Puyallup staff propose major critical‑areas code update; stream buffer expansions, hybrid approach and outreach planned

Kendall Walls, senior planner in the City of Puyallup planning division, presented a formal update to the city’s draft critical areas ordinance—Chapter 21.06 of the Puyallup Municipal Code—during the July 15 study session, focusing on proposed changes to stream buffers and related procedures.

Walls said the update responds to the state Growth Management Act and an obligation to use best available science, noting the city’s critical areas code has not had a comprehensive overhaul since 2006. “This update is required to be complete by the end of this year,” Walls told council.

The proposed changes would recategorize streams to the type S (shoreline), type F (fish‑bearing) and type N (non‑fish bearing) system used by state agencies and would raise minimum stream buffers to 100 feet in many cases as a baseline. Walls said staff relied on Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) riparian management guidance, which uses “site potential tree height” to derive buffer widths: where the local ecology supports taller trees, the recommended riparian buffer is wider.

To adapt the state recommendations for an urban environment, Walls described a hybrid approach that averages site potential tree height along a stream reach so buffer widths do not vary dramatically from lot to lot. Examples shown to council included expanded buffers for portions of the Puyallup River (from 150 to 202 feet in one mapped reach), Clarks Creek, Wildwood Creek (up to 218 feet in places), Woodland Creek (182 feet), and Meeker Creek (231 feet in one reach). Walls emphasized the proposed buffers would not extend beyond existing development or hard surfaces such as streets.

Walls and consultant Claire Hoffman of Parametrics answered council questions about how the site potential tree height method works and how the code would treat existing structures. Hoffman said the method estimates the type and mature height of trees that could naturally grow in a location, rather than using existing vegetation as the baseline, and that the city’s proposal adapts the state’s recommendations for an urban setting.

Councilmembers raised concerns about impacts on existing property rights and infill development, including accessory dwelling units (ADUs). Councilmember Johnson asked whether the expanded buffers could preclude ADUs or other reasonable infill; staff said the draft code includes some options for buffer modifications and mitigation and that they are preparing draft language to present to the planning commission. Staff also agreed to provide maps that overlay proposed buffers with existing structures to give council and property owners better context.

Walls said the planning commission has held four work sessions and will hold a public hearing on Aug. 13; staff expect to bring the commission’s recommendation to the council this fall. Walls also noted staff are discussing updated volcanic‑hazard mapping using 2022 USGS modeling data and may propose using that dataset for geologically hazardous area regulations.

During the public‑comment period, Angela Nesquierdo of Pierce County’s District 2 urged the council to add provisions addressing vandalism and damage that can follow trespassing, arguing such protections would help ensure new plantings and restoration efforts are not undone.

Ending: Staff will continue outreach to affected property owners, finalize draft code language (including mitigation and averaging options), complete the planning commission public hearing on Aug. 13, and return to council this fall with a formal recommendation and ordinance for adoption.