Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press council on Cumberland mine risks and urge conservation of Lizard Mountain
Summary
Public commenters at the July 13 council meeting raised regional concerns about a proposed Cumberland Aggregate Mine—citing heavy truck traffic, round-the-clock operations, water use and noise—and urged preservation of about 990 acres near Lizard Mountain; another speaker warned against a nightclub proposal at the former Moose Lodge. Commenters left materials with the city clerk and noted King County’s public comment deadline.
Several residents used the council’s public-comment period on July 13 to press the city and neighboring jurisdictions about land-use proposals and neighborhood impacts. Julius Stevens, who identified himself as a King County resident living outside Enumclaw, asked the council to review county project materials on the proposed Cumberland Aggregate Mine and asphalt plant. Stevens said the project documents describe decades-long extraction, called out traffic impacts (he quoted roughly 298–668 heavy trucks per day), 24/7 operations and water-use estimates of about 175,000–250,000 gallons per day, and warned that noise and truck volumes could affect roads and emergency services across nearby communities. He said King County’s public-comment period remains open through Aug. 7 and left project materials with the city clerk.
Linda Stevens urged the city to support conservation of roughly 990 acres north of Cumberland around Lizard Mountain, describing long-standing recreational use of the White River corridor and local worry about well impacts if a large project proceeds. She said county and state entities had indicated possible interest in conserving the property.
A third commenter, Malinaro, asked the council to examine a permit application for the former Moose Lodge that could allow a nightclub or event center serving alcohol in a residential area. He cited past noise complaints at similar venues, suggested council review the municipal noise-control code (chapter 8 as referenced), and warned of potential neighborhood disturbance if a new liquor license is approved.
No council response that altered those claims was recorded in the public-comment period; staff and the city clerk received documents and were asked to follow up. The King County comment deadline mentioned by a speaker provides a near-term opportunity for further submissions and reviews.
