View the collection of public comments on the proposed changes to the ECA code that DPD has received:

• February/March 2005 Public Comments
• January 2004 Public Comments

NOTE: All documents on this page are presented in Acrobat PDF format.

February/March 2005: Comment Period and Workshop Public Comments

• View a summary of the substantive comments received and DPD's response and Shoreline Issues attachment.
• Public Comment 1: "...the recommendations for proposed changes have gone through much thought, discussion by the City and imput from others"
• Public Comment 2: "Generally, the City has improved the language of the ECA."
• Public Comment 3: "The proposal to establish a "limited development area" within riparian corridors seems to be an excessive restriction..."
• Public Comment 4: "This is a letter to support strengthening Seattle's CAO and provide comment on the current draft proposed by DPD."
• Public Comment 5: "Since Seattle has so few category I or II wetlands, it is all the more important to preserve ALL the wetlands remaining..."
• Public Comment 6: "The Environmentally Critical Areas Update requires the inclusion of the Seattle fault earthquake and a tsunami inundation to the waterfront."
• Public Comment 7: "Futurewise appreciates the hard work by the Department of Planning and Development and supports the significant improvements to the existing critical areas regulations. However, we urge you to make refinements to protect the green spaces and water quality of Seattle...."
• Public Comment 8: "..refinements are needed to protect the green spaces and water quality that make cities livable and to meet the high expectations of Seattle residents.."
• Public Comment 9: "Overall, you are to be congratulated on many significant improvements over the old 90’s version. Our comments are focused on ways to strengthen it further, particularly related to heron management."
• Public Comment 10: "...we find it shocking that the newest version of the CAO Draft has removed language that strongly discourages building over piped creeks..."
• Public Comment 11: "Seattle’s Chapter 25.09, Critical Areas Ordinance, should protect property, water quality, and human safety (from flooding and erosion), while including flexibilities to ensure responsible development and saving taxpayers money in the long run from the costly mechanical control of functions nature performs for free."
• Public Comment 12: "DPD needs to staff its compliance office on the weekend and revise the ECAO to permit effective enforcement."
• Public Comment 13: "The development of the Seattle Environmental Critical Areas Draft Proposed Code and associated documents has been a major undertaking by city staff and we greatly appreciate the hard work, good public outreach and strong scientific and technical approach."
• Public Comment 14: "Our comments highlight the additional opportunities to rectify some of the problematic issues we have faced, and to improve the wording in the draft ordinance."
• Public Comment 15: "There is no need to convert to water typing..."
• Public Comment 16: "If successful, the ECA will implement the environmental goals contained in the City’s Comprehensive Plan and ensure, as stated above, that the natural environment remains a unique and distinguishing characteristic for Seattle."
• Public Comment 17: "We object to the proposed policy to remove protections for piped watercourses and encourage daylighting."
• Public Comment 18: "Our comments are focused on proposals for streams, wetlands and other fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas."
• Public Comment 19: "I also appreciate the department's hard work. However, I recommend the following changes to strengthen the update..."
• Public Comment 20: "While we are pleased that the regulations prohibit the use of pesticides within wetlands and their buffers, we are concerned that stream contamination has not been adequately addressed."
• Public Comment 21: "..we were disappointed to find that the draft update proposes to remove critical protections from Seattle creeks."
• Public Comment 22: "We appreciate the measured tone of the proposed ECA..."
• Public Comment 23: "The Port has substantial experience with the City's ECA regulations..."
• Public Comment 24: "Ecology is pleased with many elements of the proposed code changes..."

January 2004: Workshop Public Comments

• All Public Comments (18.7MB): A collection of comments received to date
• Public Comment 1: "The Critical Areas Ordinance should be enforced by a neutral regulatory body..."
• Public Comment 2: "...the code was written in a very confusing way. Try to make clear what are the ECA exemptions and procedures."
• Public Comment 3: "A website that shows examples of critical areas where property owners have successfully built additions that were environmentally friendly would be helpful."
• Public Comment 4: "The dewatering of the peat bog in Greenwood is robbing the headwater and summer source of water for Piper's Creek."
• Public Comment 5: "They (The ECA regulations) are a bureaucratic maze."
• Public Comment 6: "Regarding Sand Point Magnuson Park, ECA mapping is incorrect and out-of-date."
• Public Comment 7: "We (City Light and DPD) need agreements about what we (City Light) can and can't do in the way of routine maintenance..."
• Public Comment 8: "I don't know of anything working well with the ECA regulations..."
• Public Comment 9: "The highest priority is protecting streams and wetlands."
• Public Comment 10: "...don't weaken the Seattle Critical Areas ordinance."
• Public Comment 11: "...(I am) concerned about conflict of interest of the City when two departments want to do something in City Public Space in Critical Environmental Areas."
• Public Comment 12: "A few items of concern:.."
• Public Comment 13: "(The) public is slowly becoming aware of ECA issues." 
• Public Comment 14: "Specific issues that have arisen during ECA consultation that should be addressed in the code update.."
• Public Comment 15: "The code, city policies, and permit procedures need to be revised to enable DPD to more carefully assess the environment and ecological impacts of new construction."
• Public Comment 16: "Beyond these 'soft' incentives, we would support the biggest hammer the city can legally use!"
• Public Comment 17: "Regulations for Environmentally Critical Areas, is an essential tool in protecting and maintaining livable communities..."
• Public Comment 18: "The process does not go far enough."
• Public Comment 19: "Interdepartmental Relations -- a serious problem."
• Public Comment 20: "Very high transaction costs for small property owners."