The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRS_Cultural_Resources_Assessment_220527_v1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Kennydale Gateway Project, Renton, Washington Cultural Resources Assessment for the Kennydale Gateway Project, Renton, Washington Prepared by Adam Alsobrook, AIA Julia Kunas, MS Austin Jenkins, MS May 27, 2022 WillametteCRA Report No. 22-60 Seattle, Washington Prepared for Kennydale, LLC Seattle, Washington confidential—not for general distribution i Report Details Project Name: Kennydale Gateway SHPO/DAHP Number: 2022-04-02492 Agency: City of Renton Agency Project Number: LUA22-000011 Client: Kennydale, LLC Project Undertaking: Residential Development Regulatory Framework: SEPA County(ies): King Legal Description: Township 24N, Range 5E, Sections 29 and 32 USGS Quad(s): Mercer Island 7.5-minute Project Acreage: 7.18 Survey Acreage: 7.18 Permit Number(s): N/A Accession Number: N/A Curation Location: N/A Field Note Location: WillametteCRA, Seattle Office Fieldwork Type: Built Environment Survey Fieldwork Dates: April 5, 2020 Field Personnel: Adam Alsobrook Findings: Two structures recorded Recommendations: Two resources recommended not eligible. Monitoring and Inadvertent Discovery Plan be in place for construction. confidential—not for general distribution ii Table of Contents List of Figures ............................................................................................................................ iii List of Tables ............................................................................................................................. iii Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1 Project Setting ........................................................................................................................ 1 Regulatory Context ................................................................................................................. 4 Natural and Cultural Background ............................................................................................... 4 Natural Setting ........................................................................................................................ 4 Cultural Setting ....................................................................................................................... 6 Precontact Archaeological Context ..................................................................................... 6 Ethnographic Context ............................................................................................................. 6 Treaty Period .......................................................................................................................... 7 Recent History and Land Ownership ...................................................................................... 8 Previous Archaeological Investigations .....................................................................................10 Expectations .............................................................................................................................15 Field Methods ...........................................................................................................................15 Built Environment Survey ..........................................................................................................15 Building 1 ..............................................................................................................................15 Building 2 ..............................................................................................................................16 Statement of Significance ......................................................................................................18 Conclusions and Recommendations .........................................................................................19 Works Cited ..............................................................................................................................21 confidential—not for general distribution iii List of Figures Figure 1. Project Location on the Bellevue South 7.5' x 15' Togographic Quadrangle. ............... 2 Figure 2. Project Location on 2021 Aerial Photograph. .............................................................. 3 Figure 3. Surface geology of the Project Area and vicinity. ........................................................ 5 Figure 4. Project Area on 1902 T-sheet...................................................................................... 9 Figure 5. Project Area on 1936 aerial photograph. ....................................................................11 Figure 6. General site conditions and existing pavement. View to southeast. ............................16 Figure 7. Building 1 (HPI 727639). View to west. ......................................................................17 Figure 8. Building 2 (HPI 727640). View to southeast. ..............................................................17 List of Tables Table 1. Previous Cultural Resource Studies within One Mile of the Project Area. ....................12 Table 2. Previously Identified Archaeological Sites Within Approx. 1 Mile of the Survey Area. ..13 Table 3. Prev. Identified Historic Properties Extant within 0.5 mile of the Project Area. .............14 confidential—not for general distribution 1 Introduction Kennydale, LLC proposes the Kennydale Gateway development in Renton, King County, Washington. The proposed development would consist of approximately 385 residential units, 1,500 square feet of retail space, parking and other community amenities (Project). The Project will take place on a 7.18-acre tax lot situated partly in Sections 29 and 32, Township 24 North, Range 5 East, Willamette Meridian (Project Area, Figure 1). The Project Area is currently developed with two warehouse buildings (Figure 2) and is used primarily for construction staging and materials storage. The Project Area is situated upon fill overlying a delta where May Creek discharges to Lake Washington, significantly elevating the potential for the Project to encounter archaeological resources (see Figure 1 and Figure 2). The Project will include ground disturbing activities and structure demolitions. Generally, the known activities with potential to impact cultural resources are as follows: • Removal of the two existing warehouse buildings and existing underground water utilities • Site grading including removal of approximately 6.0 feet of soil at the north end of the Project Area and approximately 2.0 feet in the southeast end of the Project Area • Excavation for construction stormwater controls up to 3.5 feet below the temporary construction surfaces • Construction of apartment buildings (including 3.0 feet of excavation for column footings and 7.0 feet of excavation for elevator shafts) and utilities Willamette Cultural Resources Associates, LTD (WillametteCRA) completed a Cultural Resources Assessment for the Project. The cultural resources assessment included research into recent land use of the Project Area, the geographic setting and geologic conditions, ethnographic sources, and recorded cultural resources and prior surveys, but no archaeological fieldwork. Two warehouse buildings constructed by the Pan Abode Cedar Homes Company were recorded (HPI 727639 and 727640) and are recommended not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Based on provided construction plans and the geologic setting and existing geotechnical data, WillametteCRA recommends development of a Monitoring Plan for the Project. Project Setting The Project Area is roughly triangular in shape, bordered by Lake Washington Boulevard on the west, Interstate 405 on the east, and May creek on the south (see Figure 2). It was most recently an industrial site used for the production of prefabricated (kit) homes. It is located approximately 250 feet from the eastern shore of Lake Washington and on a delta formed by May Creek. Past industrial activity removed the native vegetation, existing brush onsite is primarily volunteering among the construction staging and materials storage activities. Additional setting information is provided in the Natural Setting section. confidential—not for general distribution 2 Figure 1. Project Location on the Bellevue South 7.5' x 15' Togographic Quadrangle. confidential—not for general distribution 3 Figure 2. Project Location on 2021 Aerial Photograph. confidential—not for general distribution 4 Regulatory Context The Project is subject to review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). SEPA requires the lead agency reviewing a project to consider the potential for impacts to both above and below-ground cultural resources during the environmental review process. The City of Renton (City) is the SEPA lead agency. Kennydale, LLC requested the cultural resources assessment following comments received on the SEPA Checklist. Washington state laws apply to archaeological resources and Native American burials located on private and non-federal public lands. The Archaeological Sites and Resources Act (RCW 27.53) prohibits knowingly excavating or disturbing prehistoric and historic archaeological sites. The Indian Graves and Records Act (RCW 27.44) prohibits knowingly destroying American Indian graves and provides a process for notifications and consultation in cases of inadvertent discoveries of human remains. To prevent the looting or depredation of sites, any maps, records, or other information identifying the location of archaeological sites, historic sites, artifacts, or the site of traditional ceremonial, or social uses and activities of Indian Tribes are exempt from public disclosure (RCW 42.56.300). Natural and Cultural Background Natural Setting The Project Area is located within the Puget Lowland, generally the low-lying area between the Cascade Mountains and the Olympic Mountains. Puget Lowland landscapes were shaped through various Pleistocene glaciations that advanced through the area as the Puget Lobe of the Cordilleran Ice Sheet (Booth et al. 2003). Glacial advances and retreats over a period of approximately 18,000 to 15,000 years resulted in the present-day topography of the Puget Lowland, which has also been shaped by more recent processes such as erosion, landslides, and volcanic eruptions (Booth et al. 2003). The surface geology of the Project Area is mapped as Holocene alluvium (Figure 3), ranging broadly from clay to gravels (Yount el al. 1993). Locally, the alluvium is described by geotechnical engineers as silt and silty sand with gravels beneath one to two feet of pavement and fill (Jones et al. 2021). Native soils mapped in the Project Area are Norma sandy loam. Norma series soils form in alluvium on floodplains. The typical profile progresses through humic soils from an H1 horizon of ashy sandy loam, to an H2 horizon of sandy loam and to an H3 horizon of sandy loam. Ponding is common, with a water table typically occurring within one foot of the ground surface (NRCS 2022). The Project Area is located within the Tsuga heterophylla vegetation zone, which is characteristic of most of western Washington (Franklin and Dyrness 1988). Native flora in this woodland area is dominated by western redcedar, Douglas fir, western hemlock, red alder and confidential—not for general distribution 5 Figure 3. Surface geology of the Project Area and vicinity. confidential—not for general distribution 6 big leaf maple with an understory including evergreen blackberry, Oregon grape, and oceanspray and ferns. Fauna found throughout the region include black-tailed deer, cougars, coyotes, beavers, grouse, and various waterfowl species. May Creek is presently located south of the Project Area but historically had its course north of the Project Area. May creek hosts sockeye salmon, Chinook salmon, coho salmon, cutthroat trout, and kokanee salmon (Kerwin 2001). Cultural Setting Precontact Archaeological Context The Project Area is within a region that has been used by humans for at least 12,500 years. The history of Native American settlement and subsistence in the nearby uplands and river valleys both before and after European American contact reveals important patterns that speak to the potential for archaeological resources and culturally important places relevant to this assessment. The Bear Creek Site (45KI839), over 10 miles north-northeast of the Project, provides one of the main sources of information on human activity during the transition from the end of the Ice Age into the earliest Holocene, with cultural deposits dating from approximately 10,000 and 12,500 years ago (Kopperl 2016). Sites in the region with age estimates between about 9,000 and 4,000 years ago are more common and are often located on Puget Lowland glacial outwash surfaces and geologically older inland riverine terraces (Chatters et al. 2011; Croes et al. 2008; Kidd 1964). These sites are often termed “Olcott sites” and are characterized by large, leaf- shaped stemmed points made from local cobbles, based on the artifact assemblage found at the Olcott type site near Arlington. These sites have been interpreted as reflecting highly mobile hunting and gathering of resources. This trend appears to have lasted for at least 5-6,000 years until a shift towards the increasing use of marine and riverine resources (Kopperl et al. 2016). After 5,000 years ago regional population growth appears to be correlated with a greater number of archaeological sites distributed across the Puget Lowlands that reflect the diverse array of resources available to people. Full-scale development of marine-oriented cultures on the coast and inland hunting, gathering, and riverine fishing traditions as represented in the ethnographic record are apparent after about 2,500 years ago. Large semi-sedentary populations occupied cedar plank houses at river mouths and confluences and on protected shorelines (Kopperl et al. 2016). European contact in the late 18th century led to drastic changes in Native American populations and community structures, primarily caused by disease pandemics, as well as major changes in native economies (Boyd 1999). Ethnographic Context The land between Lake Sammamish and Lake Washington, including the Project Area, is within the traditional territory of native Lushootseed-speaking peoples named scababš, loosely confidential—not for general distribution 7 translated as “meander dwellers” (Smith 1940; Waterman et al. 2001). Government officials in the 19th century anglicized the name of the people to Sammamish. Ethnographer T.T. Waterman recorded several place names in the project vicinity in the early 20th century in a rudimentary orthography (Waterman et al. 2001). These names emphasize the cultural importance still placed on this area by historic and contemporary Native American peoples. These include: • S(a)bal?tx: “place where things are dried”, a winter village at May Creek which formerly ran north of the Project Area and now borders it to the south • Kwa’kwau: “a small promontory” nearly one mile to the south During the 1854 census of native groups, the inhabitants of the shores of Lake Washington were called S’kel-tehl-mish or “Lake Duwamish” Indians (Smith 1940:17). Some ethnographers considered the Lake Duwamish people (including the scababš) as a distinct group separate from the Duwamish proper and the Snoqualmie (Ballard 1929; Smith 1940). The scababš were well connected with other Puget Sound groups, as well as Ichishkíin (Sahaptin)-speaking people from east of the Cascade Mountains, with cultural ties created and solidified by intergroup marriage (Gibbs 1877; Smith 1940; Suttles and Lane 1990). They were also among the first native groups to trade with the Hudson’s Bay Company at Fort Nisqually after its construction in 1833 (Buerge 1984). Like most other Coast Salish groups, the scababš traditionally followed a seasonal round that was linked to available resources. Resources were accordingly accessed by neighboring groups. The region is one of mild climate and abundant resources, and usually enough salmon could be harvested in a few weeks to last through the winter. In spring and summer, people dispersed from winter villages of cedar plank houses to live in temporary camps to fish, hunt land and sea mammals, and collect roots, berries, and other plants. In winter, preserved forms of these foods supported the village while important ceremonial work was completed. Winter was also important for establishing and maintaining social relationships. Heads of households hosted public events marking changes in status like naming, puberty, marriage, or death and demonstrated the household’s status by preparing huge amounts of food. The more important the family, the more guests appeared. These people represented ties of marriage, adoption, trade, and social obligation (e.g., Suttles and Lane 1990). Treaty Period Under terms of the Point Elliott Treaty of 1855, many Native American communities in this area were initially assigned to the Port Madison Reservation, including the Snoqualmie (sdukʷalbixʷ) people, some of whom relocated to the Tulalip Reservation (Indian Claims Commission 1967). After the Treaty Wars, the Muckleshoot Reservation was established for all of the people of the Duwamish River watershed. While some scababš moved to reservations, others moved to the confidential—not for general distribution 8 logging community of Monohon on Lake Sammamish, continued to live in traditional locations until the early 20th century, or filed claims under the Indian Homestead Act. Others became members of the Snoqualmie Indian Tribe, and along with the Snohomish, Skykomish, and other groups, became the Tulalip Tribes under the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (Lane 1975a, 1975b). The Snoqualmie Indian Tribe achieved separate federal recognition in 1999. The Project Area is within the traditional use areas of several federally-recognized Tribes including the Snoqualmie Tribe of Indians, the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, the Squaxin Island Tribe, the Suquamish Tribe, and the Tulalip Tribes. The Duwamish Tribal Organization is not federally- recognized, however, the Project Area is within the traditional use territory of its members’ ancestors. Recent History and Land Ownership In January 1878, the tracks of the Seattle & Walla Walla Railroad were completed between Renton and Newcastle (Robertson 1995:265). Renamed as the Columbia & Puget Sound Railroad in 1880, this railroad line crossed May Creek approximately one mile southeast of the Project Area (Robertson 1995:265). In 1904, Clarence Hillman platted six subdivisions in the immediate vicinity and named it the “Lake Washington Garden of Eden Addition[s] to Seattle” (King County Recorder 1904a, 1904b, 1904c, 1904d, 1904e, 1904f). After the U.S. Post Office Department rejected using the name “Lake Washington Garden of Eden” as the name of a post office, Hillman named the post office “Kennydale,” after his wife’s family last name, “Kenny” (Seattle Daily Times 1904; Wikipedia 2022). In September 1905, the Northern Pacific Railroad Company opened the Lake Washington Belt Line. This branch line originated at Black River Junction and passed through Renton, Kennydale, and May Creek before continuing north to Kirkland and Woodinville (Seattle Daily Times 1905). The Project Area operated as farmland by James M. and Clarissa Colman (Figure 4) from as early as 1876 until Clarissa’s death in 1910 (Grindeland 2006). By 1912, the Colman property had been reduced to 13 acres, and the Lake Washington Mill Company owned the remainder of the former 42.90-acre Colman farmstead (Kroll 1912). However, by 1926, members of the Colman family once again owned the entire 42.90-acre property (Kroll 1926). By 1936, Gilbert Paulson and others had acquired the southern part of the Colman property, while the remainder was still owned by Jason M. Colman, Clarissa Colman’s son (Metsker 1936). In the intervening time, the Colman farmstead went from lake front property to relative upland when Lake Washington was lowered by 8.8 feet with the construction of the Lake Washington Ship Canal by 1916 (Chrzastowski 1983). Although the lake’s water levels fluctuated seasonally, historically, these seasonal fluctuations were up to 7 feet prior to human control (Chrzastowski 1983:3). The Lake Washington Ship Canal was constructed to connect Lake Washington with the Puget Sound, but it had the additional effect of lowering the water level equal to the Puget Sound. This exposed new waterfront land along the Lake Washington shoreline. Locally, that land would serve the lumber industry. confidential—not for general distribution 9 Figure 4. Project Area on 1902 T-sheet. confidential—not for general distribution 10 A 1936 aerial photograph (Figure 5) depict the Project Area as undeveloped open space (NETR 1936). Note by this time, May Creek has been diverted south of the Project Area. Pan Abode Cedar Homes Company appears to have occupied the Project Area as early as 1952 (TEC 2010). Originally founded in 1948 at Richmond, British Columbia by Danish cabinetmaker Aage Jensen, Pan-Abode International, Limited, constructed a second factory in Renton in 1952 (TEC 2010). Jensen decided to construct the Renton manufacturing facility due to the abundant quantities of western redcedar lumber available in the area (Pan Abode Cedar Homes 2022). By 1964, Pan Abode had constructed several large buildings on the eastern portion of the Project Area along present-day I-405 (NETR 1964). Pan Abode Warehouse Building 1, on the west side of the Project Area, was constructed in 1975, and Pan Abode Warehouse Building 2, on the south side of the Project Area, was constructed in 1974 (King County Department of Assessments 2022). Paul Allen’s Port Quendall Company purchased the Project Area in 1998; as part of the agreement, Pan Abode was allowed to maintain its operations at the site for two to five years (Ervin 1998; Seattle Post-Intelligencer 1999). The circa 1952 to 1964 buildings on the site are no longer extant. Previous Archaeological Investigations WillametteCRA reviewed records on file with the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) online database (WISAARD) to identify previous cultural resources studies and archaeological or historical resources recorded though April 11, 2022, in the Project vicinity. WISAARD contains records of ten cultural resources studies within one mile of the Project Area, three of which were adjacent to the Project boundaries (Table 1). No cemetery sites are located within one mile of the Project Area. Two archaeological sites have been recorded within one mile of the Project Area. Finally, 29 historic structures are recorded within 0.5 mile of the Project Area. One historic property inventory was conducted within the Project Area boundaries and four cultural resource investigations were conducted near the Project Area boundaries. The historic property inventory that runs through the western portion of the project was an evaluation of the Eastside Rail Corridor, which was the location of the former Seattle, Lake Shore & Eastern Railway and the Northern Pacific Railway Company Lake Washington Belt Line. The inventory noted railroad signs, a grade crossing, and switch just east of the Project Area which were associated with the Northern Pacific Railway Company Lake Washington Belt Line (ESA 2015). Four archaeological investigations have been conducted near the boundaries of the Project. In a cultural resource assessment for the JAG Development Project, immediately west of the Project Area, survey efforts attempted to determine whether the Duwamish village site S(a)bal?tx was located within the project boundaries (Bowden et al. 1997). Shovel probes were excavated in parts of their study area that were not contaminated, and one potential fire-modified rock was confidential—not for general distribution 11 Figure 5. Project Area on 1936 aerial photograph. confidential—not for general distribution 12 Table 1. Previous Cultural Resource Studies within One Mile of the Project Area. Author Date Project and Type of Investigation Relation to Survey Area ESA 2015 Historic Property Inventory: Historic and Cultural Resources Eastside Rail Corridor Regional Trail Master Plan Includes west portion of parcel Bowden et al. 1997 Survey: Cultural Resources Assessment JAG Development, King County, Washington 0.01 mi W Juell 2001 Survey: Cultural Resources Inventory of the proposed Washington Light Lanes Project 0.01 mi E Ives et al. 2016 Survey: Cultural Resources Survey for the Washington State Department of Transportation’s I-405: SR 169 to I-90 Improvements Project, King County, Washington 0.01 mi NE Kanaby et al. 2009 Survey: Archaeological Assessment, City of Renton Hawk’s Landing Project, Renton, Washington 0.02 mi SW Kelly 2012 Survey: Cultural Resources Assessment for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, Renton, King County, WA 0.05 mi NW Hushour 2021 Survey: A Cultural Resources Assessment for the Canopy Development Project in Renton, King County, Washington 0.24 mi E Major 2008 Survey: Archaeological Inventory Survey Report Lake Washington Floating Dry Docks, King County W ½ of the SW ¼ Section 29, Township 24 N, Range 5E (State Owned Aquatic Lands) 0.27 mi NW ICF 2021 Survey and Monitoring: Cultural Resources Discipline Report I-405, Ripley Lane Stream Connection Project Renton, King County, Washington 0.51 mi NE Murphy 2003 Monitoring: Final Ripley Lane Pipeline Excavation Project (CIP# 200799) Archaeological Resources Monitoring 0.54 mi NE Baldwin et al. 2016 Survey: Cultural Resources Review for NE 31st Street Bridge Replacement Project, Renton, Pierce County, Washington 0.72 mi SE found. Sediments observed were up to 90 cm of fill, and the investigators concluded that if S(a)bal?tx is in that location, it is likely buried under fill and pavement (Bowden et al. 1997). Another archaeological investigation adjacent to the Project was conducted by Juell (2001) for the construction of an intra-state fiber optic network along I-405. The survey involved a literature review, pedestrian survey, and windshield survey of the Project Area, and concluded that due to recontouring of the highway during construction and other disturbance, no historic resources would be present or affected (Juell 2001). No cultural resources were observed during this investigation. Additional cultural investigations adjacent to the Project include a survey for lane expansions on I-405 that did not encounter any archaeological resources (Ives et al. 2016), and a survey for a confidential—not for general distribution 13 trail and stormwater improvements along May Creek that did not yield any cultural resources (Kanaby et al. 2009). There are two archaeological sites recorded within one mile of the Project Area (Table 2). The closest site is the Reilly Tar & Chemical Wharf and T-Dock site (45KI1107) located on the shoreline of Lake Washington. This historic site includes two waterfront features that were used as a wharf and a pier from approximately 1916 to 1930 (Kelly 2012). The site is associated with activities at Republic Creosote (later Reilly Tar and Chemical), which manufactured creosote and other tar products until the facility’s closure in 1969 (Kelly 2012). Table 2. Previously Identified Archaeological Sites Within Approx. 1 Mile of the Survey Area. Site No. Site Name Site Type Relation to Survey Area Significance 45KI1107 Reilly Tar & Chemical Wharf and T-Dock Historic water structures 0.19 mi NW No Determination 45KI814 Floating Dry Docks YFD 48 and 51 Submerged historic structure 0.27 mi NW No Determination The other archaeological site within one mile of the Project Area is the Floating Dry Docks YFD 48 and 51 (45KI814), northwest of the Project Area. The site is comprised of two wooden floating dry docks from World War II that were decommissioned and submerged in Lake Washington after the war (Major 2008). There are 29 previously recorded structures within 0.5 mile of the project (Table 3). Most of these properties are residential properties north and south of the Project Area that were imported from the King County Assessor’s records that have not been formally recorded or evaluated. There is one recorded structure within the Project boundaries: the Pan Abode Cedar Home “Dust Hopper” structure (HPI 48924). The structure was used to collect sawdust during manufacturing and dump it into trucks to be taken offsite (Holter 2018). It was determined Not Eligible for listing in the NRHP due to its lack of association with a significant person or characteristic architecture and demolished. confidential—not for general distribution 14 Table 3. Prev. Identified Historic Properties Extant within 0.5 mile of the Project Area. HPI Resource Name Site Type Relation to Project Area Significance 48924 Pan Abode Cedar Home “Dust Hopper” Industrial Structure Within APE Not Eligible 48974 4008 Meadow Ave N Residential 0.03 mi S No Determination 718057 Burlington Northern/ Northern Pacific Railroad Company Lake Washington Beltline - Bridge over May Creek Railway Structure 0.03 mi W No Determination 337593 Quendall Station (Demolished) Structure 0.06 mi N No Determination 48975 N/A Residential 0.12 mi S No Determination 49015 N/A Residential 0.15 mi S No Determination 48976 3932 Meadow Ave N Residential 0.14 mi S No Determination 48977 3902 Meadow Ave N Residential 0.20 mi S No Determination 48978 3804 Meadow Ave N Residential 0.23 mi S No Determination 48979 3716 Meadow Ave N Residential 0.27 mi S No Determination 48980 3704 Meadow Ave N Residential 0.31 mi S No Determination 48923 3709 Jones Ave NE Residential 0.33 mi SE No Determination 48922 3606 Meadow Ave N Residential 0.35 mi S No Determination 48925 Railroad Trestle over Ripley Lane Structure 0.36 mi NE No Determination 41642 Hazelwood Agricultural 0.37 mi NE No Determination 643971 N/A Residential 0.38 mi SW No Determination 722388 N/A Residential 0.41 mi NE Not Eligible 48981 3515 Meadow Ave N Residential 0.41 mi S No Determination 48982 3509 Meadow Ave N Residential 0.42 mi S No Determination 41645 Bieker House Residential 0.43 mi E No Determination 48983 3503 Meadow Ave N Residential 0.44 mi S No Determination 643685 N/A Residential 0.43 mi S No Determination 48921 3413 Meadow Ave N Residential 0.45 mi S No Determination 86610 N/A Residential 0.45 mi SE Not Eligible 722401 N/A Residential 0.45 mi N Not Eligible 41852 Handley House Residential 0.46 mi NE No Determination 48946 5032 Lake Washington Blvd NE Residential 0.49 mi NE No Determination 48947 5101 Lake Washington Blvd NE Residential 0.50 mi NE No Determination 46112 N/A Residential 0.50 mi SW No Determination confidential—not for general distribution 15 Expectations The DAHP predictive model for precontact cultural materials classifies the Project Area as having High to Very High Risk to contain archaeological resources likely due to the Project Area’s location adjacent to Lake Washington and May Creek. The Project Area is located atop one to two feet of fill overlying alluvium deposits (Jones et al. 2021, NRCS 2022). Ethnographic documentation exists to support use of May Creek, which meandered through the Project Area. Finally, prior to the artificial lowering of Lake Washington, the Project Area was on the lakeshore. If any intact deposits exist beneath the pavement and fill, they may contain archaeological materials related to use of May Creek or historical use as the Colman farmstead. Two structures related to the Project Area’s use by Pan Abode are known to date to the 1970s, requiring investigation by WillametteCRA’s architectural historian. Field Methods WillametteCRA Historic Architect Adam Alsobrook visited the Project Area to document the two Pan Abode warehouse structures. These two structures (HPI 727639 and 727640) were observed, documented, and evaluated for this assessment. Descriptions and discussion of significance, integrity, and NRHP eligibility of the two structures are provided in the Results section below. Existing pavement (Figure 6) and documented fill at the site precludes conventional means of archaeological testing. The Built Environment Survey served to document the existing ground conditions. As expected, ground surface was not permissive to subsurface sampling. Built Environment Survey Building 1 According to tax assessor records, Building 1 (Pan Abode Warehouse Building 3, HPI 727639, Figure 7) was constructed in 1975. This utilitarian building has a rectangular plan and measures 100 feet wide by 312 feet long, with the long axis of the building oriented in a southwest to northeast direction. This one-story building is approximately 20 feet tall. The building is currently used as a storage warehouse for construction materials. The building has a prefabricated steel, clear-span, rigid frame structure, with the rigid frames spanning the narrow dimension of the building. The exterior is clad with galvanized corrugated metal panels, with the corrugations in a vertical orientation. There are six large roll-up doors on the building façade that faces southeast. The door at the northeast end of the building measures approximately 20 feet wide by 18 feet tall, and the remaining five doors measure approximately confidential—not for general distribution 16 12 feet wide by 12 feet tall. There are three-foot-wide by seven-foot-tall metal slab access doors located immediately to the north of each of the roll-up doors. Each of these doors has a small front-gabled, wood-framed overhanging roof for weather protection. There are no door or window openings on the building facades that face southwest and northeast. There are six aluminum frame, horizontal slider windows on the building façade that faces northwest. The building has a shallow-sloped gable roof clad with galvanized corrugated metal panels. The roof has twenty-six equally spaced translucent corrugated fiberglass panels that allow light into the building interior. Some of these panels have been covered and blocked over on the underside of the roof. The interior of the building is unheated. High-bay light fixtures provide illumination at the building interior. Building 2 According to tax assessor records, Building 2 (Pan Abode Warehouse Building 4, HPI 727640, Figure 8) was constructed in 1974. This utilitarian building has a rectangular plan and measures 60 feet wide by 312 feet long, with the long axis of the building oriented in a southeast to northwest direction. This one-story building is approximately 22 feet tall. The building is currently used as a storage warehouse for construction materials. Figure 6. General site conditions and existing pavement. View to southeast. confidential—not for general distribution 17 Figure 7. Building 1 (HPI 727639). View to west. Figure 8. Building 2 (HPI 727640). View to southeast. confidential—not for general distribution 18 The building has a prefabricated steel, clear-span, rigid frame structure, with the rigid frames spanning the narrow dimension of the building. The exterior is clad with galvanized corrugated metal panels, with the corrugations in a vertical orientation. There is one large roll-up door on the building façade that faces northwest, which measures approximately 12 feet wide by 12 feet tall. There is one large roll-up door on the building façade that faces northeast, which measures approximately 20 feet wide by 18 feet tall. There is a three-foot-wide by seven-foot-tall metal slab access door located immediately to the wests of this roll-up door. This door has a small front-gabled, wood-framed overhanging roof for weather protection. The building façade that faces southwest has another large roll-up door which measures approximately 20 feet wide by 18 feet tall, which is roughly on center with the similar door on the opposite façade. There are three roll-up doors at the building façade that faces southeast, two of these doors measure approximately 12 feet wide by 18 feet tall, and third door measures approximately 12 feet wide by 12 feet tall. The building has a shallow-sloped gable roof clad with galvanized corrugated metal panels. Seven cyclone roof vents are mounted along the roof ridge line. The roof has twenty-six equally spaced translucent corrugated fiberglass panels that allow light into the building interior. Some of these panels have been covered and blocked over on the underside of the roof. The interior of the building is unheated. High-bay light fixtures provide illumination at the building interior. Statement of Significance Building 1 (Pan Abode Warehouse Building 3) is not directly associated with significant events or broad patterns of Renton history (Criterion A), it is not directly associated with the life of a significant person (Criterion B), and it neither embodies distinctive architectural characteristics nor represents "a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction" (Criterion C). Furthermore, Pan Abode Warehouse Building 3 was constructed in 1975 and therefore does not meet the minimum age threshold for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Therefore, Pan Abode Warehouse Building 3 is recommended as not eligible for listing in the NRHP. Building 2 (Pan Abode Warehouse Building 4) is not directly associated with significant events or broad patterns of Renton history (Criterion A), it is not directly associated with the life of a significant person (Criterion B), and it neither embodies distinctive architectural characteristics nor represents "a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction" (Criterion C). Furthermore, Pan Abode Warehouse Building 4 was constructed in 1974 and therefore does not meet the minimum age threshold for listing in the NRHP. Therefore, Pan Abode Warehouse Building 4 is recommended as not eligible for listing in the NRHP. confidential—not for general distribution 19 Conclusions and Recommendations A survey of built resources recorded two structures, neither of which is recommended eligible for NRHP-listing. Should the proposed undertaking or regulatory context change, these recommendations may not apply and the lead agency may determine that additional investigation into the structures is necessary. As noted above, several project elements are anticipated to require ground disturbance which may have potential to disturb archaeological resources, if present. These include: • Removal of the two existing warehouse buildings and existing underground water utilities • Site grading including removal of approximately 6.0 feet of soil at the north end of the Project Area and approximately 2.0 feet in the southeast end of the Project Area • Excavation for construction stormwater controls up to 3.5 feet below the temporary construction surfaces • Construction of apartment buildings (including 3.0 feet of excavation for column footings and 7.0 feet of excavation for elevator shafts) and utilities WillametteCRA considers the Project to have moderate to high potential to encounter archaeological materials due to the possible presence of a winter village on May Creek, materials related to the Colman farmstead, and the generally high probability Project setting at the outlet of May Creek into Lake Washington. Existing site conditions do not permit conventional archaeological testing. WillametteCRA recommends that Project elements be reviewed once full project plans and cross-sections are developed in final design to develop a project-specific monitoring plan. As a best practice, WillametteCRA recommends that project plans and specifications outline the process to be followed in the unlikely event that human remains are encountered at any time during implementation of the project: RCW 27.44.055 requires all activity to cease following discovery of suspected human remains and avoidance of anything that may cause further disturbance to those remains. The area of the find must be secured and protected from further disturbance. The finding of human skeletal remains will be reported to the King County Medical Examiner and the Renton Police Department in the most expeditious manner possible. The remains will not be touched, moved, or further disturbed. The Medical Examiner will assume jurisdiction over the human skeletal remains and determine whether those remains are forensic or non-forensic. If the Medical Examiner determines the remains are non-forensic, they will report that finding to the DAHP, who will take jurisdiction over the remains. The DAHP will notify any appropriate cemeteries and all affected tribes of the find. The State Physical Anthropologist will determine whether the remains are Indian or Non-Indian, and report that finding to any appropriate cemeteries and the affected tribes. The DAHP will then handle all consultation with the affected parties as to the future preservation, excavation, and disposition of the remains. confidential—not for general distribution 20 Recommended Monitored Project Activities Based on available plans, Project details, and geotechnical data to date, WillametteCRA recommends that the Project activities below be completed under observation by an archaeological monitor when soils are exposed and disturbed for the: 1. Removal of existing water utilities 2. Earthwork requiring more than one foot of new ground disturbance 3. Excavation for foundation footings, if techniques produce observable spoils or profiles 4. Construction of construction stormwater controls 5. Construction of stormwater, wastewater and water utilities These Project activities and any others that will result in disturbance greater than one foot below ground surface should be included in a project-specific monitoring plan that is best developed upon completion of final design. confidential—not for general distribution 21 Works Cited Ballard, Arthur C. 1929 Mythology of Southern Puget Sound. University of Washington Publications in Anthropology 3(2):31–150. Booth, Derek B., Ralph A. Haugerud, and K. Goetz Troost 2003 The geology of Puget lowland rivers. Restoration of Puget Sound rivers. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Bowden, Bradley, Leonard A. Forsman, Lynn L. Larson, Dennis E. Lewarch 1997 Cultural Resource Assessment JAG Development, King County, Washington. Submitted to CNA Architecture, Bellevue, Washington. Boyd, Robert 1999 Coming of the Spirit of Pestilence: Introduced Infectious Diseases and Population Decline among Northwest Coast Indians, 1774-1874. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Buerge, David 1984 Indian Lake Washington. The Weekly, August 1, pp. 29–33. Chatters, James C., Jason B. Cooper, and Phillippe D. LeTourneau 2011 Understanding Olcott: Data Recovery at Sites 45N28 and 45N303, Snohomish County, Washington. AMEC Earth & Environmental, Bothell, Washington. Chrzastowski, Michael 1981 Historical Changes to Lake Washington and Route of the Lake Washington Ship Canal, King County, Washington. Open-File Report 81-1182. U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Geological Survey. Electronic document, https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1981/1182/report.pdf, accessed February 25, 2022. Croes, Dale R., S. Williams, L. Ross, M. Collard, C. Dennler, and B. Vargo 2008 The projectile point sequences in the Puget Sound region. Projectile Point Sequences in Northwestern North America, 105-130. Environmental Science Associates (ESA) 2015 Historic and Cultural Resources Eastside Rail Corridor Regional Trail Master Plan. Prepared for King County Parks, King County Department of natural Resources and Parks, Seattle. Franklin, Jerry F., and Christopher T. Dyrness 1973 Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis. Holter, Russell 2018 Historic Property Report #48924. On file with DAHP, Olympia, Washington. Indian Claims Commission 1967 Snoqualmie Tribe of Indians v. United States. No. 7-65 United States Court of Claims. confidential—not for general distribution 22 Ives, Ryan, Jennifer Thomas, Stephen Emerson, Jason Jones, and Timothy J. Smith 2016 Cultural Resources Survey for the Washington State Department of Transportation’s I- 405: SR 169 to I-90 Improvements Project, King County, Washington. Submitted to Washington State Department of Transportation, Northwest Region. Jones, Nathan M., Rolf Hyllseth and Garry Horvitz 2021 Geotechnical Engineering Design Study: Pan Abode Redevelopment Site, Renton, Washington. Prepared by Hart Crowser, a Division of Haley & Aldrich. Submitted to Port Quendall Company. Juell, Kenneth E. 2001 Cultural Resources Inventory of the proposed Washington Light Lanes Project, Route 5 Backbone Interstate-405 (MP 0 to MP 11) from Interstate-5 to Interstate-90. Prepared for Universal Communication Networks – Washington, Inc. and David Evans & Associates, Inc., Bellevue, Washington. Kanaby, Kara M., Linda Naoi Goetz, Douglas F. Tingwall, and Thomas C. Rust 2009 Archaeological Assessment, City of Renton Hawk’s Landing Project, Renton, Washington. Prepared for City of Renton Planning Division, Renton, Washington. Kelly, Katherine M. 2012 45KI1107 State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form. On file with DAHP, Olympia, Washington. Kerwin, John 2001 Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors Report for the Cedar - Sammamish Basin (Water Resource Inventory Area 8). Washington Conservation Commission. Olympia, WA https://www.govlink.org/watersheds/8/pdf/wria_8_lfa_FINAL.pdf Kidd, Robert S. 1964 A Synthesis of Western Washington Prehistory from the Perspective of Three Occupation Sites. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Washington, Seattle. King County Department of Assessments 2022 King County Department of Assessments, eReal Property, Parcel 322405-9049. Electronic resource, https://blue.kingcounty.com/Assessor/eRealProperty/Dashboard.aspx?ParcelNbr=32240590 49, accessed April 2022. King County Recorder 1904a C.D. Hillman’s Lake Washington Garden of Eden Addition to Seattle No. 1. 22 July. Electronic resource, https://recordsearch.kingcounty.gov/LandmarkWeb, accessed April 2022. 1904b C.D. Hillman’s Lake Washington Garden of Eden Addition to Seattle No. 2. 22 July. Electronic resource, https://recordsearch.kingcounty.gov/LandmarkWeb, accessed April 2022. 1904c C.D. Hillman’s Lake Washington Garden of Eden Addition to Seattle No. 3. 21 October. Electronic resource, https://recordsearch.kingcounty.gov/LandmarkWeb, accessed April 2022. confidential—not for general distribution 23 1904d C.D. Hillman’s Lake Washington Garden of Eden Addition to Seattle No. 4. 21 October. Electronic resource, https://recordsearch.kingcounty.gov/LandmarkWeb, accessed April 2022. 1904e C.D. Hillman’s Lake Washington Garden of Eden Addition to Seattle No. 5. 21 October. Electronic resource, https://recordsearch.kingcounty.gov/LandmarkWeb, accessed April 2022. 1904f C.D. Hillman’s Lake Washington Garden of Eden Addition to Seattle No. 6. 21 October. Electronic resource, https://recordsearch.kingcounty.gov/LandmarkWeb, accessed April 2022. 1907 C.D. Hillman’s Lake Washington Garden of Eden Addition to Seattle No. 7. 31 July. Electronic resource, https://recordsearch.kingcounty.gov/LandmarkWeb, accessed April 2022. Kopperl, Robert E. (editor) 2016 Results of Data Recovery at the Bear Creek Site (45KI839), King County, Washington. SWCA report prepared for the City of Redmond, Washington. Kopperl, Robert E., Charles Hodges, Alecia Spooner, Johonna Shea, and Christian Miss 2016 Archaeology of King County, Washington: A Context Statement for Native American Archaeological Resources. SWCA report submitted to the King County Historic Preservation Program, Seattle, Washington. Kroll Map Company (Kroll) 1912 Kroll’s Atlas of King County, 1912 – Page 18, Township 24N, Range 5E. Electronic resource, https://cdm16118.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16118coll2/id/392/rec/1, accessed April 2022. 1926 Kroll’s Atlas of King County, Plate 018 - T. 24 N., R. 5 E., Lake Washington, Lake Sammamish, Mercer, Newport, New Castle. Electronic resource, http://www.historicmapworks.com/Atlas/US/32890/King+County+1926/, accessed April 2022. Lane, Barbara 1975a Identity and Treaty Status of the Duwamish Tribe of Indians. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Interior and Duwamish Tribe of Indians. On file, Suzzallo Library, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 1975b Identity, Treaty Status and Fisheries of the Snoqualmie Tribe of Indians. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Interior. On file, Suzzallo Library, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. Major, Maurice 2008 45KI814 State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form. On file with DAHP, Olympia, Washington. Metsker Map Company (Metsker) 1936 Township 24 N., Range 5 E., Mercer, Coal Creek, New Castle, Sammamish Lake, Page 21. Electronic resource, http://www.historicmapworks.com/Atlas/US/28026/King+County+1936/, accessed April 2022. National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) 2022 Web Soil Survey. Electronic document, http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx, accessed April 16, 2022. confidential—not for general distribution 24 Nationwide Environmental Title Research (NETR) 1936 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard North, Renton, Washington. Electronic resource, https://historicaerials.com/viewer, accessed April 2022. 1964 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard North, Renton, Washington. Electronic resource, https://historicaerials.com/viewer, accessed April 2022. Pan Abode Cedar Homes 2022 PAN ABODE Cedar Homes…brought to America by a Danish Cabinetmaker. Electronic resource, https://www.panabodehomes.com/page/history, accessed April 2022. Robertson, Donald B. 1995 Encyclopedia of Western Railroad History, Volume III: Oregon and Washington. The Caxton Printers, Ltd., Caldwell, Idaho. The Seattle Daily Times 1904 “New Postoffice Open.” The Seattle Daily Times, 8 November:7. Electronic resource, https://infoweb.newsbank.com, courtesy Seattle Public Library, accessed April 2022. 1905 “Belt Line Opened for Service.” The Seattle Daily Times, 13 September:6. Electronic resource, https://infoweb.newsbank.com, courtesy Seattle Public Library, accessed April 2022. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer 1886 “Supposed Murder.” The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 13 February:3. Electronic resource, https://www.newspapers.com/, accessed April 2022. 1999 “Help Wanted.” The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 4 August:44. Electronic resource, https://infoweb.newsbank.com, courtesy Seattle Public Library, accessed April 2022. Smith, Marian W. 1940 The Puyallup-Nisqually. Contributions to Anthropology, Volume 23. Columbia University Press, New York. Suttles, Wayne, and Barbara Lane 1990 Southern Coast Salish. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 7: Northwest Coast, edited by W. Suttles, pp. 485–502. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. TEC, Inc. (TEC) 2010 Pan Abode Buildings in Aspen: A Historic Context. Prepared by TEC, Inc. for the City of Aspen, Colorado. Electronic resource, http://www.aspenmod.com/wp- content/themes/AspenModern/panadobe.pdf, accessed April 2022. Waterman, T. T. 2001 Puget Sound Geography. Reprint of ca. 1920 manuscript, edited by V. Hilbert, J. Miller, and Z. Zahir. Lushootseed Press, Federal Way, Washington. Wikipedia 2022 “Kennydale, Renton, Washington.” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Electronic resource, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennydale,_Renton,_Washington, accessed April 2022. confidential—not for general distribution 25 Yount, James C., James P. Minard and Glenn R. Dembroff 1993 Geologic map of surficial deposits in the Seattle 30' by 60' quadrangle, Washington. United States Geological Survey.