New Castle, DE 19720 For information about this instrument, can: 1-888-556-5142 AUTHORIZED SIGNATU RE

--- ,.., - • - • - - .. • ... •,...., ., • • t""\,... ., ,.... n • • ., n I"J I"J 1 :1 1 :::J ul MEMORANDUM TO COUNCIL

TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: DAN WINTERS, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC UTILITIES THRU: DON MOORE, CITY MANAGER DATE: OCTOBER 13, 2015 RE: ORDINANCE 2015-19: BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUEST TO FUND INSTRUCTIONAL COURSES FOR THE WATER UTILITY

SUMMARY: Through this budget amendment request, staff is asking for funding to host two one-week training sessions in order to provide both City employees and area citizens in the building trades certifications to comply with the Water Utility’s portion of the City of Unalaska Code of Ordinances Title X. Staff is requesting $40,000 from the retained earnings of the Water Proprietary Fund to fund this training opportunity. Some of the expenditures will be recouped to the Utility in the form of payment for tuition and materials from non- city employees attending the training.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council funded the FY2016 Operating Budget via Ordinance 2015-10, adopted May 26, 2015. That budget provided $6,400 for training services for the Water Utility’s Operations.

BACKGROUND: City of Unalaska Code of Ordinances §10.12.010 through 10.12.050 sets forth the Water Utility’s service requirements, including the requirement for Backflow Prevention and Cross Connection Controls on water services per State and Federal law. In order to achieve compliance, the Water Utility trains its employees so that they may install and inspect these service components, and offers the training to other organizations in town so that they too will be compliant with State law and City Ordinance. This budget amendment request will fund two week-long training sessions for up to 25 students each, plus the materials for the two sessions. Staff will work with the Finance Department to invoice non-City entities for the tuition and materials before the courses begin. Revenue generated in this manner will be returned to the Water Proprietary Fund.

DISCUSSION: The Unalaska Water Utility is tasked with maintaining compliance with Local, State, and Federal codes relating to water quality. The Utility has implemented a training and certification program in order to insure availability of certified Backflow Assembly Testers (BAT’s) in our city. This training and certification is required every three years. In 2012, staff researched available training and certification options to meet compliance and determined that the way to provide the community with the highest quality required training and certifications at the lowest price per employee was to employ a firm with the needed skills and accreditation to instruct the courses in Unalaska. After extensive research and follow-up calls with previous customers, Backflow Management Inc. (BMI) was

Page 1 of 2 selected to perform the training. These first training sessions provided the City of Unalaska with 18 certified as BAT’s. The certification issued by BMI for testing backflow preventers used the University of Southern California’s 10th Standard of Cross-Connection Control, a national standard the City has adopted. College credit was made available through the University of Alaska for these courses, and will be again for the upcoming courses, should this funding be approved.

ALTERNATIVES: There are other providers of this type of training services besides the preferred vendor of Backflow Management, Inc. After much diligent searching, we can find no other cost-effective means of obtaining the needed training beyond bringing instructors to Unalaska. We have used BMI previously and their certification program fits the national standard to which the Utility has chosen to adhere.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Staff requests the $40,000 funding be placed into the Training Services line item of the Water Operations budget. Revenue from tuition and materials paid by other Departments or entities outside the City of Unalaska is requested to be placed back into the retained earnings of the Water Proprietary Fund.

LEGAL: N/A.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends full funding of this budget amendment request. The funds represent an investment in our staff and infrastructure, and much of the funding will be returned to the City in the form of payments for tuition and materials.

PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve Ordinance 2015-19.

CITY MANAGER’S COMMENTS: The Manager recommends Council approval of Ordinance 2015-19 to include use of $40,000 from the Water Proprietary Fund for essential maintenance training.

MEMORANDUM TO COUNCIL

TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: THOMAS COHENOUR, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS THRU: DON MOORE, CITY MANAGER DATE: OCTOBER 13, 2015 RE: ORDINANCE 2015-19: A BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUEST TO ACCEPT $258,738.64 IN GRANT FUNDING FOR THE UNALASKA LAKE RESTORATION PROJECT (PW404) SUMMARY: Through this Budget Amendment request, Staff is asking that $252,657.30 in de-obligated funds from the River Restoration Grant (10-CIAP-022) and $6,081.34 additional funding from the Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development (DCCED) be placed into the Lake Restoration Project (PW404) per the attached email from the DCCED and letter from the US Department of Interior.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council participated in a 1995-96 Evaluation of Mitigation Opportunities in Unalaska, a study with recommendations for the restoration of the Unalaska Lake Watershed. Council action specific to the River Restoration Grant includes the following:

• RESOLUTION 2014-19 was adopted on January 28, 2014 accepting CIAP Grants 10-CIAP-023 (Lake Grant) and 10-CIAP-022 (River Grant) for a total of $978,314.

• RESOLUTION 2014-49 awarded the design contract regarding the Lake and River Restoration Project to PND in the amount of $197,000.

• ORDINANCE 2015-05 requested a budget amendment of $95,000 in order to expedite design and permitting for only the Lake Stormwater Management & Prevention Plan (SMPP).

• ORDINANCE 2015-06 adopted budget amendment number 9 which added $55,000 to the Unalaska Lake Restoration Project (PW404) to cover engineering, administration, and contingency.

• RESOLUTION 2015-18 de-obligated the balance of funds in the Lower Iliuliuk River Restoration project and requested the funds be reallocated to the Unalaska Lake Restoration Project. Resolution 2015-18 was passed on March 10, 2015. This budget amendment request is the result of the de-obligation request which was approved by the granting agency on September 21, 2015.

BACKGROUND: The City of Unalaska was awarded two Coastal Impact Assistance Program (CIAP) grants, the Unalaska Lake Restoration (Lake Grant) for $626,657, and the

Page 1 of 2 Lower Iliuliuk River Restoration (River Grant) in the amount of $351,657. Council accepted both grants on January 28, 2014 via Resolution 2014-19. Through the public input process, it was discovered that local support for the restoration efforts stipulated in the River Grant was lacking. Two representatives from the Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development (DCCED), Division of Community and Regional Affairs (DCRA) traveled to Unalaska to meet with Staff in February of 2015 to discuss both grants. It was mutually agreed that the City would request de-obligation of the remaining funds in the River Grant and simultaneously request a reallocation of the funds to the Lake Grant. This reallocation will be used to increase the amount of sediment reduction construction work that can be accomplished within the lake watershed. On September 21, 2015, the City received written notice that the de-obligated $252,657.30 can be re-allocated to the Lake Restoration Project along with an additional $6,081.34.

DISCUSSION: The de-obligated $252,657.34 plus $6,081.34 in additional funding which staff is requesting to be added to the Lake Restoration efforts will be used to fulfill the Scope of Work under the project. The funds will be used to purchase and install sediment traps and other components of the Stormwater Management and Prevention Plan that was developed in Phase I of these projects.

ALTERNATIVES: Council may elect to use the funds in some other manner, pending approval of the granting agency, or could choose not to accept the funds. Staff recommends acceptance of the funds per Resolution 2015-18, and approval of this budget amendment request.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Staff recommends the $258,738.64 be added to Project PW404, Unalaska Lake Stormwater Management, in the Construction Services line item.

LEGAL: The City Manager will determine whether a legal opinion is required.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving this resolution.

PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to approve Ordinance 2015-19.”

CITY MANAGER’S COMMENTS: The Manager recommends City Council approval of Ordinance 2015-19 to include acceptance and assignment of grant funding in the amount of $258,738.64 for Project PW404-Unalaska Lake Stormwater Managerment.

MEMORANDUM TO COUNCIL

TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: DAN WINTERS, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC UTILITIES THRU: DONALD MOORE, CITY MANAGER DATE: OCTOBER 13, 2015 RE: BUDGET AMENDMENT ORDINANCE NO. 2015 -19 - AMENDMENT REQUEST CREATING A NEW CAPITAL PROJECT: THE PURCHASE OF A PORTABLE TIRE BALER FOR THE SOLID WASTE DIVISION

SUMMARY: Both the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Federal Wildlife Services (WS) have directed the City to remove by December 31, 2017. Through Ordinance 2015-19, Staff is creating a new capital project for the purchase of a portable tire baler for the Solid Waste Division. The total cost for the project is $113,383. The FAA and WS reports have been attached to this memo. The FAA and WS documentation is attached.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council has not previously acted on this specific item. Council funded the FY2016 Operating Budget via Ordinance 2015-10, adopted May 26, 2015.

BACKGROUND: In 2013, the City of Unalaska applied for a landfill construction permit through Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC). This permit was needed before construction of Cells 2-1 & 2-2 could commence. As part of the permitting process, the City was obligated to contact the United States Wild Life Service who would determine hazards to wild life and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) who would determine avian hazards in the flight pattern of the Unalaska Airport.

From July 8th through the 19th, 2013, the Federal Wildlife Service conducted a Unalaska Landfill site visit.

In December 2013, the Federal Wildlife Services submitted a report of their July 2013 visit. In their report they stated that “The only (Bird) attractant which could be eliminated was the pile of tires” from the Landfill. They also stated “WS recommends that the tire pile be removed from the landfill or destroyed”.

On February 26, 2014, FAA submitted a Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation. This document states that the City must comply with three requirements. The first being “The tire pile must be removed”. After negotiating with the FAA, it was agreed that the tire pile would be removed by December 31, 2017.

Page 1 of 3 Staff has investigated several different ways of disposing of tires and has found that it is not as easy as it sounds, which is why we have accumulated as many tires as we have. Asian recycling companies are the only companies accepting tires without charging for their services. The cost of shipping tires can cost as much as $8,000 per van. Since tires are bulky and take up a lot of room, the maximum weight per van could not be realized unless the tires were chipped, cut, or compressed. Putting the tires through a chipper seemed like the obvious answer. Further investigation found that the tires have to be partially frozen so the chipper can properly chip them. Staff also investigated cutting the tires with a cutter that attaches to an excavator. These units are costly and found to be maintenance nightmares.

Further investigation found that the tire baler/compactor has been working well with recycle companies. Staff has selected the portable diesel driven tire baler due to its mobility and its comparable low maintenance costs.

DISCUSSION: This project consists of purchasing a Portable Diesel Driven Tire Baler, recommended spare parts, and 20 bundles of baling wire. The total cost for this project is $113,383, which includes $94,100 for the tire baler, $5,565 for the shipping of the tire baler and the spare parts, $1,183 for spare parts, $1,725 for 20 bundles of baling wire, $503 for shipping of the baling wire and $10,307 for contingency. These costs were obtained through Eagle International. a manufacturer of tire balers.

Table 1 TIRE BALER COSTS Equipment Cost Tire Baler $ 94,100 Freight to Unalaska $ 5,565

Spare Parts $ 1,183 Freight to Unalaska $ -

Baling Wire. 20 Bundles $ 1,725 Freight to Unalaska $ 503 Sub Total $ 103,076 Contingency 10% $ 10,307 Total $ 113,383

Staff has researched tire baler manufacturers and found that Eagle International tire balers are made in the USA and the Eagle line of tire processing equipment is highly regarded in the industry. The lead time for their compacters is eight weeks compared to 14 weeks from other manufacturers. The Eagle units compact tires from 13 inches up to 45 inch truck tires and can compact 100 car tires into a 2,000 pound bale measuring 5’ x 4’ x 2.5’ making the tires easier to handle and ship. These tire bales also have other applications they can be used for, such as berms, barriers, and erosion prevention.

ALTERNATIVES: Staff has investigated all available options and believes the tire baler to be the most viable and cost effective way to prepare the tires for shipping or other use. The Landfill could bury the tires but this would use up precious Landfill space and should only be done as a last resort.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The budget for this project will come from the Solid Waste Proprietary Fund retained earnings.

LEGAL: The City Manager will determine whether a legal opinion is required.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving Ordinance 2015-19.

PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve Ordinance 2015-19.

CITY MANAGER’S COMMENTS: The Manager recommends City Council approval of Ordinance 2015-19 to include the acquisition of the Eagle tire baler in the amount of $113,383.

Mail Processing Center Aeronautical Study No. Federal Aviation Administration 2014-AAL-23-OE Southwest Regional Office Obstruction Evaluation Group 2601 Meacham Boulevard Fort Worth, TX 76193 Issued Date: 02/26/2014

J. R. Pearson City of Unalaska, Dept of Public Utilities P.O. Box 610 Unalaska, AK 99685

** DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION **

The Federal Aviation Administration has conducted an aeronautical study under the provisions of 49 U.S.C., Section 44718 and if applicable Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 77, concerning:

Structure: Landfill Unalaska Landfill Cells II-1 and II-2 Location: Unalaska, AK Latitude: 53-53-03.00N NAD 83 Longitude: 166-30-33.00W Heights: 10 feet site elevation (SE) 70 feet above ground level (AGL) 80 feet above mean sea level (AMSL)

This aeronautical study revealed that the structure does not exceed obstruction standards and would not be a hazard to air navigation provided the following condition(s), if any, is(are) met:

It is required that FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, be e-filed any time the project is abandoned or:

_____ At least 10 days prior to start of construction (7460-2, Part 1) __X__ Within 5 days after the construction reaches its greatest height (7460-2, Part 2)

See attachment for additional condition(s) or information. Based on this evaluation, marking and lighting are not necessary for aviation safety. However, if marking/ lighting are accomplished on a voluntary basis, we recommend it be installed and maintained in accordance with FAA Advisory circular 70/7460-1 K Change 2.

This determination expires on 08/26/2015 unless:

(a) the construction is started (not necessarily completed) and FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, is received by this office. (b) extended, revised, or terminated by the issuing office. (c) the construction is subject to the licensing authority of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and an application for a construction permit has been filed, as required by the FCC, within 6 months of the date of this determination. In such case, the determination expires on the date prescribed by the FCC for completion of construction, or the date the FCC denies the application.

Page 1 of 5 NOTE: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THIS DETERMINATION MUST BE E-FILED AT LEAST 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION DATE. AFTER RE-EVALUATION OF CURRENT OPERATIONS IN THE AREA OF THE STRUCTURE TO DETERMINE THAT NO SIGNIFICANT AERONAUTICAL CHANGES HAVE OCCURRED, YOUR DETERMINATION MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR ONE EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD.

This determination is based, in part, on the foregoing description which includes specific coordinates , heights, frequency(ies) and power . Any changes in coordinates , heights, and frequencies or use of greater power will void this determination. Any future construction or alteration , including increase to heights, power, or the addition of other transmitters, requires separate notice to the FAA.

This determination does include temporary construction equipment such as cranes, derricks, etc., which may be used during actual construction of the structure. However, this equipment shall not exceed the overall heights as indicated above. Equipment which has a height greater than the studied structure requires separate notice to the FAA.

This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body.

Any failure or malfunction that lasts more than thirty (30) minutes and affects a top light or flashing obstruction light, regardless of its position, should be reported immediately to (800) 478-3576 so a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) can be issued. As soon as the normal operation is restored, notify the same number.

If we can be of further assistance, please contact our office at (907) 271-5863. On any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2014-AAL-23-OE.

Signature Control No: 208502075-209091777 ( DNE ) Robert van Haastert Specialist

Attachment(s) Additional Information Map(s)

Page 2 of 5 Additional information for ASN 2014-AAL-23-OE

FAA Alaskan Region Airports Division identified that the proposed landfill expansion has to comply with three requirements: 1) The tire pile is to be removed; 2) The landfill continues current operating practices of baling and burying refuse using Enviro-Bale material; and 3) The proponent is required to notify the Unalaska airport manager, Dale Ruckman 907-581-1786, of the proposed lateral expansion of the landfill.

Page 3 of 5 TOPO Map for ASN 2014-AAL-23-OE

Page 4 of 5 Sectional Map for ASN 2014-AAL-23-OE

Page 5 of 5 WILDLIFE HAZARD SITE VISIT OF UNALASKA AIRPORT, UNALASKA, ALASKA th th (July 8 – 19 , 2013)

Submitted by:

United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Wildlife Services 720 O’Leary St., NW Olympia, Washington 98502 (360) 753-9884

Written by:

Kyle E.B. Waters, Wildlife Specialist, Alaska Terry L. Smith, District Supervisor, Alaska

Work Performance per Cooperative Service Agreement No. 13-73-02-6463 RA Project was monitored by Roger Woodruff, State Director, Washington and Alaska

WILDLIFE HAZARD SITE VISIT OF UNALASKA AIRPORT, UNALASKA, ALASKA

th th (July 8 – 19 , 2013)

Submitted by:

United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services Wildlife Services 720 O’Leary St., NW Olympia, Washington 98502 (360) 753-9884

Written by:

Kyle E.B. Waters, Wildlife Specialist, Alaska Terry L. Smith, District Supervisor, Alaska

Work Performance per Cooperative Service Agreement No. 13-73-02-6463 RA Project was monitored by Roger Woodruff, State Director, Washington and Alaska

Wildlife Hazard Site Visit

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Hazardous Wildlife and Associated Attractants ...... 2 1.2 History of Wildlife Hazards at DUT ...... 3 2.0 METHODS ...... 4 2.1 Incursion Surveys ...... 4 2.2 Point Count Surveys ...... 4 2.3 Transect Surveys ...... 5 2.4 Guild Classification ...... 5 3.0 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS ...... 6 3.1 Guild Specific Results ...... 7 3.1.1 Bald Eagles ...... 7 3.1.2 Gulls ...... 8 3.1.3 Shorebirds ...... 9 3.1.4 Songbirds ...... 10 3.1.5 Swallows ...... 11 3.2 Off-site Attractants ...... 11 3.2.1 Unalaska water treatment facility...... 11 3.2.2 Unalaska Landfill ...... 11 3.2.3 Dutch Harbor Spit-Dock ...... 12 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 13 5.0 LITERATURE CITED ...... 16 APPENDIX A - WILDLIFE OBSERVED ...... 17 APPENDIX B - 2012 DUT ANNUAL HARASSMENT LOG ...... 19

Page i Unalaska Airport, Unalaska, Alaska Wildlife Hazard Site Visit

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Unalaska Airport (DUT) is located on Unalaska Island, near the commencement of the Aleutian Island chain, about 160 miles southwest of the tip of the Alaska Peninsula (Figure 1). Unalaska Island is home to Dutch Harbor, the largest fisheries port in terms of volume of seafood caught in the U.S. During World War II, Unalaska Island was deemed a strategic operating area by U.S. military officials. This resulted in the installation and build-up of military buildings on the island, many of which remain as historical markers today. The 2010 Census estimates that 4,376 people reside on the island year-round. This does not account for the transient population of port workers.

Icicle Seafood (cannery)

Landfill Eagle nest

Figure 1. Aerial view of Unalaska Island. DUT July 2013. DUT is certified by the FAA to service aircraft capable of carrying more than 30 passengers. It is maintained and operated by the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (AKDOT&PF), Central Region Maintenance and Operations. The airport serves air carrier, commuter, air taxi, general aviation (local/transient), and U.S. Coast Guard aircraft. The airport is comprised of one paved runway (12/30) that is 3,900 feet long (plus 200 feet of safety area on either end) and 100 feet wide. Peninsula Airways operates daily flights to and from DUT. The airfield was constructed by partially cutting into Mt. Ballyhoo, creating an exposed 80 to 90- foot cliff along the northwest end of the runway. The remaining areas of the airfield are surrounded by water, with Unalaska Bay and Dutch Harbor bordering both sides. The adjacent marine waters provide an abundant and diverse source of food and cover for wildlife. The rocky shoreline, including the section of runway bordered by runway armor, is dominated by marine vegetation, barnacles, limpets, chitons, anemones, sea stars, sea urchins, and several species of crustaceans. A series of concrete pillars, remnants of a World War II submarine dock, protrude

Page 1 Unalaska Airport, Unalaska, Alaska Wildlife Hazard Site Visit

from the water along a section of the airfield. These pillars act as a tidal break and provide habitat for an abundance of sea life. DUT’s formal Wildlife Hazard Assessment (WHA) was conducted in 2001. At the request of AKDOT&PF, WS conducted a Wildlife Hazard Site Visit to DUT from 8–19 July 2013 to reassess wildlife hazards at the Unalaska Airport. Observations of wildlife activity at key locations and interviews with residents and pilots were conducted during the visit. 1.1 Hazardous Wildlife and Associated Attractants Several seasonal factors contribute to wildlife activity in the area, and it should be noted that a site visit only provides a “snapshot” of attractants and wildlife activity, which may not be indicative of future wildlife use. Hazardous wildlife observed at DUT during the two week site visit includes (but not limited to) bald eagles,, black-legged kittiwakes, glaucous-winged gulls, mew gulls, savannah sparrows, bank swallows, lapland longspurs, gray-crowned rosy finches, semi-palmated plovers, black oystercatchers, pelagic cormorants, pigeon guillemots, marbled murrelets, horned puffins, red foxes, and arctic ground squirrels. Based on personal communication with DUT staff, wildlife observations are at their lowest during summer months. Hazardous wildlife attractants (e.g., sources of food, water, cover) near an airport increase the chances of a wildlife strike. Several wildlife attractants exist within the Aircraft Operations Area (AOA). Unalaska Bay borders two sides of the airfield, providing loafing areas for seabirds and creating an intertidal zone attractive to shorebirds, eagles, gulls, swallows, and others. The location of the airfield, near the bottleneck of land between Dutch Harbor and Unalaska Bay, results in a high amount of transient wildlife activity over the airport. Long grass in the infield provides suitable habitat for small mammals and insects, creating a food source for fox, swallows, songbirds, and other predators. Gravel in the infield attracts nesting shorebirds. The cliff face bordering the runway that was created by the construction of the airfield attracts perching bald eagles. Lastly, structures within the AOA, ranging from abandoned WWII structures to operational airfield buildings, attract perching bald eagles to the airfield. Within a five-mile radius of DUT, wildlife attractants exist that could put aviation at risk. These attractants include the Unalaska city landfill and local canneries, which attract bald eagles and gulls, respectively, in large numbers. FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5200-33B sets forth separation distances of 5,000 feet between landfills and airports serving piston-powered aircraft and 10,000 feet between landfills and airports serving turbine-powered aircraft. In addition, for all certificated airports, the FAA recommends a distance of five statute miles between hazardous wildlife attractants and the air operations area for the protection of approach, departure, and circling airspace (AC 150/5200-33B, Section 1-4). The Unalaska city landfill is located approximately three miles from the approach end of Runway 30, directly in line with the runway. Aircraft generally do not fly directly over the landfill itself as it sits at the base of a mountain, but they do pattern over the edge of it at an altitude of approximately 500 feet on a right-base turn to line up with Runway 30. When certain wind conditions exist, aircraft may require a wider right-base turn, flying directly over the landfill. During these times, aircraft are more susceptible to collisions with soaring birds attracted to the landfill.

Page 2 Unalaska Airport, Unalaska, Alaska Wildlife Hazard Site Visit

Garbage brought to the landfill is compressed and baled. Baled garbage is then placed in cells (open pits) on landfill property and buried at the end of each day. Beginning in 2010, the landfill switched to baling with Enviro-Bale rather than wire straps. This baling process encases each bale of trash with plastic wrap, making it difficult for wildlife to forage on the garbage. Based on personal communication with landfill and airport operators, this change decreased wildlife activity at the landfill. Because of the volume of seafood being brought into the port of Dutch Harbor, several fish canneries are located within five-miles of the airfield. During the normal course of operations, fish processing waste is generally ground up and often disposed of within close proximity to the airfield. A typical method is to discharge the waste through underwater pipes into the local marine waters. Depending on the depth of the outflow pipe outlet, local tide cycles, and the amount of waste produced, scavenging birds can gain access to the waste once it reaches the surface of the water. In some cases, concentrations of birds surrounding seafood discharge pipes become large enough that they present a hazard to aircraft operating in the vicinity. None of the canneries were operating during WS’ site visit (typical months of operation are October – March), so WS relied on personal communication with airport staff to gain a better understanding of which fish canneries were major wildlife attractants. Based on personal communications with DUT staff, it was determined that the Bering Star processing ship “Icicle Seafoods”, which is located 1.75 miles from the approach end of Runway 30 on the Dutch Harbor Spit Dock, attracted the most wildlife of any local cannery. 1.2 History of Wildlife Hazards at DUT According to the FAA National Wildlife Strike Database, 21 wildlife strikes have been reported at DUT since 1990, including one bald eagle (BAEA) strike that occurred during the WS site visit (Figure 2). Of the 21 recorded wildlife strikes, 43% involved gulls and 38% involved BAEA. Emphasis on reducing eagles and gulls around the airfield should be a priority.

Figure 2. Bald Eagle strike during WS site visit. DUT July 2013.

Page 3 Unalaska Airport, Unalaska, Alaska Wildlife Hazard Site Visit

2.0 METHODS

During the two week site visit, WS used Incursion, Point Count, and Transect surveys to collect data related to wildlife hazards at DUT. Wildlife “use” of an area can be defined by its observed activity during systematic surveys. If observed wildlife are flying over the airfield in-transit from Point A to Point C (stipulating the airfield is Point B), then it can be assumed that the airfield is not attracting “use” by the observed wildlife. However, if wildlife is observed loafing, feeding, roosting, nesting, or flying locally above the airfield, it is assumed that wildlife are “using” the area and are attracted to it. 2.1 Incursion Surveys Incursion surveys focused on identifying hazardous wildlife crossing and flying adjacent to the runway. Runway 12/30 was separated into three equal portions, including the Runway Safety Areas. A complete Incursion survey included a 30-minute observation at each of the three locations, also known as “strike zones”. Incursion surveys were conducted in the morning (before 1200 hours) and the afternoon (after 1200 hours) twice each week. 2.2 Point Count Surveys Using the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Breeding Bird Survey (Robbins et al. 1986, Sauer et al. 2005) as a basis, Point Count surveys were conducted around the airport to identify hazardous wildlife species, abundance, distribution, and habitat preferences. Point Count surveys are conducted with the assumption that not all wildlife within the designated area will be detected by the observer. Smaller species (e.g., songbirds) are often only visible for observation at close range or in large flocks. The objective was not to obtain an absolute density estimate for every species, but rather establish an index for estimating relative abundance for Figure 3. Point count survey locations. DUT July 2013. hazardous wildlife.

Page 4 Unalaska Airport, Unalaska, Alaska Wildlife Hazard Site Visit

WS surveyed the same points as the 2001 WHA. This allowed for a comparison between then and now. At each point, wildlife activity within the pre-defined area was observed and recorded for three minutes. Binoculars were used to identify species, count the number of individuals in a group, and document movement patterns. Point Count surveys were conducted twice each week, with a morning survey (before 1200 hours) and an afternoon survey (after 1200 hours). Twelve point count locations were used, with a survey qualifying as one visit to all of the 12 locations (Figure 3). On-site, the six point count locations encompassed 85% of the airport property. Off- site, six locations focused on possible wildlife attractants within a five-mile radius of DUT. Off- site locations are important because hazardous wildlife could transit over airport property to reach these desirable areas. This is critical because an airport could take all the necessary management steps on their property to reduce hazardous wildlife, and still be at risk from wildlife passing through the airspace. 2.3 Transect Surveys The objective of Transect surveys was to document wildlife activity/habitat use patterns within the airport’s perimeter fence. Transect surveys were conducted twice each week, with a morning survey (before 1200 hours) and an afternoon survey (after 1200 hours). 2.4 Guild Classification To reduce complexity in data analysis and management recommendations, hazardous species observed during the site visit were grouped into guilds based on similar behavior and habitat requirements. Guilds were replicated from the 2001 WHA. A list of all hazardous species observed during data collection and their respective guilds is available in Appendix A.

Page 5 Unalaska Airport, Unalaska, Alaska Wildlife Hazard Site Visit

3.0 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

Data analysis was Percent occurrence by guild during performed to determine the incursion surveys, DUT, July 2013 hazardous guilds that posed the greatest risk Bald Eagle to aviation safety at DUT. Guilds most 18% Gull frequently observed in Raven 43% the strike zone present 9% Seabird the greatest risk to 1% Shorebirds aviation. DUT should 3% manage for the 4% Songbird 22% reduction of these Swallows guilds. Figure 4 shows that Figure 4. Percent occurrence by guild during incursion surveys. DUT July 2013. the five most hazardous guilds during the site visit were: swallows (43%), songbirds (22%), bald eagles (18%), gulls (9%), and shorebirds (4%). These results are likely indicative of presence throughout the summer. DUT should focus their management practices on reducing the presence of these guilds on the airfield as they pose the greatest risk of being struck by aircraft. According to the FAA National Wildlife Strike Database, 41% of bald eagle strikes reported at DUT over the last 23 years resulted in damage to the aircraft. Of the reported gull strikes, 14% have resulted in damage to the aircraft. Reported strikes involving shorebirds and songbirds have each resulted in 2% damage, while swallows have resulted in only .6% damage to aircraft. This information is important because although swallows and songbirds make up 65% of species observed during Incursion surveys, management of bald eagles and gulls (combined to make up 27% of Incursion surveys) should be a priority due to their risk to cause damage when struck.

Page 6 Unalaska Airport, Unalaska, Alaska Wildlife Hazard Site Visit

3.1 Guild Specific Results

3.1.1 Bald Eagles Bald eagles were the Percent occurrence and average number of bald eagles third most frequently observed during point counts, DUT Site Visit, July 2013 observed guild in the % Occurrence Avg. strike zone during 100 40 Incursion surveys at DUT. During all bald 75 30 eagle observations, 89% of the activity 50 20 observed was of bald eagles using the 25 10 airfield. Bald eagles number Average Percent occurrence were attracted to the 0 0 various perching pt1 pt2 pt3 pt4 pt5 pt6 pt7 pt8 pt9 pt10 pt11 pt12 locations available around the airfield Figure 5. Percent occurrence and average number of bald eagles observed during point (points 1 through 5). counts. DUT July 2013. Observations of eagles at all 12 Point Count Survey points (Figure 5) shows bald eagles are present not only around the airfield, but also around Unalaska Island. Bald eagles were observed during 100% of the surveys at the Unalaska landfill and spit dock (points 10 (landfill) and 12 (Spit Dock)), both of which have been identified as off-site wildlife hazard attractants. WS observed one active bald eagle nest one-mile south from the approach end of Runway 30. This nest was located at the Unalaska U.S. Post Office building in town. Based on Incursion Surveys and Point Count Surveys showing bald eagles utilizing perching locations on both sides of the runway (Figure 6), eagles are apt to be struck as they fly from perch to perch, or from perch to food attractant. In surveying the environment for food, bald eagles are attracted to vantage points such as structures or natural elements. Favorite perches around DUT are outlined in the Recommendations section. A reduction in these perching locations could reduce the presence of eagles on site as well as eagles crossing the airfield, Figure 6. Bald eagle perched on the cliff face of Mt. Ballyhoo that borders Runway 12/30. DUT July 2013. therefore reduce eagle strikes.

Page 7 Unalaska Airport, Unalaska, Alaska Wildlife Hazard Site Visit

3.1.2 Gulls Gulls accounted for Percent occurrence and average number of gulls 97% of the total observed during point counts, DUT Site Visit, July 2013 wildlife hazed by DUT personnel % occurrence Avg. number during 2012 100 10 (Appendix B), and were the fourth 75 7.5 most frequently observed guild in 50 5 the strike zone during Incursion surveys. During all

25 2.5 number Average

Percent occurrence gull observations, 11% of the activity 0 0 observed was of pt1 pt2 pt3 pt4 pt5 pt6 pt7 pt8 pt9 pt10 pt11 pt12 gulls using the Figure 7. Percent occurrence and average number of gulls observed during point counts. DUT airfield. This July 2013. indicates that 89% of all gull observations were of individuals flying past the airfield en route to another destination. This suggests that habitat management on the airfield geared towards gulls may not be as effective as habitat management directed toward other species that are using the airfield. Gulls were observed utilizing the Unalaska landfill (point 11) during 50% of all point count surveys, with an average of 7.5 individuals observed per survey (Figure 7). Gulls frequently flew over Runway 12/30 as they travelled between Dutch Harbor and Unalaska Bay. Based on personal communications with DOT staff, gull activity was relatively low during the site visit, likely due to the non-operational status of the local canneries. When in production, canneries around the island attract thousands of gulls. This artificial food source leads to an increase in wildlife hazards at the airfield as gulls move between canneries and their respective offal outfalls, transiting the airfield in the process. There were 9 gull strikes reported between 1990 and 2013. Working cooperatively with canneries around DUT to minimize the attractiveness of their offal discharge could reduce gulls crossing the airfield and therefore reduce gull strikes.

Page 8 Unalaska Airport, Unalaska, Alaska Wildlife Hazard Site Visit

3.1.3 Shorebirds Shorebirds were the Percent occurrence and average number of shorebirds fifth most observed during point counts, DUT Site Visit, July 2013 frequently observed guild in the strike % occurrence avg. number zone during 100 10 Incursion surveys at DUT. During all 75 7.5 shorebird observations, 97% 50 5 of the activity observed was of shorebirds using the

25 2.5 number Average

Percent occurrence airfield. Shorebirds were attracted to the 0 0 intertidal zone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 around the airfield Figure 8. Percent occurrence and average number of shorebirds observed during point counts. and undisturbed DUT July 2013. gravel within the AOA. Shorebirds were observed feeding and loafing in the intertidal zones along the edge of the airfield (Figure 8, points 2, 3, 4). Within these intertidal zones, food sources are abundant and range from aquatic invertebrate to various marine plants and animals. As depicted by points 1 and 4 in Figure 8, intertidal zones containing armor rocks saw less wildlife activity than intertidal areas that remained uncovered, respectively (Fig 9). Shorebirds were attracted to gravel areas within the AOA. Shorebirds preferred undisturbed gravel areas for nesting and loafing. Upon leaving the nest, juveniles spend a majority of their time loafing and flying in between these areas and feeding areas. Flying in between gravel areas and the intertidal zone to feed could lead to an increase in wildlife crossing the runway.

Figure 9. Several dunlin loaf and feed along the uncovered intertidal zone. DUT July 2013.

Page 9 Unalaska Airport, Unalaska, Alaska Wildlife Hazard Site Visit

3.1.4 Songbirds Songbirds were the Percent occurrence and average number of songbirds second most observed during point counts, DUT Site Visit, July 2013 frequently observed guild in the strike % occurrence avg. number zone during 100 10 Incursion surveys at DUT. During all 75 7.5 songbird observations, 53% of the activity observed 50 5 was of songbirds using the airfield.

25 2.5 number Average

Percent occurrence Songbirds were attracted to the 0 0 infield and perimeter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 grass areas within Figure 10. Percent occurrence and average number of songbirds observed during point counts. the AOA (Figure 10, DUT July 2013. point 3).

Songbirds were observed loafing in infield and perimeter areas that contained long grass (Figure 11). These areas surround the runway, causing songbirds to frequently cross the runway when flying in between long grass habitats. Songbirds that exhibit flocking behaviors can be extremely dangerous to aircraft. Songbirds at DUT were not observed in flocks, with each point count location having an average of less than three individuals per survey. Figure 11. Savannah sparrow loafing in long grass. DUT July 2013.

Page 10 Unalaska Airport, Unalaska, Alaska Wildlife Hazard Site Visit

3.1.5 Swallows Swallows were the Percent occurrence and average number of swallows most frequently observed during point counts, DUT Site Visit, July 2013 observed guild in % occurrence avg. number the strike zone during Incursion 100 10 surveys at DUT. During all swallow 75 7.5 observations, 56% of the activity 50 5 observed was of swallows using the airfield. Swallows

25 2.5 number Average Percent occurrence were attracted to 0 0 infield grass areas pt1 pt2 pt3 pt4 pt5 pt6 pt7 pt8 pt9 pt10 pt11 pt12 and the intertidal zone, where they Figure 12. Percent occurrence and average number of swallows observed during point counts. were feeding on DUT July 2013. insects attracted to those habitats. Swallows were observed crossing the runway with high frequency due to infield grass areas that surround the runway. Insects present in these areas were an abundant food source. Swallows were also observed feeding in the intertidal zone. Swallows were consistently present at Point Count locations 1-4 (Figure 12). Reducing insect habitat or insect populations directly, could reduce swallow foraging on the airfield, and subsequently reduce the risk posed by this guild. This could be accomplished by keeping grass heights to a minimum. 3.2 Off-site Attractants During the site visit, several off-site locations were surveyed to analyze their attractiveness to hazardous wildlife. Two locations in particular, the Unalaska landfill and the Unalaska water treatment facility, are preparing to undergo expansion projects. WS was invited to examine these locations and estimate whether the expansion projects would have any effect on hazardous wildlife activity at the airfield.

3.2.1 Unalaska water treatment facility Point count location 8 was located at the Unalaska water treatment facility. The water treatment facility produces waste that is pumped into Unalaska Bay. All water treatment procedures are completely enclosed, and waste is discharged below the surface of the water. WS did not observe any wildlife activity to imply that this facility and its operations attract wildlife in a manner hazardous to aviation safety. Based on the expansion project plans for the facility provided to WS, WS does not believe that any increase in hazardous wildlife activity will occur. 3.2.2 Unalaska Landfill Point count locations 10 and 11 were within the Unalaska city landfill, which is located three miles from the approach end of Runway 30. WS did not observe wildlife traveling between the landfill and airfield during any systematic survey.

Page 11 Unalaska Airport, Unalaska, Alaska Wildlife Hazard Site Visit

Point 10 had an average of 193 wildlife observed per survey, predominantly bald eagles and common ravens. They were observed feeding on trash and loafing on discarded tires. WS discussed landfill operations and expansion plans with the manager. WS was informed that refuse from the town is collected and taken to the landfill where it is baled. Bales are then placed within “cells” in the landfill where they are covered. Portions of these cells containing bales are buried Figure 13. Common ravens loafing on tires at the landfill. DUT July 2013. each night. In 2010 the landfill changed to this sort of operation in order to reduce the attractiveness of open trash to hazardous wildlife. Switching the material with which the trash is baled to Enviro-Bale material, essentially a plastic wrap, was incorporated into the baling process with the goal of reducing the amount of open trash to hazardous wildlife. After the shift in refuse-handling practices in 2010, landfill and DUT personnel noticed a significant drop in wildlife abundance at the landfill. After several surveys at the landfill, WS found that hazardous wildlife tended to only feed on pieces of trash that were not baled. The only attractant which could be eliminated was the pile of tires. Common ravens were consistently observed loafing and picking at the rubber tires, which are completely uncovered (Figure 13). WS recommends that the tire pile be removed from the landfill or destroyed. Landfill management indicated that plans were to remove the tires in the near future. WS believes that this action, along with current landfill operations, will be effective in reducing wildlife attractiveness, and that the expansion plans should not increase the wildlife activity in the area as long as current operating practices are continued 3.2.3 Dutch Harbor Spit-Dock Point Count location 12 at the spit-dock in Dutch Harbor is situated 1.75 miles from the approach end of Runway 30. Point 12 had an average of four bald eagles observed per survey. Eagle activity consisted of perching (e.g. docked boats, light poles, dock poles, trash bins, cranes) or flying locally around the docks and bay. During the fishing off-season, the spit-dock does not appear to be a significant hazardous wildlife attractant. Based on personal communication with DUT personnel however, it is an attractant during the fishing season. Ships off-load their catch at the dock where it is transported to one of the several canneries on the island. One such cannery, Icicle Seafoods, processes its fish upon the ship Bering Star. This ship docks at the spit-dock, and releases its offal into the surrounding waters. Offal discharge from the Bering Star attracts thousands of gulls and other hazardous wildlife to the area. This attractant becomes a danger when aircraft landing on Runway 30 fly directly over the area. Wildlife flying in-between the spit-dock and the city of Unalaska transit across the approach end of Runway 30.

Page 12 Unalaska Airport, Unalaska, Alaska Wildlife Hazard Site Visit

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

DUT acted upon several recommendations from the 2001 WHA. Wildlife activity along the shoreline was combatted by the addition of armor rocks along portions of the airfield. Temporary standing water on the airfield was reduced by the completion of a new drainage project, implemented to improve water drainage. Lastly, DUT continues to remove portions of the cliffs along Runway 12 on Mt. Ballyhoo. All of these efforts have taken place under the guidance of the 2001 WHA. The following are recommendations that should further enhance safety and the effectiveness of the wildlife hazard management program at DUT. 4.1 Cover remaining areas of the shoreline around the airport with armor rocks (i.e., dolo’s or core locks) Survey results showed that the intertidal zone areas that were not covered in armor rock were more of an attractant than areas covered in armor rock. Numerous species of hazardous wildlife were observed frequenting the portions of the intertidal zone without armor rock due to available food sources. WS recommends armor rocks be added to these uncovered areas of shoreline, making the remaining intertidal zone unattractive to foraging wildlife. 4.2 Eliminate perching/loafing areas at DUT A variety of perching areas (Figure 14) exist on and around DUT. These areas vary in proximity to the runway, but all offer a place for birds to loaf, nest, roost, and hunt from. Several perch sites that received frequent bird use were identified, and are presented in Table 1. It should be noted that in order to eliminate several of these perching areas, cooperation with local entities (e.g., Ounalashka Corporation and City of Unalaska) is needed. The Figure 14. Bald eagle perched on concrete dock posts. DUT July 2013. structures can be completely removed, or anti-perching devices can be installed. Anti-perching devices serve to exclude wildlife from accessing portions of a structure, and may include netting, wire, or bird spikes.

Page 13 Unalaska Airport, Unalaska, Alaska Wildlife Hazard Site Visit

Table 1. Favored perching areas found on and around DUT. Perching Area Distance to Runway Rotating Light Beacon 600 feet World War II Bunker 200 feet Terminal Building 200 feet AKDOT&PF Maintenance Building 350 feet Naval Aerology Building 100 feet Aircraft Hangers 400 feet Concrete Dock Posts 650 feet AWOS 200 feet Building on Mt. Ballyhoo 600-1000 feet Cliff face of Mt. Ballyhoo 600-1000 feet

4.3 Keep vegetation height to a minimum DUT should keep grass heights around the airport short (<6 inches), and mowing should occur as often as necessary to meet this goal. Mowing should include all airport ditches and along the perimeter of the airfield. Keeping grass heights to a minimum removes escape cover for wildlife and increases vulnerability to harassment activity. Low grass heights also reduce the presence of insects in the area. Removing this cover could play a key factor in the reduction of several species around the airport. 4.4 Discourage nesting of shorebirds in gravel areas Areas of the airfield that have open gravel or gravel with sparse vegetation should be dragged at least twice a month from April-May. This could be accomplished using a vehicle and a piece of chain-link fence, or a tractor with a mowing attachment. The idea is to disturb ground nesting plovers during the initial process of nest building and egg-laying. Frequent disturbance of the gravel substrate during spring should be enough to either prevent birds from laying eggs in the first place, or destroy eggs that have been recently laid.

4.5 Replace infield grass areas with gravel During the next new airport construction project, an effort should be made to modify the grass- covered infield areas so they are covered with gravel (e.g., 2” Minus will aid in drainage better than grass). Eliminating grass will effectively reduce the small mammal prey base population (which attracts predatory species) and the songbird population, along with reducing a food source for migrating waterfowl. Removing grass from the infield areas will ideally reduce the local insect population, which, over time, could lead to a reduction in the presence of swallows near the runway. Properly compacted gravel in the infield should reduce the attraction for ground nesting shorebirds. Dragging all gravel areas during nesting season will further discourage shorebird use of the infield. 4.6 Continue to work with canneries to develop ways to reduce the amount of processing waste that is made available to scavenging birds Multiple canneries exist within five-miles of the airfield. During the fishing off-season, these canneries do not discharge outflow. However, during the fishing season (October through March) outflow discharged from the canneries attracts hazardous wildlife. Due to the timing of the WS site visit, various cannery offal outfalls could not be assessed. Icicle Seafoods, which processes seafood aboard the Bering Star situated at the Spit-Dock, located 1.75 miles from the

Page 14 Unalaska Airport, Unalaska, Alaska Wildlife Hazard Site Visit

approach end of Runway 30. Its proximity to inbound aircraft to DUT makes this cannery one of the top wildlife hazard attractants to DUT. AKDOT&PF should begin working cooperatively with all of the canneries, specifically Icicle Seafoods, to develop various ways to reduce the amount of processing waste that is made available to scavenging birds. Wildlife hazard mitigation measures may include reducing the screen size of offal outfalls, or dumping waste further away from the airport. 4.7 Monitor and remove bald eagle nests within a five-mile radius of DUT The island of Unalaska has a thriving bald eagle population. With an abundance of food sources, eagles frequent all areas of the island. In conjunction with eliminating perching habitat around the airfield, DUT staff should monitor any bald eagle nesting activity within a five-mile radius of the airfield. During the WS site visit, one bald eagle nest (Figure 15) was observed at the U.S. Post Office located one-mile south from the approach end of Figure 15. Active bald eagle nest located at the US Post Office one-mile south of Runway 30. DUT July 2013. Runway 30. It is necessary to acquire a Purposeful Eagle Take For Safety / Eagle Nest Take permit from the US Fish and Wildlife Service before disrupting an eagle nest. Nest removal should only be considered if it is determined that AKDOT&PF has the necessary staffing and resources to aggressively deter uprooted eagles from re-nesting closer to the airport or in more hazardous locations.

Page 15 Unalaska Airport, Unalaska, Alaska Wildlife Hazard Site Visit

5.0 LITERATURE CITED

Dolbeer, R.A., S.E. Wright, J. Weller, and M. Begier. September 2013. Wildlife strikes to civil aircraft in the United States 1990-2013. 19: 46-61.

Robbins, C.S., D. Bystrack, and P.H. Geissler. 1986. The breeding bird survey: its first fifteen years, 1965–1979. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service Resource Publication 157–196 Sauer, J.R., J.E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2005. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, results and analysis 1966–2004. Version 2005.2. USGS Paxtuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, Maryland.

Page 16 Unalaska Airport, Unalaska, Alaska Wildlife Hazard Site Visit

APPENDIX A

WILDLIFE OBSERVED DURING WILDLIFE HAZARD SITE VISIT

AND GUILD BREAKDOWN

Page 17 Unalaska Airport, Unalaska, Alaska Wildlife Hazard Site Visit

Guild Common Name Scientific Name Mammal Red Fox Vulpes Vulpes Arctic Ground Squirrel Spermophilus parryii Raven Common Raven Corvus corax Eagle Bald Eagles Haliaeetus leucocephalus Gull Black-legged Kittiwake Rissa tridactyla Glaucous Winged Gull Larus glaucescens Mew Gull Larus canus Swallow Bank Swallows Riparia riparia Songbird Lapland Longspur Calcarius lapponicus Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis Snow Bunting Plectrophenax nivalis Gray Crowned Rosy Finch Leucosticte tephrocotis Shorebird Semi-palmated Plover Charadrius semipalmatus Dunlin Caladris aplinis Black Oystercatcher Haematopus bachmani Cormorant Pelagic Cormorant Phalacrocorax pelagicus Seabird Horned Puffin Fratercula corniculata Pigeon Guillimont Cepphus columba Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus Kingfisher Belted Kingfisher Cyrie alcyon

Page 18 Unalaska Airport, Unalaska, Alaska Wildlife Hazard Site Visit

APPENDIX B

2012 DUT ANNUAL HARASSMENT LOG

Page 19 Unalaska Airport, Unalaska, Alaska Wildlife Hazard Site Visit

NUMBER OF BIRDS HAZED OR KILLED AT DUT DURING 2012 GWGU BAEA ACGO CORA EMGO JAN HAZED KILLED FEB HAZED 60 22 6 KILLED MAR HAZED 1 KILLED APR HAZED 43 80 KILLED MAY HAZED 77 10 KILLED JUN HAZED 75 13 9 KILLED JUL HAZED 250 13 KILLED AUG HAZED 6054 3 KILLED SEP HAZED 6820 KILLED 80 OCT HAZED KILLED NOV HAZED 70 110 KILLED 10 DEC HAZED 100 KILLED

Page 20 Unalaska Airport, Unalaska, Alaska CITY OF UNALASKA UNALASKA, ALASKA

ORDINANCE 2015-20

AN ORDINANCE OF THE UNALASKA CITY COUNCIL AMENDING UNALASKA CITY CODE CHAPTER 2.20 TO PERMIT PHYSICALLY ABSENT CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND THE MAYOR TO PARTICIPATE IN MEETINGS TELEPHONICALLY WITH PRIOR NOTICE.

BE IT ENACTED by the City Council of the City of Unalaska:

Section 1: Form. This is a Code ordinance.

Section 2: Amendment of Section 2.20.075. Section 2.20.075 of the Unalaska Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: [additions are underlined; deletions are in brackets]

§ 2.20.075 TELEPHONIC PARTICIPATION.

(A) A Council member or the Mayor may participate via telephone in any meeting, work session, or [an] executive session of the City Council where the meeting is otherwise held with at least three members physically present. [,] Any member participating by telephone shall be considered present at the meeting or session for all purposes under this Chapter. [where the meeting is otherwise held with a quorum of members physically present.] In order to participate by telephone, the member or the Mayor must declare in advance to the City Clerk that out of town travel prevents physical attendance at the meeting. If the Mayor chooses to participate [in an executive session] via telephone, the Council shall appoint a Mayor pro tem to preside [at the executive session] in the Mayor's stead.

(B) [No more than two (2) members of the Council, or one (1) member and the Mayor, may participate in an executive session by telephone. The first two (2) persons who contact the City Clerk, notifying the Clerk of their need to participate by telephone, shall be entitled to so participate, provided their absence from the meeting is otherwise excused.] Notice under this section is acceptable, if provided in writing or via electronic mail, and must include a short description of the circumstances which prevent the person’s physical attendance at the meeting.

(C) Telephonic participation shall be refused by the Mayor if, at any time, it appears that technical capabilities or other interference does not allow all persons, whether physically present or not, to hear and engage in discussion. Where practicable, any written materials or other information presented during the [execution session] meeting should be made available to persons participating via telephone.

(D) If a motion to hold an executive session is made during a publicly-noticed Council meeting, and any member of the Council is absent and that absence is excused, the City Clerk shall attempt, but is not required, to contact the absent member to determine if he or she desires to participate in the executive session.

Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective upon passage.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY A DULY CONSTITUTED QUORUM OF THE UNALASKA CITY COUNCIL THIS ______DAY OF ______, 2015.

______HON. SHIRLEY MARQUARDT MAYOR

ATTEST:

______

CITY CLERK

MEMORANDUM TO COUNCIL

TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS THROUGH: DON MOORE, CITY MANAGER FROM: CAT HAZEN, CITY CLERK DATE: OCTOBER 13, 2015 RE: ORDINANCE 2015-20 AMENDING UNALASKA CITY CODE CHAPTER 2.20 TO PERMIT PHYSICALLY ABSENT CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND THE MAYOR TO PARTICIPATE IN MEETINGS TELEPHONICALLY WITH PRIOR NOTICE

SUMMARY: In May of this year Council passed Ordinance 2015-09 to allow telephonic participation in meetings by the Mayor and council members during a trial period that ended on September 30th. This Ordinance, if passed, will make the temporary provisions for telephonic meeting participation permanent.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: On May 12, 2015 Council passed Ordinance 2015-09, AN ORDINANCE OF THE UNALASKA CITY COUNCIL AMENDING UNALASKA CITY CODE CHAPTER 2.20 TO PERMIT PHYSICALLY ABSENT CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND THE MAYOR TO PARTICIPATE IN MEETINGS TELEPHONICALLY WITH PRIOR NOTICE. Ordinance 2015-09 was effective upon passage and expired on September 30, 2015.

BACKGROUND:

DISCUSSION: In May of 2015 the City Council began a four month trial period during which members who were travelling outside of Unalaska could call a toll-free number to participate via teleconference in council meeting discussions, voting, and executive sessions with prior notice, providing that there were at least three members physically present for the meeting.

A number of council meetings that would otherwise have been cancelled due to lack of a quorum were able to convene and conduct business as a result of the ability of members to participate and vote telephonically. This allowed the City to move forward with critical items of business, including the hiring of a new city manager, which might otherwise have been delayed by many weeks because of council members’ busy summer travel schedules.

Prior to beginning the trial period there were concerns that technical problems with the teleconferences might sometimes make it impractical or impossible for council members to effectively participate in meetings via long distance. In practice there were no serious technical difficulties with teleconferencing during meetings. There was a slight delay in transmission, similar to what is sometimes experienced during regular long-distance phone calls, but compensating for the delay was not difficult.

A number of other communities in Alaska allow council members to participate in meetings telephonically. The City or Borough Clerks in some other Alaska municipalities answered an email

inquiry about their experiences with telephonic meeting participation by council members, and their responses were overwhelmingly positive. A summary of their answers to questions about their procedures is included with this memo.

ALTERNATIVES: Council could amend the ordinance to include an expiration date.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

LEGAL:

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

PROPOSED MOTION: Motion to move Ordinance 2015-20 to public hearing and second reading on October 27, 2015.

CITY MANAGER’S COMMENTS: I recommend that Council adopts Ordinance 2015-20.

2 Summary of City Clerks' Responses to Questions about Telephonic Participation in Council Meetings

Permits Teleph Limit to number Participate in Exec Limit no. of call-in City/Borough Participation calling in Sessions meetings Yakutat yes no yes no must have quorum Wrangell yes present no no Valdez no Thorne Bay yes yes - 3 yes, in separate office no Sitka yes no yes yes - 4 per election year must have quorum Ketchikan Gateway yes present ? no Houston yes no no no Hoonah yes yes - 2 no yes - 4 per calendar year Homer yes no no yes - 3 per year Delta Junction yes yes - 2 yes no only for special Bristol Bay Borough meetings ? yes ? Only from pre- established locations unless Aleutians East emergency no no no MatSu Borough yes no yes no only work sessions and emergency Kodiak meetings no no no Juneau yes yes - 4 no no Fairbanks No. Star no CITY OF UNALASKA UNALASKA, ALASKA

RESOLUTION 2015-52

A RESOLUTION OF THE UNALASKA CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZING A WAIVER OF NICHOLAI S. LEKANOFF, SR.’S FAILURE TO MAKE TIMELY APPLICATION FOR THE SENIOR CITIZENS PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION FOR 2014

WHEREAS, through Alaska Statute (AS) 29.45.030 and Unalaska Code of Ordinances (UCO) 6.28.030, senior citizens who are 65-years-old or older are allowed a $150,000 property tax exemption on the assessed value of real property they own and occupy as their primary abode and permanent place of residence, provided they file an application on the form provided by the State and made available to them by the City Clerk’s Office; and

WHEREAS, Unalaska Code of Ordinances (UCO) 6.28.030(F) sets the deadline for filing as March 1st of each year; and

WHEREAS, Nicholai S. Lekanoff, Sr., a senior citizen, did not file an application timely and has asked that a waiver be granted and that his application be accepted as if timely filed;

WHEREAS, AS 29.45.030(F) and UCO 6.28.030(F) state that the City Council may, for good cause shown, waive a claimant’s failure to make timely application for exemption and authorize the assessor to accept the application as if timely filed;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Unalaska City Council authorizes a waiver of Nicholai S. Lekanoff, Sr.’s failure to file timely for the senior citizen property tax exemption.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY A DULY CONSTITUTED QUORUM OF THE UNALASKA CITY COUNCIL THIS 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015.

______MAYOR

ATTEST:

______CITY CLERK MEMORANDUM TO COUNCIL

TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS THROUGH: DON MOORE, CITY MANAGER FROM: CAT HAZEN, CITY CLERK DATE: SEPTEMBER 22, 2015 RE: RESOLUTION 2015-52 AUTHORIZING A WAIVER OF NICHOLAI S. LEKANOFF, SR.’S FAILURE TO MAKE TIMELY APPLICATION FOR THE SENIOR CITIZENS PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION FOR 2014

SUMMARY: The State of Alaska and the City of Unalaska, on behalf of the State, provide a $150,000 property tax exemption on the assessed value of real property owned by residents who are 65-years-old and older. UCO 6.28.030(F) sets March 1st each year as the deadline for submitting an application to the program. Nicholai S. Lekanoff, Sr., a senior citizen who filed after the deadline, has written a letter of appeal asking that the deadline be waived and his late application be accepted. Through Resolution 2015-52, Council is asked to authorize a waiver of the March 1st deadline for filing for the senior citizens property tax exemption for Nicholai S. Lekanoff, Sr.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council has not acted on this specific case in the past. However, Council has waived the senior citizen tax exemption application deadline for four other taxpayers.

BACKGROUND: Through Alaska Statute (AS) 29.45.030 and Unalaska Code of Ordinances (UCO) 6.28.030, senior citizens who are 65-years-old or older are allowed a $150,000 property tax exemption on the assessed value of real property they own and occupy as their permanent place of residence, provided they file an application on the form provided by the State and made available to them by the City Clerk’s Office. Alaska Administrative Code (3 AAC 135.040[a]) requires that the application be filed no later than January 15th of the assessment year, or no later than a date set by the municipality. UCO 6.28.030(F) sets the deadline for filing as March 1st of each year. However, per UCO 6.28.030(F), “the City Council for good cause shown may waive the claimant’s failure to make timely application for the exemption year and authorize the assessor to accept the application as if timely filed.”

The property for which the exemption is claimed must be “real property owned and occupied as the primary residence and permanent place of abode” by the senior citizen (AS 29.45.030).

DISCUSSION: Each year, during the January 1 – March 1 application period, in an effort to ensure that all eligible property owners can take advantage of the senior citizen property tax exemption, the Clerk’s office advertises the exemption program by posting flyers, sending ‘blast- faxes’, running public service announcements on local radio and television, and putting information on the City website and City Facebook page. In addition, this year the Clerk’s office mailed a letter about the program to all local box holders.

In July of 2015, the City Clerk’s office received a letter from Nicholai S. Lekanoff, Sr. requesting a waiver of the application deadline for the prior year, 2014, which, if granted, will allow the City Clerk to accept an application for the senior citizen tax exemption from Mr. Lekanoff as if it had been timely filed. Prior to 2014 Mr. Lekanoff’s property had been treated as exempt under the Aleutian Housing Authority exemption, so 2014 was the first year that Mr. Lekanoff was required to file an application in order to receive a property tax exemption.

Unalaska Code of Ordinances 6.28.030(F) authorizes the City Council, “for good cause shown”, to “waive the failure to make timely application for the exemption year and authorize the assessor to accept the application as if timely filed.”

ALTERNATIVES: Deny the waiver of Mr. Lekanoff’s failure to make timely application, or authorize the waiver and accept the late application as if it were filed timely.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: With a mil rate of 10.5, authorizing the exemption of $150,000 of assessed value will result in a loss of $1,575 of real property tax revenue.

LEGAL: None sought

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This is a Council decision.

PROPOSED MOTION: Motion to approve Resolution 2015-52

CITY MANAGER’S COMMENTS: The City Manager recommends Council approval of Resolution 2015-52.

Attachments:

• Letter of Appeal

• UCO 6.28.030(E) and (F)

• AS 29.45.030

2 City of Unalaska

Tax Assessor- Cat Hazen P.O. Box610

Unalaska, Alaska 99685..0610 Attn: Mayor Shirley

Nicholai S. Lekanoff, Sr.

Post Office Box 133 Unalaska, Alaska 99685-0133 Re: Real Estate Tax Bill

Honorable Shirley,

I am writing on behalf my 90 year old dad, Starosta Nicholai S. Lekanoff, Sr. whom you know. And, the majority of the city council knows him as well. He has been a resident of Unalaska prior to its incorporation. And, he hasn't been paying Real Estate taxes as the Aleutian Housing Authority used to until he paid his home off. Anyways, apparently an oversite in mine ... but, we are wondering if the city of Unalaska would be so kind as to waive his 2014 Real Estate taxes. We truly apologize for Not doing the paperwork that was required.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to stop by and talk to me at 402 Bayview.

Or, call my daughter: 0. Patricia Lekanoff Gregory (907)581-1747.

s/Qagaasakung, ekt:::lf; NSL/oplg © Summary ofChanges to Title 29- Title_29_2012.pdf http://www.commerce.state.ak. us/dcallogon/pubs/Title _ 29 _ 20 l2.pdf...

Sec. 29.45.030. ALASKA STATU1ES Sec. 29.45.030.

obtaining the exemption. The detennination of the assessor may be appealed under AS 44.62.560- 44.62.570. (f) To be eligible for an exemption under (e) of this section for a year, a municipality may by ordinance require that an individual also be eligible for a pennanent fund dividend under AS 43.23.005 for that same year or, if the individual does not apply for the permanent fund dividend, that the individual would have been eligible for the permanent fund dividend had the individual applied. An exemption may not be granted under (e) of this section except upon written application for the exemption. Each municipality shall, by ordinance, establish procedures and deadlines for filing the application. The governing bod of the municipalicy for good cause sho\vn may waive the claim.an 's failW:e to make timely application for exemption and authorize the assessor to acowt the agplication as if tin! ely tiled. If an application is filed within the required time and is approved by the assessor, the assessor shall allow an exen1ption in accordance with the provisions of (e) of this section. If the application for exemption is approved after taxes have been paid, the amount of tax that the claimant has already paid for the property exempted shall be refunded to the claimant. The assessor shall require proof in the form the assessor considers necessary of the right to and amount of an exemption claimed under (e) of this section, and shall require a disabled veteran claiming an exemption under (e) of this section to provide evidence of the disability rating. The assessor may require proof under this subsection at any time. (g) The state shall reimburse a borough or city, as appropriate, for the real property tax revenues lost to it by the operation of (e) of this section. However, reimbmsement may be made to a tmmicipality for revenue lost to it only to the extent that the loss exceeds an exemption that was granted by the municipality, or that on proper application by an individual would have been granted under AS 29.45.050(a). If appropriations are not sufficient to fully fund reimbmsements under this subsection, the amount available shall be distributed pro rata among eligible municipalities. (h) Except as provided in (g) of this section, nothing in (e)- G) ofthis section affects similar exemptions from property taxes granted by a municipality on Septen1ber 10, 1972, or prevents a municipality from granting similar exemptions by ordinance as provided in AS 29.45.050. (i) In (e)- (i) of this section, (1) "disabled veteran" means a disabled person (A) separated from the militaty service of the United States under a condition that is not dishonorable who is a resident of the state, whose disability was incuned or aggravated in the line of duty in the mili truy service of the United States, and whose disability has been rated as 50 percent or more by the branch of service in which that person served or by the United States Deprutment of Veterans Affairs; or (B) who served in the Alaska Tenitorial Guard, who is a resident of the state, whose disability was incuned or aggravated in the line of duty \'i'hile serving in the Alaska Tenitorial Guard, and whose disability has been rated as 50 percent or more; (2) "real property" includes but is not limited to mobile homes, whether classified as real or personal property for municipal tax purposes. (j) One motor vehicle per household owned by a resident 65 years of age or older on January 1 of the assessment year is exempt either from taxation on its assessed value

133

150 of260 3/21 /2013 1:24PM TITLE 6: REVENUE AND FINANCE

§ 6.28.030 REQUIRED EXEMPTIONS.

(E) The real property owned and occupied as a permanent place of abode by a (1) resident sixty-five (65) years of age or over, (2) disabled veteran, or (3) resident at least sixty (60) years old who is the widow or widower of a person who qualified for an exemption under (1) or (2) of this subsection, is exempt from taxation on the first $150,000 of the assessed value of the real property. In a case of hardship, the City of Unalaska hereby provides for exemption beyond the first $150,000 of assessed value in accordance with regulations of the State of Alaska. Only one (1) exemption may be granted for the same property and, if two (2) or more persons are eligible for an exemption for the same property, the parties shall decide between or among themselves which shall receive the benefit of the exemption. Real property may not be exempted under this subsection if the assessor determines, after notice and hearing to the parties concerned, that the property was conveyed to the applicant primarily for the purpose of obtaining the exemption. The determination of the assessor may be appealed under AS 44.62.560-44.62.570.

(F) No exemption may be granted except under (E) of this section except upon written application for the exemption on a form prescribed by the State assessor for use by local assessors. The claimant must file the application no later than March 1 of the assessment year for which the exemption is sought. The City Council for good cause shown may waive the claimant's failure to make timely application for the exemption for that year and authorize the assessor to accept the application as if timely filed. The claimant must file a separate application for each assessment year in which the exemption is sought. If an application is filed within the required time and approved by the assessor, the assessor shall allow an exemption in accordance with the provisions of this section. If a claimant whose failure to file by March 1 of the assessment year has been waived as provided in this subsection and application for exemption is approved, the amount of tax which the claimant may have already paid for the assessment year for the property exempted shall be refunded to the claimant. The assessor shall require proof in the form the assessor considers necessary of the right to and amount of an exemption claimed under (E) of this section, and shall require a disabled veteran claiming an exemption under (E) of this section to provide evidence of the disability rating. The assessor may require proof under this section at anytime. MEMORANDUM TO COUNCIL

TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS THROUGH: DON MOORE, CITY MANAGER FROM: CAT HAZEN, CITY CLERK DATE: OCTOBER 13, 2015 RE: REVIEW OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL BOARD APPLICATION FROM M&M HOLDINGS LLC DBA THE NORWEGIAN RAT SALOON FOR A RESTAURANT DESIGNATION PERMIT ______

SUMMARY: M&M Holdings LLC, dba The Norwegian Rat Saloon, has applied to the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board for a restaurant designation permit. The Alcoholic Beverage Control Board has requested that the Unalaska City Council, as the Local Governing Body, reviews the application and either approves or protests it.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: On November 12, 2013 Council was presented with the license application for the Norwegian Rat Saloon and filed it without protest.

BACKGROUND: UCO 9.20.020(A) defines the hours during which a business licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages may serve alcohol. UCO 9.20.020(B) states that “It shall be unlawful for a licensed premises, except restaurants when serving food or non-alcoholic beverages, to allow persons or customers who are not owners or employees to remain on the premises during hours when alcoholic beverages are not permitted to be dispensed.”

A restaurant designation permit would allow The Norwegian Rat Saloon to be open for food service outside of the hours during which it is legal to serve alcohol.

DISCUSSION: On September 22, 2015 the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board (ABC) sent notice to the City that M&M Holdings, LLC, dba The Norwegian Rat Saloon, had applied for a restaurant designation permit.

Monica Henning, on behalf of the applicant M&M Holdings LLC, has stated that they are applying for the permit so they can open the business to serve food before noon on Sundays during football season and before 11:00 a.m. Monday through Saturday for private events.

Pursuant to AS 04.11.480, the City Council may protest the application by “furnishing the board and the applicant with a clear and concise written statement of reasons in support of a protest” within 60 days of the notice date. Staff is not aware of any grounds for protesting this application.

ALTERNATIVES: Council could give approval for the application, file the notice from ABC without protest, or protest the application.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: If Council protests the transfer and the applicant requests a formal hearing the City will incur the cost of defending the protest. LEGAL: None if no protest is filed

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Council take no protest action, thereby leaving the decision to award the restaurant designation permit with the ABC.

PROPOSED MOTION: Move to file the notification from Alcohol Beverage Control Board re: The Norwegian Rat Saloon- License #5264 without protest.

CITY MANAGER’S COMMENTS: The Manager recommends the Council approve the motion as stated above.

Attachments: Letter from M&M Holdings, LLC dba The Norwegian Rat Saloon Email from Maxine Andrews Copy of Restaurant Designation Permit Application

M&M Holdings, LLC dba The Norwegian Rat Saloon P.O. Box 920524 1906 Airport Beach Road Dutch Harbor, Alaska 99692

10-6-2015

The City ofUnalaska P.O. Box 610 Unalaska, Alaska 99685

RE: Restaurant Designation Permit

To It May Concern:

We are applying for a restaurant designation permit for the purpose of opening early on Sundays during the football season and in the event a private party may want to use our services before noon on Sundays or 11 am on Monday through Saturday. We have had requests from the US Coast Guard and other community members.

Thank you,

Monica Henning Member STATE OF ALASKA ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL BOARD APPLICATION FOR RESTAURANT DESIGNATION PERMIT AS 04.16.049 & 3 AAC 304.715 - 794

I he granting of this pennit allows access of persons under 21 years of age to designated licensed premises for purposes of dining, and persons between the ages of 16 - 20 for employment If for employment. please indicate in detail what the employment duties will be in Question #3. License Number: --=5::.;.;._;;_J '-'"'{p'----''-/____ Type: ,6cr.trag& /Z ·5jl-tJL5otrL( This application is for designation of premises where: (Please check the appropriate items below) J

1. _x_ Bona fide restaurant pursuant to 3 AAC 304.305 & 3 AAC 304.715-794. 2 . ~ Persons 16-20 years of age may dine unaccompanied. Persons under 16 may dine accompanied by a person 21 years of age or older. ~ - J Persons between 16-20 years of age may be employed. •(See note below) licensee's Name: m 0.. -fr? 1--te if./<.Y1 r. • Name of Bu~nesso -rh <:. A~ Jf M~~l ·ere ] lftcf: ") ,·, / < "' rL Business Address: ;p D 13 0 j ij() ;~s lj City: ntA..--k A blr bnr 1. Hoursofoperation ///br- to ._3Ath. . TelephoneNumber q07-58/- '7455"'

2. Have police been called to your premises for any reason? t-r'Yes [ ] No (If you answered yes. please explain below). f;;d( re)t~ c.rt-eJ. d~~nd:s

3. • Duties of employment -~=o;:...... :o:....;J'-(=-..::.D--_V'_cJ.._OL.__ -"'- cks...:.....:::=-h_-=-~.,-u_c0-=-,_h..:....e.:::..;_r______

4. Are video games available to the public on your premises? ~s [ 1No

5. Do you provide live entertainment, such as live music, pool tables, karaoke, dancinQ . sports or pin-ball? ~ s []No

6. How as food served? (£.}...¥able Service [l.}ffuffett Service u-e'ounter Service ( 1Other ____

7. Is an owner, manager or supervisor 21 years of age or older always present during business hours? ~s [ I No

***A MENU AND DETAILED PREMISES DIAGRAM MUST ACCOMPANY THIS APPLICATION***

*Employees 16 and 17 years of age must have a valid work penn it and a letter maintained in your files from a parent or guardian authorizing employment at your establishment.

**Please attach additional sh ts of paper if more space is needed to describe food service, entertainment, etc.

Local Governing Body Approval

and sworn to before me this .....:....=-- day of Skf I9 t....k/______nate

My Commission expires;

Rev. 03172014 NORVEGlAN RAT SALOON

APPETIZERS SALADS

Dragon Wings (4 piece) ...... $ 8 House Salad ...... $ 6

(8 piece) ...... $12 Grilled Chicken Salad ...... $11

(12 piece)...... $15 Chicken Strips (4 pieces) ...... $ 8 Long Boat Fries...... $ 6 Beef Chili, Cheddar Cheese and Onion add ...... $ 2 SOUPS Breaded Onion Rings with Ranch Sauce...... $ 8 Daily Soup Speciai...... Cup $S ...... Bowl $7 Battered Fried Pickles Bread Bowl Additional ...... $2 With French Dipping Sauce...... $6 Potato chips ...... $5 Beef Chili served with onion & cheese ...... $7 Custom made with our special seasoning Red Jalapeno Poppers ...... $9 WINE ...... $9 White SOFT DRINKS Red Chardonnay Cabernet Sauvignon Coca Cola I Sprite ...... $2 White Zinfandel Me riot Riesling Zinfande/ Iced Tea- Home Brewed ...... $2 Sauvignon Blanc

BEER BEER BEER ON TAP MICRO BREW DOMESTIC Import $7.50 Red Hook ESB ...... $5.50 Coors Light ...... $4.50 Alaskan Amber ...... $5 .50 Miller Lite ...... $4.50 Blue Moon ...... $5.50 MGD ...... $4.50 Microwbrews $6 Deschutes Mirror Pond .. $5.50 Budweiser ...... $4.50 Leavenworth Whistling Pig $5.50 Bud Light ...... $4.50 Domestic $5 IMPORT SPECIALTY Heineken ...... $5.25 Smirnoff Red Cap..... $4.75 Tecate ...... $5.25 Dos Equis ...... $5.25 NON-ALCOHOLIC BEER Corona ...... $5.25 St. Pauli Girl ...... $4.50 Corona Light ...... $5.25 BURGERS Served with fries, Chips or Coleslaw HOT DOGS Servedwlthfries,ChlpsorColeslaw loki...... $11.00 Ballyhoo ...... $9.00 1/3oJ lb Angus Beef, Choice of Cheese, lettuce, tomatoes, pickles, onions 100% beef hot dog, ketchup, mustard, relish, onions Thor...... $14.00 Hel dog ...... $11.00 1/3'd lb Angus Beef, Pulled Pork, Molasses BBQ and Onion Rings 100% beef, chili, cheddar cheese, onions, jalapenos Odin ...... $16.00 Bergert...... $9.50 1/3'd lb Angus Beef, Bacon, Pepper Jack, Jalapeno & Chipotle sauce Bratwurst, sour kraut, relish, mustard, red peppers, onions Svelta ...... $11.00 Knudsen ...... $11.50 Salmon Burger- Smoked Paprika Tarter, Lettuce, Tomato, Onion Poise red sausage, wrapped in bacon, red peppers, onions, Bunker Burger...... $11.00 Mushrooms, Provolone Cheese, Grilled Onions

ADD Bacon $2 Two Onion Rings $2 Extra Beef Patty $3 SEAFOOD- CHICKEN Cheese-Pepper Jack, Provolone, Swiss, Cheddar, Blue $2 Fish and Chips hand dipped Pacific Cod ...... $13.00

Chicken and Chips hand breaded ...... $13.00 SANDWICHES Served with fries, Chips or Coleslaw Hog Island ...... $12.50 Slow Roasted Pork with Molasses BBQ and Citrus Coleslaw Daily Specials Pyramid ...... $12.50 Lunch & Dinner Roast Beef & Garlic Onion Relish served with Au Jus - Summers Bay ...... $13.00 Ask Your Server Ham, Swiss, Provolone, Honey Mustard, Lettuce, Tomato Killer BLT ...... $12.50 Thick Smoked bacon, lettuce, tomatoes, miracle whip WE MAKE YOU BAKE PIZZA Priest Rock ...... $14.50 Turkey, Bacon, Pesto, Mozzarella, Lettuce, Tomato Call us at 581-4455 and we will have it ready for you to The Aleutian...... $14.50 take home and bake it yourself to enjoy a fresh hot Salami, Pepperoni, Ham, Provolone, Black Olives Sub Sandwich pizza at home! Nanna's Grilled Cheese Chicken ...... $13.00 Chicken between 2 Jack Grilled Cheese with Bacon, Lettuce Tomato

PIZZA 12in 16in

Valhalla - Pepperoni, sausage, onions, mushrooms, $18.00 $26.00

Valkerie- Mozzarella, Parmesan, Tomatoes, Basil, Garlic, Olive oil $18.00 $24.00 Hunin and Munin - Pineapple and Canadian Bacon $18.00 $24.00 The Dutchman -Salami, Pepperoni, Sausage, Canadian Bacon & Hamburger $24.00 $28.00 The Ptarmigan -Chicken, Ranch, Red Onions & Cherry Tomato $18.00 $26.00 Build Your Own Cheese Pizza $14.00 $18.00 Additional $3 Per Topping Extra Cheese Mushrooms Black Olives Onions Tomato Bell Pepper Pineapple Pepperoni Sausage Canadian Bacon Hamburger Chicken Salami From: Andrews, Maxine R (CED) To: Cat Hazen Subject: Restaurant Designation Permit Date: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 9:58:14 AM Attachments: 5264 RDP application.pdf

Catherine, Attached is an application for a Restaurant Designation Permit (RDP). Please respond approved or protest this application

Maxine Andrews Business Registration Examiner | Dept. of Commerce and Economic Development | Alcoholic Beverage & Marijuana Control Boards 550 W. 7th Ave. Ste. 1600 Anchorage, AK 99501 | 907.269.0358 | fax 907.334.2285

P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

Less paper is better for us and our environment.