Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5418OCT 17 1000 CRY CCC OF AUBURN LERKS OFFICE Return Address: Auburn City Clerk City of Auburn 25 West Main St. Auburn, WA 98001 RECORDER'S COVER SHEET Document Title(s) (or transactions contained therein): t7, 1. ORDINANCE NO. 5418 (MIN0001-99) T/ &l r Al -6536 -la Reference Number(s) of Documents assigned or released: ❑Additional reference Xs on page of document Grantor(s) (Last name first, then first name and initials) 1. dify A'P /9u614rJA Grantee: (Last name first) mid dowmsr js) were tied for 1. "J"OtAfe't, 4 tM;%d 614A6r-41VIo "M by C No �'heswestnot a ft r a>wrrArred as b proper exequbw er 0 b it ~ upon We. Legal Description (abbreviated: i.e. lot, block, plat or section, township, range) SW%Sec17&T21 N&R5E N%Sec20&R5E ® Additional legal is on page 16 & 17 of the document. Assessor's Property Tax Parcel/Account Number: 202105-9051; 172105-9034;202105-9027;202105-9028; 202105-9022;202105- 9023;202105-9033 ❑ Assessor Tax # not ORDINANCE NO.5 41 8' AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, APPROVING A SURFACE MINING PERMIT TO ALLOW THE CONTINUED MINING OF A 77 — ACRE PARCEL LOCATED EAST OF "M" STREET SE AND SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 18, WITHIN THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON. WHEREAS, the Auburn City Council of the City of Auburn must adopt and approve all appropriations by Ordinance pursuant to Chapter 35A.33 RCW; and WHEREAS, Application MIN001-99, dated August 24, 1999, together with site plans therefore, has been submitted to the City of Auburn, Washington, by La Pianta Limited Partnership, requesting a Surface Mining Permit that would allow for the continued mining and mining operations as defined in RCW 78.44.031 on a 77 — acre site located ease of "M" Street SE and south of Highway 18, within the City of Auburn, Washington, herein after described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part of as though set forth in full herein; and WHEREAS, said request above referred to, was referred to the Hearing Examiner for study and public hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, the Hearing Examiner based upon staff review, held a public hearing to consider said petition in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, on June 20, 2000, at 7:00 p.m., at the conclusion of which the Hearing ---------------------- Ordinance No. 5418 July 12, 2000 Page 1 j Examiner recommended approval of a Surface Mining Permit to allow for the continued mining on a 77 — acre site located east of "M" Street SE and south of Highway 18, based upon the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions, to wit: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The applicant, La Pianta Limited Partnership, has requested a surface mining permit that would allow for the continued mining on a 77 -acre site that lies southerly of Highway 18 and about one half -mile easterly of "M" Street SE. The site is also known as the "Meade Pit". The mine was originally granted a permit in 1980. The permit expired in 1990. The applicant applied for another permit in 1991, but the process was never completed. In 1999, the applicant submitted another permit application in accordance with the City's existing mining standards. There has been some occasional mining activity at the site pending the review of the subject permit. 2. The City on March 30, 2000 issued a Final. Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance (MDNS) for the proposal. A neighboring property owner subsequently filed an appeal of the MDNS. The appeal was subsequently withdrawn. 3. It is estimated that over the next ten years an additional 2 million cubic C= yards of gravel resources will be mined. Approximately 3 million cubic C= yards of gravel resources have been removed since the original permit was a N issued in 1980. The proposal also includes placement of fill and excavation for the modification of the site access and for construction of new storm drainage infiltration system to replace the current facility. A rock crushing operation will also continue on the site. 4. There have been a number of soils/geotechnical reports prepared specifically for the project. These include: "Report, Geotechnical Consultation Surface Mining Permit Continuation of Meade Pit Site, Auburn Washington" GeoEngineers Inc., April 12, 1991. ---------------------- Ordinance No. 5418 July 12, 2000 Page 2 "Report, Supplemental Geotechnical Consultation Surface Mining Permit Continuation of Meade Pit Site, Auburn Washington" GeoEngineers Inc., July 19, 1991. "Report, Geotechnical Engineering Services, Stormwater Infiltration Evaluation, Meade Pit, Auburn Washington" GeoEngineers Inc. June 15, 1999. The geotechnical report: "Report, Geotechnical Consultation Surface Mining Permit Continuation of Meade Pit Site, Auburn Washington" GeoEngineers Inc., April 12, 1991 evaluates the extent of commercial -4- quality aggregate material in the permit area and provides recommendations for slope inclination in the mining site. The report is C=) based on the review of existing site information, a site reconnaissance and o analysis of soil samples. � Within the pit site, surficial soils consist of sandy gravel deposited as C=) recessional outwash during the melting period of the Vashon advance. Approximately 50 to 100 feet of Vashon recessional sand and gravel were observed to overlie the Vashon till. Till is a non -stratified, unsorted mixture `14 of gravel, sand and silt with cobbles and occasional boulders. The till occurs at elevations ranging from 180 feet near the western portion of the permit area to 220 feet in the eastern portion of the permit area. The till layer and underlying till layer are glacially consolidated and can stand in slopes as steep as 1 H: 1 V (horizontal to vertical) or about 45 degrees. The natural angle of repose of the recessional gravel sand and sandy gravel in an unsaturated condition is about 1.5H:1V or about 33 degrees. The recessional outwash is highly permeable. All of the surface runoff in the Meade pit is currently directed to a single infiltration channel about 400 feet long, 3 feet wide and 3 feet in depth. All of the water infiltrates the highly permeable sand and gravel. There is no evidence of runoff leaving the site. Laboratory analysis of the site soils indicates that the pit soils are highly permeable. Computed rates of permeability were 58 feet and 160 feet per hour for the two sample sites. The report summarizes that Vashon recessional gravelly sand and sandy gravel and the pre-Vashon gravel are quite suitable for commercial aggregate as either blended or processed materials. To generate processed material the native soil must be blended, therefore numerous areas within the pit must be worked simultaneously requiring continuous ---------------------- Ordinance No. 5418 July 12, 2000 Page 3 access to various material sources throughout the pit site. The report recommends that permanent excavation slopes be cut no steeper than 1.5H:1V in all of the soils mined. Permanent non-structural (uncompacted) fill slopes constructed of the till soils should be no steeper than 3H:1 V. Well -compacted fill slopes can permanently stand at slopes of 2H:1 V. and should be track -rolled and vegetation established. The report was supplemented by the report: "Report, Supplemental Geotechnical Consultation Surface Mining Permit Continuation of Meade Pit Site, Auburn Washington" GeoEngineers Inc., July 19, 1991. The supplement was prepared to evaluate the relationship and effects of on-site operations to surface and groundwater resources. The report © characterizes the direction of water movement as primarily downward through open sand and gravel formations, during the rainy season. The site is relatively dry for most all of the spring summer and fall. During storm events runoff flows into a single constructed infiltration channel. Water ponds on exposures of Vashon till but the water readily infiltrates into C=) adjacent older outwash gravels. Water emerges away from the site, atop layers of less permeable silt or clay along a line of springs at an G ; approximate elevation of 200 feet. The report notes that the influence of the Meade Pit on surface and groundwater flow and volume characteristics has been and will continue to be minor. Operation of the mining site has done little to alter groundwater flow; water still infiltrates through open gravels. After planned operations, water will either infiltrate rapidly through remaining sand and gravel deposits or be detained in ponds atop relatively impermeable layers and evaporate or infiltrate slowly. The planned operations will have no flow overland out of the pit area since all of the planned excavations slope inward. Based on the geotechnical report, extended development of the Meade pit will have no effect on adjacent wells or aquifers or existing water bodies. The pit only affects the seasonal water table and only within an area slightly larger than the actual pit boundary. Planned excavations will not encounter year -around aquifers. Only a minimal amount of water passes from the pit floor through the relatively impermeable till and glaciolactrine layers that overlie more permanent aquifers. Existing recharge from the Meade property to the regional groundwater system or to White Lake or the Green and White Rivers is negligible. ---------------------- Ordinance No. 5418 July 12, 2000 Page 4 The report notes that no wells are likely to be affected by the proposal. The municipal well to the west along M Street, according to the applicant's experts, will not be affected. Based on the orientation of the underlying strata, the report notes that the direction of ground water migration in the seasonal water table beneath the Meade pit to be roughly east to west. Water has been observed emerging from intermittent springs on the pit slopes north and south of the excavation area. The direction of ground water flow in the seasonal groundwater table will not be affected by development in the Meade Pit since the floor of the pit is already lower than the elevations of the springs. Also more recent and more detailed investigations of groundwater movement indicate different results. According to the report "Summary of 1997 Hydrogeologic Investigations City of Auburn" prepared by the Pacific Groundwater Group, January 15, 1998, the direction of flow for both the shallow and deeper aquifers is principally to the north and not to the west. cla While it is believed that the Meade Pit is located over a layer of glacial till which appears to be sloped from east to west, and therefore any water that C, infiltrates on the property should flow as groundwater to the west, it is C= believed that the layer of till terminates immediately west of the applicant's `" property. At the termination of the till layer the westerly flowing groundwater would enter the valley floor aquifers. Once in the valley aquifers, the aforementioned study by the Pacific Groundwater Group indicates that it would move in a northeasterly or northerly direction. The report notes that the only potential for groundwater contamination from pit operations would occur as a result of a major fuel or lubricant spill within the pit. The effects of a spill are anticipated to be localized, affecting only the immediate pit area. A spill would not be expected to affect sources of potable water in the area. On—site retention of surface water precludes off-site sediment transport. A subsequent geotechnical report was also prepared to specifically address modification of the site's storm drainage system and address fill specifications for proposed area along the eastern boundary of the pit site. This report is the: "Report, Geotechnical Engineering Services, Stormwater Infiltration Evaluation, Meade Pit, Auburn Washington" prepared by GeoEngineers Inc. dated June 15, 1999. Four test pits were dug to a depth of 11 feet within the northwestern portion of the site to evaluate subsurface and groundwater conditions. Infiltration rate tests were performed in the test pits and infiltration rates were determined based on ---------------------- Ordinance No. 5418 July 12, 2000 Page 5 the results of the tests. In general, the site's deposits of sand and gravel encountered in the pit explorations have adequate permeability and storage capacity to infiltrate stormwater from the site, provided adequate design, construction and maintenance practices are used. The infiltration rates measured on the site ranged from 80 to 1,080 inches per hour. The King County maximum design standard for infiltration system is 20 inches per hour. Stormwater should be treated in accordance with current regulations prior to infiltration. The other issue addressed by the geotechnical report is filling to flatten an excavated slope along a portion of the eastern pit boundary. A fill prism ` 25 feet thick may be required. The report recommends that the fill be �- placed in layers and uniformly compacted to 90 percent of the soil's Cn maximum. All fill constructed against slopes steeper than 5H:1 V should be benched into the slope face. Bench excavations should be level and -- extend into the slope face until a vertical step of about three feet is �, constructed. If necessary, the fill material should be moisture conditioned o prior to compaction. Use of soils containing a high percentage of organics must be avoided. The finished slope for the fill of 2H:1 V is recommended. The slope should be planted for erosion protection and surface water Cli should be directed away from the slope or collected and discharged at the bottom of the slope. If groundwater seepage is encountered during reclamation, the report recommends specific construction and drainage features to manage this groundwater. 5. While the proposed continuation of mining operations is not anticipated to change the number of vehicle trips beyond current levels, approval of the mining permit will authorize the mining to continue over the next ten years resulting in a cumulative increase in the total number of vehicle trips. The applicant proposes to use an existing haul route from the mining site and then to use routes along the Auburn -Black Diamond Road east of the site for access to SR 18 at the Green River Interchange. Based on the evaluation conducted by the City, it is not anticipated that the continued operation will impact the future capacity of the Auburn Black Diamond Road (the proposed and continuing access) given the existing total demand on the road, as compared with the adjusted capacity of the road of 14,400 vehicles per day. The number of vehicle trips is anticipated to be an average of 67 trips per day based on a calculation of the estimated amount of aggregate resources and duration of mining provided by the applicant. ---------------------- Ordinance No. 5418 July 12, 2000 Page 6 The City also evaluated whether the proposed continuation of the mining operation will result in physical impacts to the Auburn Black Diamond Road through accelerated deterioration due to heavy vehicle loads over a longer duration. Based on trip generation information provided by the applicant, dated December 27, 1999, the proposed action will result in 67 vehicle trips per day, only half of which are loaded vehicles. Based on the evaluation, the project is not anticipated to result in accelerated deterioration due to heavy vehicle use. 6. The proposal lies within the Lakeview Special Planning Area as illustrated ,. on the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Lakeview Special Planning Area is about 235 acres in area. The remainder of the Lakeview Special Planning C= Area is largely owned by another sand and gravel operator, Miles Sand and a Gravel. Miles Sand and Gravel was also issued a mining permit in 1980 for �- its portion of the Lakeview site. The purpose of the Lakeview Special �► Planning Area is to develop a specific comprehensive land use plan for the area. The plan has not yet been done due largely to the mining related activity not being complete. The existing Comprehensive Plan of the City does indicate that the Special Planning area shall be developed as mostly residential when the mining activities have ceased. 7. The Zoning Code at Section 18.62.050 does require that the subsequent use of the mining site be identified. Sheet 02a of the application illustrates a potential street layout for a residential development. The drawing illustrates a conceptual street plan that is consistent with the City's requirements with regard to street grades and the demonstrating that once the mining is complete the subsequent use of the property could be a residential community. This is consistent with the intent of the Lakeview Special Planning Area and the existing single family zoning on the property. 8. The referenced permit that was issued in 1980 was based upon an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that was prepared for the Lakeview project. The EIS contained some drawings that gave an indication of what the proposed final grades would be for the permit that was issued in 1980. In most cases the subject mining operation is consistent with the 1980 permit. There are a few instances that the site is currently excavated below the grades identified by the 1980 permit. These differences are illustrated on sheets OX -1 through OX -9. The current application also illustrates the current proposal is to excavate below the grades that were part of the 1980 permit. ---------------------- Ordinance No. 5418 July 12, 2000 Page 7 9. The 1980 permit did not appear to be intended to be the only permit ever to be issued for the subject property. The subject permit has been applied for in accordance with the existing city mining regulations and standards. While additional excavation is proposed, beyond the 1980 approval, it will be in accordance with existing City standards, i.e. the finished slopes will meet current City requirements and the mining site when complete will be able to be developed into a residential community. -.dl --d- 10. A portion of the site along the east property line has been excavated Q closer than 50 feet of the adjoining property line. The current zoning code C= requires a 50 -foot setback for the mining activity. The standards that were in effect in 1980 did not require the specific 50 -foot setback. It is, however, cl-, proposed to fill this area to provide for the 50 -foot setback. C C=' 11. A berm of gravel material has been left between the subject parcel and the Miles Sand and Gravel parcel to the west. The berm is about 40 — 50 E ; feet high and essentially straddles the common property line of the two mining operators. The berm cannot be effectively removed without the mutual cooperation of the two property owners. The berm, however, needs to be removed to fully complete the reclamation of the two mining sites. This permit should be conditioned so that a plan is in place for the eventual removal of the berm. 12. The other adjoining uses in addition to the Miles Sand and Gravel operation include; Highway 18 right of way and steep slopes to the north, to the south is vacant property owned by the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe and to the east is vacant property as well. At the southeast corner of the property is a single-family neighborhood. It appears the closest house will be about 200 feet from the actual mining activity. 13 . The State of Washington in 1993 revised the state surface mining laws. These laws are contained within Chapter 78.44 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW). Essentially the revisions clarified that Cities have the authority to regulate the "operations" of a surface mine and the State Department of Natural Resources has the sole authority to regulate the "reclamation" of the mining site. Pursuant to RCW 78.44.031(8), "operations" mean all mine -related activities, exclusive of reclamation, that include but are not limited to activities that affect noise generation, air quality, surface and ground water quality, quantity and flow, glare, pollution, traffic safety, ground vibrations and/or significant or substantial impacts ---------------------- Ordinance No. 5418 July 12, 2000 Page 8 C1r C71) 0 C:$ CV commonly regulated under provisions of land use or other permits of local government and local ordinances. Operations also include: a) the mining or extraction of rock, stone, gravel, sand, earth, and other minerals; b) blasting, equipment maintenance, sorting, crushing, and loading; c) on-site mineral processing including asphalt or concrete batching, concrete recycling, and other aggregate recycling; and, d) transporting minerals to and from the mine, on site road maintenance, road maintenance for roads used extensively for surface mining activities, traffic safety and traffic control. The City revised its regulations in 1998 to reflect the change in the State laws. Related Comprehensive Plan Policies: EN -40 The cost effective availability of sand and gravel materials is needed to support the development of freeways, roads, public works, and private construction. Mineral extraction may therefore be permitted if in accord with these policies. EN -41 Existing mineral extraction operations (as specifically authorized by a City permit to mine) shall be allowed to continue operation for the duration of, and in accord with, their existing permits. EN -42 Mineral extraction operations shall not be considered a permitted use in any zoning district. They are to be reviewed as special uses and shall be conducted only in accord with the measures needed to mitigate any adverse impact. Permits for the operation shall be denied whenever any impact is deemed by the City Council to be unacceptable or cannot be acceptably mitigated. EN -43A final grading, drainage and erosion control plan shall be submitted with every application. Conditions of operation shall be spelled out in detail with performance bonds required to ensure compliance. Failure to comply with the provisions will be adequate grounds for suspension and subsequent termination of the permit. EN -44 The burden to demonstrate compliance with these policies and to demonstrate the need for a new permit or a renewal of a permit for any mineral extraction operation rests solely on the operator. The burden to operate in compliance with these policies and any permit issued in accord with the same shall also be on the operator. ---------------------- Ordinance No. 5418 July 12, 2000 Page 9 c• -y 14 C1r C71) 0 C:$ CV commonly regulated under provisions of land use or other permits of local government and local ordinances. Operations also include: a) the mining or extraction of rock, stone, gravel, sand, earth, and other minerals; b) blasting, equipment maintenance, sorting, crushing, and loading; c) on-site mineral processing including asphalt or concrete batching, concrete recycling, and other aggregate recycling; and, d) transporting minerals to and from the mine, on site road maintenance, road maintenance for roads used extensively for surface mining activities, traffic safety and traffic control. The City revised its regulations in 1998 to reflect the change in the State laws. Related Comprehensive Plan Policies: EN -40 The cost effective availability of sand and gravel materials is needed to support the development of freeways, roads, public works, and private construction. Mineral extraction may therefore be permitted if in accord with these policies. EN -41 Existing mineral extraction operations (as specifically authorized by a City permit to mine) shall be allowed to continue operation for the duration of, and in accord with, their existing permits. EN -42 Mineral extraction operations shall not be considered a permitted use in any zoning district. They are to be reviewed as special uses and shall be conducted only in accord with the measures needed to mitigate any adverse impact. Permits for the operation shall be denied whenever any impact is deemed by the City Council to be unacceptable or cannot be acceptably mitigated. EN -43A final grading, drainage and erosion control plan shall be submitted with every application. Conditions of operation shall be spelled out in detail with performance bonds required to ensure compliance. Failure to comply with the provisions will be adequate grounds for suspension and subsequent termination of the permit. EN -44 The burden to demonstrate compliance with these policies and to demonstrate the need for a new permit or a renewal of a permit for any mineral extraction operation rests solely on the operator. The burden to operate in compliance with these policies and any permit issued in accord with the same shall also be on the operator. ---------------------- Ordinance No. 5418 July 12, 2000 Page 9 EN -45 The City shall consider impacts of mining on groundwater and surface water quality as well as possible changes in hydrology as a result of the mining during the environmental review process and require appropriate mitigating measures to prevent water quality degradation. EN -46 Mineral resource areas or lands are those lands which have high quality resources that can be commercially mined for a minimum of twenty years (Map 9.3A). Properties around which urban growth is occurring should not be considered as mineral resource areas. As required by RCW 36.70A.060, the City shall require notification on all plats, short —� plats, development permits and building permits issued for development within 300 feet of these lands that a variety of � commercial activities may occur on these lands that are not � compatible with residential development for certain periods of limited `— duration. EN -47 Additional mineral extraction operations or major expansion of existing C-, operations onto adjacent parcels shall be permitted within mineral resource areas. Impacts of the operations must be studied thoroughly under the provisions of SEPA, and the City shall require implementation of all reasonable mitigating measures identified in those studies. Permits for the operation and renewal of permits for existing operations shall be denied whenever any impact cannot be acceptably mitigated. EN -48 Additional mineral extraction operations or expansions of existing operations will only be allowed outside of mineral resource areas where it is advisable to modify slope to create usable land (or to provide another public benefit associated with the site) and where the community will suffer no substantial short or long term adverse effect. Impacts of the operations must be studied thoroughly under the provisions of SEPA, and the City shall require implementation of all reasonable mitigating measures identified in those studies. Permits for the operation and renewal of permits for existing operations shall be denied whenever any impact cannot be acceptably mitigated. EN -49 New mineral extraction operations and expansion of existing mineral extraction operations will not be permitted in areas designated for "open space" uses. ---------------------- Ordinance No. 5418 July 12, 2000 Page 10 EN -50 The creation of usable land consistent with this comprehensive plan should be the end result of a mineral extraction operation. The amount of material to be removed shall be consistent with the end use. While this policy shall be rigidly applied to developed areas and to all areas outside of mineral resource areas, some flexibility may be appropriate within mineral resource areas. 4 EN -51 Aesthetic qualities, erosion control, the effect on community and the creation of usable land which is consistent with approved Washington State Department of Natural Resources and City Reclamation Plans N shall be the primary considerations, in a decision to grant a permit for Cn a new mineral extraction operation or to extend the scope of an existing mineral extraction operation outside designated mineral �-, resource areas. CV 15. The case file, MIN0001-99, and environmental file, SEP0035-99, of this project are hereby incorporated by reference and made part of the record of this hearing. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Auburn City Code at Section 18.62.070 sets forth the requirements for a Surface Mining Permit. 1. The first requirement is that the proposal as submitted meets or exceeds the submittal requirements in ACC 18.62.030. The application meets the submittal requirements in that a number of geotechnical reports were prepared. Storm drainage and erosion control plans are submitted. A haul route plan has been submitted. A dust control plan has been submitted and the detailed site plan has also been submitted. 2. The second requirement is that the proposal as submitted meets or exceeds the standards of ACC 18.62.040. The proposal meets the applicable standards including days and hours of operation, final finished slopes are identified, the existing fence has been illustrated, a rock crusher is proposed and located, a dust control plan is provided, the proper setbacks are provided, the Department of Natural Resources is reviewing a reclamation plan, a paved apron is provided, there is ---------------------- Ordinance No. 5418 July 12, 2000 Page 11 no identified impact to any adjacent wells or to aquifers, a performance bond is not required and there is no indication of materials being imported to the site. 3. The proposal has addressed all operational items listed in ACC 18.62.010 and any identified impacts have been appropriately mitigated. The surface mining application and its attachments, the environmental checklist and its attachments, together with complying with the regulations of Chapter 18.62 of the Zoning Code ensure that all applicable operational items --� have been addressed and the identified impacts have been mitigated. a 4. Finally, the proposal must be consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan. m The proposal as submitted is consistent with the applicable comprehensive plan polices as enumerated in the above finding of facts in that the impacts have been appropriately mitigated for, storm drainage and groundwater issues � have been addressed, and the creation of usable land consistent with the land ``" use plan will also result. DECISION For each of the above reasons, the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner to the Auburn City Council on this surface mining permit application is approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. The gravel berm that is on the common property line between the subject property and the Miles sand and gravel operation to the west shall remain in place until both parties have received the appropriate permits for its removal. The required permits will include the City of Auburn and the State Department of Natural Resources. The final grade/elevation of the berm (as agreed to between the two property owners) is to be generally consistent with mining plans submitted as part of this subject application. The Planning Director is authorized to approve any subsequent changes to final grades (related to the berm) in order to coordinate the berm removal consistent with this condition. 2. The mining operation be conducted in accordance with the application as submitted together with all of its attached plans and reports. ---------------------- Ordinance No. 5418 July 12, 2000 Page 12 For each of the above reasons, the recommendation of the hearing Examiner to the Auburn City Council on this application for a Surface Mining Permit is approved and affirmed. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: o Section 1. The above cited Hearing Examiner's Findings of Fact and o Conclusions, are herewith approved and incorporated in this Ordinance. C" Section 2. A Surface Mining Permit is hereby approved to allow for the C=1 CZ continued mining and mining operations as defined in RCW 78.44.031 of a 77 a N — acre parcel located on the east side of "M" Street SE and south of Highway 18, in the City of Auburn, County of King, State of Washington and legally described in the attached Exhibit "A". Section 3. Upon the passage, approval and publication of this Ordinance as provided by law, the City Clerk of the City of Auburn shall cause this Ordinance to be recorded in the office of the King County Auditor. Section 4. Implementation. The Mayor is hereby authorized to implement such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directions of this legislation. ---------------------- Ordinance No. 5418 July 12, 2000 Page 13 Section 5. Effective date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5) days from and after its passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. INTRODUCED: July 17, 2000 PASSED: July 17, 2000 C�, C:) APPROVED: July 17, 2000 m 4o CHARLES A. BOOTH MAYOR u ATTEST: Da ielle E. Daskam, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Michael S eynolds, City Attorney Published: 02/ oiOrJ� ---------------------- Ordinance No. 5418 July 12, 2000 Page 14 c+ -a cza CD c_, V:-, C-1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PARCEL A- A PORTION OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THE NW 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 20; AND THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 20; AND THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE NORTH 112 OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 20. PARCEL B: A PORTION OF SECTION 20. TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THE SE 1/4 Of THE SE 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 20; AND THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 20; AND THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 20; AND THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE NORTH 1/2. OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SATO SECTION 20; AND THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 20; AND THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 20; AND THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 20; AND THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4, OF THE NW 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 20; AND THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 20; AND THE SW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 20: AND THE NORTH 60 FEET OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 20, EXCEPT THE EAST 30 FEET THEREOF; AND THE WEST 186.50 FEET OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 20 LYING SOUTH OF THE NORTH 60 FEET THEREOF. PARCEL C- A PORTION OF SECTION 20. TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH. RANGE 5 EAST. W.M., KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THE WEST 186.50 FEET OF THE SOUTH 1/3 OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 20. PARCEL D: THAT ' PORTION OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST. W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, LYING SOUTH OF THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT—OF—WAY OF STATE ROUTE 18 (AUBURN TO JCT. S.S.H NO, 5—A). L,Xl�iy "All ordinanl.ce No. 5418 Cn 0 Cz 0 r-- C*lJ C11) C=�, Ordinance 5418- Exhibit 918Exhibit "A"