HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA EPIC-153-80 - TECTON COMPANY - OFFICE BUILDINGTECTON OFFICF. BLDG
RIVERVIEW PLAZA
CHRISTENSEN RD
EPIG153 -80
City of Tukr•
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
TRANSMITTAL
DATE OF TRANSMITTAL G / ate'/ So
TO: arUILDING DEPT.
2.6E DEPT.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPT.
•
"LICE DEPT.
RECREATION DEPT.
PROJECT:
LOCATION:
The above mentioned applicant has submitted the following plans or materials
for the above reference project:
ElEnvironmental Checklist ❑ Preliminary Plat
DEnvironmental Impact State- ❑Final Plat
ment
❑Site /Development Plans ❑Rezone Request
['Shoreline Permit Application0 Variance Request
Conditional Use Permit ❑Other:
Application
The attached materials are sent to you for your review and comment. The
Planning Dept. needs your comments to satisfy review procedures and to
complete the project file.
Please use the space provided below for your comments or attach a separate
sheet.
Requested response date:
/• /
Review Department comments:
By: Date:
City of Tukwi
6200 Southcenter Boulevard PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Tukwila Washington 98188
TRANSMITTAL
DATE OF TRANSMITTAL b / AO6 / /)0
TO:
PROJECT:
•
[r BUILDING DEPT. ❑ POLICE DEPT.
❑ FIRE DEPT. ❑ RECREATION DEPT.
❑ PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. ❑
ir-cTOI.) oFFKG.E co/11/4PI.EY
LOCATION: C.1- IvetsTEi.t5* -1.3 Rv.
The above mentioned applicant has submitted the following plans or materials
for the above reference project:
Environmental Checklist ❑Preliminary Plat
❑Environmental Impact State- ❑Final Plat
ment
❑Site /Development Plans ❑Rezone Request
['Shoreline Permit Application[ Variance Request,.
['Conditional Use Permit ❑Other:
Application
The attached materials are sent to you for your review and comment. The
Planning Dept. needs your comments to satisfy review procedures and to
complete the project file.
Please use the space provided below for your comments or attach a separate
sheet.
Requested response date: ZZ / 4-04 / SO
Review Department comments:
By: c
Date:'` 7 /f�d
City of Tukwi
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
TRANSMITTAL
DATE OF TRANSMITTAL % / AU(/ 8O
TO:
PROJECT:
•
❑ BUILDING DEPT. ❑ POLICE DEPT.
[]'(-IRE DEPT. ❑ RECREATION DEPT.
❑ PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. ❑
KIVEICVIEV RAZA
aoav
LOCATION : GNRtsTelASEW
The above mentioned applicant has submitted the following plans or materials
for the above reference project:
F vironmental Checklist ❑Preliminary Plat
❑Environmental Impact State- ❑Final Plat
ment
❑Site /Development Plans ❑Rezone Request
❑Shoreline Permit Application❑ Variance Request
❑Conditional Use Permit ❑Other:
Application
The attached materials are sent to you for your review and comment. The
Planning Dept. needs your comments to satisfy review procedures and to
complete the project file.
Please use the space provided below for your comments or attach a separate
sheet.
Requested response date: 22 / 4UG / SG?
Review Department comments:
Fire Dept. access lanes and building fire protection to be maintained for
all buildings as agreed upon in previous meetings with representatives of
Tecton, Harley Jensen & Tukwila Planning Dept.
Ry: / Date: r- 7- go
City of Tukv
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
TRANSMITTAL
f
DATE OF TRANSMITTAL . / AUCO/ So
TO: ❑ BUILDING DEPT. ❑ P /OLICE DEPT.
❑ FIRE DEPT. R RECREATION DEPT.
❑ PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. ❑
PROJECT: IZIVEVI>EW Pte'
LOCATION: C sTes &) Rv.
The above mentioned applicant has submitted the following plans or materials
for the above refer nce project:
Environmental Checklist ❑Preliminary Plat
❑Environmental Impact State- OFinal Plat
ment
❑ Site /Development Plans ❑Rezone Request
❑Shoreline Permit Application❑ Variance Request
['Conditional Use Permit ❑Other:
Application
The attached materials are sent to you for your review and comment. The
Planning Dept. needs your comments to satisfy review procedures and to
complete the project file.
Please use the space provided below for your comments or attach a separate
sheet.
Requested response date: 24-/ AEG / So
Review Department comments:
0-361 9 Aar-c--e 9 / O'1// Zs^t ..z1 ' 7Z-Z2-
?4-42. O 9wmo
!/d- q(i/�l�Pln/ <o✓•fi`�P,��' o
/ e
CL Q e
2 - ®d amroz--ele'
By:
Date:
CITY OF +TUKWILA
OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
3L-D /FINAL
DECLARATION OF Siiii i r 1 c* tION-S 1 G11 I F I CAKE
Description of proposal Office Bldg.
Proponent Harely E. Jensen, A.I.A..Agent For Tecton Co.
Location of Proposal
Christensen Road Adjacent to. Green River
Lead Agency City o.f '.Tukwila File No. i EPICr'15.3';
This proposal has been determined to.(have /not have) a significant adverse im -.
pact upon the environment. An EIS (i -s /.is not) required under RCW 43..21C.030(2)
(c). This decision was made after review by the:lead.agency of a .completed
environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency.
Responsible Official Mark Caughey
Position /Title Acting Director`
Date al a- Signature
COMMENTS:
1) Prior to issuance of any permit for on -site work, especially filling or
grading, the applicant shall prepare a document setting forth strategy
to control construction- related noise, dust, vibration and traffic impacts
upon the community, and upon the river bank and wetlands;
2) .Prior to commencement of site preparation, the applicants shall supply a
tree removal diagram describing the trunk diameter, neight, specie, location
and health of all trees on this site to be removed or retained. Priority of
retention should be given to clusters or groves of significantly- sized tree
specimens.
Prior to commencement of site preparation, especially filling or grading,
an archaelogical investigation of this site shall be conducted at cost
to the city according to the method described in Alternative 2, Page 2 of the
23 May 1978 letter from the University of Washington contained in City of
Tukwila file EPIC- 127 -80.
A State Flood Control Zone permit, and Wa. State Dept. of Game permit
shall be obtained by the applicant prior to issuance of building permits.
CITY OF TUKWILA
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
questionnaire must be completed and submitted with the application for
permit. This questionnaire must be completed by all persons applying for a
permit from the City of Tukwila, unless it is determined by the Responsible
Official that the permit is exempt or unless the applicant and Responsible
Official previously agree an Environmental Impact Statement needs to be completed.
A fee of $50.00 must accompany the filling of the Environmental Questionnaire
to cover costs of the threshold determination.
I. BACKGROUND
1. Name of Proponent: Raymond A. Feichtmeir, The Tecton Co. c/o Harley E. Jensen
2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 251 Lafayette Cr. Rm. 230
Lafayette Ca.ifornia 94549 Phone: 415 - 284 -4398
3. Date Checklist Submitted: August 6; 1980
4. Agency Requiring Checklist: Tukwila Planning Department
5. Name of Proposal, if applicable: RIVERVIEW PLAZA (offices)
6. Nature and Brief Description of the Proposal (including but not limited
to its size, general design elements, and other factors that will give
an accurate understanding of its scope and nature):
See Attachment
7. Location of Proposal (describe the physical setting of the proposal, as
well as the extent of the land area affected by any environmental im-
pacts, including any other information needed to give an accurate under-
standing of the environmental setting of the proposal):
See Attachment
8. Estimated Date for Completion of the Proposal: Built in phases, Bldg. A under coast.
now.
9. List of all Permits, Licenses or Government Approvals Required for the
Proposal (federal, state and local):
(a) Rezone, conditional use, shoreline permit, etc.
(b) King County Hydraulics Permit
(c) Building permit
YES .4..._ NO
YES X NO
YES X NO
1
• • �R rmi � YES NO
(d) Puget Sound Air Pollution Control a ._X._
(e) Sewer hook up permit YES X NO
(f) Sign permit YES x NO
(g) Water hook up permit YES X NO
(h) Storm water system permit YES X NO
(i) Curb cut permit YES x NO
(j) Electrical permit (State of Washington) YES X NO
(k) Plumbing permit (King County) YES NO-__
(1) Other: Seattle Water. - Possible need for Ennorachm,ent Permit_
Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or futher activity
related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain:
No
11. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by
your proposal? If yes, explain:
No
12. Attach any other application form that has been Completed regarding the pro-
posal; if none has been completed, but is expected to be filed at some future:
date, describe the nature of such application form:
for parcel 1
II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
.(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required)
•
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic
substructures?
(b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcover-
ing of the soil?
(c) Change in topography or ground surface relief fea-
tures?
(d) The destruction., covering or modification of any
unique geologic or physrica1 features?
-.2
YES MAYBE NO
x
YES MAYBE NO
(e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils,
either on or off the site? x
(f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or
changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which
may modify the channel of a river or stream or the
bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake?
Explanation:
See Attachment
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air
quality? x
(b) The creation of objectionable odors?
(c) Alteration of air movement, moisture
or temperature, or any change in climate, either
locally or regionally?
Explanation:
See Attachment
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Changes in currents, or the course or direction
of water movements, in either marine or fresh
waters?
(b) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? x
(c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? _
(d) Change in the amount of surface water in any water
body? • X
(e) Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration
of surface water quality, including but not limited
to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
(f) Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of
ground waters?
(g) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations?
x
x
x
x
x
•
YES MAYBE NO
(h) Deterioration in ground water quality, either
through direct injection, or through the seepage
of leachate, phosphates, detergents, waterborne
virus or bacteria, or other substances into the
ground waters?
(i) Reduction in the amount of water otherwise avail-
able for public water supplies?
Explanation:
See Attachment
4. Flora. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Change in the diversity of species, or numbers
of any species of flora (including trees, shrubs,
grass, crops, micrQflora and aquatic plants)? x _
(b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or
endangered species of flora? X
(c) Introduction of new species of flora into an area,
or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of
existing species? X _
(d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop?
Explanation:
See Attachment
5. Fauna. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers
of any species of fauna (birds, land animals
including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic
organisms, insects or microfauna)?
(b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or
endangered species of fauna?
(c) Introduction of new species of fauna into an
area, or result in a barrier to the migration
or movement of fauna?
(d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife
habitat?
Explanation:
See Attachment
x
x
x
x
• YES MAYBE NO
6. .Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise
levels?
Explanation:
See Attachment
x
7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new
light or, glare? x
Explanation:
See Attachment
8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in the altera-
tion of the present or planned land use
of an area?
Explanation:
x
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural
resources? x
(b) Depletion of any nonrenewable natural
resource? 0 x
Explanation:
See Attachment
10. Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an
explosion or the release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited
to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radi-
ation) in the event of an accident or
upset conditions?
Explanation:
See Attachment
x
11. Population.
•
Will the proposal alter the location,
• distribution, density, or growth rate'
of the human population of an area?
Explanation:
•
12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing,
or create a demand for additional housing?
Explanation:
13. Transportation /Circulation. Will the proposal result
(a) Generation of additional vehicular movement?
(b) Effects on existing parking facilities, or
demand for new parking?
(c) Impact upon existing transportation systems?
(d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation
or movement of people and /or goods?
(e)
(f)
Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic?
Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles,
bicyclists or pedestrians?
Explanation:
See Attachment
in:
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon,
or result in a need for new or altered
governmental services in any of the
following areas:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks or other recreational facilities?
Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads?
YES MAYBE NU
x
x
x
x
x
x
X
x
x
YES MAYBE NO
' (f) Other governmental services? x
Explanation:
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X
(b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or
require the development of new sources of
energy?
Explanation:
See Attachment
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for
new systems, or alterations to the
following utilities:
(a). Power or natural gas?
(b) Communications systems?
(c) Water?
(d) Sewer or septic tanks?
(e) Storm water drainage?
(f) Solid waste and disposal?
Explanation:
See Attachment
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in the crea-
tion of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health)?
Explanation:
x
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruc-
tion of any scenic vista or view open to
the public, or will the proposal result
in the creation of an aesthetically of-
fensive site open to public view?
Explanation:
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact
upon the quality or quantity of exist-
ing recreational opportunities?
Explanation:
20. Archeological /Histroical. Will the proposal result in
an alteration of a signifi-
cant archeological or his -
torical site, structure,
object or building?
Explanation:
CERTIFICATION BY APPLICANT:
YES MAYBE NO
x
x
x
I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above
information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency
may withdraw any declaration of non - significance that it might issue in
reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation
or willful lack of full disclosure on my part.
6 ang,►a r 1 9A0
Date
•
I. BACKGROUND
6. The proponent, The Tecton Company, proposes to develop. 3
three story office building of approximately . 167,000
feet gross floor space, with the appropriate parking and
landscaping in accordance with the local planning ordinances,
on this 378,000 square foot site shown as Parcels 1, 2, 3, and 4
Southcenter Investors Short Plat. The building noted building "A"
is presently under construction and was approved under. Shoreline Permit
No. 80- 4 -SMP.
7. The proposed site is bordered on the west by Chri:a: nser,
Road, (improved with storm and drain sewers, watr :r, and other
utilities, as part of the Southcenter Short Plat), on the
south by Tukwila Bicentenial Park
and on the east and north_by a trailway and parkland dedication
that was included as a requirement of the Southcenter Short
Plat No. 78-16-SS.
The city requested the dedication of an additional. 20 -25 foot
strip of land on the north side of the parcel, between the park
site and the proposed development, for use as all weather trailway.
The proponent agreed to make this dedication in .
consideration for some minor variances to the overall 40' shoreline
setback along the north side as needed to meet the parking requirements.
This dedication has been recorded
II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1. Earth
(b) The site currently averages and elevation of 21. For
& potential flood reasons and for storm and sanitary
(c) sewer design purposes, the site will be blanket filled
to an approximate elevation of 26 to 28 with compacted
clean fill brought from offsite,
(e) There will be a temporary increase in the potential for
wind or water erosion during construction. The erosion
potential will be mitigated by proper construction techniques.
2. Air
(a) The major source of air pollution at the site is due to
automotive exhaust emissions. The additional increase
generated by this development would be insignificant when
compared to the total generated within the commercial area.
Solid waste will be removed offsite by a disposal company,
so there will be no incineration onsite.
3. Water
(b) The introduction of impervious surfaces over most of the
site will increase the storm water runoff. This runoff will
be collected in a developer installed storm drainage system,
in accordance with .King County Hydraulics requirements, exiting
into the Green River. Storm water runoff from Christensen
Road is collected in an existing storm drain. system and
ultimately discharges into the Green River.
(d) The project will cause additional storm wutcr to enter the
Green River.
(e) Storm water runoff discharged into the Green River will pass
through catch basins and a pipe system, in accordance with
King County Hydraulics requirements, to remove most
suspended particles. However, some impurities and some
dissolved oxygen will enter the Green River.
4. Flora
(a) The site is presently an abandoned pasture, covered by a
wide variety of weeds, grasses, shrubs, and trees. Most
of these will be eliminated due to the fill operation.
(c) They will be replaced by appropriate landscaping as part
of the project. Efforts will be made to retain any large
trees onsite if at all feasible.
(d) The project site currently is a small isolated pasture in a
commercial area. The existing use would be changed into
a more intensive urban use in keeping with the Master Program.
While the site has historically been used for agricultural
purposes (grazing), it must be recognized that this agricultural
use is no longer feasible on the site.
5. Fauna
(a) The site presently supports a wide variety of small wildlife
species indeginous to underveloped areas. Many of these
will be displaced by the proposed development and replaced
by wildlife more commonly found around developed areas.
The existing pasture habitats would be replaced by
new buildings, parking lots, and maintained landscaping.
Standard design and construction precautions will be necessary
to avoid significant impact to the aquatic habitat of the Green
River.
(d)
6. Noise
(a) There will be an increase in noise levels resulting from
construction and the office use of the site as compared to
those quiet activities that presently occur on the site.
7. Light and Glare
(a) Localized and relatively low level lighting will be introduced
into the site for safety and security purposes. Landscaping
will be used to minimize the impact of the on- site lighting
and glare.
8. Land Use
(a) The proposed project will change the use of the site from
a low -level agricultural used to the more intense commercial
office use. Office use at this site is consistant with both the
city zoning and comprehensive plan. All lands in the site
vicinity are also in office use.
9. Natural Resources
(a) Common building materials and energy will be consumed during
the course of construction. Long -term energy requirements
would be relatively insignificant, with consumption amounts
being equal to that required for this type development at an
alternate site.
10. Risk of Upset
(a) The risk of explosion or hazardous emmissions will be limited
to those connected with standard construction procedures
and equipment. No unusually hazardous conditions are
expected or forseen.
13 Transportation /Circulation
(a) The proposal will result in approximately 1645 vehicular trips
(in plus out) per day based upon150,000 square feet gross
leasable office area, according to the Institute of Traffic
Engineers guidelines for office buildings.
• •
(b) • Onsite parking will be provided to meet demand in
accordance with applicable city standards. No off -site
parking will be required by this project.
(c) Use of public transportation and /or carpool programs would
minimize potential traffic impacts.
14. Public Services
(a) New buildings will be of long -life, fire resistant construction
and will be substantially less of a hazard than the structures
presently occupying the site. Development of the site will
also replace much of the existing annual vegetation with
perennial types and thus, remove a possible source of nuisance
fires. The impact of the project on fire protection services
is expected to be slight.
(b) The increase in numbers of people attracted to the developed
site will create a slight increase in demand for police
services. However, the types of activities related to the
development are not conducive to unlawful acts. The increase
in traffic will slightly increase demand upon police traffic
control staff.
(d) Office occupants may increase usage of the adjacent park
area during lunch hours on sunny days.
(e) Buildings, grounds and on -site public utilities will be
maintained by the owner. Private utility companies would
maintain their respective facilities. Off -site water, storm
drainage, and sanitary sewer facilities would be maintained
by the City, as would Christensen Road and Baker Boulevard.
On -site roads and parking lots would be maintained by the Owner.
15. Energy
(b) Construction equipment will consume electricity and fossil
fuel in normal amounts. Long -term energy requirements for
operation of the development will be insignificant.
16. Utilities
(a) Underground electrical service has been installed within
the Christensen Road right -of -way. Power vaults have
already been installed at the southwest corner of the
Baker Road - Christensen Road intersection. Long range
planning by the Puget Power Company has taken into
account full development of the site such that power
sources and supplies will be adequate for the foreseeable
future, according to company spokespersons. Both on,
and off -site installation and maintenance will be the
responsibility of the electrical utility company.
Washington Natural Gas will install and maintain all lines
on and off -site at their own expense if natural gas service is r
required for the development. Spokesperson at the utility
indicate sources and supplies ar,e plentiful for the foreseeable
future .
(b) Pacific Northwest Bell indicates it has the ability to supply
telephone service to the site.
(c) Water service is available in Christensen Road at the front
of the site. Installation of piping into the site as requifed "
shall be installed by the developer as per ci.ty requirements.
Existing watershead resources and distribution systems are
adequate for long -term growth in this area.
(d) A sanitary sewer line has been installed to the site. Additional
piping, as required, shall be installed by the developer as per
city requirements.
(e) A storm drainage system will be constructed on -site to remove
storm water runoff generated by the addition of impervious
surfaces. The system will be designed and installed in
accordance with King County Hydraulics requirements,
connecting with the previously installed on -site storm drainage
and outfall structures installed under existing permits.
Proposed business occupying the development would generate
relatively insignificant amounts of solid waste. Southgate
Disposal Company, a private company, indicates its present
facilities are adequate to handle the slight increase in demand.
(f)
18. Aesthetics
(a) The site is an aesthetically pleasing rural scene containing
green pastures, weathered farm buildings, and mature trees.
However, it is viewed by only the infrequent passers-by
on Christensen Road. The tall cottonwood trees can be
viewed from further distances and provide vegetative relief
to the urban character of the area. Close visual survey of
the site is difficult as fences, signs, and locked gates
discourage the casual observer. Foot travel along the dike
adjacent to this site is difficult because of heavy vegetation.
The farm buildings and pasture will be removed. In its place,
attractive office buildingswith appropriate landscaping
treatment will occur.
-19. Recreation
(a) Presently the site has no recreational value, as signs
forbid unauthorized tresspass. A trailway along the east
side of the park connects the Bicententennial park with the
new park site to the north of this site. The developer . has
dedicated an additional 20 -25' strip
of land on the north side, as per the city request, for
additional trailway, thus opening up the park and trailway
system along the Green River for greater use by the community.
20. Archeological /Historical
The Tukwila Historical Society has determined that the site
is of some historical significance, as migrating indians used the
site to camp along the Green River. The State Office of Historical
Preservation is currently researching their records for
significant findings on the site.
The State Office of Public Archeology has responded with the
attached letter s.
• •
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98195
May 23, 1978
Institute for Esvirorrnaota! Studies
Office of Public Archaeology
Engineering Annex FM -12
Mr. Ronald J. Smulski
Wilsey and Ham, Inc.
631 Strander Boulevard
Seattle, Washington 98188
RE: Preliminary Archaeological Assessment of Tukwila
Development Site.
Dear Mr. Smulski:
In response to your letter request dated May 12, 1978, 1 have
prepared the following preliminary assessment of the potential for
archaeological resources of the Tukwila development site in the SW 1/4
of the SW 1/4 of Section 24 and the NW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 25,
Township 23N, Range 4E, King County, Washington. What 1 have done is
present for you a set of alternative courses of action that might be taken
in regard to archaeological resources at the site and noted which alternative
is more appropriate in the eyes of this office and the State Historic
Preservation Office.
It is clear from your vicinity and site maps that the property in
question lies on the in -curve of an ox -bow of the Green River. The geological.
substrata is rivsrine silts and sands and, 1 presume, marine sediments.
underlying that. Located as it is on an ox -bow, the site covers an area
that contains burled channels of the Green River that are progressively
older as one moves west from the modern channel. In addition, we know from
other sites in the area that, until fairly recently, this area of the Green
River floodplain was an estuary with extensive marine resources in the
intertidal zone.
Although no archaeological sites are known to exist in the Tukwila
development site, one site has been reported to have existed nearby in an
environmental setting which is Identical (see enclosed map). Site 45 -KI -6
was a shell midden, probably a seasonal shellfish collecting site, located in
the in -curve of an ox-bow in the NW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 24. It
consists of a 60 cm thick layer of shell and artifacts buried three meters
below the land surface. Nearby, to the north, were wooden posts which had
formed a V- shaped fish trap in the Green River main channel. This site was
totally destroyed by re- channelization of the Green River preparatory to 405
construction.
•
• ~
•
•
•
Mr. Ronald J. Smulski
May 23, 1978
Page Two
The probability is great that similar sites exist beneath the surface
at the proposed development site. Shell midden sites are important for
several reasons, foremost among them being the significance to Native
American history and their potential for providing valuable data on the
response of marine invertebrates to environmental changes and to long -term
exploitation by humans. If a site or sites similar to 45 -KI -6 exist on
the property In question, they are certain to be of significance.
Two alternatives present themselves as regards the protection of the
archaeological resource potential of the Tukwila development site:
(1) In our phone conversation of May 19, you stated that from five to
seven feet of fill would be placed on this site. Such a cap would effectively
protect any archaeological materials that might exist. If your client chose
to excavate beneath the fill level for sewage, footings, etc., it would be
important for an archaeologist to monitor such activities. In this way, we
would know if, in fact, any sites did exist in the area and have knowledge
of the nature of the resources protected beneath the cap of fill.
(2) The development site, an area of what appears to be between seven
and ten acres, could be systematically tested for archaeological resources
by coring either manually or mechanically. In this way, we would be certain
of the presence or absence of archaeological resources on the site.
1 have discussed these alternatives with Ms. Sheila Stump of the State
Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. She and I both feel that,
while capping the site would protect any sites that may exist, it effectively
prohibits the discovery of such sites, thereby limiting our potential know-
ledge of Western Washington prehistory. Monitoring of subsurface disturbances
would assure whether or not sites existed in the areas directly affected by
the disturbances, but provides far less reliable information than would
systematic coring.
As far as the cost of the two alternatives, if there is subsurface
disturbance of the area, alternative 1 would require an undetermined number
of man -days, probably from two to six days. A systematic coring operation
is likely to require three to four man -days. If you find that either
alternative suits your needs, this office can readily supply the necessary
services.
It has been good working with you on this matter. Dealing with Wilsey
and Ham is always a pleasure, as you provide adequate data from which we can
make our assessments. If you have any questions about these recommendations,
please call me.
cc: Ms. Jeanne M. Welch, uty
SHPO, Office , of Archaeology,
Historic Preservation
Sin rely,
il .,.. i. ' . 'r/
James C. Chatters
Research Associate
E@Igu Mgr]
MAY 2 4 1913
wILser & HAM, INC
•
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98195
April 21, 1980
Institute for Environmental Studies
Office of Public Archaeology
Engineering Annex FM -12
(206) 543-8359
Harley Jensen
Tecton Company
251 Lafayette Circle
Lafayette, California 94549
RE: Archaeological Test Coring at the proposed Tukwila Development Site
Dear Mr. Jensen:
The following report, in letter format, concerns this office's recent archaeo-
logical test coring at the proposed Tukwila Development site. The work was under-
taken by Stephen Elmore on April 17 -18, 1980.
The proposed Tukwila Development site is located in an ox -bow of the Green River,
bounded by the Green River dike at the north and east, by Christensen Road to the
west and by an east -west line running from the point approximately 500 feet south
of the Christensen Road /Baker Boulevard intersection to the south. The property
is generally level, with old buildings of a former feed lot located in the northern
quarter of the property and pasture grass covering the remainder.
The test coring was carried out by laying out a 25 meter grid over the property
and taking core samples at each intersection of the grid to a depth of 150 centi-
meters. Soil from the cores was then observed for signs of cultural activity or
occupation (charcoal staining, lithic debitage, bone or shell, etc.) within the
matrices.
An extremely compacted fine- grained sand layer was encountered at various core
locations from a depth of 10. centimeters to 55 centimeters, and in these locations
it was impossible to core further. Of the forty core locations laid out on the
grid, 23 were impenetrable because of this compacted sand layer. The remaining
17 locations (42.5 %) were successfully cored and 'yielded no evidence of cultural
occupation or activity. Though the planned coring activity was reduced a large
amount by the compacted sand layer, the relatively even distribution of the suc-
cessful cores would tend to help reduce the likelihood of cultural occupation or
activity. within the proposed development site, and each of the successful cores
indicated a sterile blue clay (generally associated with marshy areas) by the 150
centimeter level. Based on the lack of cultural influence being discovered within
the matrices of the successful cores, we would recommend that the project be al-
lowed to proceed.
Harley Jensen
April 21, 1980
Page Two
Our recommendation should not be interpreted as permission to proceed with the
project in question. This report contains professional opinions on cultural re-
sources which might be affected by the proposed development. This report should
be submitted to the appropriate review agencies for their comments prior to the
commencement of any ground - disturbing activities.
Should, in the course of subsequent construction activities on the site, cultural
remains be discovered, work should be stopped immediately in that area and the
Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation in Olympia should be notified with-
out i delay. A qualified archaeologist should then assess the significance of the
find prior to resumption of work in that area.
We appreciate your concern for and interest in the cultural resources of the re-
gion and are happy to assist in the early stages of your project. Should you have
any questions regarding this report or our recommendation, please feel free to con-
tact this office at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Stephen H. .Elmore-
Research Assistant
Sincerely,
Hal Kennedy
Assistant Director
cc: Jeanne Welch
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
Mark Caughey
City of Tukwila Planning Department
Peter Argo
Protect Engineer
Tv�,w /c�9 : vEzzlP,l ,tN`r
T•Fs-r a •e,wey
vidnitr MaP
4. Mrs 0U maara. 0. ea .•3 w•ul a
t.. mess r 3111 r r •es
ea. ewe t..�•.r
ve)r�.•
014 r /vela
S. 1. r • • WOOD eW• rv4. FaM 1 r mm
MALa rva•ML& 411rN1m tm.a..
3. r ...el L *3-3. air t.m t•..aL.
4. • L se....., rr �..eam rr r.+lam
- m. —3--.
•. t•■•••• 1. 3. 3 r • am .m. ^a./ s - Yv.11s
ti
•tom atr•i.r aa33r leer.. .t W Starr
3. nauaes, - . r w.r n eftlie . la woo m11W. a Y1 aa:
43.3 3 . • .111 • am s
a.
vW r11l.aW. va.. 4.ar
▪ .31 be .v.m.. e
t 1mN 1.•.7•...•4
L .01 W NNm a. +m a•..a
L aL ...se =Ot•r me.. r 1..t1W m.ray.
s 3. am. mid r am lmml•
S. s .mlam um L �mr•• ti m... :..1 r Yr.L1
Mee , a r W
* L m.w .m
ti. 3. 7..W 4amt•m• •v. v a. IMMO
SL um, 1rma•ma.a. tar..• .•rm •... as
lam 1..•.. •
•
_ RIVERVIEW PLAZA
TUKWILA WASHINGTON
THE TECTON COMPANY
- 4 NC, , 14100
arrocroma
MALEY 1. maser
I ° �raas
•
2.
,.Schematic Elevation
_RIVERVIEVV PLAZA
_TUKWILA WASHINGTON
THE 'TECTON COMPANY
Site Section Bldg.0
RAMEY L ARMEN
as LAIIIITTI C1101.11MMO
wasima. cr.
INIIIP•••••••
O
IM
IIIIIM
MM21•
1 1
=M 11
OM
1
PIM
1111111111•11
=NM
MIIIMIll
MIMI IMMEllii I
II
MI
1111
I
I
Mt
2.
,.Schematic Elevation
_RIVERVIEVV PLAZA
_TUKWILA WASHINGTON
THE 'TECTON COMPANY
Site Section Bldg.0
RAMEY L ARMEN
as LAIIIITTI C1101.11MMO
wasima. cr.
INIIIP•••••••