Juneau assembly advances ordinance to authorize lease negotiations with Huna Totem for new dock; navigability, traffic and shore-power remain focal points

The Juneau City and Borough Assembly Committee of the Whole on Feb. 24 reviewed draft legislation authorizing the manager to negotiate a lease for CBJ submerged tidelands with Huna Totem Corporation and accompanying language committing the city to apply to the state for tidelands in the same area. Discussion focused on navigability and traffic studies, shore-power timing and Coast Guard access, and whether the assembly should add conceptual amendments before ordinance introduction.

The draft ordinance would allow the manager to negotiate and execute a 35‑year lease; the annual rental rate would be set at fair market value after an appraisal, the manager said. Manager Koester noted that the ordinance contains “whereas” intent language to capture community desires (year‑round businesses, shore power and negotiated agreements) and a planning commission conditional use permit (CUP) that requires a seawall, minimum dimensions and a navigability and traffic study before issuance of a building permit.

Why this matters: the project would move one cruise vessel dock from an anchorage in the channel to a shore facility, altering vessel traffic patterns, onshore passenger movements and long‑term dock use. Assembly members said they need more certain commitments on navigability (including simulator testing), explicit Coast Guard assurances about access for larger federal vessels and a realistic timeline and financing plan for shore power.

Most facts were presented by city staff and the project team. Traffic consultant Corey (PND consultants) told the assembly the traffic impact analysis (TIA) shows an increase in vehicle traffic for intersection analysis purposes — “anticipated vehicle traffic increases of 294 vehicles in the peak morning hour and 341 vehicles in the peak PM hour,” he said. The consultant added the TIA still finds intersections operating at acceptable levels of service with proposed mitigations.

On navigability, pilots and a marine pilot consultant emphasized simulator testing as the next step. The project team and U.S. Coast Guard representatives said coordination is ongoing. Coast Guard attorney Chris Coutu described recent engagement and said headquarters and district staff have begun a formal review process and that the Coast Guard could provide a letter of cooperation; he cautioned that a full Coast Guard waterways assessment and federal review likely will take longer than the assembly’s proposed ordinance timeline.

Shore power is included in the CUP: the draft requires Huna Totem to install shore power at its expense within 24 months after an appropriately sized power line is within 24 feet of the property line. Staff said there is currently no power line within that proximity and that detailed engineering and long lead times make shore‑power delivery complex. Huna Totem representatives said they are in discussions with local electric providers about sequencing and costs.

Assembly members pressed for mechanisms to protect other public interests. Several members asked for explicit guarantees that Coast Guard needs (including accommodation of an icebreaker or large cutter) would not be impaired; multiple speakers urged clearer wording about “no lightering except in emergency,” strengthening CUP conditions that travel with the ordinance, and possible incentives or lease conditions tied to environmental performance (for example, incentivizing cleaner fuels).

Schedule and next steps: after discussion, the assembly approved a motion to introduce the ordinance at the March 3 assembly meeting and to return the item to the Committee of the Whole on March 17 for amendment work before final action. The manager said staff will draft conceptual amendment language members raise so the assembly can decide whether to fold items into ordinance terms and conditions (rather than CUP language) before introduction.

What was left unresolved: the timing and funding path for shore power; the Coast Guard’s final waterways assessment and any formal letter defining Coast Guard operational constraints; and whether the assembly will move selected whereas clauses into binding lease terms or finance incentives into the lease (for example, rent reductions tied to shore‑power or other environmental commitments).

Context and background: staff emphasized that the state must approve any transfer or lease of state tidelands and that the city will not sign a lease for state tidelands until the state conveys title or otherwise authorizes the transaction. Manager Koester said the city has applied to DNR and that DNR preferred to see the assembly’s formal commitment before prioritizing the state review.

The assembly indicated areas where it expects more precise language and additional analysis — particularly the simulator navigability exercises (scheduled simulations were mentioned), a clearer Coast Guard engagement plan, and more specific shore‑power timelines and cost estimates — before taking final legislative action.

Ending: staff said they will return on March 17 with drafted amendment language requested by the assembly and that the assembly could still use public hearing testimony to adjust the ordinance before final adoption.