Friday, October 2, 2026
A group of residents from an area south of Tumwater city limits have filed an appeal against a decision to allow a 22-acre residential project in the city’s urban growth area.
Citing concerns over groundwater and the timing of an impact study, the residents are hoping to reverse the decision to avoid worsening flooding in an area that is historically prone to it.
On April 30, Thurston County Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice granted a forest land conversion permit that would authorize Tenino Land Company to cut 15.25 acres of mature woodland for a development it is calling 88th Place.
Located at 1318 88th Ave. SW, the project would result in the removal of 2,144 trees classified as “significant,” which are trees more than 6 inches at breast height. The developer plans to retain trees only within 30-foot-wide buffers along the western, eastern and northern property lines.
Rice also approved a preliminary plat to subdivide the property into 105 single-family residential lots.
In her decision, Rice found the residential project fully complied with state and local regulations for zoning, stormwater management, environmental protection and traffic impacts. The forest land conversion permit was also granted, as all the criteria for the permit were satisfied.
The group of residents are particularly concerned about groundwater impacts, as the development site is within a Category 1 critical aquifer recharge area.
In her decision, Rice stated the designation does not prohibit residential developments but requires the project to implement best management practices for the protection of the groundwater.
The developer’s proposed stormwater plans include a 1.89-acre infiltration pond to collect and treat runoff from internal streets and 88th Avenue.
The developer also plans to use 18 inches of soil mix at the bottom of the pond to filter the water from toxic pollutants before it enters groundwater supplies approximately 1.5 feet away from the bottom of the pond.
The appellants argue it was legally improper for the county to defer a groundwater mounding analysis, which the hearing examiner stated must be conducted before final engineering approval.
A groundwater mounding analysis is meant to assess the impact of groundwater mounding, which happens when a large amount of water is focused on one specific spot on the ground.
The appellants believe clearing the forest would significantly increase groundwater infiltration. Using the U.S. Forest Service’s iTree MyTree calculator, they found existing canopies intercept more than 400,000 gallons of rainfall per year.
The property also lies within the Salmon Creek Basin, an area with a known history of localized flooding and surfacing groundwater, according to the appellants, who cited flooding events during the rainy seasons of 1996-97 and 1998-99.
The residents believe postponing the groundwater mounding analysis would deprive them of their right to contest the results of the study if needed, as public hearings are only available during the preliminary plat stage.
On a more technical standpoint, they argue the county cannot legally determine whether the subdivision serves the public interest without first seeing the results of the groundwater study.
Citing provisions in state and county code, the appellants point out that a preliminary plat can only be approved if decision-makers explicitly find the project serves the public interest.
As a remedy, the appellants request the reversal of the hearing examiner’s decision and for the project to go back to Thurston County Community Planning & Economic Development until the developer submits the groundwater mounding analysis.
Under county code, appeals to the hearing examiner’s decisions are heard by the Thurston County Board of County Commissioners.
12 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
RondaLarsonKramer
Thank you, JOLT, for covering this. Local land use decisions can have impacts that last for decades, affecting housing, transportation, environmental quality, and community character. Coverage like this helps residents stay informed and engaged in decisions that will shape the future of our communities.
Tuesday, May 26 Report this
2theroots
Yes thank you JOLT for covering this. I think the definition of a mounding analysis is a bit confusing in this story. It is modeling that would predict if the project is likely to create flooding - quite critical in a known flood area built on top of an aquifer close to the surface. Pollution entering the aquifer could also pollute the well that 1,000 Tumwater residents drink out of. Also it should be mentioned that among all those trees is 1 300 year old tree and 15 200 year old trees. So it is quite tragic that we don't have protections in our county for trees that old.
Tuesday, May 26 Report this
JW
Having been through this type of process before, I'm afraid this is a delaying process at best. TLC is experienced at pitching these developments and the cities are eager for the development. I feel bad for all the neighbors that will lose the forest for slapped together housing.
Wednesday, May 27 Report this
RiriSD
Thnx The JOLT!
Wednesday, May 27 Report this
PBN4884
Good for them! Stop paving everything, and definitely stop putting up these worthless papier-mache slabs that would fall apart in a stiff breeze. They harm wildlife, the environment, and even people. Thanks for covering this. I hope the residents get their way.
Wednesday, May 27 Report this
PNWTrucker
Or i dunno, how about we stop building and trying to overpopulate Tumwater. This city is like a hidden gem and it's so beautiful. This makes me so sad that the leaders don't actually care about our home.
Wednesday, May 27 Report this
Southsoundguy
Tumwater is destined to become the Kent valley. Everything along I-5 will be turned into giant communist dormitories and warehouses. It doesn't have to be this way.
Wednesday, May 27 Report this
wildnature
Is this another development of mansions no one can afford? Or is it a purposeful development of affordable homes that a working couple with minimum wage jobs could afford?
Wednesday, May 27 Report this
MargiePetersen
Thank you for informing us on this subject.. I lived for many years in Arizona and witnessed how the fragile desert was destroyed by masses of housing developments. The waterlevel in aquifers was decreasing more and more. Developers don't care. They built, collect their profits and leave.
We love the lush beauty of this fabulous area. The trees stand guard to protect our health and well-being. Don't destroy them.
Wednesday, May 27 Report this
Yeti1981
The groundwater and stormwater questions seem like the most substantive part of this discussion, especially given the CARA designation and the area’s flooding history. Those are fair issues to scrutinize and it makes sense for residents to want confidence in the engineering analysis.
At the same time, it’s important to separate concerns about impacts from claims that the project itself is somehow outside the law or inconsistent with the growth framework. According to the hearing examiner’s findings, the project complied with current zoning, environmental regulations, stormwater standards, and traffic requirements under the county’s review process.
This also is not a rural upzone or an expansion of the UGA. The property is already inside the designated urban growth area and already zoned for residential development. That distinction matters.
A lot of these debates end up centered on whether growth should happen at all, but under Washington’s Growth Management framework, growth is intended to occur inside UGAs rather than pushing farther into rural areas. The more productive conversation is probably about mitigation, infrastructure, and design rather than treating any new housing proposal as inherently illegitimate.
Wednesday, May 27 Report this
Juno1439
If this canopy of trees blocking over 400,000 gallons of water from the ground are removed, where will the water go? Will the ground absorb it or will there be a constant runoff? Will this containment pond the developer installs be sufficient? If not, will the new homeowners' file insurance claims for water damage to homes and vehicles cause higher insurance rates?
At some point, citizens have to stand up to developers and say no more. The current economy we are in does not support nor justify building more homes that no can afford. Just because a project checks off all the blocks doesn't mean it's viable and justifiable for the community!
Wednesday, May 27 Report this
MartyKenney
Definitely a bummer that we can’t protect these forests better. But to be fair, if the neighbors didn’t want the property, that’s very much in a development area 2 blocks from the airport, to be developed maybe they could have figured out a way to buy the property from the owner for $512,500 instead of the developer? The sale was made in March 2026 according to county data. This is capitalism, and while I’m usually not for cutting forests and building paper mache houses, this is the general location to be building the much needed housing I think. The halting of Salish landing is a much better fight to be fighting
Wednesday, May 27 Report this