What’s best for Blakely Harbor?

Published 5:00 am Saturday, November 18, 2006

City presents five options for dock rules.

From “leave it up to the state” to “leave it completely alone,” the range of options for managing Blakely Harbor went before the public this week.

Other alternatives, as presented by the city’s planning department, posited plans that match a recent legal settlement between the city and a handful of shoreline residents who sued to loosen restrictions on new docks.

That litigation was put on hold, but stipulates the city must develop new amendments for the regulation of the southeast harbor’s docks.

The city is now gathering citizen comment on the five options, as specified in the settlement.

“These options represent some of the flavor of some things we can pick out and mix and match with other things,” said city shoreline planner Peter Namtvedt Best, who is spearheading the city’s effort to amend the harbor’s dock regulations. “We’ve done the analysis. Now we need public participation.”

The least restrictive alternative proposed by the city, the so-called Option A, would strip away harbor-specific local restrictions, making the regulation of Blakely Harbor docks consistent with state guidelines. Regulation would still be subject to other local, state and federal laws, as is the case with all options. This option’s maximum allowable build-out could mean more than 50 new docks in the harbor.

The alternative favored by litigants, Option B, would match the tenets of a legal settlement they struck with the city. This option would allow “local neighborhood docks,” permitting harbor residents to build community docks for four or more properties, or for the use of one or more properties with 400 feet of shoreline.

Option B would also allow the expansion of existing and remnant docks. Participating properties would not need to be contiguous.

Adding a few more restrictions, a third option would allow new docks if shared by six or more properties. The city, under Option C, would prohibit the expansion of existing docks and the replacement of remnant docks. Properties would not need to be contiguous.

Doing nothing is also an option.

Under Option D, the city would simply hold firm to the existing ordinance regulating docks in Blakely Harbor. The ordinance permits one new public dock and two new community docks. The public dock would be restricted to day use, including dinghy moorage and vessel loading and unloading. All residents would have access to the south and north shore community docks under the ordinance-based option.

The ordinance also specifies that docks be built at “the minimum size necessary” with consideration for impacts to views, navigation, scenic character and the marine environment.

The final option would essentially create a “marine conservation area” with the the most restrictive rules of all alternatives. This “Option E” would allowing no new docks, no dock expansions and no rebuilds of remnant docks.

All alternatives are up for retooling, Best said.

“Each has limitations and none are a crystal ball,” he said. “We just want to get a good range of what the future of Blakely Harbor could look like.”

The City Council will hold a public hearings on the proposed options Monday, 5 p.m.., at City Hall. The council will host a second hearing on Dec. 6 and make a decision on the new dock rules on Dec. 13.

The state Department of Ecology will then review the council’s preferred option, initiate its own round of public comment and likely make a final decision sometime next year.