Chapter 13.09


13.09.010    Archaeological and historic resources.

13.09.020    Environmental protection.

13.09.030    Shoreline vegetation conservation.

13.09.040    Water quality, storm water, and nonpoint pollution.

13.09.050    Public access.

13.09.060    Flood hazard reduction.

13.09.010 Archaeological and historic resources.

A.    The city shall require that permits issued in areas documented to contain archaeological resources require a site inspection or evaluation by a professional archaeologist in coordination with affected Indian tribes.

B.    Developers and property owners shall immediately stop work and notify the responsible local government, the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, and affected Indian tribes if archaeological resources are uncovered during excavation.

C.    Where a professional archaeologist or historian, recognized by the state of Washington, has identified an area or site as having significant value, or where an area or site is listed in national, state, county or Bothell historical registers, the city may require an evaluation of the resource, and appropriate conditions, which may include preservation and/or retrieval of data, proposal modifications to reduce adverse impacts, or other mitigation authorized through the State Environmental Policy Act, or other local, state, or federal laws.

D.    Archaeological sites located both in and outside shoreline jurisdiction are subject to Chapter 27.44 RCW (Indian graves and records) and Chapter 27.53 RCW (Archaeological sites and resources) and development or uses that may adversely impact such sites shall comply with Chapter 25-48 WAC (Archaeological excavation and removal permit), as well as the provisions of this master program.

E.    The presence and location of identified historic or archaeological resources shall be considered in park, open space, public access, and site planning, with access to such areas designed and managed so as to give maximum protection to the resource and surrounding environment. (Ord. 2112 § 3 (Exh. C), 2013).

13.09.020 Environmental protection.

A.    All project proposals, including those for which a shoreline substantial development permit is not required, shall comply with Chapter 43.21C RCW, the Washington State Environmental Policy Act.

B.    Applicants shall apply the following sequence of steps in order of priority to avoid or minimize significant adverse impacts, with 1. being top priority:

1.    Avoiding the adverse impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action;

2.    Minimizing adverse impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts;

3.    Rectifying the adverse impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment to the conditions existing at the time of the initiation of the project;

4.    Reducing or eliminating the adverse impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations;

5.    Compensating for the adverse impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments; and

6.    Monitoring the adverse impact and the compensation projects and taking appropriate corrective measures.

C.    Projects that cause significant adverse ecological impacts, as defined in Chapter 13.03 BMC, Definitions, are not allowed unless necessary to achieve other objectives of the SMA, such as accommodation of water-oriented and other preferred uses, and only when the impacts are mitigated according to subsection B of this section, to avoid reduction or damage to ecosystem-wide processes and ecological functions.

D.    If specific standards, such as buffers, vegetation requirements, or dock dimensions, are provided in this chapter, then the city shall not require additional mitigation sequencing analysis under these provisions.

E.    The city shall require mitigation measures and/or permit conditions based on the provisions of this SMP in order to mitigate adverse impacts. In order to determine acceptable mitigation or permit conditions, the shoreline administrator may require the applicant to provide the necessary environmental information and analysis, including a description of existing conditions/ecological functions and anticipated shoreline impacts, along with a mitigation plan outlining how proposed mitigation measures would result in no net loss of shoreline ecological functions.

F.    When compensatory measures are appropriate pursuant to the mitigation priority sequence in subsection B of this section, preferential consideration shall be given to measures that replace the adversely impacted functions directly and in the immediate vicinity of the adverse impact. However, alternative compensatory mitigation within the watershed that addresses limiting factors or identified critical needs for shoreline resource conservation based on watershed or comprehensive resource management plans, including the shoreline restoration plan, applicable to the area of adverse impact may be authorized. Authorization of compensatory mitigation measures may require appropriate safeguards, terms or conditions as necessary to ensure no net loss of ecological functions.

G.    In addition to any requirements for specific critical areas found below, mitigation plans for any adverse impacts to ecological functions resulting from use, activity or development in shoreline jurisdiction, both inside and outside of critical areas, shall address the following:

1.    Inventory existing shoreline environment including the physical, chemical and biological elements and provide an assessment of their condition;

2.    A discussion of the project’s compliance with mitigation sequencing requirements and remaining unavoidable adverse impacts on the ecological functions;

3.    A discussion of any federal, state, or local special management recommendations which have been developed for critical areas or other species or habitats located on the site;

4.    A discussion of measures to preserve existing habitats and opportunities to restore habitats that were degraded prior to the proposed land use activity;

5.    A discussion of proposed measures which mitigate the adverse impacts of the project to ensure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions;

6.    Scaled drawings of existing and proposed conditions, materials specifications, and a five-year maintenance and monitoring plan, including performance standards;

7.    A discussion of proposed management practices which will protect fish and wildlife habitat both during construction, and after the project site has been fully developed;

8.    Contingency plan if the mitigation fails to meet established success criteria; and

9.    Any additional information necessary to determine the adverse impacts of a proposal and mitigation of the impacts. (Ord. 2112 § 3 (Exh. C), 2013).

13.09.030 Shoreline vegetation conservation.

A.    Vegetation conservation standards shall not apply retroactively to existing uses and developments. Vegetation associated with existing structures, uses and developments may be maintained within shoreline jurisdiction as stipulated in the approval documents for the development.

B.    Regulations specifying establishment and management of shoreline buffers are located in BMC 13.13.010 and 13.13.060. Vegetation within shoreline buffers, other stream buffers, and wetlands and wetland buffers shall be managed consistent with Chapter 13.13 BMC, Critical Areas in Shoreline Jurisdiction.

C.    Vegetation outside of shoreline buffers, other stream buffers, and wetlands and wetland buffers and within shoreline jurisdiction shall be managed according to this section, BMC 13.09.020, Environmental protection, and any other regulations specific to vegetation management contained in other chapters of this SMP.

D.    Vegetation clearing outside of wetlands and buffers shall be limited to the minimum necessary to accommodate approved shoreline development that is consistent with all other provisions of this SMP. Mitigation sequencing shall be applied so that the design and location of the structure or development minimizes native vegetation removal. Development or uses that require vegetation clearing shall be designed to avoid the following in the order indicated below, with 1. being the most desirable vegetation to retain:

1.    Native significant trees.

2.    Nonnative significant trees.

3.    Native nonsignificant trees.

4.    Other native vegetation.

5.    Other nonnative vegetation.

E.    Significant trees located in shoreline jurisdiction outside of wetlands and wetland, stream or shoreline buffers shall be retained using the preferences specified in subsection D of this section as a guide and consistent with the percent by number provided in Table 13.09.030-1; significant trees shall mean existing trees over eight inches in caliper as measured four feet above grade.

Table 13.09.030-1. Significant Tree Retention Requirements outside of Wetlands and Wetland,
Stream or Shoreline Buffers (Percent by Number)

Shoreline Water Body


Urban Conservancy

Shoreline Residential

High Intensity/High Intensity-Park or Marina

Sammamish River





North Creek





Swamp Creek





F.    The city may approve modifications or require minor site plan alterations to achieve maximum tree retention. A tree retention plan may provide for the retention of fewer significant trees than required in subsection E of this section only if the trees to be removed are replaced at a ratio of three to one. The size of said replacement trees shall be in accordance with the requirements of this chapter.

G.    All proposed developments shall include a tree retention plan for the entire subject property within shoreline jurisdiction except identified areas in which existing vegetation would not be disturbed in any manner. If any significant trees within such undisturbed area(s) outside of critical areas and their buffers are to be counted toward the percent significant tree retention required by subsection E of this section, the location of such trees shall be indicated on a plan, but other tree retention plan requirements shall not apply to the undisturbed area or areas. The tree retention plan shall include the following:

1.    Location, size, species and driplines of all existing healthy trees over eight inches in caliper measured four feet above grade;

2.    Proposed and existing contours;

3.    Trees and other vegetation to be retained; and

4.    A description of protection techniques to be utilized during construction, including but not limited to five-foot-high chainlink or plastic-net fencing around tree driplines, tunneling instead of trenching, stump grinding instead of stump pulling, and routing of traffic to prevent excessive soil compaction.

H.    A disturbance-free area beyond the tree dripline shall be indicated. A tree designated for retention shall not have the soil grade altered within its dripline or within 15 feet of its trunk, whichever is greater, unless an alternative tree retention method is submitted by a tree specialist acceptable to the city, and said alternative method is approved by the city.

I.    The shoreline administrator shall require a maintenance bond or other surety be submitted to the city of Bothell to ensure retention of existing trees and plant material during construction. In the event any trees designated by the city to be retained are removed, the city shall have the option of enforcing any bond posted. Each tree identified for retention shall be bonded pursuant to Table 13.09.030-2:

Table 13.09.030-2. Tree Diameter and Bonding Required

Tree Diameter


8 – 16 inches


16 – 20 inches


20 – 30 inches


Larger than 30 inches


J.    In the event that existing significant trees or vegetation which are designated to be retained die or are damaged or removed as a result of development activity, prior to issuance of occupancy permits, or release of any tree retention bonds required pursuant to subsection I of this section, a restoration plan shall be prepared and submitted to the shoreline administrator for approval. The plan shall provide for replacement of plants in the following manner:

1.    Each such significant tree shall be replaced by a mixture of three native deciduous and/or native coniferous trees. For each additional two inches of caliper over eight inches on the dead, damaged or removed tree, one new tree shall be planted. Particular species shall be approved by the city, with all native trees removed required to be replaced with native trees. Replacement trees shall conform to required plant sizes in accordance with the requirements of this section, and may be placed in other locations on the property than where the replaced trees were located. Where conditions allow, native replacement trees should be placed in on-site wetlands or wetland, stream or shoreline buffers if doing so would improve function of the critical area or its buffers.

2.    Shrubs and ground cover shall be replaced in all disturbed areas by a mixture of indigenous shrubs, groundcovers and other plant material to provide 85 percent surface coverage within two years from planting.

3.    The restoration shall be in addition to the revocation of the tree bond.

K.    Where vegetation removal conducted consistent with this section results in adverse impacts to shoreline ecological function, new developments or site alterations shall be required to develop and implement a supplemental mitigation plan. Adverse impacts are assumed to result from removal of native shrubs and groundcovers not otherwise regulated under the significant tree provisions, or when allowed removal of the significant trees disrupts an existing vegetation corridor connecting the property to other critical areas or buffers. Mitigation plans shall be prepared by a qualified professional and shall contain information required in BMC 13.09.020(G). Mitigation measures shall be maintained over the life of the use and/or development.

L.    Where native shoreline vegetation must be removed to accommodate a temporary staging area necessary to implement an allowed use, the area must be immediately stabilized and restored with native vegetation once construction is complete.

M.    Selective pruning of trees for safety or view protection is allowed. Where trees pose a significant safety hazard as indicated in a written report by a certified arborist or other qualified professional, they may be removed or converted to wildlife snags if the hazard cannot be eliminated by pruning, crown thinning or other technique that maintains some habitat function.

N.    Trees that are part of a grouping or that otherwise provide mutual support during strong winds shall be preserved to prevent blow down of on- and off-site trees with particular emphasis on trees that support adjacent wildlife habitat areas.

O.    Vegetation removal conducted without city authorization requires the submittal and approval of a restoration plan prepared by a qualified professional as defined in Chapter 13.03 BMC. The mitigation plan must utilize only native vegetation, and should be designed to compensate for temporal loss of function and address the specific functions adversely impacted by the unauthorized vegetation removal.

P.    With the exception of hand removal or spot-spraying of invasive or noxious weeds on shorelands, the determination of whether nonnative vegetation removal may be allowed in shoreline jurisdiction must be evaluated in conformance with this section, BMC 13.09.020, Environmental protection, and Chapter 13.13 BMC, Critical Areas in Shoreline Jurisdiction. Such removal of noxious weeds and/or invasive species shall be incorporated in mitigation plans, as necessary, to prevent erosion and facilitate establishment of a stable community of native plants.

Q.    Aquatic weed control shall only be permitted where the presence of aquatic weeds will adversely affect native plant communities, fish and wildlife habitats, or an existing water-dependent recreational use. Aquatic weed control efforts shall comply with all applicable laws and standards. Removal using mechanical methods is preferred over chemical methods. (Ord. 2112 § 3 (Exh. C), 2013).

13.09.040 Water quality, storm water, and nonpoint pollution.

A.    All shoreline development, both during and after construction, shall avoid or minimize significant adverse ecological impacts, including any increase in surface runoff, through control, treatment, and release of surface water runoff so that water quality and quantity are not adversely affected. Control measures include, but are not limited to, low impact development techniques, levees, catch basins or settling ponds, oil interceptor drains, grassy swales, planted buffers, and fugitive dust controls.

B.    New development shall provide storm water management facilities designed, constructed, and maintained in accordance with the City of Bothell Surface Water Design Manual in effect at the time, including the use of best management practices. Additionally, new development shall implement low impact development techniques where feasible and necessary to fully implement the core elements of the Surface Water Design Manual.

C.    Best management practices for control of erosion and sedimentation shall be implemented for all development in shoreline jurisdiction through a city-approved temporary erosion and sediment control (TESC) plan, in accordance with the City of Bothell Surface Water Design Manual standards in effect at the time.

D.    For development activities with the potential for adverse impacts on water quality or quantity in a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area, a critical area report as prescribed by BMC 13.13.010(O) and 13.13.060(C) shall be prepared. Such reports should discuss the project’s potential to exacerbate water quality parameters which are impaired as determined by a 303d listing or as established by a total maximum daily load (TMDL) study for that pollutant, and prescribe any necessary mitigation and monitoring.

E.    All materials that may come in contact with water shall be constructed of materials, such as untreated wood, concrete, approved plastic composites or steel, that will not adversely affect water quality or aquatic plants or animals. Materials used for decking or other structural components shall be approved by applicable state agencies for contact with water to avoid discharge of pollutants from wave or boat wake splash, rain, or runoff. Wood treated with creosote, copper chromium arsenic, or pentachlorophenol is prohibited in shoreline water bodies.

F.    All new aboveground storage facilities proposed for use in the storage of hazardous substances or hazardous wastes shall be designed and constructed so as to:

1.    Not allow the release of a hazardous substance to the ground, groundwaters, or surface waters; and

2.    Have a primary containment area enclosing or underlying the tank or part thereof.

G.    All new underground storage facilities proposed for use in the storage of hazardous substances or hazardous wastes shall be designed and constructed so as to:

1.    Prevent releases due to corrosion or structural failure for the operational life of the tank;

2.    Be protected against corrosion, constructed of noncorrosive material, steel clad with a noncorrosive material, or designed to include a secondary containment system to prevent the release or threatened release of any stored substances; and

3.    Use material in the construction or lining of the tank that is compatible with the substance to be stored.

H.    For residential uses, application of household pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers shall not exceed times, rates, and locations specified on the packaging.

I.    Water reuse projects and locations proposed for reclaimed water must be in accordance with the adopted water or sewer comprehensive plans that have been approved by the state Departments of Ecology and Health.

1.    Use of reclaimed water for surface percolation must meet the groundwater recharge criteria given in RCW 90.46.010(10) and 90.46.080(1). The state Department of Ecology may establish additional discharge limits in accordance with RCW 90.46.080(2).

2.    Direct injection must be in accordance with the standards developed by authority of RCW 90.46.042.

J.    All activities, uses, and construction activities shall be in accordance with applicable state and federal regulations.

K.    Site design review criteria include:

1.    The applicant shall either demonstrate that the proposed activity will infiltrate and recharge the groundwater table using measures approved in the City of Bothell Surface Water Design Manual or that it is not feasible to incorporate infiltration measures.

2.    The proposed activity must comply with the water source protection requirements and recommendations of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Health, and the King and Snohomish County health districts. (Ord. 2112 § 3 (Exh. C), 2013).

13.09.050 Public access.

A.    Except as provided in subsection B of this section, shoreline substantial developments and shoreline conditional uses shall provide for safe and convenient public access to and along the shoreline where any of the following conditions are present:

1.    The development is proposed by a public entity or on public lands;

2.    The nature of the proposed use, activity or development will likely result in an increased demand for public access to the shoreline;

3.    The proposed use, activity or development is not a water-oriented or other preferred shoreline use, activity or development under the Act, such as a non-water-oriented commercial or industrial use; or

4.    The proposed use, activity or development will interfere with the public use, activity and enjoyment of shoreline areas or water bodies subject to the public trust doctrine.

B.    An applicant shall not be required to provide public access where the city determines that one or more of the following conditions apply:

1.    Proposed use, activity or development only involves the construction of four or fewer single-family or multifamily dwellings;

2.    The proposed use, activity or development only involves agricultural activities;

3.    The nature of the use, activity or development or the characteristics of the site make public access requirements inappropriate due to health, safety or environmental hazards. The proponent shall carry the burden to demonstrate by substantial evidence the existence of unavoidable or unmitigatable threats or hazards to public health, safety or the environment that would be created or exacerbated by public access upon the site;

4.    The proposed use, activity or development has security requirements that are not feasible to address through the application of alternative design features or other measures;

5.    The economic cost of providing for public access upon the site is unreasonably disproportionate to the total long-term economic value of the proposed use, activity or development. For the purposes of this section “unreasonable and disproportionate” means that the economic cost of public access would add more than 20 percent to the total project cost;1

6.    Significant and unmitigable harm to the shoreline environment would be likely to result from an increase, expansion or extension of public access upon the site;

7.    The city’s adopted parks and recreation plans including the parks and recreation open space action plan (PROSAP) does not indicate a need for a trail or access at the property, and reasonably safe and convenient public access to the shoreline exists within one-quarter mile (1,320 feet) of the site; provided, that this exception shall not apply if the total frontage of the site along the shoreline is 1,320 feet or greater in dimension;

8.    Public access has reasonable potential to threaten or harm the natural functions and native characteristics of the shoreline;

9.    The site is within or part of an overall development, a binding site plan or a planned unit development which has previously provided public access through other application processes; or

10.    Public access is deemed detrimental to threatened and/or endangered species under the Endangered Species Act. The shoreline administrator shall consult with governmental agencies or authorities with jurisdiction when making this determination.

C.    Except for detached single-family residential and detached residential subdivisions, shoreline development proposals that have the potential to impact public views of the shoreline from public land or substantial numbers of residences, shall demonstrate protection of shoreline views through implementation of the following standards:

1.    The implementation of view corridor(s) a minimum of one-fourth of the property width. These view corridors shall be maintained free of structures, parking and driveways for the entire depth of the property from the street to the shoreline. The view corridors may be divided into two corridors to facilitate development of the property. “Property width” shall mean the dimension across a point midway between the front and rear property lines as measured parallel or as near thereto as practical to the course of that portion of the ordinary high water mark nearest the property. See Figure 13.09.050-1 for an illustration of view corridors.

2.    Special setbacks established from adjacent structures.

3.    Upper story setbacks eight-foot minimum at second floors.

Figure 13.09.050-1. Illustration of View Corridors

D.    Proponents shall include within their shoreline applications an evaluation of a proposed use, activity or development’s likely adverse impact upon current public access and future demands for access upon the site. Such evaluation shall consider potential alternatives and mitigation measures to further the policies of this SMP and the provisions of this section.

E.    The city shall not vacate such public rights-of-way or easements as a means of retaining public access. Public access provided by public street ends, public utilities and rights-of-way shall not be diminished by a proposed use, activity or development.

F.    Where public access routes terminate, connections shall be made with the nearest public street unless determined by the shoreline administrator to be infeasible.

G.    The following standards shall apply to all public access:

1.    Types of Access. Applicants required to provide, or who voluntarily provide, shoreline public access shall provide for both physical and visual access, unless due to dangerous or unsafe site conditions only visual access is feasible. Examples are listed in subsections (G)(2) and (G)(3) of this section.

2.    Visual Access. Visual public access may consist of view corridors, viewpoints, or other means of visual approach to public waters.

3.    Physical Access. Physical public access may consist of a dedication of land or easement and a physical improvement in the form of a walkway, trail, bikeway, park, boat or canoe and kayak launching ramp, dock area, view platform, or other area serving as a means of physical approach to public waters. Perpendicular trails with limited shoreline access points are an acceptable form of public access provided the PROSAP does not identify a particular alignment or connection for the subject property.

4.    Illustration of Visual and Physical Access. Figure 13.09.050-2 illustrates example visual and physical access, including required view corridors.

Figure 13.09.050-2. Public Access Illustration, Visual and Physical

H.    Off-Site Public Access. Off-site public access may:

1.    Be permitted by the city where it results in an equal or greater public benefit than on-site public access, or when on-site limitations of security, environment, or feasibility are present;

2.    Be visual or physical in nature;

3.    Include, but is not limited to, enhancing a nearby public property (e.g., existing public recreation site; existing public access; road, street or alley abutting a body of water; or similar) in accordance with city standards;

4.    Involve providing, improving or enhancing public access on another property under the control of the proponent or a governmental body or agency; or

5.    Include another equivalent measure as approved by the shoreline administrator.

I.    Shared community access may be allowed if there is no existing or planned public access along the shoreline as determined by a review of the parks, recreation and open space action program. Where provided, community access is subject to all applicable development standards of this section.

J.    Public access facilities shall accommodate persons with disabilities unless determined infeasible by the shoreline administrator.

K.    Public access facilities required for an approved or permitted use, activity or development shall be completed prior to occupancy and use of the site or operation of the activity.

L.    Where public access is to be provided by dedication of public access easements along the OHWM, the minimum width of such easements shall be as follows:

1.    Regional trails: 16 feet total width with 12 feet of paved travel way and two two-foot-wide gravel shoulders and clear zones. The standards may be adjusted by the shoreline administrator to avoid adverse critical area impacts.

2.    City trails: 12 feet total width accommodating 10 feet of travel way and a total of two feet of gravel shoulders and clear zones, or as otherwise approved by the shoreline administrator to match existing connecting city trails.

3.    The public easements required pursuant to this section, for the purpose of providing access across or through the site to the OHWM, shall be improved and maintained by the property owner to provide for reasonable and safe public access to the OHWM.

M.    Public access easements, trails, walkways, corridors, and other public access facilities may encroach upon any buffers or setbacks stipulated within Chapter 13.13 BMC, Critical Areas in Shoreline Jurisdiction, or under other provisions of this SMP; provided, that no net loss of ecological function is achieved.

N.    Signage to be approved by the administrator shall be conspicuously installed along public access easements, trails, walkways, corridors, and other facilities to indicate the public’s right of use and the hours of operation. The proponent shall bear the responsibility for establishing and maintaining such signs.

O.    The administrator may require the proponent to post signage restricting or controlling the public’s access to specific shoreline areas. The proponent shall bear the responsibility for establishing and maintaining such signage.

P.    Public access does not include the right to enter upon or cross private property, except on dedicated public rights-of-way or easements or where development is specifically designed to accommodate public access. Public access facilities shall be compatible with adjacent private properties through the use of techniques to define the separation between public and private space, including but not limited to setbacks, screening materials, landscaping, and natural elements such as logs, vegetation, and elevation separations. The city may condition shoreline applications to reinforce the distinction between public and private space.

Q.    Within the shoreline residential and high intensity environment designations, but excluding territory in the Bothell downtown subarea plan, the number of dwelling units within an attached residential development or the number of lots within a detached residential development may be increased within shoreline jurisdiction pursuant to Table 13.09.050-1 in exchange for providing a new publicly accessible trail placed on the subject property that parallels the shoreline water body, consistent with all of the following:

1.    A general public access easement shall be recorded and located in the same location as the physical trail. The easement shall be a minimum of 25 feet wide and shall be permanently dedicated for public use and public access;

2.    The public access easement shall be physically connected to a public right-of-way by a minimum 15-foot-wide public access easement;

3.    The trail widths shall be constructed pursuant to subsection L of this section;

4.    Trails shall be consistent with subsections J through P of this section; and

5.    Density bonuses are not applicable in the downtown subarea plan.

    Density bonus options are illustrated for example on Figure 13.09.050-3.

Table 13.09.050-1. Incentives for Parallel Trails along Shoreline Water Bodies

Type of Public Access

SR and HI Residential Incentives

Parallel trail comprising 50 percent to 75 percent of the shoreline length

• 10 percent increase in the number of dwelling units or lots

• Reduction of lot circle requirements up to 15 percent

• Reduction of lot area by 20 percent

• Should the applicant select to locate any additional lots authorized by this provision outside shoreline jurisdiction, the community development director may reduce the lot areas and lot circle dimensions of lots located outside shoreline jurisdiction to accommodate the additional lots, consistent with the applicable provisions of the Bothell Municipal Code

Parallel trail comprising 76 to 100 percent of the shoreline length and the trail allows for future connections to adjoining properties

• 20 percent increase in the number of dwelling units or lots

• Reduction of lot circle requirements up to 30 percent

• Reduction of lot area by 50 percent

• Should the applicant select to locate any additional lots authorized by this provision outside shoreline jurisdiction, the community development director may reduce the lot areas and lot circle dimensions of lots located outside shoreline jurisdiction to the minimum necessary to accommodate the additional lots consistent with the applicable provisions of the Bothell Municipal Code

Figure 13.09.050-3. Density Bonus Study

(Ord. 2112 § 3 (Exh. C), 2013).

13.09.060 Flood hazard reduction.

A.    Development in floodplains shall avoid significantly or cumulatively increasing flood hazards. Development shall be consistent with this SMP, as well as guidelines of the Natural Resource Conservation Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Federal Emergency Management Agency and King and Snohomish Counties’ flood hazard management plans.

B.    The channel migration zone (CMZ) is considered to be that area of a stream channel which may erode as a result of normal and naturally occurring processes2 or areas mapped by the Department of Ecology [pending] prepared consistent with WAC 173-26-221(3)(b). Applicants for shoreline development or modification may submit a site-specific channel migration zone special study if they believe these conditions do not exist on the subject property or Ecology’s mapping is in error. The CMZ special study must be prepared consistent with WAC 173-26-221(3)(b), and may include, but is not limited to, historic aerial photographs, topographic mapping, flooding records, and field verification.

C.    The following uses and activities may be authorized within the CMZ or floodway:

1.    New development or redevelopment landward of existing legal structures, such as levees, that prevent active channel movement and flooding.

2.    Development of new or expansion or redevelopment of existing bridges, utility lines, public storm water facilities and outfalls, and other public utility and transportation structures where no other feasible alternative exists or the alternative would result in unreasonable and disproportionate costs. The evaluation of cost differences between options within the CMZ or floodway and outside of the CMZ or floodway shall include the cost of design, permitting, construction and long-term maintenance or repair. For the purposes of this section “unreasonable and disproportionate” means that locations outside of the floodway or CMZ would add more than 20 percent to the total project cost.3 Where such structures are allowed, mitigation shall address adversely impacted functions and processes in the affected shoreline.

3.    New or redeveloped measures to reduce shoreline erosion; provided, that it is demonstrated that the erosion rate exceeds that which would normally occur in a natural condition, that the measures do not interfere with fluvial hydrological and geomorphological processes normally acting in natural conditions, and that the measures include appropriate mitigation of adverse impacts to ecological functions associated with the river or stream.

4.    Actions that protect or restore the ecosystem-wide processes or ecological functions or development with a primary purpose of protecting or restoring ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes.

5.    Modifications or additions to an existing nonagricultural legal use; provided, that channel migration is not further limited and that the modified or expanded development includes appropriate protection of ecological functions.

6.    Repair and maintenance of existing legally established use and developments; provided, that channel migration is not further limited, flood hazards to other uses are not increased, and significant adverse ecological impacts are avoided.

7.    Existing and ongoing agricultural activities; provided, that no new restrictions to channel movement are proposed.

D.    Existing structural flood hazard reduction measures, such as levees, may be repaired and maintained as necessary to protect legal uses on the landward side of such structures. Increases in height of an existing levee, with any associated increase in width, that may be needed to prevent a reduction in the level of protection of existing legal structures and uses shall be considered an element of repair and maintenance provided the expansion is landward of the ordinary high water mark.

E.    New development or new uses in shoreline jurisdiction, including the subdivision of land, shall not be permitted within the CMZ or floodway.

F.    New public and private structural flood hazard reduction measures:

1.    Shall be approved when a scientific and engineering analysis demonstrates the following:

a.    That they are necessary to protect existing development;

b.    That nonstructural measures are not feasible; and

c.    That adverse impacts on ecological functions and priority species and habitats can be successfully mitigated so as to assure no net loss.

2.    Shall be consistent with King and Snohomish Counties’ respective comprehensive flood hazard management plans.

3.    Shall be placed landward of associated wetlands and designated shoreline buffers, except for actions that increase ecological functions, such as wetland restoration, or when no other alternative location to reduce flood hazard to existing development is feasible as determined by the shoreline administrator.

G.    New public structural flood hazard reduction measures, such as levees, shall dedicate and improve public access pathways unless public access improvements would cause unavoidable health or safety hazards to the public, inherent and unavoidable security problems, unacceptable and unmitigable significant adverse ecological impacts, unavoidable conflict with the proposed use, or a cost that is disproportionate and unreasonable to the total long-term cost of the development. For the purposes of this section “unreasonable and disproportionate” means that the cost of the public access improvements would add more than 20 percent to the total project cost.4

H.    In those instances where management of vegetation as required by this SMP conflicts with vegetation provisions included in state, federal or other flood hazard agency documents governing city-authorized, legal flood hazard reduction measures, the vegetation requirements of this SMP will not apply. However, the applicant shall submit documentation of these conflicting provisions with any shoreline permit applications, and shall comply with all other provisions of this section and this SMP that are not strictly prohibited by the approving flood hazard agency.

I.    The removal of gravel or other riverbed material for flood management purposes shall be consistent with BMC 13.11.060, Dredging and dredge material disposal, and may be allowed only after a biological and geomorphological study shows that extraction has a long-term benefit to flood hazard reduction, does not result in a net loss of ecological functions, and is part of a comprehensive flood management solution.

J.    Transportation facilities shall be located outside the floodway excepting necessary crossings or bridges which shall be placed as perpendicular to the water body as is physically feasible. New transportation facilities shall be designed so that no significant loss of floodway capacity or greater than a one-half-foot increase in the 100-year flood level will result consistent with FEMA standards. The applicant shall provide all necessary studies, reports and engineering analysis which shall be subject to review and modification by the city of Bothell. If proposed transportation facilities effectively provide flood control, they shall comply with policies and regulations of this section. (Ord. 2112 § 3 (Exh. C), 2013).


    The 20 percent figure is based on WSDOT’s practices in determining whether sidewalks will be provided with state roads (pers. com. Paula Reeves, WSDOT, email to WAAPA list serve, April 24, 2009).


    Four potential areas of channel migration have been identified on North Creek in the city’s shoreline analysis report: 1) in North Creek – Centennial Park (Reach 2), 2) the open space/wetland area just north of 228th in North Creek – Canyon Park assessment unit (lower Reach 3), 3) south of 228th Street SE and north of 240th Street SE along the North Creek – Fitzgerald assessment unit (Reach 4), and 4) west of Interstate-405 and north of the North Creek confluence with the Sammamish River within the North Creek – Campus assessment unit (Reach 6).


    The 20 percent figure is based on WSDOT’s practices in determining whether sidewalks will be provided with state roads (pers. com. Paula Reeves, WSDOT, email to WAAPA list serve, April 24, 2009).


    The 20 percent figure is based on WSDOT’s practices in determining whether sidewalks will be provided with state roads (pers. com. Paula Reeves, WSDOT, email to WAAPA list serve, April 24, 2009).