Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge council to review Cumberland aggregate mine, ask to preserve 990 acres and flag noise risks at proposed event venue
Summary
Multiple residents warned the council about traffic, noise, water use and long‑term extraction tied to a proposed Cumberland aggregate mine and asphalt plant; another speaker urged preservation of 990 acres north of Cumberland (Lizard Mountain) and a third raised concerns about a proposed nightclub/event venue at the former Moose Lodge and municipal noise controls.
Several residents used the public‑comment period at the council’s July 13 meeting to raise land‑use and neighborhood concerns tied to a King County project and local development proposals.
Julius Stevens, who lives in unincorporated King County near Enumclaw, urged the council to review King County project documents for a proposed Cumberland aggregate mine and asphalt plant and to encourage residents to submit comments. He said the proposal contemplates 25–35 years of gravel extraction, would operate around the clock and could send hundreds of heavy trucks through town. "It literally is a 24 hour operation 7 days a week...they're looking at needing 175,000 to 250,000 gallons a day to run the operation," Stevens said, adding that traffic, noise and impacts to roads and emergency services would affect Enumclaw and neighboring communities. He noted King County's public comment period runs through Aug. 7.
Linda Stevens asked the council to support efforts to save roughly 990 acres north of Cumberland, including Lizard Mountain and former White River access. She described long‑standing recreational use — hiking, horseback riding and biking — and said residents worry about wells and access if a large extractive project proceeds.
A speaker identified by the mayor as "Mister Malinaro" warned against converting the former Moose Lodge into a nightclub or event center that would operate in a residential area and serve alcohol. He cited prior neighborhood complaints involving similar venues, urged the council to review the municipal noise‑control code (chapter 8) and flagged potential police responses and neighborhood impacts.
What the council did: The comments were received during the public‑comment period; the council did not take regulatory action on these issues at the July 13 meeting. Council members and staff noted the items for follow up in committee reports but deferred permitting and county‑level review to the appropriate agencies.
What residents can do: One speaker noted the King County comment deadline (Aug. 7) for the Cumberland project; those concerned should consult King County permitting documents and submit comments directly to county staff.
