Juneau launches multi‑year update to comprehensive plan, begins scenario‑planning work

The City and Borough of Juneau convened the first advisory‑committee meeting for its comprehensive‑plan update on April 15, 2025, kicking off a roughly 2½–3 year process that staff say will set land‑use and investment guidance for the next two decades.

The meeting introduced the advisory committee, described the project timeline and public‑engagement schedule, and ran a scenario‑planning exercise to surface uncertain “driving forces” — such as housing affordability, tourism growth, the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, and transportation constraints — that the plan will test policies against.

Katie Kester, City Manager, urged committee members to treat the plan as an operational guide. “The comprehensive plan really should be the road map for the next 20 years of what we want our community to look like,” Kester said, adding she intends to reference the plan regularly when advising the assembly and making city decisions. Jill Lawhorn, Community Development Director, opened the meeting and introduced the project team.

Consultants described the project scope and public engagement. Sachi Aracawa, a lead consultant on the project, said the team will use scenario planning to “plan for uncertainty” and help the community test trade‑offs. Aracawa told the committee scenario planning “considers many potential futures” so policies remain useful when unexpected events occur.

Scott Chambore, Planning Manager for CBJ’s Community Development Department, explained the plan’s legal context: the comprehensive plan is adopted under the CBJ land‑use code (Title 49) and will be reviewed by the Planning Commission and the Assembly as part of the formal adoption process. “Because it’s in the land use code,” Chambore said, “there’s a public process — public comment, noticing and public hearing — that happens at the end of the project.” He emphasized that plan goals and policies are guiding and aspirational and that subsequent code or ordinance changes would be required to implement specific regulatory changes.

Staff and consultants summarized the project schedule and committee commitments. The team described a multi‑stage timeline with broad community engagement windows across the project: listen/learn events already held, at least two community workshops tied to scenario development and selection, and a public open house when a draft plan is ready. Committee members were asked to attend up to 12 meetings roughly every other month, help test ideas, and share meeting outcomes with their communities. Minta Montalvo, CBJ project manager for the effort, and other staff said hybrid meeting options will be provided when possible.

At the meeting’s core activity, small groups reviewed a prepared set of “driving forces” and ranked which were most relevant to Juneau. Virtual and in‑person breakout groups surfaced common priorities: housing affordability and housing supply; tourism and visitor impacts; public‑safety and infrastructure implications of more frequent extreme weather and glacial outburst‑type flooding; transportation and shipping constraints (including reliance on barges and narrow road corridors); socioeconomic equity, public health and childcare; and the resilience of food and supply chains.

Group facilitators reported there was little disagreement that many of the forces are interconnected. Several speakers noted that climate‑related infrastructure costs and design standards will affect housing affordability and development costs, while tourism growth and transport constraints complicate service delivery and emergency response planning.

Staff offered several near‑term next steps: distribute the slide deck and a written summary of the week’s engagement, circulate a scheduling poll for the next advisory‑committee meeting in approximately 6–8 weeks, and provide a report back on the driving‑force prioritization to inform the consultants’ scenario development.

No formal votes or ordinances were considered or adopted at the meeting. The advisory committee will serve in an ongoing advisory role; formal adoption of a revised plan will follow Planning Commission review and Assembly public hearings under Title 49.

The CBJ project team and consulting partners listed meeting materials and a timeline that describe how the plan will move from scenario development to a preferred scenario, a future land‑use map and then to goals, policies and implementation steps.

The advisory committee’s next meeting is expected later in 2025; staff said they will announce dates and materials to committee members in advance and aim to keep the process on the stated schedule.