The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 11/13/1990RECEIVED NOV -7 1990 MY of VWD SPECIAL JOINT COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF LADE OSWEGO AND CITY OF TIGARD Study Session Tuesday, November 13, 1990 7:00 p.m. Lake Oswego City Hall 380 "A" Avenue 1. ROLL CALL II. STUDY SESSION A. Presentation by Oregon Department of Transportation of alternative plans for Interstate 5 at Highway-217/Kruse Way intersection. Copies of the Environmental Assessment have previously been distributed. Models of the intersection alternatives will be available for viewing at the work session. B. Other items of mutual interest to the City of Lake Oswego and the City of Tigard. III. ADJOURNMENT COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 3 JOINT CITY OF TIGARD/LAKE OSWEGO COUNCIL MEETING MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 13, 1990 7:00 p.m. 1. ROLL CALL: City of Tigard: Present: Mayor Jerry Edwards; Councilors Carolyn Eadon, Valerie Johnson, and John Schwartz. Staff Present: Patrick Reilly, City Administrator; Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder; and Randy Wooley, City Engineer. City of Lake Oswego: Present: Mayor Alice Schlenker; Councilors Richard Durham, Lee Fawcett, Daniel Anderson, Jack Churchill, and William Holstein. Staff Present: Pete Harvey, City Administrator; Paul Haines, Public Works Director; and Kristi Hitchcock, City Recorder. 2. STUDY SESSION • Presentation by Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) of alternative plans for Interstate 5 at Highway 217/Kruse Way Intersection. Staff members present from ODOT included Jim McClure, Region Project Development Engineer, and Ted Keasey, Project Manager. Also present was Mr. Hans Conrad, of HNTB (Bellevue, Washington); HNTB assisted in preparing the preliminary design for the project. Mr. McClure distributed the following material: Design Hearing Map which illustrated Alternate "A1° and Alternate "B" Public Hearing Notice: There is a public hearing scheduled for November 29, 1990. Public Information Packet: Summarizing the project proposals by giving background information and describing the development of alternatives. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 13, 1990 - PAGE 1 Environmental Assessment: A detailed description of project impacts of proposed alternatives. • The presentation from ODOT representatives included the following highlights: - Phasing of the project could be done for both Alternative A or B. This is expected to be necessary because the estimated costs for construction exceed the funds that are expected to be available in any one year. "Freeway-to-freeway" connections would constitute Phase One in both alternatives. With approval of the project by the Federal Highway Administration, final design and acquisition of right-of-way will begin by the fall of 1991. Construction of the new interchange is targeted for 1993. - The design was developed for anticipated needs through the year 2015. - Explanation of the Hearing Process as outlined in the material distributed for the Councils, review. Information from public hearings will be incorporated into a hearing study report to be prepared by ODOT. This document will recommend one of the two alternatives or the "no build" alternative. In December, this recommendation will be forwarded to the city councils of Lake Oswego and Tigard as well as to Clackamas and Washington County Board of Commissioners for concurrence. Should an alternative be approved for construction, a revised environmental assessment will be published next fall. Comparisons of the two alternatives were made. (See Table attached.) It was noted that costs would be similar for each. Alternative "B" would mean the displacement of five businesses. Neither alternative would displace residents; however, mitigation of noise impacts would be necessary. Visual impacts would be greater with Alternative "Bn Hans Conrad presented several slides of maps depicting different aspects of the project area. His comments included efforts to analyze the problems, traffic volumes, needs/deficiencies, and anticipated future demands. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 13, 1990 - PAGE 2 Goals and objectives as contained in the public information packet were reviewed. Ted Keasey reviewed the environmental assessment document which addressed design for sidewalks/bikeways, land use planning, sensitive land review, and wetland impact. Construction noise would be mitigated through adhering to certain hours of operation; that is, construction would be limited to day time hours. • The Councils discussed the project in general. Among the topics of concern was the need for preservation of a light rail corridor. There was discussion on the "Park and Ride" facilities now available and those which were planned for the future. Both Councils noted their desire to improve capacity to alleviate the problems of today while also preparing for future growth. • The Council members asked questions about both alternatives for clarification. 3. OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS: • Water Issues Mayor Edwards asked about the agreement between the Tigard Water District and Lake Oswego for water supply. City Administrator Harvey responded that the agreement expires in 1992; however, it self-renews unless expressly canceled by either party. There was discussion on the metropolitan-wide concerns over the conservation and coordinated regional management approach for this resource. 12. ADJOURNMENT: 8:47 p.m. re4Zt~ U)/,VaZA, Catherine Wheatley, City Re rder , ST: GyLr/ Gerald R. Date: ards, Mayor la/0tt'v CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 13, 1990 - PAGE 3 E D o m o D m 3 W v 0 c >.c a 0 o o a =JV 0 ; o N 3 c 0 0 o a mo 'E D Ea o 0 v c 03 3 0 a q N 0 ai v_xo r N 0 0 1 c ai 7 p 0 0 O C O ; p O U 1a N A N O n q Q O p' O D _ . a ,0 5 a S o0o a `o Z0 0 °a E o C C a 0a ca O E E O N NI O N N M O V O V W c 00 c p EO a N m A o` ^ n a V CIO 0 D O a 00 Y tO.f qC0 0 3 .3 0 op V> N N= NO a L m~~ O DNp > . p a L ;lipC O O D CO V a J 70 - N>• n toN O O C N a 1p O _ U W ~ E `o = >0 Q. E i no 0 o c o d o t a 0 N A M 3 u i NO o m 0 O > O- 0 O Op r C n `O 0 a~Cq mOO 7 N wu 0?? UGN W a 0 3 N < n0 USE ac 4.,. E ocoa a ° ; O c ~m03 11 i c 2 a> d a 0 u~ 0- 0 a »o 3 0 2 1a N ' n ~ i. 1e co 0= 3 ~ a2 o> E p Y c m 3 o m E 0 I{{-Jp 0 o C 0 0 b 7 , o O O t 0 3 v o O C O L 0 0 = 0 u m V > J Q q C < ° = O V w oUoa ; V ° O 3: n V O o°=0 q n C n J O a CL L aEH C E ~ ~ D O Q E0 a° o c _o o 2;;0n N 2a EY c moE o 0 + u •c=c o . E DES O N uc~~ O a e-° vo O 0 1O C ) ;Dp - O ~v O o v x'000 c O O VFC 75 0 nCO c O ~-w p ~0O~ a OL>a 2 <O - 7 p wm V O O pn 00 w OMV _w 49 0 7 1a 0NVa o . O N30 Nm> NV UU m N ;aE 1 ' "'CE H noo nc o`a ° C Cc r-3: a o ouCX aCE c 00== v ;Z~ a ° m a = O. T E vb° uon v v~ cr a 0 c a 0 a > 3 a` 3 c a 0 0 n c 0 0 100 oD a o = E a° _ °o N a N E_ao'A- c 0 oo o p e w 0 .3.0 oEa 3 _E.0 ; cp/ N .0 C • ,ca NN U a aCm -02 c 3:03 B.2 -c 'a c 70 as 0 o eE 3 0 o 0 0oD w 0°2 c; 1a 0 0 N Vi; n._ ? u 0 ~ o 3: cAnC> o v_ N o o D 7 E 0 ' N _ 03 Oe0 00= 0W C- 00 O0 o Oa r lO haO - ; j 0> -.0 n n a yN 03n °'e= 'r 00 t 'oOa ~D 0m~ ° 3=1-cu - o D Oq oo9 " ;...q>. ~O 0> aLNO Ow r OY QY ' C=mOV~ O u < o n W -E m o o 3 na, E3N3 oy'"= DOo o `^v coc m m oL o - m 0 o E° a c 3 c O cc v i m 0 0- > 00 < Z.Y 0 0 0 N„ .0 y C A E ~ 0 > w o 3 7 m l .N c =oN CIO 0O C p 3 Z > C 0> c a 0= Y o ; O m N C O ul m V N N> O d V E 0 0 A V L O D ° U a O V OO OC< E Z3 i m m' i {-n O n F a t x NCOOO > a0. E u J n o_Ca , e0 p L . o00o 3 aEyD . ~cE O a102 o ; o'Qni; ° U a o n O C M - x N O W 3r V C c 2 30.0... ° q O - o 010 W ° J no °ImD L_ N L_ ~ 7 a N O y 7 N a _ CL E O V CL o` A OP c ~31= O c 3 ro xN -pm A O r r;1;00 -CWC36 p n E E~-oN C O N 00a .0 L o m o-0... E'-u V vi.v°c c a 30c a E nE o a °loufo o. tqE po o 0(n CI L 3 3 v ° ~a v m c o a► -c E ° -a-°>. c - .oviO(n o g° vo-a ~c^ ~.D - E 3 N ° i ma`s -4~> a onN>ac-' yE•-Q c v w c O In V E 3: w e V e a o 0 a oQ3oc n a N V q 0.' n C - N m a cm>.n - 7 U 1 v n „3p V 0 - 0° 0 r V Q C u O a U 0Ev-._ o C O= m a . N O q N p 0 - - p o L U O L= 2 u 10 ; 0 o u g v O N U m--- n V 1a 0.0 U u o n O) . o ; O to o s a 3 A ¢ N I- a . , V E y/ E 0 N C L N O of m L o c 0 m O o 3 u i v c~ v ° m Ox o O O m m ° A - O o O V a L N O L vi a ' a - O m C ° CL N O N q o c U co 1a o a 2 . O 1aN>oEu h c J O ~c _ O CL N V -0 O > a oo> 2 7 > O ; N C m u - vi OOrp . 2010 . ma m m OIL C.N >-0 O 3 L 02 U 0 m O O 10 CL= 0 E T=io E 0w-ga mo O O EC~LoL> 5 >o Lm -E t~ 0 m U~ 5 L CL W a CL E _ q Z- r O O _p N O a O O /,y _ . U a > ooca o-~ c °p n~E ~E o E E N_ N1a 3 nn H L 02 o D O C V w m _ p D Z m m y U C p y C m H O C N' 0 col o o m 2 C m C r b o m E V o~'m v' a 0qc 1a N V c- N N 'pOoOV- O C 0 ° o 3 m L A s m E Cc 1O o ON ° o O C y m o q L n V N 3 r C m O O .27 CI J p g 1 C N > V 3 o ° N V o C_1 A C 0 > O r C N > _p O N m N ' C O ° U O C EO V- 0 > O . , A r ~a m N m 7 0 3 a V Q 47 0 v' p o V N n yl 0 0 0. E c=y uE n 3 o N =N,o 00 Ero D O- E v- v0 _ Ev m 00 n 06 c a E> 3 C 0 N 1Z0 0 n C 0 E O 0.:: L m 5 ° y `o 0 p. rv p C L C O m T V s ° C a m 0 E co E u 0° p m 7 n- N N O. _a O C _ C N ) O T N o E n c E C m y C ja > 0 NE=~ u x C N _ O_Ogp n > V NV CCE'V O N M O Cm m2 ~C CN O E mC Ol E ' n N E o° o n c ~ n E E c 'O v" '0 t a -a n c E i o ' E .e O d E E 0 u O d ul ow v' 00 O ! O F• 1a C E C O O A c u_ O! A 1- V 0 7 0 0 m ~a F- N a v N V r F CL F- 1o 2 I•- - f o 1- a F u - N N s vl 10 A as m 6 Cl) W F- Q Z W J Q U. 0- Z CD 2:a J Q > W Q in l G C 9VE+ TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY Legal TT 7759 NOV 1 4 i9PO P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684.0360 Notice BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 CITY OF TICARI) Legal Notice Advertising • CCiity xof2339 Tigard • 13 Tearsheet Notice r + c~ Bo 4- Tigard, Or 97223 • ❑ Duplicate Affldavi sin r . , Y% • • AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, ) COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss' 1, Judith Koehler being first duly sworn, depose and say t t lar .arn t AeSertising Director, or his principal clerk, of the a newspaper of general circulatWade iced in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at in the Mr 89MO TYgadaa'I 'eetting a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for One successive and consecutive in the following issues: November 8, 1990 Subscribed and sworn before me this 8th day of November 1990 Notary Public for Oregon My Commissi Aires: AFFIDAVIT s3 r4 rr Y r i Z aF A ~Y s z ~,''V~I~S~~~CI~ 11C~CL1Y11`'lf" Meet~n~ Da~.e: I ~ I ~3~qo .S~udy Session _r _ __w-.-_ _ _ _ _ ; .-a y}~~ . . II III III I I I I I I I I I I I,I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ _ I`r I I LI I I I I I I J I.LL.I1.I I_I1.I L.I.1 L.I~n~~l7T~ItIIII!~IIII~~TI_nl-I~I~I!Ia.ILIIIIL~III~~IIIIIIIII~~IIIII111IlIIIIIIIIIIIIII~IIIIIIIIlIl~1 tI1IIIlI111IIIlIJIlI111llillnl ...,..~.o'.~:a+:--.>.-".^acx:.~,.: 2 3 4 _ 5 6 7 8 9 _ .o _.II 12 _ ' NJTE: IF THIS NICRJFILMED - DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR THAN ~ _ • I THIS NOTICE,-IT IS DIIE-TO ' ~ ~ - THE QUALITY OF TFE ORIGINAL I DRAWING. , t _ _ _ i ~ ° OE 6Z 8Z [Z 9Z SZ: CZ EZ ZZ IZ OZ 61 BI _ _LI - 91__ SI . b.l __E'. ZL .II_...01_._ 6.. 6. L . 9 5 b E Z I~..a. ; ~!IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINIIIIIIIINIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I _ IIIWIIIIIIIUIILtIII~IIIII111pgIIIIItIIIIAIIIIIIINIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIWIII~IIIIIIIIIIIIIII111~W1WIWUlRnlnu6ntlunlunl~wlutl~i'w6wluuliwlwll~mllwliwbn+: : f,r ARY . ...._~~...I ALTERNATE "A" 3P N~ t~ _ FREEWAY CONSTpOCT10N 0 LOCAL ROAD CONSTRUCTION OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RA1P5 At0 FRaNTACE RoAOS DESIGN HEARING MAP _ C C . TUNNEL I-5 C~ H Y 17 W 2 / KR o sTRI1CT111E USE W A Y I T H N C GE EXISTINCROApNAY PACIFIC HIGHWAY HIGHWAY o.cc EXISTINGROADRAY REYOYAL CLACKAMAS /WASHINGTON COUNTIES m N0.OF LANES 1990 O TRAFFIC slalAL 1i/i.;/^0 STUDY SESSION ' , 1 OF 2 _ . pIIrlYIIIIIIIIIIIIII1,1111111111111 fill IIIIITII111 Illlif 1IIIIlillllllllllll111111Tllllllllllllllll I'-.I I I 111111.ILI1.111)IIILL1111'~1-TI~IIf!IILTIII!LILIIII~IIIII~ILjILI~1II I,IIII~I III~I~I IIIIi~ ~,.~=-+~._:ayc-~=~'~', I I 2 3 4 _ 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 ' NOTE: IF THIS MICROFlINED DRAWING IS LESSCLEAR THAN ! ~ ~ THIS NOTICE,' 1T'IS DUE TO I THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL I DRAWING. - I OL 6Z 8Z LZ 8Z SZ bZ EZ ZZ ~Z OZ 61 BI LI 91- Sf bl EI ZI II OI 6 8 L 9 S b E Z I''run I ''f .1 . ~ttdnulnuluulunlnullNllHnhmlulduu6utlnplNUbw6~i~IHnIupIIIIIIIIIIII111III~IIIIIIIUIII!llllll~itllllplllllllli01111~IIIIIIBII~IUhnllimhlullu~auluuhmGuUlwbm6m6u1hndmduuLuduulul~ItliJUUhH161N61N6111111111NNIIHI ' P ALTERNATE "B" 3P h~ y~~~ s,~ '~0 °a c° 0 ny ~~c F N 2 O H a a x S.N. T2ND AVENUE /Im JU 0 7~ J• ~~,p, 'Py 90 9~ N W Y LEGEND _ FREEWAY CONSTI4ICTION OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ~ocu. RDAD cossrRUCnaI DESIGN HEARING MAP C"J RAIPS AND FRDNTADE RDADS C-=J STRIICTIAE I J C~ H Y 17 W 2 / KR .USE WAY T H IN C G E E%ISTINCRDADMAY PACIFIC HIGHWAY HIGHWAY EXISTINDRDAOtAY REMOVAL CLACKAMAS / WASHINGTON COUNTIES m ND' ~ LAIES 1990 5o TRAFFIC slaw, ii/1'a/90 STUDY SE55IDN OF _ c.... i 141111111111111,IIIIIIIIIIIIITffll IIIIIT~11111 Iilll! Illllllllllllllllllllllllillllllllllllllll _ I'-.'II 1 1 1 1 1 1 (I I I.I i.l I_I1 1_J I I I J. 111 I l i ~f..L~l l f.! ~ L LI I i I!.~I L L I I ~ )n I L I I I! I I J ~ I L I I I 1 I i I I I I I i ~ I I ~ I ~ I ~ I t i ~.~--_.._~..._"..,~~~..IC' .>I I 2 3 4 _ 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12' NOTE: IF TH15 MIC~FILMED ~ _ _ DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR THAN ~ ~ - { THIS NOTICE,IT 1S DUETO TFE QUALITY OF 7HE ORIGINAL DRAWING. 3._- _ _ 4, ' ' oe sz ez ~z si -sz ei Ez zz Iz az sl iii ...~I si_ sl bl ei zl ii ~ of s e ~ s - s b e z I"'~" I ~gllnulnulnuhulluulunllmhullUDhlDluulpulunllNllNUlun~IluluilltulllDIIII~1IlIIIIIIIILIIIt IIItuIlNl~lllllllllDl IIN BiI11111111111111111D III II IlmllNlll 'L'~, A x- ~ ~ ~ _ 1 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIJ~III~ullll NII~IIIIIIID~11lWlpD~NIII~IINDDDllDIuIIfIW~IDH , f ~ , ` R VARY ~ E 1 _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ - .d _ ~~CQ~~vLLf - OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HIGHWAY DIVISION INTERSTATE 5 AT HIGHWAY 217/KRUSE WAY INTERCHANGE PUBLIC INFORMATION PACKET NOVEMBER 1990 Prepared by Howard Needles Tammen & Bergendoff • PUBLIC INFORMATION PACKET 1-5 at Highway 217/Kruse Way Interchange 1 INTRODUCTION The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), Highway Division, has completed preliminary engineering for a project to improve traffic flow and capacity at the interchange between the Pacific Highway (Interstate 5) and the Beaverton-Tigard Highway (Highway 217). The preliminary engineering work studied the uses and problems of the existing interchange, determined the current and future needs the interchange should meet, and developed alternatives which meet these needs. As a part of an Environmental Assessment which has been prepared for the alternatives, ODOT is now undertaking the public hearing process which will lead to selection of a preferred alternative. THE PROJECT AREA AND THE EXISTING ROAD SYSTEM The project area extends generally along Interstate 5 from Carman Road on the south to Haines Road on the north, and along Highway 217 from S.W. 72nd Avenue on the west to the Kruse Oaks vicinity on the east. The project area is shown in Figure 1. PROJECT AREA/VICINITY MAP Figure 1 PUBLIC INFORMATION PACKET 1-5 at Highway 217/Kruse Way Interchange Interstate 5, Highway 217, S.W. 72nd Avenue and Kruse Way are the major roads in this project. Interstate 5 is the primary north-south route through the Portland area. The freeway carries large volumes of local and commuter traffic, as well as long distance recreational and commercial traffic. Highway 217 is a major freeway connecting Interstate 5 (I-5) with the Sunset Highway, the Beaverton area, and destinations farther west and north. The interchange between I-5 and Highway 217 provides connections for all directions of traffic. The interchange is primarily controlled by traffic signals; only one traffic movement from southbound Highway 217 to southbound I-5 does not pass through a traffic signal. Southwest 72nd Avenue is a primary north-south street in the City of Tigard. The S.W. 72nd Avenue bridge across Highway 217 provides the only access from the portion of Tigard south of Highway 217 to the "Tigard Triangle" area between I-5 and Highway 99W. The S.W. 72nd Avenue/Highway 217 interchange is included in this project because of its proximity to the I-5/Highway 217 interchange. Potential improvements at I-5 must be analyzed for their effect at the S.W. 72nd Avenue Interchange. Kruse Way is a major arterial connecting I-5 with the area to the east. This four-lane boulevard serves the commercial properties on the east side of the freeway, and is a significant route between I-5 and Lake Oswego. THE NEED FOR THE PROJECT The I-5/Highway 217 interchange was built approximately 20 years ago. Until recently, the interchange has been adequate for the traffic demands it served. However, with increases in traffic volumes resulting from continued development of Lake Oswego, Tigard, and areas further to the west and north, traffic delays and congestion now occur regularly during peak periods. Most of the traffic at the interchange travels between Highway 217 and I-5 south of Highway 217. Delays and congestion occur most frequently at the northbound exit from I-5 to Highway 217, on the Highway 217/Kruse Way bridge crossing 1-5, and on the ramp connecting southbound Highway 217 to southbound 1-5. Delays, congestion, and the accompanying safety problems will worsen as traffic volumes continue to grow. Designs for improvements to the interchange need to consider not only the existing traffic volumes, but also future demands. The intent of this project is to determine the best alternatives for alleviating traffic problems, not just in the near term but also well into the future. The year 2015 is the "design year" for this project. The effectiveness of possible alternatives is measured by the ability to serve the design year traffic volumes. PUBLIC INFORMATION PACKET 1-5 at Highway 217/Kruse Way Interchange 3 Forecasts of peak period traffic volumes for the year 2015 are illustrated in Figure 2, along with existing peak period volumes. The diagrams show peak period, two-way traffic volumes in vehicles per hour. Also shown are the proportional increases of the year 2015 traffic over the existing traffic. Comparing the two diagrams in Figure 2 shows that the primary traffic demand at the interchange will continue to be between Highway 217 and I-5 south of Highway 217. The diagrams also show that other directional demands will increase as well. Some of the demands expected to grow the most are: to and from Kruse Way at S.W. 72nd Avenue, and between Highway 217 and 1-5 north of the interchange. HWY 217 6090 HWY 217 9620 1.58 880 2300 2.61 8180 8600 1.48 1450 1.71 KRUSE WAY 2910 KRUSE WAY 6100 2.10 1850 1.99 COMPARISON OF PEAK TRAFFIC VOLUMES EXISTING VS. YEAR 2015 PM PEAK HOUR 2-WAY VOLUMES Figure 2 DESIGN YEAR (2015) 11700 1.43 PUBLIC INFORMATION PACKET 4 1-5 at Highway 217/Kruse Way Interchange Analysis. of these traffic volumes and the existing interchange configuration shows that the primary problems either are or will be caused by: • lack of capacity on the northbound loop ramp from I-5 to Highway 217, • lack of lane capacity on Highway 217 between Kruse Way and S.W. 72nd Avenue, • lack of capacity on the southbound ramp from Highway 217 to I-5, • weaving conflicts on Highway 217 between I-5 and S.W. 72nd Avenue, • lack of capacity on I-5 between Carman Road and Haines Road, • weaving conflicts on I-5 between Carman Road and Haines Road, • lack of capacity for merging and diverging traffic at ramps on I-5 between Carman Road and Haines Road. To solve these problems, alternatives for improving the interchange should attempt to: • provide direct connections between I-5 and Highway 217 for the heaviest demands; • reduce the total volume of traffic on I-5 between Carman Road and Haines Road, eliminate weaves on Highway 217 between I-5 and S.W. 72nd Avenue, • reconfigure specific ramp and intersection elements to provide needed capacity, • separate freeway traffic from local traffic on Highway 217 between I-5 and S. W. 72nd. THE PROJECT GOAL AND OBJECTIVES The goal of this project is to develop alternatives which will improve the safety and operation of the I-5/Highway 217 interchange. To assist in developing and evaluating alternatives, a set of objectives was created early in the project. The objectives are: PUBLIC INFORMATION PACKET 1-5 at Highway 217/Kruse Way Interchange 5 1. To ensure that the interchange improvements also improve the safety and operation of Interstate 5 where feasible, and that adverse impacts on Interstate 5 are minimal or nonexistent; 2. To provide an interchange configuration and to promote traffic flow patterns that are compatible with city and county land use and transportation plans; 3. To avoid improvements to the freeway which directly or indirectly encourage freeway traffic to use surface streets; 4. To design the freeways, ramp terminals, and surface streets, using desirable design standards, to operate at level of service "C" through the 2015 design year; but also to ensure that individual sections of freeway are not improved to such extent that the improved sections have much greater capacity than adjacent, unimproved sections; 5. To minimize impacts of the improvements on adjacent private property; 6. To maintain adequate access to the west Lake Oswego area from the I-5/Highway 217 interchange; W 7. To maintain adequate access to the City of Tigard from Interstate 5 and Highway 217; 8. To construct improvements while traffic operations are maintained; 9. To maintain pedestrian and bicycle traffic on all designated pedestrian and bicycle routes; 10. To implement improvements in phases, to spread costs over many years. THE DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES Three alternatives are currently under consideration. The No Build Alternative would not change the existing freeway configurations in the project area. The development of alternatives to the No Build Alternative started with a study of many preliminary configurations. Through a series of modifications and refinements, two build alternatives have emerged: Alternative A and Alternative B. Briefly, the alternatives can be described as follows: • Alternative A would separate Highway 217 from Kruse Way by relocating Highway 217 north of the existing alignment. The I-5 to Highway 217 freeway connections would be depressed between I-5 and SW 72nd Avenue. The northbound I-5 to westbound Highway 217 ramp would cross below I-5 and the PUBLIC INFORMATION PACKET 6 1-5 at Highway 217/Kruse Way Interchange southbound collector-distributor road. The eastbound Highway 217 to southbound I-5 ramp would cross below the southbound collector-distributor road, joining I-5 just north of Kruse Way. The relocated Highway 217 would join existing Highway 217 in the vicinity of S.W. 72nd Avenue. Kruse Way would be extended to S.W. 72nd Avenue, intersecting S.W. 72nd Avenue at Hunziker Street. The extended Kruse Way would provide an east-west surface street route between the cities of Lake Oswego and Tigard. S.W. 68th Parkway would be extended south to intersect Kruse Way between I-5 and S.W. 72nd Avenue, providing additional access to the Tigard Triangle area. Interstate 5 itself would be improved by collector-distributor roads along northbound and southbound I-5. The collector-distributor roads would remove weaving traffic from I-5, allowing it to function more freely. Alternative B would also separate Highway 217 from Kruse Way, but would maintain parallel Highway 217 and Kruse Way alignments through the existing Highway 217 corridor. The freeway-to-freeway connections between I-5 and Highway 217 would be provided by ramps on a bridge structure. The ramps would rise from the middle of the Highway 217 corridor just east of S.W. 72nd Avenue and would tie into the outside of I-5 just north of Bonita Road. Eastbound and westbound Kruse Way would be separated by Highway 217; eastbound Kruse Way would be on the south side of Highway 217 and westbound Kruse Way would be on the north side. Eastbound and westbound Kruse Way would terminate at S.W. 72nd Avenue, providing connections to Highway 217 and S.W. 72nd Avenue. To minimize congestion on S.W. 72nd Avenue south of Highway 217, Hunziker Street would be realigned on a new bridge across Highway 217, and would intersect S.W. 72nd Avenue at Hampton Street. As in Alternative A, collector-distributor roads would be constructed along northbound and southbound I-5. The configurations of the two build alternatives are similar in that each would provide direct connections between Highway 217 and I-5 south of Highway 217. The direct connections would serve the major demands at the interchange, allowing the high traffic volumes to bypass the intersections. The primary differences between the alternatives would be the location of the I-5/Highway 217 connections, and the resulting separation of Kruse Way and Highway 217. PUBLIC INFORMATION PACKET 1-5 at Highway 217/Kruse Way Interchange 7 EVALUATION OF THE BUILD ALTERNATIVES Both build alternatives would meet the goal of this project, which is to improve the safety and operation of the I-5 interchange. In relation to the objectives, the two alternatives are similar in some aspects and different in others. A brief evaluation considering the objectives is summarized in Table 1. With regard to the objectives, the primary differences between the alternatives are related to property impacts and the operation of Kruse Way. Most of the parcels of property which would be affected by Alternative B are developed. Constructing Alternative B would displace several existing businesses. Alternative A would affect property which is mostly undeveloped now. Alternative A would not displace any existing businesses. Alternative A would provide greater separation of Kruse Way from Highway 217. Functionally, this would provide more access to the Tigard Triangle from the freeway and arterial system, and a direct surface street connection between the Cities of Tigard and Lake Oswego. The costs of the two build alternatives are expected to be similar. Preliminary estimates, shown in Table 2, indicate a total cost for Alternative A of approximately . $49 million and for Alternative B of approximately $53 million. Alternative A Alternative B Construction Cost $45.0 Million $45.7 Million Right-of-Way Cost 4.0 Million 7.1 Million Total Cost $49.0 Million $52.8 Million PRELIMINARY COST SUMMARY Table 2 These costs are more than what is possible to fund at any one time. For either build altemative to be feasible, implementation in phases over a multi-year period must be possible. Building either alternative in phases appears to be feasible. A detailed phasing plan for the preferred alternative will be developed in future work. The intent of a phasing plan will be to solve the most serious problems first. E m a C b o c a m 3 n v o 7 O) c v O O C C R m tp o m a S y ° 0 3 ,n x o C O N a 0 0 c o°q m E m° is t a m V 0- 3 3 O to N 3 i C R y 0 $ m 3` > mQ p a m = N O `m wa C m a) av T- °1 0 o 3 mm n n aRi°a tnm c y o C n9Om o a m n3 y 00 Y m ~3 7. caui c p 0 0 cmT 0; 3 cQ~ c NA a ^avu N o a ° O. gig 0 30 _ m a0(1 m Rmrn 01 3: ny1- 2 ;ooto o a o 2> ` p.R Oa, tmno ma° 0c n m a a-° 2W°o 3 f.) a f W > 0m 0 yoo E 3 2 0 0 a0 0 aJC-° c m j v oo Cra rnua j tnn 0CL U ~D N 0 ; U0E v ~ 7R~N o c .0 0av i = , T; H`Ep ° 'N Z v> W ma cam` 0 0: E0rn N as ;O~ vs in v ur) C m `O v i , ~T`; a a2 E m E 2mCo Ya 3 0 U c V E !FF>R Z' C c~ m 0 0- T~ R O R m U m p E p m tYa C m o> 0 0 co y 7 V O U > J a O. R O 0 a O U C O U @ O R it) - cc 0 C J m 2) O7j- v n y oE 5 2 C c a O a E 0 = E om ` m a`r a c a2v EY in oaE t N rn U;ny c -0 c E 0r m N ~-t a o tn E C 0 0 p a m m C R O a~ C o U d c m c o Z m . N R T U 7 R O 2.' U a o m` U a m t> a _ 7 Q m . 7 N ° O D1 p Ql N c m > 00 0 2 a a tO o rn C O Vi 3aE G NEED nmo N U o._m= c 060 cNa'5 C N 0 3o U n ; N m mL° 7 U a t c>>=~' t o v n m to D O O p m Z U S R a O U R R m x m 0 0 0 a O to N 0 fn - n U^ N Q N O . U C E Q 7 00 O cc ip U 3 3 m 6. L d m -0 CM C 0 ?`e o v 0 c. = o c HD H ` E o 7 pcN Q 0 OEv c O 3 m Lvmai '3 7 U CL 00 N a C > E„ 0 asap > >-a - c; 0; a d R m 0 ` c 'qt o a .0 - 's7 O N E 3mo p a', o3y m O z om o- N; a^-x to U y U E o R> Sot- ~ L n c T m v ~^ooa E 0 03 Omo v00 0W c= °doo Q ,;03 m 7N ~.mvv a c a vN 03a c;~=m E200 >`o0E _ u i ° 0>3F 02 v a i t vE m a jtmnn 7 0 qa'W G R n a0o> ` d 10 ~tN~ 7 ° a CD c c a Y Y j.F c2m0 2 m C aia h o U a a W E > ' oY 3 E 3N3 0 '0 `R my c m ie a R o E° p c; c N 7 ° a u O Ro>N vy~ mmE C1o rnY~o ~o`m°~u o ; Z am a> come > c ~ox Y. O a= OeOO^ 3 o r mE N U N a>>>> p enUc F.. L 0 m ma ~LC~ ^ ° U R a O N d > aR p V C a d T m z m ~ 3 R r N 1••. a n 3 t`O d amt x ,0 N r 2 m m 7 ° E oZ.~ t G R m~,a = X N p R p 3 V` L V R®o ; O. q m aE y U q• N m YmE J o 2 . Lm m^ m , To=au 3 ca 06 10 2 a p a m O . O E`~ t oWn~ oco~;N o°r0 a•°-'E°•~ a°~a ~L mL t n 2°iny v a aE2 mcy~- uR `oy E `cvno oo EW~°ac ;ma m-_U t 3 ;in aai:v0cE Cabo, 0 m c E 0 =CL,=a. > ~i=N avm° ° ct c_2n °a3 Q ~aai may 7 onN>a~ rn O N U 3a co Z' O NC'C U 7 R aa RQ3 me u N U •O R 0m U N na C N° a m; vi > C> Y o~0~ N N E Q Ea-v V h m C H In p 0 O O Lt- N D m N m x d 2 o' 3? O U V E y E 7 L N •C N O N m f L - Z cr R 3 U R U U o a in m S a 3 a N F- Q N 2 F E n 3-2 a c 0 m 0 0 N p X R a O a to C~ O R C N '0 C C V m m aj a C V R O m O) ~ N m C m N m O E- R R m L L C 7 E° O: 7 -.2 N N > v! 7 N J m CM `p cl O O N 2 O ° v 0 ? A 3 03 ai C m E d N c rntcv d E N E 3 .T. U U ` o N 0 6LR N 2 0a 7Ntc0 ° mm > E0 wm>L> > LN an - mm L oa W E 'mT =c -.2 ° o- oN a-' i~ a U cvoE UN7 LAN E'`ttZn- =E E vi= uNim 3 Da N L c m m U R a q m c V 0 . y 7 m V _ m •y U c o o C m e to 7 m o t U N U U 4) 3: L U N C a m c C m `m to n m A C m C N y T a U O m a C O iO 3 R 2 E C C m N 3 O C. m N R L a R ; Z C C m U R cm-1 p m 0 m H T 0 U N V CD L ? Ol m m C m O R N c > O d o m . t m ` L O U R E > O m m 7 o R 3 av ~ d > Q2 p. R O. m m a r O. T E trm L o 35 E= 3 o p nv t aiA mEm m a~ 8-0 12 m E m 10 m m a m ° Ev a ia an E c > In °o m° m ~ a-a= 07 E m 0 CL L: M aio-t c ` o a c t m c= mtn v 2m c a mo m E E m N j- 2 H O a p N 01 O T N R E a ' C E C~ N C C R o> r ° ne ootan aoEc c=" md~ Ao'ccLr aLa.rn.u_Q . c m Em ° Em c r cm 0E c E ~ no E n ym o- E E o 0 o A 6 0.2 m o 7 m m o y m o c o r' = 00 o m o 0 C F~ U- f- a N .0'a N U H 4 R F- - R F- a 1- ^ N f7 O ui tp n a0 Qf N W F- a Z cc W H J Q U. O O ~ Q F~- M J Q W Q Ci) PUBLIC INFORMATION PACKET 1-5 at Highway 217/Kruse Way Interchange 9 SCHEDULE The project to improve the Interstate 5 at Highway 217/Kruse Way Interchange began in 1987, when information was collected and needs were studied. Over the course of the following three years, the project continued with the development and evaluation of alternatives, and preparation of the Environmental Assessment. The Environmental Assessment is now complete and has been published for review by the public and a variety of agencies. It describes proposed alternatives and identifies environmental impacts for each alternative. Copies of the document are available for review at the City of Lake Oswego Library and the City of Tigard Library. A public hearing will be held to give citizens the opportunity to give testimony about the project alternatives. Testimony may be given orally at the hearing or submitted in writing within 15 days following the hearing. The hearing will be held on the following date: 7:30 p.m. Thursday, November 29, 1990 Tigard Water District 8777 S.W. Burnham Street Tigard Testimony taken at the hearing will help ODOT and local agencies decide between two design alternatives or not to build at all. The preferred alternative will be selected by early next year. After an alternative is selected, preliminary design will be done. Final design of the first phase will begin late next year. Acquisition of right of way is also expected to begin late next year. Construction of the first phase is targeted to begin in Spring or Summer of 1993, and is expected to take two to three years. A project schedule is shown on the following page. I 1 1 U r' 1 I y 1 1 ~ N I Q t y 1 1 E m 1 ~ o I c w 1 ~ cn 1 N rr: ' C Co CD 1 cr } 1 ~ = N ' I CD ' ' C" rn c ' 1 m (3) U_ a 4 1 m r co X r f7l Q1 r Cf) a) LLI CC Q (D J J Q Q w J CC CD C7 [ a z ¢ z Q a F- O a z Q p a W Z z w z W cC w a z Cl) z Q a m J Q w 2 Z w > L W p J cr F- L 0 _ Z w p z zO w O ¢ z w cn w F- w cc J W O F- IL O > w w Z z W > z U Z w Q = N w W J w Z J O w z U- Q W a m E O J O a p LL O Z O Z U Z z a w Z F- O O cn CL > Z U Z 0 O a ¢ ¢ w > w a Z O ~ Z O U p m = W (n N U w v) ) zz F- U o a p w 2 cc (f) F- F w p Q U J ~ W Z J cc O a w w .1 0 J CO U F- Z F- J • e o e L U w Q O v Z co cr w w C-) Z a W Q a Q Cn a Q IL U E . lei J&A e~ ~o~G- l i &OLW oI ~-Y1 g C 1 PUBLIC HEARING-NOTICE OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1®5 at Highway 217/Kruse Way Interchange PUBLIC MEETING 7:30 p.m. Thursday, November 8, 1990 Tigard Water District 8777 S. W. Burnham St. Tigard PUBLIC HEARING 7:30 p.m. Thursday, November 29, 1990 Tigard Water District 8777 S.W. Burnham St. Tigard Open house from 6:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., prior to both the meeting and the hearing. MEETING AND HEARING The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) has scheduled a public information meeting and a public hearing for proposed im- provements to the Highway 217 / Kruse Way Interchange on Interstate 5. The purpose of the public meeting is to provide citizens an opportunity to review the project alternatives and to have questions answered about the project prior to the formal hearing. The public hearing will give citizens the oppor- tunity to give testimony about the project alterna- tives. Testimony taken at the hearing will help ODOT and local agencies decide between two design alternatives or to not build at all. Testi- mony may be given orally at the hearing or submitted in writing within 15 days following the hearing. PROJECT PURPOSE The existing interchange was built about 20 years ago. Until recently, the interchange has been ade- quate for the traffic demands it served. However, as increased freeway-to-freeway traffic volumes compete with local traffic at the same signalized intersection, traffic delays and congestion occur regularly during peak periods. The accident rates in some parts of the interchange are already twice the state average. The project goal is to improve overall safety and traffic flow. The "build" alternatives were devel- oped with several basic objectives: minimize property impacts, stay consistent with local land-use and transportation plans, separate freeway traffic from local traffic, provide service for the design year 2015, maintain access to private properties and local cities and support traffic while improvements are made. DESIGN ALTERNATIVES Three alternatives are being considered: the No Build Alternative, Alternative A and Alternative B. The No Build Alternative would make no changes from the existing freeway configurations in the project area. The current traffic problems would grow to worse as traffic volumes increased. Alternatives A and B would both provide free- flowing freeway connections between I-5 and Highway 217 while also accomodating of local traffic circulation. The local roads will be physi- cally separated from the freeway connections. The most significant difference between Alterna- tives A and B is that Alternative A creates a new highway alignment for the I-5 to Highway 217 movements, while Alternative B uses the existing alignment. Also, Alternative A would tunnel under I-5 while Alternative B would include structures over I-5. Alternatives A and B are discussed further in the following sections: Alternative W Alternative A would separate Highway 217 from Kruse Way by relocating Highway 217 north of the existing alignment. The northbound I-5 to Highway 217 connection-would cross under I-5 through a tunnel. West of I-5, the roadway would be depressed, to minimize impacts. The south- bound Highway 217 to I-5 connection would parallel the northbound connection until joining with I-5 southbound. Highway 217 would follow its current alignment north of the intersection of S.W. 72nd Avenue and Hunziker Street. Extend- ing Kruse Way would provide an east-west surface street route between the cities of Lake Oswego and Tigard. I-5 itself would be improved by constructing collector-distributor roads along freeway lanes. The collector-distributor roads would carry local traffic that now congests the freeway. The estimated cost for Alternative A is $49 million for right of way and construction. HWY. 217 ALTERNATIVE A 9 72nd AVE. C G s ' „ O G l7 v'LIUU L' U o~..... wn..'° I-5 yy , ~q u NORTHH KRUSE WAY 2 e Alternative "B": Alternative B would also separate Highway 217 from Kruse Way, but would maintain parallel Highway 217 and Kruse Way alignments through the existing corridor. The northbound I-5 to northbound Highway 217 connection would pass over I-5 on a new bridge and join southbound Highway 217 west of I-5. East-and-westbound Kruse Way would be separated by Highway 217: eastbound Kruse Way on the south side of High- way 217 and westbound Kruse Way on the north side to S.W. 72nd Avenue. To minimize conges- tion on S.W. 72nd Avenue south of Highway 217, Hunziker Street would be carried on a new bridge across Highway 217 intersecting S.W. 72nd Avenue at Hampton Street. As in Alternative A, collector-distributor roads for local traffic would improve the operation of north and southbound I- 5. The estimated cost for Alternative B is $52.8 million for right of way and construction. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AVAILABLE An environmental assessment is available for review. It describes proposed alternatives and identifies environmental impacts including traffic, land use, air quality and noise for each alterna- tive. Copies of this document may be obtained at the following locations: Tigard Library, 13125 S.W. Bali Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 Lake Oswego Library, 706 S.W. 4th Ave. Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 Oregon Department of Transportation, 9002 SE McLoughlin Blvd., Milwaukie, Oregon 97222 Oregon Department of Transportation District 2-A Maintenance Office 2131 SW Scholls Ferry Road, Portland, Oregon 97221 HWY. 217 ~o ° ALTERNATIVE S 0 ~o G 72nd AVE. •gilo `0 Cl u0 1D l J e a Z m p O Doe ~ g L l ~ 1~;~~ : z• . ~ ,.d 0,9 KRUSE WAY NORTH 3 WHAT HAPPENS NEXT? After the public hearing, ODOT will analyze the testimony and prepare a hearing study report. This document will recommend one of the two alternatives or the "no build" alternative, based on the testimony and engineering information com- piled for the environmental assessment. In December, this recommendation will be for- warded to the city councils of Lake Oswego and Tigard as well as to Clackamas and Washington County Board of Commissioners for concurrence. Should an alternative be approved for construc- tion, a revised environmental assessment will be published sometime next fall. With approval of the project by the Federal Highway Adminstration, final design and acquisi- tion of right-of-way will begin by the fall of 1991. Construction of the new interchange is targeted for 1993. BEFORE THE MEETING... Comments or questions prior to the public hearing may be directed to Ted Keasey, Project Coordina- tor, at 653-3180. WRITTEN TESTIMONY MAY BE MAILED TO: Donald R. Adams, Region Engineer Highway Division Region 1 9002 S.E. McLoughlin Boulevard Milwaukie, Oregon 97222 ARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION :HI y Division, Region 1 M Loughiln Blvd. , Oregon 97222 POSTAL CUSTOMER BULK RATE POSTAGE PAID PERMIT NO. 2M PORTLAND, OR 67222 PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Yee i Ou i ` 1 INTERSTATE5 Y; ft ` HIGHWAY 7/KRUSE WAY' UNOTERCHAlmGE 1 HERE a 0 A& ASsessment Department of Transportation NEIL GOLDSCHMIDT HIGHWAY DIVISION GOVERNOR In Reply Refer to File No.: ENV 3 TO REVIEWERS of the Environmental Assessment Interstate 5 0 Highway 217/Kruse Way Interchange Pacific Highway Washington and Clackamas Counties IR-5-5(99)292 This Environmental Assessment is being circulated for public and agency review. All comments should be mailed or delivered within 30 days to: Environmental Section Oregon State Highway Division 324 Capitol Street N.E. Salem, OR 97310 Sincerely, Eb Engelmann, Manager Environmental Section cj 11 FFZFFA~ff A OREGON'S ROAD 8 UTILITY WORKERS 734.1839 (8.89) AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER ~a1 p/TRAIV, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION a 4i o- L FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION a` i SSA fIS l1l Interstate 5 @ Highway 217/Kruse Way Interchange Pacific Highway Washington and Clackamas Counties IR-5-5(99)292 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT a 9-/Y- fa Approval Date /Ch /11) Approval Date Submitted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c) U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration and Oregon Department of Transportation Highway Division tensen, Project n~ R tration Official The following persons may Ve contacted for additional information: Richard Fairbrother Eb Engelmann, Manager Division Administrator Environmental Section Federal Highway Administration Oregon State Highway Division 530 Center Street N.E. 324 Capitol Street N.E. Salem, Oregon 97301 Salem, Oregon 97310 (503) 399-5749 (503) 378-8486 Abstract: This project would provide a freeway to freeway connection between Interstate 5 and Highway 217. Alternative A would use a tunnel and Alternative B would use bridges. There would be no relocations with Alternative A, but five business relocations with Alternative B. Alternative A would affect about one acre of wetland and Alternative B would affect about 0.8 acre. Impact would be mitigated. SUMMARY Project Description The proposed project would improve safety and operation of the Interstate 5 interchange with Highway 217 and Kruse Way (see Figure 1 for project vicinity). The project is located in the cities of Tigard and Lake Oswego and in Washington and Clackamas counties. Currently there are two traffic signals for traffic passing from one freeway to the other. This project would provide direct freeway to freeway connections. Alternative A would provide the freeway to freeway connections in a new corridor, slightly north of the existing interchange. Kruse Way would be extended to SW 72nd Avenue in the existing corridor, providing a local connection between Tigard and Lake Oswego. The Alternative A connections would be in a tunnel under I-5. Alternative B would provide the freeway to freeway connection in the existing corridor, with the construction of "fly-over" ramps. A local connection between Tigard and Lake Oswego would be provided in the same corridor. Both alternatives would include construction of collector-distributor roads on either side of I-5 between Haines Road on the north and Carman Drive and Upper Boones Ferry Road on the south. Project Impacts No businesses or residences would be displaced by the No Build or Alternative A. Five businesses and no residences would be displaced by Alternative B. Both Alternative A and B would require additional acquisitions and easements of portions of properties, affecting access, parking and landscaped areas. Alternative A would impact about 1.0 acre of wetlands. Alternative B would affect about 0.6 acre of wetland. Related Projects in Area South of the area described in this document, a project on I-5 is under construction. This project extends from Upper Boones Ferry Road (Carman Drive) to I-205. Auxiliary lanes will be added between interchanges to facilitate weaving movements. The interchange at Nyberg Road will be changed to include a loop in the southeast quadrant. An Environmental Assessment was previously prepared for this project. Another project included in the Regional Transportation Plan would widen Highway 217 to six lanes between I-5 and Sunset Highway. To A Portland N OQ•99 a, Haines Rd ¢ c I N f I I I in I , ; I ~ I PROJECT AREA O' ersf i 0M LAKE OSWEGO ~ I ~ I ~t ~.t Kruse Way i ~ c a _ t m Creek Bonita Rd TIGARD 1~c0 Ga n Washington County M Clackamas County JQ~~Qa F~ Not to scale i - t i Figure 1 Project Vicinity Consideration is just beginning on a proposal to develop a new transportation _ facility, improvements to existing facilities or a combination thereof from I-5 south of I-205 to US 26 (Sunset Highway). This proposed facility is known as the Western Bypass. Publication of environmental documents will be included in the project development process for the Western Bypass. Permits Needed A Corps of Engineers' Section 404 Permit and an Oregon Division of State Lands Removal/Fill Permit would be required for the wetlands filling. The City of Tigard would require a sensitive lands review for the wetlands filling. An amendment to the Tigard Comprehensive Plan would be required if Alternative A was selected. Several different permits and processes will be required to satisfy City of Lake Oswego codes. A tree cutting permit is required for removal of any tree over 5 inches in diameter. A Development Review permit will be required and will include examination of the project's consistency with City Development Standards for stream corridors, wetlands, landscaping, drainage, weak foundation soils and hillside protection and erosion control. A surface water runoff review will also be required to ensure levels of phosphate will not exceed state standards. Any relocation or extension of the pathways along Kruse Way would also need to be reviewed by the City. An Indirect Source Permit would be required. SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES Noise Two noise walls are proposed that would reduce noise impacts at twenty-two residences. Noise walls proposed to mitigate noise impacts would be constructed in the early stages of the project. This would allow the sound walls to reduce construction noise as well as traffic noise. Areas adjacent to the project would be exposed to construction noise. Although of a temporary nature, additional noise can be quite annoying. This is especially true during quieter periods. Therefore, normally construction would be limited to daytime hours with no work on Sundays or legal holidays. This specification would be included in the contract specifications. However, since this project would reconstruct a heavily traveled facility without complete closure of the facility, it is likely that construction would be required during these normally quiet times. In addition, the contract specifications would include items in compliance with US Environmental Protection Agency equipment noise standards, muffled exhaust, and added restrictions for pile driving or blasting, if required. The following construction noise abatement measures would be included in the project specifications: H 1. No construction shall be performed within 1,000 feet of an occupied dwelling unit on Sundays, legal holidays and between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. on other days without the approval of the Project Manager. 2. All equipment used shall have sound control devices no less effective than those provided on the original equipment. No equipment shall have an unmuffled exhaust. 3. All equipment shall comply with pertinent equipment noise standards of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 4. No pile driving or blasting operations shall be performed within 3,000 feet of an occupied dwelling unit on Sundays, legal holidays and between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. on other days, without the approval of the Project Manager. 5. The noise from rock crushing or screening operations performed within 3,000 feet of any occupied dwelling shall be mitigated by strategic placement of materials stockpiles between the operation and the affected dwelling or by other means approved by the Project Manager. Should a specific noise impact complaint occur during the construction of the project, the contractor at his own expense may be required to implement one or more of the following noise mitigations as directed by the Project Manager: 1. Locate stationary construction equipment as far from nearby noise sensitive properties as possible. 2. Shut off idling equipment. 3. Reschedule construction operations to avoid periods of noise annoyance identified in the complaint. 4. Notify nearby residents whenever extremely noise work would be occurring. 5. Install permanent or movable acoustic barriers around stationary construction noise sources. Wetlands Off-site mitigation for wetlands impacted would be required. About 1.0 acre would be required for Alternative A and about 0.6 acre for Alternative B. For impacts which occur during the course of construction within the right-of- way but outside the permanent impact area, the following measures would be taken to rehabilitate damaged wetlands and transition areas: iv 1. Heavy equipment access would be kept to a minimum beyond the toe of slope in wetland areas. Clearing and grubbing would be restricted to the minimum area needed for construction. Areas to be avoided should be staked in the field. 2. Native plant species would be planted along the lower three feet of fill slopes which cross streams or remaining portions of emergent wetlands. 3. Cut and fill slopes would be seeded and mulched with straw or similar material to minimize erosion and sedimentation. During construction, temporary berms of straw bales would be used to prevent erosion next to stream and ditch crossings. 4. BankIines and riparian vegetation would be replaced at stream crossings and where culverts are extended. Water Quality Mitigation for water quality impacts would involve grassy swales and/or wet detention basins. All runoff would be routed through one of these facilities. The choice of mitigation measures would depend on physical feasibility and fiscal considerations. Construction impacts would be minimized with proper precautions. In-stream work would be restricted to the time period authorized by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife for Fanno Creek. All bare or disturbed slopes would be protected with measures, such as temporary settling ponds and ground cover, as described in the Hiahway Division Hydraulics Manual (1974), Chapters 2 and 6. The slopes would be revegetated with protective cover as soon as construction work on the slopes ceases. All reasonable care would be taken to prevent spills of oil and other chemicals during construction. If a spill does occur, all steps would be taken to ensure that the spilled material would not enter the streams. Water used to clean construction equipment would not be allowed to enter the streams. Right-of-Way Displaced businesses would be offered relocation assistance. All property owners affected by right-of-way acquisition would be compensated at fair market value for damages and acquired land and facilities. Air Quality To mitigate the increase in small (PM10) and large dust particulates, watering would be required, as needed to control generation of these pollutants. V [F Lt 6 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY i Project Description i Project Impacts i Related Projects in Area i d d N i P e ee ts erm SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES Noise Wetlands iv Water Quality v Right-of-Way v Air Quality V List of Tables viii List of Figures vi» PURPOSE AND NEED 1 General Setting 1 Purpose and Need 1 ALTERNATIVES 4 Alternative Development 4 Goals and Objectives 5 Alternatives Considered and Rejected 5 Alternatives Advanced 6 No Build Alternative 6 Alternative A 8 Alternative B 10 Phased Construction 10 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 12 Transportation 12 Transportation Planning 12 Traffic 12 Methodology 12 Volume and Level of Service 12 Existing 16 No Build Alternative . 16 Alternative A 20 Alternative B 20 Access and Circulation 20 Public Transit 25 Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation 25 Summary and Conclusions 27 Land Use Planning 27 Vi Existing Land Use 27 Comprehensive Plans 27 Future Land Uses 28 Social and Economic Environment 32 Population and Housing 32 Socioeconomic Characteristics of the Population 32 Economics 32 Community Facilities 33 Neighborhood Quality 34 Right of Way Impacts 34 Aesthetics 36 Cultural Resources 36 Archeological Resources 36 Historic Resources 38 Noise 38 Noise Impacts 38 Noise Mitigation 39 Construction Noise 44 Air Quality 45 Indirect Source Permit 48 Utilities 48 Natural Environment 50 Geology 50 Terrestrial Biology 50 Water Quality and Wetlands Impacts 51 Mitigation 53 Hazardous Materials 58 Construction Impacts 58 PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT 58 Advisory Committees 58 Public Meetings 58 LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND OFFICIALS TO WHOM COPIES OF THIS DOCUMENT HAVE BEEN SENT 59 LIST OF'PREPARERS 62 APPENDICES 63 APPENDIX A - PLANS FOR ALTERNATIVE A AND B 65 APPENDIX B - LEVEL OF SERVICE 87 APPENDIX C - RIGHT-OF-WAY PAMPHLETS 91 APPENDIX D - STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE LETTER 99 APPENDIX E - NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA 103 APPENDIX F - NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS 107 INDEX 1()9 vii List of Tables TABLE 1 ACCIDENT RATES 3 TABLE 2 RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPACTS 34 TABLE 3 PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS 40 TABLE 4 NOISE IMPACTS 40 TABLE 5 TOTAL ANNUAL POLLUTANT EMISSIONS 46 TABLE 6 PREDICTED MAXIMUM 1-HOUR CO CONCENTRATIONS 46 List of Figures FIGURE 1 PROJECT VICINITY n FIGURE 2 SW 72ND AVENUE OPTIONS - ALTERNATIVE B 7 FIGURE3 ALTERNATIVE A 9 FIGURE4 ALTERNATIVE B 11 FIGURE 5 EXISTING VOLUMES 14 FIGURE 6 CONSTRAINED TRAFFIC VOLUMES 15 FIGURE 7 EXISTING LEVELS OF SERVICE 17 FIGURE 8 NO BUILD LOS AM PEAK 18 FIGURE 9 NO BUILD LOS PM PEAK 19 FIGURE 1C ALTERNATIVE A LOS ON I-5 21 FIGURE 11 ALTERNATIVE A LOS ON HIGHWAY 217 22 FIGURE 12 ALTERNATIVE B LOS ON I-5 23 FIGURE 13 ALTERNATIVE B LOS ON HIGHWAY 217 . 24 FIGURE 14 TRI-MET BUS ROUTES 26 FIGURE 15 EXISTING LAND USES 29 FIGURE 16 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATIONS 30 FIGURE 17 ZONING DESIGNATIONS 31 FIGURE 18 STRUCTURES TO BE ACQUIRED 37 FIGURE 19A NOISE IMPACTS ALTERNATIVE A 41 FIGURE 19B NOISE IMPACTS ALTERNATIVE B 42 FIGURE 19C PROPOSED NOISE WALLS 43 FIGURE 20 CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATION PREDICTION SITE LOCATIONS 47 FIGURE 21 STREAM AREAS 52 FIGURE 22 WETLAND IMPACT AREAS ALTERNATIVE A 54 FIGURE 23 WETLAND IMPACT AREAS ALTERNATIVE B 55 FIGURE 24 POTENTIAL MITIGATION SITE 57 viii PURPOSE AND NEED General Setting The proposed project is located in the southwest portion of the Portland, Oregon metropolitan area. The Pacific Highway, better known as Interstate 5 (I-5), is a major freeway extending from Canada to Mexico and carries substantial amounts of long-distance traffic. I-5 also bisects the metropolitan area from north to south and is used for area-wide and local travel. Beaverton-Tigard Highway, better known as Highway 217, is a freeway connecting the two cities that form its name and which provides a partial circumferential loop of the metropolitan area. The current connection between these two freeways is controlled by two traffic signals. This project would provide a freeway to freeway connection between I-5 and Highway 217. The freeway system interchanges with the local street system at four places within the project area (see Figure 1). The northernmost interchange is between I-5 and Haines Road. The southernmost interchange is between I-5 and Carman Drive, which is known as Upper Boones Ferry Road west of I-5. To the west, Highway 217 interchanges with SW 72nd Avenue. East of the I-5 interchange, Highway 217 becomes Kruse Way, a four lane, heavily landscaped street with a separated bicycle and pedestrian trail. Bonita Road crosses I-5 between Kruse Way and Carman Drive, with no direct access to the freeway. Bangy Road parallels I-5 on the east from the . Kruse Way/Highway 217/northbound I-5 loop ramp intersection south to beyond Bonita Road. The project area is predominantly commercial, with residential areas on the northern and southern edges. The area between I-5, Highway 217 and Highway 99W is known as the Tigard Triangle. While some existing older residential uses occur within the Tigard Triangle, a transition to commercial uses is being encouraged by the City of Tigard. Good access to this area continues to attract businesses. New development is occurring in the Kruse Woods area south of Kruse Way and east of Bangy Road. The Church of Latter Day Saints temple was completed in the Fall of 1989 north of Kruse Way and east of I-5. A new commercial office development is under construction in the area between Upper Boones Ferry Road and Bonita Road, west of I-5. Purpose and Need The purpose of the proposed project is to improve the traffic flow and capacity at the interchange of I-5 and Highway 217/Kruse Way. Improvements to the I-5/Highway 217/Kruse Way Interchange are needed because the volume of traffic in the area has increased significantly since the interchange was designed and constructed in 1966. Until recently, the interchange had been adequate for the traffic demands it served. However, with increases in traffic volumes resulting from continued development of Lake Oswego, Tigard, and areas further to the west and north, traffic delays and congestion now occur regularly at peak periods. The traffic volumes are expected to continue increasing as the surrounding areas develop. Volumes have grown to the point where the capacity of the existing interchange is exceeded during peak hour periods on a daily basis. An operations analysis was performed to identify existing roadway capacity problems in the project area. The "Transportation, Traffic, and Safety Report" for this project describes this analysis in detail. The primary traffic operation problems are caused by: - lack of capacity on the northbound loop ramp from I-5 to Highway 217 - lack of capacity on the southbound ramp from Highway 217 to 1-5 - weaving conflicts on Highway 217 between SW 72nd Avenue and 1-5 - weaving conflicts on I-5 between Carman Drive and Kruse Way The safety analysis revealed that the most frequent type of accident in the project area is rear-end collisions near ramp terminals and in weaving sections. The high frequency of this type of accident is probably related to heavy peak hour traffic volumes and congestion. The accident rates on I-5 corridor roadways are similar to the statewide average rates on the same type of roadways. See Table 1. The majority of accidents in the Highway 217 corridor were rear-end accidents, probably due to high levels of congestion during the evening peak hour and the termination of the freeway at a signalized intersection. The Highway 217 approach to the intersection with the southbound I-5 ramps is designed to full freeway standards, creating a driver expectation that the freeway is not ending. A large number of skid marks are evident on the southbound approach to the intersection, indicating that, in addition to the recorded accidents at this location, a significant number of "close-calls" occur on a regular basis. While most of the accidents in the Highway 217 corridor are similar to statewide average rates, the rates on Highway 217 between SW 72nd Avenue and the southbound I-5 ramp are about twice the statewide average. The rates at the I-5/Highway 217 interchange area are also higher than statewide averages. These higher than average accident rates indicate a need for improvements at this interchange. f_ ;OA TABLE 1 ACCIDENT RATES (per million vehicle miles) Roadway Section 1984 1985 1986 Carman Drive to Bonita Road I-5 Northbound 1.28 0.97 0.87 I-5 Southbound 0.14 0.81 0.73 Bonita Road to Kruse Way I-5 Northbound 0.76 1.10 1.32 I-5 Southbound 0.38 0.72 0.00 Kruse Way to Haines Road I-5 Northbound 0.63 0.82 0.51 I-5 Southbound 0.20 0.95 0.66 Highway 217 Highway 99W to SW 72nd Avenue 0.39 0.55 0.48 SW 72nd Avenue to 1-5 SB Ramp 2.58 1.64 3.17 I-5 SB Ramp to I-5 NB Ramp 4.47 4.45 4.57 Statewide average accident rates are tabulated for different facility types. The number of accidents per million vehicle miles for the different types are: urban primary freeways - 0.95-1.00; urban secondary freeways - 1.4; urban primary arterials - 4.2; urban secondary arterials - 3.9; suburban secondary arterials - 2.7. - D1 3 ALTERNATIVES Alternative Development A number of interchange improvement concepts were developed during the initial phases of the project development process. These concepts were intended to illustrate the range of possible improvements and provide a starting place for definition of interchange alternatives to be explored in more detail. Three main categories of improvements were identified: full freeway concepts, partial freeway concepts, and movement elimination concepts. The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) reviewed and discussed the conceptual alternatives, identifying features of each which should or should not be included in the alternatives to be developed in greater detail. Of the thirteen original freeway concepts, three received a more detailed examination. Of the ten partial freeway concepts, five were retained. The one movement elimination concept was dropped because it could not accommodate the projected traffic for the design year (2015). The three freeway and five partial freeway concepts were analyzed for traffic handling capabilities. The three freeway concepts all included a modified partial cloverleaf interchange between I-5 and Highway 217. Directional ramps would be provided for northbound to westbound traffic and southbound to eastbound traffic; loop ramps would be provided for eastbound to northbound traffic and westbound to southbound traffic. Bangy Road would be closed at Kruse Way by all of the freeway concepts. The differences between the freeway concepts centered on their handling of the Highway 217 interchange with SW 72nd Avenue. Options included a standard diamond, partial diamond and an urban diamond interchange. Two major problems were identified with the freeway concepts: the closure of Bangy Road at Kruse Way and the isolation of the Farmer's Insurance Building in one quadrant of the interchange. For these reasons, the full freeway concepts were not advanced. The five partial freeway concepts were analyzed for traffic handling capabilities. These concepts included a three-level diamond, a partial diamond, and modified diamond concepts with directional ramps for the freeway-to-freeway traffic movements. All of the concepts would retain Bangy Road in its present configuration, a signalized intersection at Kruse Way. Rather than advance any of the concepts as originally conceived, two new alternatives that incorporate portions of different concepts, were developed. In particular, the collector-distributor roads from one concept were determined to be a key ingredient to improvements at the interchange and were incorporated into both of the alternatives discussed in this document. 4 Goals and Objectives The project goal is to develop a project which would improve the safety and operation of the interchange. Within this goal are multiple objectives addressing the operation of the freeways and local streets, as well as impacts on adjacent private property. The objectives are: 1. To ensure that the interchange improvements also improve the safety and operation of Interstate 5 where feasible, and that adverse impacts on Interstate 5 are minimal or nonexistent; 2. To provide an interchange configuration that promotes traffic flow patterns compatible with city and county land use and transportation plans; 3. To avoid improvements to the freeway which directly or indirectly encourage freeway traffic to use surface streets; 4. To design the freeways, ramp terminals, and surface streets, using desirable design standards, that operate at level of service "C" through the 2015 design year; but also ensure that individual sections of freeway are not improved to such extent that the improved sections have much greater capacity than adjacent, unimproved sections; 5. To minimize impacts of the improvements on adjacent private property; 6. To maintain adequate access to the west Lake Oswego area from the Interstate 5/Highway 217 interchange; 7. To maintain adequate access to the City of Tigard from Interstate 5 and Highway 217; 8. To construct improvements while traffic operations are maintained; 9. To maintain pedestrian and bicycle traffic on all designated pedestrian and bicycle routes; 10. To implement improvements in phases, that spread costs over many years. Alternatives Considered and Rejected Alternatives that were considered and not advanced for further study at this time were discussed previously under project development. To summarize, all alternatives that would require closure of Bangy Road at Kruse Way were not advanced because of their impacts to adjacent property (objective 5). All alternatives that did not include collector distributor roads were not advanced, because they would not provide an adequate level of service on I-5 (objectives 1 and 4). The alternative % 5 that would have eliminated movements that exist today was not advanced, because it did not provide adequate local access (objectives 6 and 7). Three options were developed for the design of the SW 72nd Avenue Interchange in Alternative B (see Figure 2). One option was to modify the existing design to connect to the new Kruse Way extension instead of Highway 217. This option was not advanced because of costs associated with re-aligning Highway 217 and replacing the SW 72nd Avenue bridge over Highway 217. The single-point diamond option was not advanced because it was substantially more expensive than the standard diamond. A single-point diamond could be incorporated into the Alternative B design at a later date, since the ramp configurations at the freeway terminals would be very similar in the simple diamond and single point diamond interchanges. The third option, a simple diamond, is included in Alternative B. Alternatives Advanced Three alternatives are discussed in this document: the No Build Alternative, Alternative A, and Alternative B. The most significant difference between alternatives A and B is that Alternative A creates a new highway alignment for the I- 5 to Highway 217 movements, while Alternative B utilizes the existing alignment. Additionally, Alternative A would tunnel under I-5 while Alternative B would include structures over I-5. Each alternative is discussed further in the following sections. Reduced size plans are included in Appendix A. No Build Alternative The No Build Alternative includes no changes from the existing freeway configurations in the project area. The only significant capacity improvements that would be in place are those related to the widening of Highway 217 to six lanes between SW 72nd Avenue (the western edge of the project area) and Greenburg Road. South of the project area auxiliary lanes would be constructed between interchanges from Upper Boones Ferry Road (Carman Drive) to I-205 (currently under construction). Growth in traffic volumes would result in capacity deficiencies throughout the project area. The existing intersection at the southbound I-5 ramps has a higher-than- average accident rate because the transition from Highway 217 to Kruse Way does not prepare drivers for the signalized intersection. The existing Highway 217 alignment has a 60 mile-per-hour design speed on the approach to the intersection, which, combined with freeway design features such as a median barrier, wide shoulders, and free-flow ramps, creates a driver expectation that the freeway continues, conflicting with the reality of a signalized intersection. This condition would continue with the No Build Alternative. 6 SIMPLE DIAMOND Adopted by TAC 00 SW 72nd Ave pe o q'. B OD O' 43 O f(~~°o Z o ll~~a~ 0~ fl O p °q D ~0 0 ~7 4 C O 0 CD 11 O MODIFIED EXISTING OPTION oa-'CU 00 o ~ 0 9 Q °q d 0 p ~ ~ 0 G ~D O O SINGLE-POINT DIAMOND OPTION Figure 2 SW 72nd Avenue Options Alternative S Alternative A Alternative A relocates Highway 217 north of the existing alignment (see Figure 3). Kruse Way would be extended to SW 72nd Avenue within the existing Highway 217 corridor, providing a northern connection between downtown Lake Oswego and downtown Tigard via Kruse Way and Hunziker Street. Collector- distributor roads would be constructed along both sides of I-5 to reduce traffic volumes on I-5 and eliminate weaving conflicts. The alignment of the I-5 to Highway 217 freeway connections would be depressed between I-5 and SW 72nd Avenue. The northbound I-5 to westbound Highway 217 ramp would cross below I-5 and the southbound collector-distributor road. The eastbound Highway 217 to southbound I-5 ramp would cross below the southbound collector-distributor road. West of I-5 the two Highway 217 ramps would come together in the vicinity of 68th Parkway, forming a single alignment to the west. The new Highway 217 alignment would pass under SW 72nd Avenue at the existing grade and join the existing Highway 217 alignment immediately west of SW 72nd Avenue. An extension of Kruse Way would connect the existing road with SW 72nd Avenue and Hunziker Street. This facility would be built to the same standards as the existing Kruse Way; that is, a boulevard with a 40 mph design speed, a curbed roadway section, a landscaped median, and sidewalks or bikeways adjacent to the roadway. Most of the existing Highway 217 pavement between I-5 and SW 72nd Avenue would be used by the Kruse Way extension. SW 68th Parkway would also be extended south to an at-grade intersection with Kruse Way. The parkway would cross over the relocated Highway 217 alignment. This extension would provide additional access to the Tigard Triangle, especially to and from destinations east of I-5. The SW 68th Parkway extension would also provide a surface street route, parallel to I-5, between Highway 99W and Kruse Way. Two ramps would provide direct connections between Highway 217 and the Kruse Way extension. One would connect westbound Kruse Way traffic with northbound Highway 217. The other would connect eastbound Highway 217 traffic with Kruse Way. Traffic from southbound I-5 destined for westbound Highway 217 would reach Highway 217 via Kruse Way. This traffic would exit the southbound collector- distributor road at Kruse Way, pass through two signalized intersections, one on Kruse Way just west of I-5 and the second at SW 68th Parkway, and then would utilize the ramp from Kruse Way to westbound Highway 217. This is similar to the existing route for this traffic movement. Traffic from I-5 to Kruse Way would use the collector-distributor roads. SW 72nd Avenue currently varies in width from two to four lanes. It would be widened to a uniform five lanes through the project area. The four signalized intersections with the Highway 217 ramps would be replaced with two signalized intersections. The northern intersection would connect SW Hampton Street on the east with ramps to and from Highway 217. The southern intersection would connect Kruse Way on the east with Hunziker Street on the west. 8 IL o0 ~ O O Q as $ ~ 1S li3NQNf1H cn 9~ E _m 0 0 Z AVM 3Sf1HN 2* c a ctl c L Q 0) LL In general, Alternative A would provide improved access to the Tigard Triangle area by providing an expanded arterial network and additional access points to the southeastern portion of the triangle. The freeway-to-freeway connections would be on moderate grades, but sight distance would be restricted in the tunnels. Alternative A is estimated to cost approximately $45.0 million for construction plus $4.0 million for right-of-way, for a total of $49.0 million. Alternative B Alternative B is a "partial freeway" concept, which would generally preserve the existing alignment of Highway 217 (See Figure 4). As with Alternative A, collector-distributor roads would be added along both sides of I-5. The freeway-to-freeway connections between I-5 and Highway 217 would be provided by ramps on an overcrossing structure. The ramps would rise from the middle of the Highway 217 corridor and would tie into the outside of I-5 just north of Bonita Road. There would be less distance between the termini of these ramps and the collector-distributor roads than with Alternative A. Kruse Way would be functionally extended to SW 72nd Avenue. Instead of the two-way boulevard provided by Alternative A, one-way, limited access roadways would be provided on either side of the Highway 217 mainline between I-5 and SW 72nd Avenue. Ramps would connect these roadways to SW 72nd Avenue. A direct connection to Hunziker Street would not be provided for westbound traffic on Kruse Way. Traffic from I-5 to Kruse Way would use the collector-distributor roads. The Highway 217 interchange with SW 72nd Avenue would be a diamond configuration. Hunziker Street would be re-aligned to the north, crossing over Highway 217 and terminating at the intersection of SW 72nd Avenue and Hampton Street. The access to the Tigard Triangle would be provided by ramps to SW 72nd Avenue from the Kruse Way extension on the east and ramps from Highway 217 on the west. This is similar to the existing situation. Alternative B is estimated to cost approximately $45.7 million for construction plus $7.1 million for right-of-way, for a total of $52.8 million. Phased Construction Both Alternative A and Alternative B could be constructed in stages. This is expected to be necessary because the estimated costs for construction exceed the funds that are expected to be available in any one year. While both functional phasing and directional phasing were examined, functional phasing is preferred, because it would construct the freeway to freeway connections completely in the first phase. The collector-distributor roads would be constructed in the second phase. This method has the disadvantage of not correcting the existing weaving problems on I-5 northbound until the second phase. Alternative B is more suited to functional phasing because less construction would be required in the I-5 corridor, especially at the Kruse Way interchange. 10 o` Oa 0 0 O o 4d 8 °v IN Qn I 1S kl3HIZNf1H~ Ug 0 o O Q o C:l oP4 po Q Ds _ O o4 ❑ ❑o 0 0 co E j O O O GO Otl VIINO8 LI Q AVM 3snum ¢ O O O m ~ N Y a m 0 0 Z cc L Q b' LL. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS Transportation Transportation Planning The Metropolitan Service District (METRO) coordinates regional transportation planning in the Portland metropolitan area. The project is included in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Update, adopted in March, 1989, as a 10-Year Priority Project. In the project area, the Washington County Transportation Plan identifies the Tigard Triangle and the industrial/commercial areas along SW 72nd Avenue between Highway 217 and Lower Boones Ferry Road as areas with traffic demand management potential. In traffic demand management areas, Washington County's goal is to reduce single-occupant vehicle trips and to shift traffic to off-peak travel hours. Traffic management plans have also been recommended for implementation in the Kruse Way corridor. The Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan requires that traffic generation limitations be imposed on developments to maintain level of service "D" conditions for the peak hour. Traffic Methodology Traffic volumes were developed using the EMME 2 METRO transportation model. This model was used to simulate existing (1987) traffic conditions and to develop the 2005 forecast year traffic. The design year (2015) traffic was then generated by calculating the level of population and employment increase expected between the forecast year (2005) and the design year (2015). Some of the roadways leading into the project area will limit the volume of vehicles in the area. In particular, previous agreements limit Kruse Way to the existing four through lanes. The volumes that take into consideration the limits of these roadways are described as constrained volumes. Traffic assignments and analysis of impacts and benefits were based on the constrained 2015 design year traffic. Volume and Level of Service A Transportation, Traffic, and Safety Report was prepared which details the traffic volumes, levels of service and accident rates for all the segments of freeway, ramps and local streets in the project area. Figure 5 shows the existing traffic volumes. Figure 6 shows the constrained traffic volume forecast for the design year (2015). Levels of service (LOS) are explained in Appendix B. LOS A is the best operation, while LOS F is the poorest. 12`" d o ~ o co 2 as z Y E cu U Z fag ° O 4-- ( E z c°5E) (nbJwl RT 0COE ' Ai-e ~ ( _ caLfJ a9L-k (29F47 5~f (Cb J (Oak COW cab Wi1 ,9 H ~ ry o, cQasJ (~Jor~ c~sxn,-f any puZL MS CfiZ (aef)°IZs NOOIX--► 8 (1/ n ~~01 y d r E 8 o O > ~a M cxa ) m C Q~~ r• a CL Q. Q W o c 0 C)l C> C) LO 0 v~ cu ~ y O N 2 L p O z Y ~ co E co .s z 8 , L(m~lml g r(azEJ~b6 ( 1 .J T 4 r (co6JctSf ~ t~l deg l°jsJ C w , `55 ~ eC ) (?s6E1 ~y (oSb£I (fin)' asaS a5E (CP-) ~ (asotl pv~L (mli) app 00% oSYb SO~ b oo' Cwi~~b.} ~ C i ~e and P U3L MS ~ f~ kPc~ (ooaoJol ~ ' N U) 4) 6 a Q- _8~ E d O O ` 75 i t QF i O O ca co a) 4) o. CL N < IL Y O ° o o r ~ i V) KKK J 1 „ l Existing C._ The existing peak hour levels of service are shown in Figure 7. The worst level of service is E - F on the ramp from Highway 217 to southbound I-5; this occurs in both the AM and the PM peak hour. LOS E is found at eight locations, as follows: Carman Drive to I-5 Northbound merge - AM peak Northbound I-5 to Kruse Way diverge - both AM and PM Northbound I-5 to Kruse Way Ramp - both AM and PM Westbound Highway 217 to SW 72nd Avenue diverge - AM peak SW 72nd Avenue to Westbound Highway 217 merge - PM peak Eastbound Highway 217 to SW 72nd Avenue diverge - AM peak SW 72nd Avenue to Eastbound Highway 217 merge - both AM and PM Eastbound Highway 217 to Southbound I-5 merge - both AM and PM LOS D or D - E is found at an additional 18 locations. Only ten areas are at LOS C or better in both the AM and PM peak. No Build Alternative Since the No Build Alternative includes no changes from the existing freeway configurations in the project area, growth in traffic volumes would result in capacity deficiencies throughout the project area (see Figures 8 and 9). In particular, the 1-5 mainline would develop bottlenecks at either end of the project which would cause unstable stop-and-go operation in both directions during peak hour periods. Likewise, the weaving sections on Highway 217 between I-5 and SW 72nd Avenue would operate under forced-flow conditions. Signal intersections would suffer from severe capacity problems, particularly at the intersection of Kruse Way with Bangy Road and the northbound I-5 ramps, and at the signalized intersections on SW 72nd Avenue at the Highway 217 interchange. Capacity constraints on the roadway system would cause a shift in travel times and routes. Peak travel periods, which currently last approximately 1.5 hours during the AM and PM periods, could lengthen to 3 hours or more during each peak period. Significant amounts of regional traffic would divert to local streets, such as Carman Drive, Upper Boones Ferry Road, and SW 72nd Avenue. 15 c ~A C d x k Cl) 0 O 0 m+ T d Mil l 6 G G) Qq a a U r> CD m m m 03 7 ' 00 0 00 W ° o 1 O 41 a e 4 o q 0~ o ~ o v, ~n 00 ~m m p -n m m m 33 2 ~ 0 ~ erpror O ~ z ° ) 0mw _ _ ~WW ca v~ a~ 0g E G N G CL s ° O ~m o ~ q 0 KRUSE WAY m o (1) 0 O i. r0 P I ° U z f1 MM p G)m W m~ 0 m m r~ m ~ g r rW vm ~D 00 ~(1' n nm m o 0 n m $ Alp, _ IT! IM p a S D v ~ z. Cl) 0 r r o 0 = o = ~m o° p 0 z ~O 2B ° $ 0 0 °g n S° fD v ^ o O 9 ~ v 9 D oa a~a o m r" m m< m 0 rm m{ z Om W~ /o~ ~0 n v D < Cl) m IT! 0 /o z m v -BONITA RD m m G) G7 2 m D qrq 0T m 0 mm v0 m m~ C) p r Q0 m o C' mM n m m r~ \ Q m° mD J v ~O Nr <m m CD m R1 0 m D ° p r OD ° II a IT! L °d~ ~m a a a T. N 0 m m mm 0 z v c3 t3 8iD <m O ~ N ym po 0 Rm rr ~~I HUNZIKERST o v v ro S T m v 0 m ~ -n z fpm m D Q 33 ~r O Cl m > r m Op < O1 O m ~ 0 o y ~ 0m ~00 0 4' vm 0 v n 0 F; I In C ®0 O do CL r CD O a a 4 0 m -n G a jm G m op mD w o Q d, ~ O o ma a Co pn o W to vo A 'n 33 v m ?z D m m M (n m m D< O ° £J o opO Z _mD o^ o m m O 7 C N r ❑ C ~ 3 m m ° C3 (D 9 0 s o m ~ (D q L KRUSE WAY M m - m ~ ' TI co r { 8, n T @ D T 0 rw° M m c m o 19 o ~ L ® ® M, m 0 v_ mDo6 =1 m m Z R i mo , 0 O r (n , O5 0 n o O w ~ 0 D v O 9 T. ado 0 a aa 0 a oa .m m ~ yea \ n / v u m mm m r~ p 13 O m < pr F/! O rn z r- Wo v o -n A mM ~CD w 7 CD N . . C C, v m O -1 (A I m z 8 0NITA RD M T m Mm m M G) m D r~ ~r Cf) v ~ DO ~ ~ 03 _ \ 0 r~ T mm 0 m J m* m o r ~ D \ p T o m mD O D ~7 a 0 r~ir r00 r d L v m D a no L (n m ^ r r ~ o o m v F o. vo ~ o W m 03 I D 03 D HUNZIKER ST v m a n o m nm m m A ~m Z vPm n All m ~ 1 g omm 2 rD ~i (n ? m v rD o0 r W ~ 0 m v m G7 CD v ~y m m 9 Z m m m O O O v ~ ~ -n z (n ~o In C ~O O S r CA V T. T mm 13 G) gE a a a a~aaaa° 0 b r Q 9 O $ o a EP m Qo oo p~ v v T o o m m2 ~ o ma z < . ,~t~ 0 r o r r A ~ii ~i 4 d ao r o O ~ v~ 8icn 00 - vo w A m -n n IT! m m r y C, 7D { m m m m ~o0 n m< O v~ m z r M z BONITA RD W-nW m c a'i E O -n a Ei a w € o 49 m mD ~v o 13 < car m T G n KRUS E WAY v m00 ~ rT o \ p r~ c:3 ~ ~ ~mr~ IM) T 33 m m b OO v p < v „ chi) r' < m at m cn r \n\ j m~ -Mm v CO) 0 8 G~J 00 m " Z ~T v-n 0 <m pp r > Cl)0 O Z G33) IT! ` GG)* \ nop~, vv N < m r m Cm{ q a v (1) r0~ 'n ~r C dac Gi 0rp " Cl) wC n v a -n O p O o o 7 y Piz - <m m D I HUNZIKER ST a° v n rpoo a o Al' $ Qw~ rr m Tt IT! ~0 opro ' N 8 m m t _n a 8 m m m rp W ] o 0C) w" a-n a ° mm o 8 =a ~ ch G)m than ~a vo m rm~ ~y TO m n 'm _ Nr wm vN ~ ° rt~ Rl CD 2 T o O p S ~ C ) z r~ m a m O CO) O 9 u a n v~ v r m 9 Z 0 9 ,J O Alternative A With Alternative A, most of I-5 would operate at LOS D in 2015. (See Figures 10 and 11 for future LOS) While these levels of service would be lower than specified in the project objectives (first part of objective 4), this level would provide balanced operation with adjacent freeway sections (second part of objective 4). To improve the operation of Alternative A to LOS C, the collector-distributor roads would need to be extended beyond the limits of this project, possibly as far south as I-205. This would have a significant impact on adjacent neighborhoods and would substantially increase the project costs. Therefore LOS D was determined to be acceptable for this alternative. Highway 217 would operate mostly at LOS D in the design year, dropping to LOS E on the northbound ramp from Kruse Way. Intersections along Kruse Way and SW 72nd Avenue would also operate at LOS D or E. (See 11.) Alternative B The operation of the I-5 corridor with Alternative B would be basically similar to that with Alternative A. See Figure 12 for Alternative B LOS on I-5. The significant exception would be the section of northbound I-5 between Kruse Way and Haines Road, where Alternative B would operate at LOS D rather than Alternative A's LOS D-E. The consecutive on-ramps are further apart with Alternative B. This may make ramp metering easier than with Alternative A. Highway 217 would operate mostly at LOS D in the design year. See Figure 13 for Alternative B LOS on Highway 217. Because of the steeper grades on the overcrossing ramps, traffic on Alternative B would operate at slightly slower speeds that on equivalent flows on Alternative A. The opposite is true of the northbound weave section between SW 72nd Avenue and Highway 99W. As with Alternative A, intersections along Kruse Way and SW 72nd Avenue would also operate at LOS D or E. Access and Circulation Both build alternatives would result in access and circulation changes in the project area. Alternative A would have the most significant affect on access, especially in the Tigard Triangle, because the extension of SW 68th Parkway would create a new access point into the Triangle. Alternative A also provides a direct connection between Kruse Way and Hunziker Street. This would provide an alternative to Highway 217 between Lake Oswego and Tigard. The collector- distributor roads along I-5, which are a part of both alternatives, would cause minor circulation changes. Travelers would need to learn to use different exits for some destinations. Effective signing would reduce confusion among travelers. Neither build alternative is expected to cause significant traffic diversion from the freeway system to the local street system. Access to individual properties is discussed under right of way impacts. 19 9 ¢ N W <mUOWLL <mUOWY. !A O J } Q 0 0 z O z _ 0 N H O J W z z 0 z O C/) <mUOWLL <mUOWLL z A N oZ F y D z 8 W z 5 9 ZpC m O3 g3 G7 W ~y W 0.¢Q 7 v N 6 W m WN F wZ O O N O J W z z 0 ml Q 0 z ~Tl t mU Ou O J } 6 O z 0 0 z .1 C" < WO YY. LO C A P O J R! C i ' T t i ~v y O J } 3 w N D z y w 3 <mUOWU. <mU OW Y. N O J N O z O z <mUOWU. <mVOwu. Z t~~^G QLL V W z 5 W< CO Y N W^ 1 4 O 1 O (A O J OI UY U OWu to 0 a~ W CW4. cl T N 09 e O U) O J ca e T T L <mUOwu. <mUOWW <n 0 J 3A} K 2 0 z D m 0 cn N O W i 0 z <mUOwLL <muowa z 0 V W z 5 9 N 800 C mr ¢c W C CL Q~ W O N oW Z W O O < mU OWLL < If ??T-. (A O W Z 0 z Q 0 z N 0 J } g 0 z O co O z <mUOwu mU Ou U) C Q U) J m N (Q C Q N T i 7 LL C N 0 t i 0 z w 3 (A 0 N e x 0 z CC 0 z II,IIIII IIIIIIIII <mUOWLL <ao UO WLL <oUOWLL <mUOWLL w g NO ff A N q~ W i N W u W O 5 O N CA 0 N s' of N O~ 1 1 1 UOW J4 N 0 <a OW{~ IW ti tV A Z 2 C O U) O O cts c M T- M ML Public Transit The Tri-County Metropolitan District of Oregon (Tri-Met) is the transit agency serving the project area. Currently, three bus routes pass through the interchange as shown in Figure 14. Two of these routes operate during peak periods only: Line 38 connecting the SW 72nd Avenue vicinity to downtown Portland and Line 96 down I- 5 to downtown Portland. The third route, Line 78, is a seven-day per week service connecting Beaverton and Lake Oswego via Hunziker Street, SW 72nd Avenue and Hampton Street. To date, Tri-Met has not requested that special transit features be included in the design of the interchange improvements. Transit service through the project can be maintained on existing routes during construction and on the ultimate interchange with either alternative configuration. Tri-Met is investigating a possible new park- and-ride lot in the project area. Excess right-of-way created as a part of this project, if any, could be made available for a park-and-ride lot. At present, Tri-Met does not foresee light-rail transit service in the project area. Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation Pedestrian use is currently very low in the project area. This use could be expected to increase as adjacent land develops into higher-density uses. Increased transit use, in particular facilities such as park-and-ride lots and freeway transit stops, could increase pedestrian volumes to a point where pedestrians could impact the operation of signalized intersections. Five-foot sidewalks on both sides of Kruse Way are proposed in both build alternatives. Bicycles are permitted on Highway 217 and I-5 south of Highway 217. Bicycles are prohibited on I-5 north of Highway 217 because of the numerous exit and entrance ramps. There are no special provisions for bicycles on these freeways, however, beyond standard paved shoulders. Kruse Way has a separated bicycle path/sidewalk constructed on the north side of the roadway. While the 1983 Regional Bicycle Plan identifies both I-5 and Highway 217 as proposed bicycle routes with no funds identified, in 1987 the Oregon Highway Division proposed in the "Westside Bicycle Study" that parallel local streets be improved to accommodate regional north- south bicycle travel in the area. Hall Boulevard is the proposed route in the project area. In both alternatives the Kruse Way bicycle path/sidewalk is continued on the north side of the roadway to SW 68th Parkway. To accommodate the bicycle path with Alternative A, the three right-turns on the north side at the two intersections on Kruse Way would need to be signalized. 24 a N ®78 9g~ (D pQ` MLJ~ M Haines Rd c n I I \ ` I O \ I ti4~z~ 8 96 , r \ ~ I I TIGARD 'n i LAKE OSWEGO I \ I \ I \ I Kruse 38~9i! I I Bonita Rd I j I , 38 ' I , I , I I I o~ Not to scale Figure 14 Tri-Met Bus Routes Summary and Conclusions The capacity of I-5 and Highway 217 would be balanced with adjacent sections for either build alternative. Both the freeways and surface streets would operate at level of service D to E with either build alternative. Access to the Tigard Triangle from I-5 would be improved under Alternative A. Land Use Planning Existing Land Use The project area is a commercial and industrial hub that is primarily suburban in character. Since construction of the interchange about twenty years ago, extensive urban growth has occurred in Lake Oswego, Tigard and areas further north and west of the interchange. Figure 15 displays existing land uses. Immediately adjacent to I- 5 are commercial and industrial properties. Major buildings include: the Farmers Insurance building in the northwest quadrant of the I-5/Highway 217 interchange; the Portland Temple of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS Temple) in the northeast quadrant; and the new Howard Johnson's hotel south of Kruse Way and east of Bangy Road. Residential areas are found north of the church, south of Bonita Road on the east side of I-5 and along Carman Drive. Comprehensive Plans The project area includes land under the jurisdiction of the cities of Lake Oswego and Tigard and Clackamas County. Each jurisdiction has its own comprehensive plan. Figure 16 summarizes the land use designations included in those plans. In general these designations mirror the existing land uses. The major exception is the designation of the church property as residential. The existing zoning designations, shown in Figure 17, are also quite similar. Each of the jurisdictions was asked to review their plan to determine whether the project alternatives would be compatible with the comprehensive plan. Clackamas County responded that both Alternative A and Alternative B are compatible and that no plan amendments, exceptions, zone changes, variances or permits would be needed. The City of Tigard responded that Alternative B is more in keeping with the City's Transportation Plan, though neither alternative is discussed in the Comprehensive Plan. Alternative A would require a review by the City and a Comprehensive Plan amendment. A sensitive lands review would be required for the wetlands impacts with either alternative. The City of Lake Oswego also responded that neither alternative is specifically discussed in the Comprehensive Plan. The 1983 Report on Traffic Circulation and A Transportation Management Program - Kruse Way was adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan. This report makes recommendations for changes to the Kruse Way and Bangy Road intersection to relieve congestion and assist in maintaining 26 service level D during peak hours as required by the Comprehensive Plan. These recommendations are of a much smaller scope than the proposed project but nonetheless recognize the existence of a circulation and capacity problem. Several different permits and processes will be required to satisfy City of Lake Oswego codes. A tree cutting permit is required for removal of any tree over S inches in diameter. A Development Review permit will be required and will include examination of the project's consistency with City Development Standards for stream corridors, wetlands, landscaping, drainage, weak foundation soils and hillside protection and erosion control. A surface water runoff review will also be required to ensure levels of phosphate will not exceed state standards. Any relocation or extension of the pathways along Kruse Way would also need to be reviewed by the City. The Lake Oswego Charter allows citizens to petition to take any road widening to a city-wide election. Only twenty-five signatures are required on the petition to require the election. Alternative A may encroach on an area of the Centerpointe development set aside as open space. These areas fulfill the City's open space requirements for that development. The City of Lake Oswego concluded that either Alternative A of B can be made to be compatible with the Comprehensive Plan if permit requirements are followed. Future Land Uses The Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan requires that the function and service level of Kruse Way be protected at level of service D or better by institution of Transportation System Management (TSM) changes, if necessary. If this and other local agency level of service policies are enforced, development in the Kruse Way corridor and the Tigard Triangle could be severely restricted with the No Build Alternative, since level of service D conditions at signalizations would not be attainable, even with the implementation of TSM measures. Since both build alternatives separate traffic bound for Highway 217 from local Kruse Way traffic, future development would be less restrained with construction of the project. 27 ,n C J to r C. '•G:• ~MCP ri \ N = O CCD C N -i CD y:. J3,r . • r G ~ ~ Ai cn 0 0 - 0 C: o x - ~-BONITA RD s f' m m ' '•Z s A: 0 9 a b' KRUSE WAY ",~i ..D~° •.C.•.'.•.•.'. .•~,•~,'tt'.'.'. P. , HUNZIKER ST AP, \ z 0 0 y W ~ V. 'TI C <D N 7 v I ° d p 0 ~9 d o~ w A w 3 w n O c n CA O CD C~ w C ~ M. CD CD CD (D lG O a s KRUSE WAY Z O O CO C) w CD . . w CA 7 0 O 7 n O c .O-. L•L•.'1•:• .:•t :PU HUNZIKER ST k.. ®l® .8 •:g•:•i;i 4 `r. In rm, c tG NMI L11 7 0 1'7 tin N 3 rn n - CD CD J w ado = ~ sv •4 s • o BONITA RD' O • .m C ~n :gip Y. : s... F°. KRUSE WAY ••~:f]'~: y•'`c'••••.r5r Rb. • ~ ppp : •HUNZIKERST .;n...b. ®3® o o CD Social and Economic Environment Population and Housing In the Tigard Triangle, population and housing has decreased, due to implementation of the changes in land use as proposed in the Comprehensive Plan. Much of the land that was once residential, has now been designated as commercial, with policies encouraging development of office parks. No new housing is proposed within the Tigard Triangle. In Lake Oswego, there are well established residential neighborhoods both north and south of the Kruse Way commercial area. Acquisition of property for either build alternative would not split residential areas or existing neighborhoods. No residences would be acquired. Socioeconomic Characteristics of the Population Recent information on general social groups in the area is limited. Data from the 1980 Census indicate that there are few non-white or minority residents in the project area. The median age and the number of people over age 65 is higher in the project area than for the surrounding counties. There is little evidence, however, to suggest that the project would disproportionately affect elderly residents. Economics During the latter part of the 1980s, the Portland metropolitan area experienced rapid growth. Most of this growth occurred in the suburban parts of the region, especially in Clackamas and Washington counties. Tigard and Lake Oswego are two of Oregon's fastest growing communities, with population increases of 83 and 31 percent respectively during the last decade. The Socioeconomic Report prepared for this project provides more detailed information on the economic trends in the project area. The paragraphs that follow are the summary conclusions of that report. Since the No Build Alternative would not change the current highway configuration, continuing development in the area would lead to more traffic, increased congestion, a greater number of accidents, and possibly to deterioration in the area's overall quality of life. Long-term economic development could be adversely affected if the project is not built. Construction would generate a substantial number of short-term jobs. The total number is estimated at 575 jobs, if all of the construction occurred in a short time period. However, the project is likely to be constructed in phases over a number of years, resulting in fewer jobs. Disruption and changes in access would occur during project construction, and could result in adverse effects on highway-related businesses. Effective signing and construction scheduling could reduce adverse impacts during construction. After the project is completed, highway-related businesses could continue to experience adverse effects. Businesses dependent on pass-through customers probably would be most seriously affected. Because access from I-5 would be less direct, using frontage roads, adverse impacts would be greatest for highway-related 31 businesses along S.W. Bangy Road and in nearby commercial and office areas. Adverse impacts on businesses dependent on local customers would be temporary, decreasing as customers became familiar with route configuration after the project is completed. Effective signing could reduce confusion among both pass-through and local customers of highway-related businesses. Construction of Alternative A probably would not adversely affect established business districts beyond what would occur in the absence of the project. Considerable growth has occurred in the area already, and local comprehensive plans have designated much of the area for additional development. Construction of Alternative B could lead to the displacement of several businesses and an office, resulting in the loss of approximately 100 jobs if these establishments do not reopen elsewhere. Current labor shortages in the Portland metropolitan area suggest that job losses would be of short duration. Community Facilities The project is not likely to have adverse impacts on the only church in the project area: the Portland Oregon Temple of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, located on S.W. Kruse Oaks Boulevard, northeast of the proposed interchange. There are no recreational, police, or fire protection facilities in the immediate project area. Several businesses would be displaced by Alternative B. If these businesses do not reopen nearby, their customers would need to shop elsewhere for goods and services. Because of the variety and large number of businesses in metropolitan Portland, it is unlikely that local residents would encounter major problems finding businesses selling similar goods and services. The Phil Lewis Elementary School on S.W. 72nd Avenue is the only school in the project area. Under both build alternatives, the school's property would be divided by acquisition of right-of-way. The smaller portion nearer Highway 217 is landscaped but contains no buildings associated with the school. The school currently serves about 400 students. The build alternatives would not force the closure of the school; however, population shifts and continuing declines in student enrollment may lead to its closure. The property is zoned General Commercial. 32 4_. Neighborhood Quality As discussed in the Noise section, proposed noise walls would minimize the effect of increased noise levels on the adjoining neighborhoods. Disruption in nearby neighborhoods would probably occur during construction. Building the project in phases, encouraging travel on alternative routes outside the project area, and promoting carpooling and mass transit may help reduce adverse effects during construction. Right of Way Impacts Impacts to properties adjacent to the proposed project vary from minor easements to displacements. Impacts vary by alternative. Alternative A would impact 32 parcels owned by 22 owners. Most are zoned commercial or industrial. One of the three parcels zoned residential is occupied by a church. Alternative A would require acquisition of about 352,000 square feet of land (Table 2). In addition, slope easements would be required and uneconomic remainders (portions of parcels too small for development) would result. No businesses or residences would be displaced, however. Alternative B would impact 31 parcels owned by 27 owners. As with Alternative A, most of the land is zoned commercial or industrial. Only two parcels are residentially zoned. Alternative B would require acquisition of about 367,000 square feet of land. Alternative B would displace five businesses: a service station; a combined service station and convenience store; a restaurant; an office building occupied by the Columbia Girl Scout Council; and a retail furniture store (see Figure 18). About 100 full time and 25 part time employees are associated with these businesses. The Girl Scout Council has two office buildings at this location, so, while its 25 employees are included in the above total, not all of these employees would be displaced. TABLE 2 RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPACTS Type of Impact Alternative A Alternative B Acquisition (Sq. Ft.) 352,000 367,000 Slope Easement (Sq. Ft.) 216,000 72,000 Uneconomic Remainders (Sq. Ft.) 59,000 60,000 Residences Displaced 0 0 Businesses Displaced 0 5 Minority Employees 0 18 Elderly Employees 0 3 Low Income Employees 0 39 Estimated ROW Cost $4,020,000 $7,080,000 I C 33 The potentially affected businesses were contacted and three expressed concern with relocation. The furniture store is concerned that relocation would disrupt business and a suitable replacement site might not be available. The Girl Scout office would resist relocation from one office building, since the other building would remain. The restaurant was the first one in a chain and is considered the chain's "flagship", and the contact person thought that relocation would be a major problem. The corporation which owns the two gas stations and convenience store indicated that they would not feel obligated to open similar business in this immediate area if these were displaced. Both build alternatives would require acquisition of a substantial portion of the Phil Lewis Elementary School property. Concerns were raised whether enough land would remain to continue operation of the school. The existing facilities would not be affected, since the area required is a landscaped area. Therefore, the only concern is the student-to-land ratio. Currently no such ratio regulations exist. Before 1980, regulations did stipulate a ratio and the school would still be above the old minimum ratio after acquisition. The property is currently zoned for general commercial development and would be a desirable location for retail, office or light industrial use. Conversations with the school district indicate that use of the property may change to another use in the near future. Both alternatives would eliminate about 140 existing parking spaces. Typical parking requirements were estimated based on type of business (retail or warehouse and manufacturing). Three of the five parcels affected by Alternative A would have, after right-of-way acquisition, fewer parking spaces than the analysis estimates would be needed. Each of these parcels appears to have insufficient parking facilities even in the existing conditions. Similarly, for Alternative B three of the eight parcels would likely have insufficient parking after acquisition. In some cases additional parking spaces could be created on adjacent land or by reconfiguring the landscaped areas. However, two parcels for Alternative A and three parcels for Alternative B do not seem to have supplemental parking opportunities. These businesses are not included in the Table 2 as displaced. Acquisition and relocation assistance procedures are governed by the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970, the Uniform Relocation Act Amendments of 1987, appropriate state relocation legislation , and U.S. Department of Transportation Order 5620.1. The Oregon Department of Transportation land acquisition and relocation assistance programs are described in two brochures entitled: "Acquiring Land for Highways and Public Projects" and "Moving Because of Highway or Public Projects?". Copies of these brochures are included in Appendix C. Briefly, displaced businesses would be offered relocation assistance. All property owners affected by right-of-way acquisition would be compensated at fair market value for damages and acquired land and facilities. Access The proposed project would also affect access to several properties. Alternative A would affect access to ten parcels, all except two of which are owned by Farmers Insurance. New access to Fanners Insurance would be provided from either 68th Parkway or the extension of Kruse Way between I-5 and 68th Parkway. 34 The other two parcels affected are east of I-5 along Bangy Road. The parcels have access from Bangy Road and a rear access from a shared driveway. A portion of the shared driveway would be displaced by the northbound collector-distributor road. It is anticipated that the driveway could be reconnected to remain functional. For Alternative B, access to four parcels would be affected. The private road connecting 68th Parkway with the Farmers Insurance building could be partially covered by the embankment for the southbound collector-distributor road. Possible mitigation measures would include construction of a retaining wall or reconfiguration of the access road. The other three parcels are affected by the realigned Hunziker street. The embankment for the widened street would extend onto driveways for these properties. The driveways could be regraded or relocated, depending on the slope of the embankment. Access to the Georgetown Manor Furniture Store would be affected by either build alternative. The primary entrance to the store faces I-5. While the access to the store is from Bangy Road, and would not be affected, the collector/distributor road would require acquisition of much of the property on the west side of the building. The width of the remaining property on the west side of the building would be adequate for a circulation road, allowing customer drop-off and pick-up access to the main entrance, but the road may be one-way. Construction of a secondary entrance closer to the parking area may be desireable. Aesthetics The project area is visible mostly from the high-rise commercial establishments. Most of the residential areas are screened from the highways by existing noise walls or vegetation. The fly-over structures included in Alternative B would increase the dominance of the highway in the area, while the tunnel included in Alternative A would be much less obtrusive. Cultural Resources Archeological Resources An archeological survey was conducted on December 12, 1988. Because no evidence of prehistoric cultural material was found in the project area, it appears that the proposed road improvements would not adversely affect any significant archeological resources. Therefore, no further investigation or protective measures are recommended. A letter from the State Historic Preservation Office concurring in this recommendation is included in Appendix D. If archeological resources are discovered during construction of the project, appropriate mitigation actions would be taken, as defined in the provisions of Section 105.13, Standard Specifications for Highway Construction (1984) and in interagency agreements. 35 91 ~L2 C -s <D co CD r+ C wF rh 0 Q <D A .9 C <D O. a N 7 9J .•r <D I KRUSE WAY Z 0 0 y C'1 N W CD Historic Resources Each of the four jurisdictions in the project area were contacted to determine if any sites significant were included on historic resource surveys. The State Historic Preservation Office was also contacted. No sites with historic or architectural importance were found in the proposed project area. A site review by a cultural resource specialist supported that conclusion. Noise Noise Impacts A Noise Study Report was prepared for this project. Existing noise levels were measured at 12 sites. Measured noise levels varied from Leq' 61 to 82 dBA. Traffic volumes recorded during the noise measurements were used as input in a computer noise prediction model. The traffic noise levels obtained from the model agreed within 0-3 dBA2 of the measured traffic noise levels. This close agreement supported the accuracy of the prediction model. This same model was used to predict existing and future noise levels using peak truck hour traffic volumes. These predicted noise levels are shown in Table 3. Locations that exceed the federal noise abatement criteria (Appendix E) are considered to be impacted by noise. Therefore, residences that are predicted to have ( noise levels equal to or greater than Leq 67 dBA and businesses with noise levels equal to or above Leq 72 dBA are impacted and are noted in Table 3 by a Structures that would be impacted by noise with construction of Alternative A or Alternative B are shown on Figures 19A and 19B, respectively. Most of the businesses Most of the businesses on either side of I-5 are impacted by noise. Table 4 summarizes the noise impacts by alternative. Residences impacted are the same for either build alternative (38), one less than impacted by the No Build Alternative. All future alternatives would create a noise impact at the LDS Temple. Only the No Build alternative would impact the school. Twelve businesses would be impacted by noise with the No Build Alternative, 15 with Alternative A and 14 with Alternative B. The residential area on the east side of I-5 between Haines Road and Southwood Drive has existing noise levels ranging between Leq 62 dBA and Leq 67 dBA. This area is currently protected by an existing concrete sound wall. Post construction measurements show this wall is reducing noise levels by 7-10 dBA. 1 Leq is the noise level descriptor used in this study. It is the average sound energy equivalent to a varying sound level occurring over a given time as measured in decibels on the "A" scale (dBA). s Noise is measured in decibels weighted on the "A' scale to approximate normal hearing ability. An increase of 10 dBA is normally perceived as a doubling of loudness. The 67 dBA level is roughly equivalent to the noise of a vacuum cleaner ten feet away. C 37 Noise levels would increase to Leq 63-69 dBA by 2015 for all alternatives, an increase of 1-3 dBA. The residential area along the east side of I-5 between Southwood Drive and the LDS Temple has noise levels ranging between Leq 63 dBA and Leq 68 dBA. This area is currently protected by an 11-foot high privately owned wood wall. Measurements show this wall is currently reducing noise levels at residences along the west side of SW 64th Avenue by 7-9 dBA. Noise levels would rise by the year 2015 to Leq 65-70 dBA for all alternatives, an increase of 2-3 dBA. The LDS Temple, located just northeast of the Kruse Way Interchange, has only one area, the outdoor fountain that could be considered an outdoor activity area. The Temple has no windows facing the freeway. The existing noise level 20 feet south of the fountain is Leq 67 dBA and increases markedly as the fountain is approached. No mitigation is being proposed for the LDS Temple because fountains have been used as noise mitigation to effectively mask undesirable noise. The residential area between Shakespeare Street and Carman Drive has existing noise levels ranging from Leq 63 - 73 dBA. Predicted noise levels would rise to Leq 64-75 dBA by 2015. Noise Mitigation Noise impacts can be mitigated in three residential areas (see Figure 19C). The existing concrete noise wall will continue to protect the area north of Southwood Drive. The wall may need to be incorporated in a retaining wall, but the effectiveness would be maintained. The area south of Southwood Drive has a wooden wall constructed by the developer. The current estimated life expectancy for this wall is about five years. Since this life expectancy coincides with the predicted beginning of construction for this project, the noise analysis included predictions of noise impacts without the wall. A cost effective noise wall could be constructed and is proposed for this location. The barrier would be 13-15 feet high and 1260 feet long. Noise levels would be reduced by 10-12 dBA over the no-wall condition. A total of 19 residences would have noise levels reduced from above to below the federal noise abatement criteria. The third area where noise mitigation is proposed is between Shakespeare Street and Carman Drive along the east side of I-5. Three residences would be impacted by noise in 2015 with all alternatives. This area requested construction of noise barriers in the late 1970s. A noise wall 10 feet high and 300 feet long would reduce noise levels by 6-10 dBA. Based on the noise studies completed to date, it is likely that the two sound walls discussed above will be incorporated into the project design. During final project design, the walls will be re-evaluated to determine the grade of the top of wall and the wall heights. If conditions have significantly changed by that time, the sound walls might not be provided. A final decision on the installation of the sound walls will be made upon completion of the project design and the public involvement process. The scenic views of the affected residences and their approval of the mitigation measures will be considered in the final noise abatement decision. 38 C. IT! rA 0 A A a M °o .12 1 13 !9 3~ aa~ o¢a¢a¢a~uaa~~~ame~ aQ~a¢¢¢~a¢a ~ Q¢aaaQa¢aaa ~oaaaaaoaaaoaaaaacar~a as N O O O4 x ;pp c C W $O. a c wll~ g 44 44 v~ ~w to g > O ,r,~ 77 67 LL L ~ ~ ~ 6) W I w O E o (~V~ QCA~CJtR ~fACA3a V zz d a V1 U U y O O V cn N vs u b 7 CQ N U s ;v ~i o -4 r•1 O .-1 O O M M M 00 ~ N N N Q ~ to h w U Wzaa r l .n co C -s CD Z 0 N, CD Cam? 0 CD -s CD 13 13 d 4 4 raaa ~ a a a ~ u 0 qD o~ 8 ~ a e ao °4 i z 0 0 0 dl CD C CD j CO W Z O U CD n U) 1 1 D (D 6(D W 0 0 ~o 0 ~ ~ ; ea o 0 $a ~ O O ~ O ~ os z I M U 0 . } CD 8 I PI> -n coC co n TO V O Cl) CD CL 0 N E- KRUSE WAY a fSP do-. ~ 6da C ~ 0 LL O o p 0 p D 3 g C-1 HUNZIKER 3T CD ta C9 0 0; DA Z 0 r► M 0 CD a 4 e a~ a °ara~ao Q 9 U Cf, 5 O Op Q °4 4 a~ U) N ( TL O W c 0 n. 0 w a X BONITA RD co A m N m s o a 9 ~ ~ a O 130 oP o ~ b Oro o ~ o 00 ~ 00 D 78 o_ L30 d► r9 Other noise impacted areas are zoned Commercial or Industrial. Noise barriers are typically not proposed for commercial areas impacted by traffic noise because businesses generally rely on visual exposure to the roadway for attracting customers. Construction Noise Areas adjacent to the project would be exposed to construction noise. Although of a temporary nature, additional noise can be quite annoying. This is especially true during quieter periods. Therefore, construction would be limited to daytime hours with no work on Sundays or legal holidays. This specification would be included in the contract specifications. However, since this project would reconstruct a heavily traveled facility without complete closure of the facility, it is likely that construction would be required during these normally quiet times. In addition, the contract specifications would include items in compliance with US Environmental Protection Agency equipment noise standards, muffled exhaust, and added restrictions for pile driving or blasting, if required. The following construction noise abatement measures would be included in the project specifications: 1. No construction shall be performed within 1,000 feet of an occupied dwelling unit on Sundays, legal holidays and between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. on other days without the approval of the Project Manager. 2. All equipment used shall have sound control devises no less effective than those provided on the original equipment. No equipment shall have an unmuffled exhaust. 3. All equipment shall comply with pertinent equipment noise standards of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 4. No pile driving or blasting operations shall be performed within 3,000 feet of an occupied dwelling unit on Sundays, legal holidays and between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. on other days, without the approval of the Project Manager. 5. The noise from rock crushing or screening operations performed within 3,000 feet of any occupied dwelling shall be mitigated by strategic placement of materials stockpiles between the operation and the affected dwelling or by other means approved by the Project Manager. Should a specific noise impact complaint occur during the construction of the project, the contractor at his own expense may be required to implement one or more of the following noise mitigations as directed by the Project Manager: 1. Locate stationary construction equipment as far from nearby noise sensitive properties as possible. 43 2. Shut off idling equipment. 3. Reschedule construction operations to avoid periods of noise annoyance identified in the complaint. 4. Notify nearby residents whenever extremely noisy work would be occurring. 5. Install permanent or movable acoustic barriers around stationary construction noise sources. Noise walls proposed to mitigate noise impacts would be constructed in the early stages of the project. This would allow the sound walls to reduce construction noise as well as traffic noise. Air Quality An Air Quality Report was prepared for this project. It is available on request. The conclusions of the report are summarized here. The proposed project is located within the Portland-Vancouver Air Quality Maintenance Area (AQMA). This area is designated by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) as "nonattainment" of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS shown in Appendix F) for the pollutant ozone. Concentrations for the other major traffic related air pollutants in the project area are currently at acceptable levels, and are expected to remain in compliance with the federal and state standards in future years. A total emissions analysis was performed for both build alternatives and the No Build Alternative. Pollutant emissions were calculated for existing conditions (1987) and for a representative future year (2015). Table 5 summarizes the predicted levels for Carbon Monoxide (CO), Hydrocarbons and Nitrogen Oxides. Total emissions of all three pollutants in the Year 2015 are predicted to be lower than the 1987 emissions for all project alternatives. The local air quality analysis showed that 1-hour and 8-hour concentrations of CO for all of the alternatives are well below the NAAQS for all study years (1987, 1995, 2005, and 2015). Twelve sites were used for predictions. Depending on the site location, the build alternatives would decrease the CO level by up to 0.9 parts per million (ppm) when compared to the No Build Alternative in the year 2015. A comparative listing of CO concentrations for the three alternatives is shown in Table 6. During construction of the subject project, CO and PM10 (small particulate) emissions are expected to increase. These increased emissions are due to heavy construction vehicles, lowered traffic speeds and earth excavation. To mitigate the increase in PM10 and large dust particulate, watering would be required to control generation of these pollutants. 44 TABLE 5 TOTAL ANNUAL POLLUTANT EMISSIONS Project Study Carbon Monoxide Hydrocarbons Nitrogen Oxides Alternatives Year Tons/YR Percent Tons/YR Percent Tons/YR Percent • No Build 1987 932 100 208 100 407 100 2015 728 78 139 67 318 78 Build A 2015 819 88 167 80 396 97 Build B 2015 767 82 156 75 372 91 TABLE 6 PREDICTED MAXIMUM 1-HOUR CO CONCENTRATIONS (PPM) Prediction Existing No Build Build A Build B Site' 1987 2015 2015 2015 1 2.7 1.8 1.8 1.8 2 3.1 1.9 1.8 1.9 3 3.3 1.9 1.7 1.8 4 3.3 2.0 2.3 2.0 5 3.6 2.4 1.7 1.7 6 4.4 3.2 2.2 2.3 7 3.2 2.1 1.9 2.4 8 3.5 2.2 2.4 2.3 9 2.6 1.6 1.5 1.7 10 3.4 2.3 1.7 2.1 11 3.7 2.3 2.1 1.9 12 2.8 1.6 1.8 1.5 3 Prediction sites are shown on Figure 20. 45 ki ro c N 40 O 3 O O O x o. (D n O 7 n O a a O O U) cD 0 a) O 3 y -L a~ a 4. b Q9 d oc, O, a4 OD a~ °Q d 0 0 u c a a~ to co O KRUSE WAY z 0 6 0 CD u 0 x - BONITA RD c m m m AL O O O o a 0 9 0 O 4 cn O b 0 0~ 000 o❑ Q A \ O ~~!-C-:J) ~ ~ 6 d o \ Q p o a n HUNZIKER ST v 5a \ as o 0 s Alp, od 0 8 I 2>> 04 ro +L Consistency Determination Project conformity with the State Implementation Plan (SIP) is based on the project being included in a Transportation Plan (TP) and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), both of which conform to the SIP. TP/I'IP conformance with the SIP is determined by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) with a review by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This project is included in the TPMP for the Portland-Vancouver area. The T?/TIP has been approved by the FHWA and reviewed by EPA based on its conformity with the SIP. This project, therefore, conforms to the SIP. Indirect Source Permit The build alternatives include construction of new collector-distributor roadways along I-5 which are predicted to have Average Daily Traffic volumes of more than 20,000 vehicles within ten years of completion. Therefore, an Indirect Source Construction Permit would be required for this project. An area-wide air quality analysis was completed for this project, as required for the permit application. The actual application for the permit would be prepared after selection of a build alternative. Utilities There are many different utility jurisdictions that would be affected by the ( construction of either of the build alternatives. These jurisdictions and their facilities are described in the Preliminary Utilities Report and summarized below. Five water agencies have facilities in the project area. The build alternatives would not affect the facilities of the Lake Grove Water District or the City of Lake Oswego. The largest impact would be to the Hunziker Pump Station, owned by Tigard Water District. It would be impacted by both alternatives, -but the impact would be more severe with Alternative B. Distribution systems owned by Tigard, Metzger Water District and the City of Tualatin would also be affected. The Utilities Report concluded that Alternative B would have a greater adverse impact on existing water systems than would Alternative A. Sanitary sewer service is provided by the Unified Sewerage Agency, City of Tigard and the City of Lake Oswego. There is no impact on Lake Oswego's facilities. Collection facilities of the other two agencies would be affected. Overall, Alternative A would have a greater adverse impact on the sanitary sewer system than would Alternative B. Electrical facilities owned by Portland General Electric would be affected. Alternative B would have a greater adverse impact on the existing electrical system in the project area than would Alternative A. General Telephone of Oregon Incorporated (GTE) distribution lines would have nearly the same impact by either alternative. Columbia Cable of Oregon's cable T.V. distribution lines would be impacted more by Alternative A than B. Impacts on Northwest Natural Gas lines would be slightly greater with Alternative B. 47 The impacts to the City of Tigard street lighting would be greater with Alternative A than with Alternative B. Some of the relocation costs would be the responsibility of the utility and some would be included in the cost of the highway construction project. While the total impact of utility relocation is higher for Alternative B, the costs to the project are higher for Alternative A (an estimated $84,000) than for Alternative B (an estimated $23,000). :t 48 Natural Environment Geology A "Preliminary Geologic Reconnaissance Report" was prepared for this project. The geologic units of interest in the project area are, from oldest to youngest, Troutdale formation, Boring Lava basalt, Lacustrine Sediments and alluvium. The Boring Lava is considered to have erupted from nearby vents covering an irregular erosional surface of the Troutdale formation. The thickness of the basalt is unknown, but is at least 100 feet at a well northwest of the interchange. The Boring Lava basalt apparently ends near the southbound Highway 217 ramp to southbound I-5. Groundwater is generally at shallow depths throughout the project area. Where Boring Lava basalt underlies the site, the groundwater is perched on it. As a result, springs may be present where Boring Lava becomes shallow with respect to the topography. The major impact of Alternative A would be the excavation required for the depressed roadway of the relocated Highway 217. Groundwater and possible basalt excavation would impact the excavation. It also appears that surplus soils (approximately 90,000 cubic yards) from the excavation would need to be disposed of outside of the project area. While a disposal site has not been determined, possible sites would need to be investigated to assure that they are not wetlands. The major impact of Alternative B would be the high fill for the approach for the new bridge structures carrying Highway 217 over I-5. It appears that the fill requirements for this alternative would necessitate importing material, approximately 185,000 cubic yards, from outside borrow sources. This fill would also require high retaining structures due to the location of adjacent roadways. Most of the soils obtained from excavations would need to be worked to remove moisture prior to use as fill. In addition, the moisture sensitivity of the soils would require that excavation and placement be accomplished during the dry summer months. Even during the summer months, the excavation soils would probably require working for proper placement and compaction. Commercial sources in the Portland area are expected to be capable of handling needed embankment fill. Excess excavation material for this project may be incorporated into other projects or disposed of by the contractor. Terrestrial Biology Most of the project area is developed and has little quality habitat for desireable species. The exception to this generalization is the undeveloped area north of the Farmers Insurance building. Several old homesteads were located here, as evidenced by fruit trees and ornamental plantings. Some of this area is open and parklike and the rest has grown up in second growth alder. A stream emerges northwest of the insurance building between the company's parking lot and S.W. Parkway and flows southeast to a culvert behind the building. Vegetation is composed of remnant :,nd regeneration of western red cedar and Douglas fir, remnant oaks and alder. The unrerstory is ferns and blackberries. The upland 49 area may be used by songbirds and migrating warblers due to the diversity of habitats and foraging cover type offered by dense brushy ' patches interspersed with open areas and remnant fruit trees. Due to the proximity of residences and commercial sites, the area is not attractive to large wild animals, but probably provides habitat for numerous species of small rodents. This area would be divided by Alternative A, but not affected by Alternative B. There are no threatened or endangered species known in the project area. Water Quality and Wetlands Impacts A Wetlands Evaluation Report and a Water Resources Report have been written for this project. Information and conclusions from these reports are summarized below. The project is located within the Fanno Creek subbasin of the Tualatin River basin. There is a recreational fishery on the Tualatin River for native cutthroat and steelhead trout (supplemented by hatchery stocks above Gales Creek). Coho salmon, important in the state's commercial fishery, are stocked in the Tualatin River as juveniles. Although the water quality of Fanno Creek is currently low, it is reported to support native cutthroat and an occasional steelhead trout. The runoff of the existing highway enters the Fanno Creek system approximately 5 miles above its junction with the Tualatin River, and approximately 12 miles upstream of the Willamette River. Three tributaries of Fanno Creek would be affected by the proposed project (Figure 21). These are: a) Ball Creek, b) an unnamed tributary to Ball Creek, and c) an unnamed tributary to Fanno Creek that is located west of Ball Creek. Although these streams are small and do not support fish, they are an important part of the headwaters system that contributes to the water quality of the larger, fish-bearing rivers into which they drain. The project is within the Tualatin River Basin, which is a designated water quality limited stream with regulated total maximum daily loads of phosphorus. Therefore, all road runoff from the project will need to undergo treatment to remove pollutants. The preferred treatments of highway runoff are routing all runoff over vegetated slopes and down vegetated swales, and use of wet detention basins. Both methods have been shown to be effective at removing large percentages of runoff born pollutants. Both build alternatives have numerous retaining walls and steep cut and fill slopes. In addition, Alternative A has a long segment below grade. These features make it difficult to utilize roadside ditches. Two detention basins would probably be needed, one for each sub- watershed. The No Build Alternative would not entail any increase in the length of paved surface area, but traffic levels (and resultant pollutant levels) would increase. Nutrient loading would be less than with the build alternatives, while the amount of lead and zinc would be considerably greater. Alternative A would result in a large increase in road length and surface area. Several hundred feet of open stream channel would be placed in culverts. The stream near Farmers Insurance would have a large portion of its total length placed in a culvert. There would be a slight increase in maximum stream flows in the affected streams, and a slight decrease in the discharge at low flow. Nutrient loading would be greater than for the No Build, while lead and zinc loads would be substantially lower. The anticipated pollutant load would be slightly less than that of Alternative B. 50 D 00 9, / Haines Rd a F-- I I C I ~ I \ I ~ LAKE OSWEGO \ \ I I ker \ S I --------J I I i / Ln I Gee i TIGARD 09 I ` I Kruse Way Fanno I ~ I I I I I t Cartes Creek Bonita Rd r I I I t I I I I ~ C) CD IW w To Tualatin Not to scale River ~ A ~j I Figure 21 Stream Areas The surface drainage of the area has been altered by highway and urban development. Most of the wetlands impacted are palustrine, emergent wetlands. Some ` perennial riverine wetlands are also impacted. The streams are small (2-3 feet wide) with moderate to low velocities, flat gradients, and silty substrates. Trees or shrubs and tall grasses shade most of the streams within the project area except where the channels have been altered to conform to highway or other urban development or where vegetation is regularly mowed. Functions of the wetlands include groundwater recharge and discharge and sediment and toxicant retention. Alternative A would impact about 0.2 acre of riverine, perennial wetlands and about 0.8 acre of palustrine, emergent, persistent wetlands, for a total of about 1.0 acre of impact. These areas are shown in Figure 22 where the project crosses the identified wetlands. Alternative B would impact about 0.15 acre of riverine, perennial wetlands and about 0.4 acre of palustrine, emergent wetlands, for a total of a little less than 0.6 acre of wetlands impact. These areas are shown in Figure 23 where the project crosses the identified wetlands. To mitigate these wetlands impacts, the Wetlands Evaluation investigated avoidance, minimization, and on-site and off-site compensation areas. The reports concluded that there was no possibility of expanding or modifying the highway while avoiding all wetland impacts. Wetlands impacts could be minimized by modifying the drainage as currently designed, to allow open stream channels instead of culverts wherever possible. If this change is adopted, the 0.15 acre of riverine wetlands impact in Alternative B could be a short-term rather than a permanent impact. Cuts and fills in stream corridors or wetlands within the City of Lake Oswego will need to be reviewed by the City for consistency with their Comprehensive Plan. _ Mitigation Off-site mitigation for wetland impacts would be necessary if no additional land can be found within the project area. One area which has the potential for mitigation development is located between S.W. 125th Street and Scholls Ferry Road in Washington County, about 2.6 miles northwest of the project. This area contains a small tributary to Fanno Creek and its floodplain that are presently in degraded condition. The area serves the same functions as the impacted wetlands and has other similar characteristics. With enhancement measures such as tree planting, additional functions such as temperature maintenance and nutrient input can be obtained. A more detailed, site specific mitigation plan would be developed after an alternative has been selected and the precise amount of mitigation required is determined. This plan would be developed in consultation with State and Federal resource agencies. The plan would include a commitment to monitor the compensation site. The size of the area selected for compensation will be at least as great as the area impacted. For impacts which occur during the course of construction within the right-of-way but outside the permanent impact area, the following measures would be taken to rehabilitate damaged wetlands and transition areas: 1. Heavy equipment access would be kept to a minimum beyond the toe of slope in wetland areas. Clearing and grubbing would be restricted to the minimum area needed for construction. Areas to be avoided would be staked in the field. 52 .n C N N M C. N 0 fD d a b 0 oa a ao R o(a~ o ~ ~ Q e p~ C Q ~ ~ a e Q a0~ Oq ~ ~ O z u Q QO l ~ D ~ a Q 9 nn ~i l f r7JKER ST 1 t TI to C N W w 149 CL V 0 0 ~r a9 y 0 C 0 d 8 Q a~ o aa 0 oa0 ~ o CD 0 Q do 0. Q a a ~ . 04 d ao ~ o (D a ~ A v ~ a BONITA RD m m y 0 9 a 0 KRUSE WAY ~l 00 r Q O © ~ C ( 0 v no C) Q ~ d O daa fl o g O -40 8 p 0 o E 0 0 op 6g Cl o $ o 0 $ a i m u D n 4i STI 2. Native plant species would be planted along the lower three feet of fill slopes which cross streams or remaining portions of emergent wetlands. 3. Cut and fill slopes would be seeded and mulched with straw or similar material to minimize erosion and sedimentation. During construction, temporary berms of straw bales would be used to prevent erosion next to stream and ditch crossings. 4. Banklines and riparian vegetation would be replaced at stream crossings and where culverts are extended. The preferred treatments of highway runoff are routing all runoff over vegetated slopes and down vegetated swales, and use of wet detention basins. Both methods have been shown to be effective at removing large percentages of runoff born pollutants. Both build alternatives have numerous retaining walls and steep cut and fill slopes. In addition, Alternative A has a long segment below grade. These features make it difficult to utilize roadside ditches. Two detention basins would be needed, one for each sub-watershed. All runoff would be routed through either appropriately sized grassy swales or wet detention basins. The choice of mitigation measures would depend on physical feasibility and fiscal considerations. Additional right-of-way would be required for either type of water quality mitigation. Grassy swales would need essentially continuous, though fairly narrow strips of land on at least one side of the facility (runoff from one side could be piped to the other side to the grassy swale). Wet detention basins require large, individual parcels of land. The size depends on the amount of runoff that must be treated. The two sub-watersheds will both require treatment, so that water from one basin is not diverted into the other. If conditions are favorable, both swales and detention basins could be used in the same watershed. The two build alternatives are sufficiently different in design to require separate mitigation plans. Details of highway runoff treatment will not be determined until after a preferred alternative is chosen. Therefore, the exact mix of swales and detention basins would not be determined until later in the design of the project. Construction impacts would be minimized with proper precautions. In-stream work would be restricted to the time period authorized by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife for Fanno Creek. All bare or disturbed slopes would be protected with measures, such as temporary settling ponds and ground cover, as described in the Highway Division Hydraulics Manual (1974), Chapters 2 and 6. The slopes would be revegetated with protective cover as soon as construction work on the slopes ceases. All reasonable care would be taken to prevent spills of oil and other chemicals during construction. If a spill does occur, all steps would be taken to ensure that the spilled material would not enter the streams. Water used to clean construction equipment would not be allowed to enter the streams. af" 55 s <D N O 3 ter; a7 Cl) 125Lh Avenue a a . a x n B o m w m n (n n _0 0 © . m s ~ 3 ~ (D N 0 fD N 7 O n o N B B Boone. 121st Avenue d 1( n ~L n a: mW r0 0 t* I_:3co 1D (D 0 O 0 c* 0 ~ n 0n 1 r- n 7- 0 0 7 3~~ M c+-cn0 AD D7Q1 ft-IC m -00- o m Faclp.Lk Hazardous Materials A hazardous materials investigation has been conducted for this project. Details of that investigation are included in the Hazardous Material Report. There are no indications that facilities in either build alternative are significant contributors in the placement or release of hazardous materials. However, two Texaco stations on Bangy Road would be acquired for Alternative B and are listed in the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Underground Storage Tank Facilities Inventory. One of the stations is also listed in the DEQ Site Assessment Inventory which lists the possible sites for investigations and cleanup of hazardous materials. The owner is currently working with DEQ to further investigate and monitor a leaking underground storage tank. Underground storage tanks at the station would need to be decommissioned according to DEQ regulations before property acquisition. Soil under the tanks at the other Texaco station must be tested and accessed by a consultant to determine if it has been contaminated by leaks. If contaminated soil is found, a cleanup plan must be coordinated with DEQ. Construction Impacts Construction impacts to wetlands and water quality, and measures to restore the temporary impacts, are discussed above under water quality and wetlands impacts. Construction noise impacts are discussed under noise. Air pollution during construction is discussed under air quality. Considerable disruption of travel patterns would be expected during construction. PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT Advisory Committees A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was appointed for this project, consisting of personnel from the following entities: Department of Environmental Quality, Tri-Met, Metropolitan Service District, Clackamas County, Washington County, the City of Lake Oswego, the City of Tigard, Federal Highway Administration and Oregon State Highway Division. The TAC met seven times during the planning process and assisted in the development of the alternative plans. Public Meetings Two public meetings were held. They were on February 9, 1988 and June 1, 1989 at the Tigard Civic Center. Both meetings were attended by about 75 people. The project alternatives and their development were discussed and maps were available. Most of the comments received during the question and answer period were requests for clarification of the project, in particular, how the new traffic patterns would work. C 57 LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND OFFICIALS TO WHOM COPIES OF THIS DOCUMENT HAVE BEEN SENT State Agencies Clearinghouse Department of Agriculture Economic Development Department Department of Energy Department of Environmental Quality Department of Fish and Wildlife Department of Forestry Department of Geology and Mineral Resources Department of Land Conservation and Development Department of Water Resources Division of State Lands State Historic Preservation Office Department of Parks and Recreation Traffic Safety Commission Federal Agencies Department of Energy Department of Agriculture Department of Housing and Urban Development Army Corps of Engineers Federal Activities EIS Filing Section Environmental Protection Agency (Seattle) Environmental Protection Agency (Portland) Department of Commerce Coast Guard Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service Department of the Interior, National Park Service (Seattle) Department of the Interior, National Park Service (San Francisco) Department of the Interior, Northwest Region Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Federal Emergency Management Agency Interested Parties Oregon Environmental Council Ken Brittain, U of O Willamette University Historic Preservation League of Oregon Oregon Historical Society 59 Local Government City of Tigard City of Lake Oswego Washington County Clackamas County METRO Tri-Met Media Oregonian Daily Journal of Commerce KATU KOIN KGW-TV KOPB KXL KEX t. 60 LIST OF PREPARERS OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Burcham, Janet, Wetlands Specialist, M.S. Fisheries Science, environmental experience since 1977. Cady, Lloyd H., Acoustical Specialist, 27 years engineering experience, environmental experience since 1983. Fletcher, William B., Water Resources Specialist, B. S. Geology, Cand. Real. Physical Geography, environmental experience since 1984. Kale, Steven R., Socioeconomist, Ph.D. Economic Geography, M.A. Geography, 15 years experience in economic analysis, environmental experience since 1989. Kloos, Jeanette B., Regional Environmentalist, M.S. Urban and Environmental Studies, B.A. Environmental Studies, environmental experience since 1973. Nance, Ronald D., Air Quality Specialist, A.S. Environmental Technology, B. S. Chemistry, environmental experience since 1978. Norman, James B., Air Quality Specialist, B. S. Communications, environmental experience since 1979. Powers, Roger A., Biologist, M.S. Wildlife Biology, B.S. Geology, B.S. Fisheries Science, 5 years in research biology and fisheries management, environmental experience since 1972. FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION Chang, Elton, Environmental Coordinator/Safety Program Engineer, P.E., B.S. Civil Engineering, FHWA experience since 1972. Kappus, William, Region 1 Area Engineer, P.E., B.S. Civil Engineering, FHWA experience since 1970. Wichmen, John, Division Right of Way Officer, B.S. Agricultural Business, right of way experience since 1968. 61 APPENDICES 63 c APPENDIX A - PLANS FOR ALTERNATIVE A AND B 65 ~J'~l I~~; =~C~ ~C~~ UV"IEV~i MeeEin~ ;1 rle n~i~go 5kudy Sessim L~r~eS i-~o~ - _ - ~ , - ~N _ _ _ _ . _ s~~.~.~_ (I IIV III I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I, I I I I 1 I I I I Iff I I ~7 ~I s - I.I I III, , II-1.I.I.I.I.Ila.l?TI[I~.rIIf~1~I111 ~lI~~I ~TI1~lllhl!I,IIIIIIIIIIIIIInIIIII~IItrIIIIII1111IIIllllll111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII{11111 ',,...~xa+--°'-.-,~,. :~""_:4 ! ~ ~ , J.___. I - 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1~0 I I 12 NDTE; IF THIS MICRDFlLMED - - DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR THAN - THIS NDTICE,-IT 1S DU& TD THE QUALfTY OF TI£ ORIGINAL ~ ! DRAWING. ~ . - j OE 6Z BZ LZ 8Z SZ, bZ EZ ' ZZ IZ - OZ 61 81 LI 91.51 bl EI ZI II 01 _ 6 A L -9 S b E Z I fIYIM . 1 ~~I I~~~~'~~ II!IIHRInRInnluulunhnllnuhnllURIIIII~IIIIIIni~uuWuluululllllulRil~llll~llll~llU11111~111lIIU~II Illlll~tu~llg_IIIIIIII III UI~IIO~IIII~IIIIIIIWIII~pII~IIIIIIIII~IIII~IUI II~unlnu~Illllllll~ - /d, } ...-...t~.... _ . IIIIIlD1U1WI1~lUIU~~III~IWUWIll11 _ _ a[ a iJl.'~~ RUARY I ; ; 4~~~ CURVE TABLE LEGEND o-s ar xrDxvnr zlvmnusE unr IxrEnolnxsE PAt~i1~N1 pA~ Dp'ea SDinl Slmple SpYei Sem tune ~•^ma cum ^nplx ;le^ PROPOSED BRIDGE ~S~ pgOPOSEDFlLL SLOPE ADDam<m cww e.a Eagm 11yA1 ~'`rl~' PROPOSED TUNNEL PROPOSED CUT SLOPE w u rsa~ me sDm' am n1n BNxw~s srw xso~ 1mso~ 5„~ PROPOSED RETAINING WALL a EXISTING PROPERTY LINE a1 elssam D~• 1sr 1151 flNA55EL 1+9BT ]Ap' DDwD us: exASSec y usD a.HUSec :m~ :G hf . - - 3+ ~e ~ : y,y~ ''Y. ,.{fir., d,. ~ ~/T.- I'y ~ '1:':• q} 1 A~3~t. rr ~ 'r✓.,..i y.Sa~ q~5,,~,ti Y.4.4 ~.'R•A"~ 1, ~ I r. i1~~t 5 1CjF• "•i'v. 1. .:~MZ".r r~ij'~'.~. ~ ~b R"f}" ~o~ l 3.5 n•„ ~~r? ~ NOPTHDOUN01~5T0 HgINE5 ROA0• °goAS * - ...;.i:....... •f'J .f - cn.5' + , yAp I S~ 5+ •,?,~;y, ~ TOflOpq ~METMIS + T~i!{.yf a6 i C1nvelMl 1 ~~Ri7 J...L-.,+ ~ "i I ~~~Ly. it+♦ N k' - k S - L auD sir I t r';t a~+ E a I <<>.p )q~~ .p ~ _Aw I M AF 4' 2.~">th `..YSS'v,iy .F•.{. : ;J ~ •t'`1 I~ - f " ..i...~]'. Y. yf l A RAIN fl _ n Es DaD rD - _ ~ , `1'S: , ''""~T ti'a+"xs % NoRTNeourvDl. `Hf; awD a1 - - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _NOfliHBOUND I.S_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _o-+m.De-. _ :`T:. A MATCH _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ . ! EXISTING _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 4`5"~:7,:v 7f PAVEMEM:_____--.__ _ _ _ __-______i0 a~`:r, ~ I ru1~__r__Y_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _EONiHB00N01.5 _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ R IEA+d. ~ .q Dn Cava 1151 _ n~u1-~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _Fw i ~ a'rv pa" HawES flogOro sOUmeauxOw carrels - d 5 n ~ -..r4 , . .i ~ ~Ny 1.. : ~ 6 ~vi4 s C:' CwD fl53 , JS M ~ \ r 1 dx Vic, 'f;; l ` :.q ~ a'- I ' ? 1 ' • 1 `1, ~!R,~ 9 ~1 - .s.l. '?k + ® z'' " .D 1 yy,~yy • r 4 ~y ^k' _ ~'tiF!~ , .T1(rTl. '^1i''d°~ H`. A~ ' "Tt / l~r ~ ~~:1 Fi 'f w _ _ _ _ ~ ~ z 0 - - - - - - - _ - - - - _OnmeOUxDla = - - - - - - - 'u~ _ f H _ _ - _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ ~UTNBOUNDI_5. _ - _ _ _ _ _ scumeourrocD } s . re. HMNES fl0A0 T050UiHN0UNDCD - v' ' ~ } u. r, r "~..SI'I 1 'w + ~s. ~ ~ ~ 1 1 P'' " ` + ^s"- + I-5 AT HIGHWAY 2 96,.. , ' E"'', „ ~ 17/KRUSE WAY 11/1.~/9~1 STUDY SE55IObl "~~~"M " X • ,-4~`<;~, HIGHWAY 217, VICINITY OF 72ND AVE. OREGON D[PARTMENTOFTRANSPOgTATION 1 ar- 1~1 sEPrnIBER ZS.+=.-E ALTERNATIVE A ~ SHEET 1 OF 5 11111Y111 III 111 ill 111. 111 1.1! III III III III I ~ II777TI rH Ijl III I~11 T ITI III I 'I I I I f ~,f$' ;.A I I I I I _I I I..I. I _.I1.1 'I _ C L~ 1.1 I. I III i11 11f 11 III III 111111 111 111111 Ili 11 r~1~1 11 111I1i 1 11111 bn _ ,;ms-+__'"~.~i'i..., ~ _ I I I ~ 1 I. !l I L_ f l 1 I I (I I 1- aL- I 11 I 1► , ' NOTE; IF THIS MICROFILMED 2 3 4„ _ 5 '6 T B 9 10 II 12 DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR THAN ,I - , - . . THIS NOTICE I`IT IS -0UE~TO f I THE:WALITY OF TFE ORIGINAL ~ ~ . I II. DRAWING. ~ - _ I I OE 6Z ' BZ LZ 9Z SZ bZ EZ ZZ~-IZ OZ461 BI LI 91 ST bl EI ZI 11 01 6 B 1 9 S b E lalnr `r{ 1, Z I ''I' !ldIR1b1MINU11nillDlhWlhiDINDIBB6RIIMRh1uIIIRI1111L1uIw11unblidRidBl~lupll{IlluubUlupliil~IlllillNr llllllul IIIBIII(D~~Ijlllllllll~lllll)IIIIIIIIIIIIII111111U►I uLu~I~InIRRIRIIhInb111WBIRWiWIllUUlll~11~11111 lull.;. _ ~I ulllw ~ _ U RY I _ I I 1,, , ~ . _ . ._.-.............1 _ 1 I CUfiVE TABLE i ~ _ LEGEND ~ Ie i ^ ` cro I PROPOSED BRIDGE I ~ PROPOSED FILL SLOPE _ o. PROPOSED TUNNEL , Ti PPOPOSEO CU75LOPE ate .u - PgOPOS RETAININ l cr I ,•x~rr I ED G MALI ~ EKIGiING PROPERTY LINE I ~rv i - =~m._T ~IIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIilllllillli~lf IIIIIIIIII Ifllill ll 1111 llllllll ll lllllllllllll 1111111 lllil 1111 -r-~-_. ~--L °_>~'"'W-rid-~ '!~III~III~III~I~II~~II~IIILIIIIIII~IIII~~I~I~~~II~III~III~III~I~~~~II~III~III~II~~III~III~ III _ NOTE: 1F THIS MICRDFILHED I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I10 II 12 DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR 7HAN • THIS NOTIf$, 1T 15 DUE TU THE QIfALITY DF THE ORIGINAL DRAWING. _ . _ OE 6Z BZ !Z 9Z SZ bZ EZ ZZ IZ 02 61 BI ~I 91 SI bl EI ZI II OI 6 B [ 9 S b E Z I mu. dIIIIIIIINIIIIIII~IIIIIIIII~IIIIIIIII~IIIIIIIII~IIIIIIIII~IIIIIIIII~uIIIUU~NIIIINI~II~IIIIII~IIIIIIIU~IIIIIIIII~II!IIIIII~IIIIIIb l!IIIIIIIIIII!IIIII~IiPIIIIINIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII~IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlI1111~llNIuRIIUIIIIIlIII11I1111IJ1llIlWtljllllllllillllllll~ IIIIUII~IIIIIfW~llll '~'y'g~ e JLJ~~~11g1t g r CURVE TABLE LEGEND 0 o,n so4•i mmoia sw^~ - cone Aigmn,m c ac~° con. in.ne PflOPOSE0 SflI0GE 'f='P- PROPOSED FILLSLOPE lenp^ HIV°'I^ '1 PROPOSED TUNNEL T f{ PROPOSED CUT SLOPE Asxeco ~ ~ PflOPOSEO DETAINING WALL F%LSTING PPOPEflTY LINE 1-G AT H16NVAY 21i/IWDGE VAY 1NIEPCXANGE .r 4.~.J. I wJ ~'I + tl ..6~: 4 f'Oxih •I' ~'l 1 4 ,t~~. sll. r~: <ti.4°~ ~.~1';. y ,~II`~$.',. 1.~ h~ l~v rr. ~,.i.., t ~ r q y 11 1 r ?I: is 3. ,t1: v' . ;n ~a• : 1' A . 4' '4 ~yi-Y ' t.~ S ~ . t K - ,T'~.iha"A't, @t A.f.AA' ~q: i~ T ~~,:wf `L. .l.~ 4lt k"'*A7~ rji ~'~.h . 'i~ ~,I a. e ' r~, ,rt`•a'~ ,1~,.R°:~ !y'x;:. .,y3.+..i.;T ~ 4~'.;•~ ~}~`1,i'' 1°'!~ 4P ' s ~ t 4,.+~1 ,y~ 3 ~tk gin, ~S . v i i' :.q ~ .y a .r:~,:. -,.iTi~,~, Sx.. ~`r ~LTI f :'n.11r'. g v"^ - ~ s, ~ ~ s„- J' ~ t,°I;to "I' T.. b: mI uvI N .a • _ "~s ~?r, Cw',t:`,:;i i "~yfSa~~ d~ ~ ~ A F~ T u:J; . ~ AA'+r'y.~ s, x. y, ::4 ~ ti + tI •.I. a.e + qtr l /4 9 ka 3✓:"°'. ~ r ^ _ r F/ p ~ 'fi.. u y r.. , ~ wA.,, ",°1'x 'Y~. , yi 7'E ~ F_ i ~ q~i9 H f".~t! JI QJf!_. ~✓yJ~•yF w. _ - - - T ; ,,may _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~y"I{~ 't C m~_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ GW _ _ . _ off - ? - - - - - - -NOnmoDUrmns = - - - - _ _ v _ fn - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - ' - - - _ _ _ _ _ r % _ _ _ IHAOUNDIS _ _ _ SOU ~ % _ - r' ' ~ ~ ~ 'y , s t emu"- ~ 2. ~ - e R ';y . Yi.~.. L >.~t-r ";F; ,t r aft a ~ ~ ~~g _ q,,~. t.. ~F I I sa• ~ s r i is ~ 1 y a. i.' ay ~ S 'C ~O-F, lyi t„ ~ ` Ott _~;f.. .~K; I~ `rl ' k-~`i LI I M 'LM ,r a-~>> ry r 'A c ,u~f A , ~I ~,14 'I At/ (t ~J~ n•' :sit. dF .4,tl~ ,.~f6~ ~ ~ 9 `~~~UtL t I-5 AT HIGHWAY 217/KRUSE WAY --'~"0 "T'...!t.','I~ t~ESSIUI~.I bS, VICINITY OF BONITA ROAD OR[CON DEPARTM1IENTOF TRANSPORTATION ~F' I :I :_•.'•.'cr~zc. s:;~ ALTERNATIVEA rte-- SHEET 30F5 . ,...p.,. _ _ I'.-III'If~IIIIIIIIIIIIII'lII'.If IIIII~IIPIIIIIIIIIIIII![IIII111It rhllflllllllll IlTlflllllllllf 1111111 IIII1~1 1111111 IIIIIII III III Illlfll III fll III III fll III III III III III III III ~-_.-r _ ~ I I I I I 1 1 1 I I I I II I I I I I I I - NDTE: IF THIS MICROFIUdEO I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 . DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, 1T IS DUE TU THE QUALITY OF TFE ORIGINAL DRAWING. . OE 6Z BZ LZ 9Z SZ bZ EZ ZZ IZ OZ 61 81 LI 91 SI bl EI ZI II OI 6 B L 9 S b £ Z I01Yt~^ • ~ InI uuluuluulnuLudllllluulunlnulunllndllulludp!111111111111111dIIllllndmlllllllllllllnlllBt6ulluulunl!ui~iulllwluuhulllmhnlluuluulultlnulmduulmduullulunlmdnullnduulRUlJm~ull~il~mllful~lluuluuluuluulml I. _ ~lJ~~ 1 I I I r I CURVE TABLE Cuq Aibnm. 4pS~n SpNr Sups. nn Ae ~ orer^ nn"„°~p" a. m. LEGEND r'~ Aunxs ~ prose, IArna PROPOSED BgIOGE ~T~~,,,.... ~wi oy. ryaAe~ PROPOSED TUNNEL ~ PROPOSED FILL SLOPE '°Gx aw Ms ~ PROPOSED flETAINING WAIL ~f PROPOSEp CUi mo~ ae SLOPE p~ ~ IXISTING PgppPon,UNE a ppr 1-5 AT HIEHVAY 21 i/ xEVSE VAY IryTGPLWµGE amw nlww l~A~ w. . ~ rw ~Ba ~ ~'y x ~ ~ ~ `i 1 ty. la 11. .•n / ~ ~.sq~`^5...~ toed. L r~ ~ ' Q+ -a+ _ lyd'. F% _ _ _ _ _ ~ iMBO11N~1.5 ~ _ \ ~ _ _ 5 _ - - - 'ice-~^~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ PAV V \ ,`1:';Ly 7k"` ~ ~t ~ ~ _ _ ~ = = _ `vim ENENi \!L` 1 4 7 ~ 0.µ I' dt.. t~i+' f't ~ _ _ \ _ .y 5 ~ ~ ~ounrer y~oiocARnuN ~ ~ = \ °"-h~a,,,~ ~ Win' .e ,~.-,i;`. ~ ~ ~ . ~ Ek f., ~ t `cam. ~ ~`k\_`, ',',1~~ `;-,a~.~,u~ 1 ..G y~ ~ 1141)11 a _ t a 1.. ;~.f li l L4lkkh~~`f\4Lf~t .I l ` a` s~ r;: ~ T ~ j i - y 1 ~ ~ i.. t .¢F'. Y4ti11, ~~iir ~ANLt;'?_ ti ~ ~ Vii. ` kp, !l'LL a x fP 'S +.rx~ ~ ~ h .hr;pr; v~rhr~L,L., n• eyr .d~~Yk~ _ ~...p 2_.. 'F"- 1. I ' 1 ; ~~r. [ + p- ~ t s \ s ,r TUD SFS~I"r H , `'9~'S~ - :.s,fr ul f .~f. r ':.±4 cos f , . F' r, ~C•;. I.5 qT HIGH , I-s, vlcl WTM of ~~/KRUgE WAY ARMAN OR. 5,.._` , . OREGON DEPAgiAfENi OF iggNSPORiqT10N ALTERNATIVE A D17 SHEET40FS ~ ~T~......~.._. 11111 i~1111111 111111111111111 1,111111 1111111 11111(1 1111-Ill f(111~1 1111111 III TII III IIY III Itr III ~1~1 III III III III III ilr III I I I I III I I r r I I I r I I I I I I I r I r I I ..e=,-_• _ I I I I J I I i I I I I I III I I I J I 1 11111 I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I r NDTE; IF THIS MICROFILMED 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 IIO II 12 DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR THAN iH1S NOTICE, IT IS DUC TU THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DRAWING._ - OE 6Z B2 LZ 9Z SZ b2 EZ ZZ IZ OZ''I 61 BI LI 91 SI bl EI ZI II OI 6 8 L 9 S b E Z I01YP" J!IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINI1111111NNIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIN1II111111I1111111111111111111111111i11111111111111UIIIIIIIIRIIIlIIIIIIIRIIIIt%11!UII1nIlnillunllUIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIll1!)IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIUII111~lllllnnhmluulnulnubwlwlliit~mlllmJwtluulnuhulluulun ~w._ _ ~J -yr~ 1 CURVE TABLE ow~x sPhi SlmPix saga sipx. ugxx»xl c..x. s&~uln iwxx new I io .ten xmJtil~ Anmco vsr AWINS OOB usseco ~iir ASSG>1 0@ ASSGA 9W SR' 000 LEGEND PROPOSED BRIDGE ~ PROPOSED FILLSLOPE PPOPOSEDTUNN0. T~ PROPOSED CUTSLOPE PROPOSED RETAININGWALL ~ E%ISTING PROPERTY LINE :.n a n n I 1111./90 STUDY 5E55IaN 4 DF i0 I.5 AT HIGHWAY 217/KRUSE WAY I.S, VICINITY OF CARMAN DR. OREGON GEPARTMENTOF TRANSPORTATION E'.Piil.l]"cR ti, fSlE ALTERNATIVE A ~ SHEET40F5 7 ~1~1111~I111111111N1111111!IlVlll~ll11ll1tllll 11111j111111111 11jI1~11111~III 11TI:1~1 IIII!il !11.1111 11r1~I 1111111 111 111 III III III III Ih 111 111 III ill III III III I I III I 1 VII ~:.®--sa•.~--•: ~,~_1...c--.~'., _ i I C I I I I I.1 1 1_I I i I i I ,,L! 11 I'!_1,i _ I 2 3 4 _ 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 NOTE: IF THIS MICROFILMED ~ - - - - ; DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE; -IT IS DUE 70 , - ~ - THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL ~ !-s DRAWING. ~ , _ OILLM OE 6Z 8Z LZ 9Z SZ; bZ EZ ZZ -IZ OZ 61 BI LI 91 Sf bl EI ZI 11 01 6 8 L 9 S b E Z I ''1' _ u!I IIIIIIIIIIIIUIIINIINIlu1111111~IIIIINII~IIIIItIIIIIIII~uuIINIIINIIuuluulll~llllllllllll1111fIIIlIfI11I111I11(IIIUIIItllIIIIIIIIIIIIIhIIIIIIIHIIIIIIIIIIfIIIIIIIIIIIIIII~IIIlIII11IIIIlIIIIIIIUIWIWIIIuIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIJllIWIIlRI1BllIlUIIW!!lIIUIIIIIIUl1BWIIIII _ _ _ - i ' I ' !~E~R A ~ , U R,Y . _ I ~ _ _ . ~.,x,~:$T vv _ 13 AT HIGHYAY 21T/NPoISE WY IMFJiCXAIEE Punic xlallnY oraew y ,may qy',~~y ~R: X.z SJ s: a 1 y'Fi "E4~'~~41s~, ~"y xX~, ~ L.~ ',r<, a R ~ ....3 r ulT R iM ~'%s 1 ~ ~Ai . ~t . i . a' y ' ~ I'll. ~LZ~ . ~ \ T". '~i TT,R... ? "R~ 'T ,x$ ~ ~ d..T,, f'A ..,s1~P'7,~' PAT. ~ Y•y P 1 ~ y} H f Y\ . ~4 ~ .,p - - - - 1 ~ _ - - IPAVEM M1'G "VS~Y,~.'::,. 6ti r6, !1 EXISTING _ `~'W,w / ~x'm ` 'amm ;1 ~ lp ,y ~ Sy/fZ1 it y'r .4 V ~ ee ~ -a. L` k { . ~ W~ \h 5.~ :Y,: 1Y1 ~ yo 7 • r i _ CURVE TABLE LEGEND o - \ c~„ ~ _ ' PROPOSEII ONIDGE 1 1 PROPOSED FILL SLOPE aq mm' c .~y ,ma *.i PflOPO$ED TUNNEL 1 PROPOSED CUi $LOP( ~ ~ u in 1.. „ty,,. ~ P110P05ED RETAINING i'I.1 u, v E%ISl'MG PROPERTY IINF [u. ~ Il ! ~.9t' ~ ~4n1 dtb,•2..3 of ~ - \ `9'~f .."r~ y~qq ~ ` .q sk i.b'~t " 3' \ ! ~ ~.Q fir' ~ \ ^ ~ ~'ia^/,y2gx'~ J ~ . T ~ & 7 i `'i ~ 1 y 3f: 1~ ~ ~ Y AE' ` s ' :.~4 P1v \ 45. AP Qy_ ~ i a I.a"r ~ \ • Win, z OTf l 4 ~ Z. S .4 qO9 ~?h:: ^ .~~~il' '}.c.. 5:,. .r.~:.UN N6DIJN02t]i ~ vi ,r \ \ 4• F I _ \y 1 . . ~ ~ 3.~_ _ fis A.. > L 1621 I _~d~' S . r 'Iti .'k ~"*4 0? ~ rte , ~ ` ~ ~ ~ k ' ~,k,'~, • • ti SST ` .v. ]2nD. "~C CFA sEE rralc,.~ -e_~ Y~y \ mo~o! 4 ' S ~ Y ! ' 'f'J ~ .R{ ' . Yom( ' i - ~ ~ ~ :A ~ , x F S F - nl. .tx, ~iL a rlr~y.{ ~ d jp~'r ` / C Sr 5~. r sV yk'.~,:~ ''c gg '~1`j: cq~ tt~s! . RkF J ~ t y rf 'I t .t }1• .y. t ~ J NOTES ~ .f T+ ~ 4, z a - s ' 1-5 nt f6 r 21]~xauSE ~~r I,~IEP.,,rrrGE f r F a~... 1 ! ,o cr I i I _ - . ~y ~tr ' ~ n t 5.w'! ~r~ ~ ~ I ~ is.. Li m aFf ...pa n~ .•S ' iU frstaou ~'~~qwr' y` l; ~ rR i{ art t I ~ ~ ~ j { ~ 'C' ~ ai r."a i~'~i ~7y"~f'IY' 6 `.'..,.piL'1• SKr'.;t'~~ _ ~Y~ lam:'+~ ;y'h ~f5r. ~ Z •4 F '4r 'i 'i, l "v~' ,n 6T T. ~a,~'tt I .M il' thti.r "'~c`~ y~A,t - < d 3' i-+ ~ ~ ~ ~ I-5 AT HIGHWAY 217iKRUSE WAY HIi+HI'!AY 217 VICI', Ilv Q~ i2N0 AVE. I ALTERNATIVE A ~ Sn_~ET 5 pF 5 ^IIIII'1111111!11111111~111.III'IIIII11111111111111111~111111111 IIIIIj 11111111 IIII1111111111f 11111111 1111111 1111111 11111!1 111 III III III III III III III 111 III III III III III III III - _ I 2 I ~ I I I 11111IIII.,I11111~1 MOTE: IF THIS MICROFILMED 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IQ II 12 DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR THAN ' THIS NOTICE, 1T IS DCE 70 1HF QNALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DRAWING. - . - OE 6Z HZ LZ 9Z SZ 42 EZ ZZ IZ OZ 61 81 LI 91 51 41 EI ZI II 01 6 8 L 9 S b E Z lom~. InIluulnulunlnulnuhnllN111111111uIIIIIIIlI111luIlnnlualnu6u111n11NiIIIIIII1111111pIlUlll111~11!Illlltlilllle 11!!UIIIIIIIII!111111!i!1111111111111111111111111!111111 I I~I111111 I I I IllunlllNlll I~ _ _ I I I) IIII lulu IIIIIIIIIIIIIIWW1llIIIlIIIIIl1lllllll!~ !IIIA!IIIIIIIIWlllll 1L' ~j ~LJ ~ iJ 1~ i r CURVE TABLE cum AlgnmYn Opm BpYNI t le BAY Cm~N Frei LMArgp ~v~an mnl Inl IM3 Arvuwl AHwas AIBBBCO Iron' SPBS' NSB' xr oB Qyly 0 i>SI A.HySBt MNB' ]BC n9Br IW I>9 AXASBBC AHIdBBC B'BB' 3V BBp LEGEND PROPOSED BRIDGE PROPOSED FILLSLOPE ' PROPOSEOTUNNEL TT~ pROPOSEDCUi GLOPE PROPOSED RETAINING WALL ~ IXISTING PROPEflTYLINE ` y~ ~ g.; .~j 7,. ` l .h ,I ~I 1~= p~ x ; ~ , A A. 1~{~ ..i ! ~ . - _ - _ - - _ - _ - _ - - SOUTNAOIlNU1.5 - - - ~UN - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -Fh _ - - _ - - m!'~ - -,SOUIHBOlT1p Op r - - - L., .-4+yi~ HAINES aDAD TDS T!' J ',.~i.at _r DUrtlBCUxocD - pro',>•, '4 t-5 AT Hf4NVAY 21 i/ItRUSE VAT INIEfKXANGE ~ YMIFIC NIIX~AY fi OF 1~ OREGON OEPARTM1IENTOFTAANSPORTATION - SEPIEA15ea 2;. u;a AI-TERNATIVE B SHEET 1 OF 5 -:M~. .,.ey ..a, F11 111 III 11,1 III III Ili Ili I,ll I)I III Ijl ICI I i II7~1TI f~l I I IfI 1 I T'I I I I I f I I I I I _ > . ,I`~ 1 I I- I I I I I I~. I I L1_I '1 .~.I~I ~ I ~ ~ ~ I_~1 1 I 1 I)Il~~ll 111IIII;(T(t 1111 t~I1111 111111 1111111 I~111~~ i1111~1 1111111 I~I~III 1(11111,.•®'_m++.-„--"~"r'a~"'~:_~1,.r%=1 ~ . ~ i I I - ,Ii. I __I , . NDTE: !F THIS MICROFILMED I ~ 2 3 4 5 , 6 ~ 8 8 1~ 11 .lZ DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR THAN I ~j IHI&NOTICE; ITIS DUE•TO t - I THE QUALITY OF TFf ORIGINAL § DRAWING. OE 6Z ~ BZ LZ 8Z SZ bZ EZ ZZ IZ OZ 61 81 LI 9f 51' bl EI ZI II -0I 6 8_ [ 9 S b E Z I'~+~ t, g, _ IIIIIIU1hm6uduuluNluu6m11u11uu6ulluHliwlwdllulDUluululdnilluuluuluullnlluuliulu duulin~slnllndul nn u~l mliulluuhlu~uullmluuluuGnlllp111wlunLndnulwdmllunllwludl~i`mllwlull~Wlluu~lub bRl RUA Y ~ R ~ _ _ . _ r ~..T.~ Fs f . l.I jrl / Y ~'~.p~Y ~ti'f .~r. >tl' t+ ut" t. i'.IIIIIri IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIILIIIIILIIIIIIIIIIIIItI111111_Illhltll II~~II~IIIIIItI ~IIIfIIIIIIIIIi, Iltllll IItI(~I Iltllll Iltllll IIIIIII III III III III III III ill III III III III III I!I lu _ .:.r_y ~1.,. z I ~ I I I I l IIIIII.,Illlli►i NOTE: IF THIS NICRDFl LMED I 3 4 5 6 ~ 8 9 10 I I 12 DRAWIl~Ki IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, 1T IS DUE TU THE QUALITY OF TFE ORIGINAL DRawINC. OE 6Z 82 LZ 92 52 b2 EZ 2Z IZ OZ 61 BI LI 91 SI bl EI ZI II OI 6 9 L 9 S b E Z I ana~. dIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIUIIIIIIIINIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII!IIIIIIIIIIIIII~II!IIIIIIII) 111 ! I UI III III B IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIUII1ll~I11tIIHIINIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlI11ll11WrWIIIII~IIIWII~lUI11UIIIlIIIWIIIII p, JLJ ~ ~ V 1~ I' PFGPOSED flETAINING WALL ~ E%ISTING PPGPEflTV LINE yr I - _ _ 'u - _ _ - ~ - + . cW - _ _ _ _ an _ i.~..-- _ _ _ _ _ _ ui i .uuur~r.i ~ _ _ _ _ - - - _ - mm- _ _ _F=-~. .r. _ _ _ - . _ «.xi~o_ -.L. _ _ .,1 .zip°_ _ ~_r.-G~uhv-~Gj CURVE TABLE LEGEND o~m [sµ,i ss,nq +sµ,i soon. pgOPOSED BRIDGE PROPOSED FILL SLOPE cw. ugnm,m e~r~ ~ ~e ~j ./n,j pgOPOSED TONNEL PROPOSED CUTSLOPE e.iiie~m PgOPOSED RETAINING WALL FxISTING PROPFAIYLINE ma+ Nazn oss~ w n ~'r ew I-5 Al MIGHGAY 21 iYXXUGE VAY IMDtGW4E ,n[Iflc xIBNnY o m[eoi ~ ,rte ~idP i ;$r,_~,,rr:~l ~yGfaa~~4k'~±'~ Vr F rl :a f • yY.g1 ,.i.: ~ 1 4~• , C~lr \ .F~~~ ~ ~ }~t . f Ws ~'kr'~ ~.i, 1" I F N~ uG it tri'£ i ' ~~t>• ~ . Ye r 4 ~ I ' V 4~'.. x ~ i r ` ~ ,~pu~. , . r •y~' 1' ,I a 8s ~ ~ - +.C< 'tlF r py~ •~Y A 1 'i Kbsa, aE / ~p 'P• n'6~; ~ w ~ AIV a . w, ; 1p, ,G°'' r- d 1~P 1''n'~:.'f.sxk' t' 5 . i J P'~,V`, 'a ~ ~ • 7{° r .f 1~, ~~~~F ~tv'i ,lei -?R q~1 ,.d."` ti ~,e ~'~1FRa. -~i'? ~,'w a\ tT` as 1. .a ~ ':~"~tia M . ~s~"~ .i +w• f , N y:_ s,,,a; ^s:: C>ti c it b~ q ..:r ~ ~~'l... ~p ~Y,. F.t; 1~'~~~ jC,~ t;~r'~'. if• r' ~.x..3+. I W, l:~F* 1.. i,^ryf + ~ I . i. u L ,vim 7 ~ rl' VP` ~d r,]rk~ _ *~w:4 ~;~a • ,.,y~,,~~~r' i^ ` ri s ++➢NUeO sro uoar nou Irvrelir s"") Sa .~tl"': _ I ~(q y>, ;tit tm ~ .cif :'v _ . . . _ _ _ re , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~m _ _ _ _ _ _ ^ _ z y _ . ~ - . .~~1 - anew ~~k < ~ y:w p.o ~ u" -,t Yw ~1+'^ . ~d_--L-_1-~.__--.-~ I N . s?r aDU1nn ~ Hcnz J x~ ~ 4 t=3T. _.J-r;-.3 ~ ~e~L f:. uo ~Wjlt~7oy~~geq~ y..' ~ ~,i,: ati .7 ...i',•, ~1 i A ,l~ •6. :~i R .rY'' tl S a" •.t;+7}.. '~L rtS. Yy f' ill > ~ ~r ~ ~ ~ i era..' ' ♦a C}( 1krti~ - I-5 AT HIGHWAY 217/KRUSE WAY I.S, VICINITY OF BONITA ROAD , , agECOnln:rngttdeuroFrnu+saogrmloD ALTERNATIVE 8 ~r9 SHEET30F5 ~-I IIIIIIIIIII (IIII IIIIII IILIIIII1111111I1IIIIII IIIIII_IIII11111 111111 IIII III IIII III 111111 rl VIII IIII III III III III III III III III III III III III III III I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 III I I I ~ I I I I I I I f I I l I l I l II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _ NOTE: IF THIS MICROFILMED I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR THAN 7H 15 NOTICE, li IS ODE TU 7HF QIIFLITY OF THE ORIGINAL DRAWING. - OE 6Z BZ LZ 92 SZ bZ EZ ZZ IZ OZ 61 81 LI 91 SI bl EI ZI II OI 6 8 L 9 S b E Z 1~1Y+~• nIIINNIIDIINUIuuIIwhNllunlmllnNlllllllltlllDllludmlluu6NlluNlRillllllllllllll(IIIIIIIIIIIIII!IIIIIIIIIIIIu IIPIIIIIIIIIII!1111111!UIIIIIINIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII~IIIIIIIIIIpIIIuRINDIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIWIlW11111I1111~1(Illll!I IIIIIIOIgIIIIWIIIII 1l' g1 ~ ~ iJ RY r CURVE TABLE Conn Algnm.n Cv+e Gplnl hd~Yn GYnpla lenpln Splnl lenptn MW Supn. b IA~/A,1 B SNGW BCA9N W]Sn' tltt tlYi 5 GISGBGO B5549 RGS49 p55' np]' 9HS5' p~ LEGEND PROPOSED BRIDGE PROPOSED FILL SLOPE PflOPOSEDTUNNEL T ( PPOPDSED CUTSLOPE PROPOSED RETAINING WALL ~ E1tlSTING PgOPERTY LINE + } I C, ~t. e:. ? 't° V . f~ h f' i, I~ ~ t~ r R ~'ap IHBOUNQ$QTD CIAMNN 5.~~ g`peµ mot- .S ~ fir.. i ~ y.t f~ f, \\A\\'.\W ~ I ~ ~ iI! ~~;\\V\1h4 ~t U41 ~ Iall~11 5............ L'1/I"i, STUDV ~C.,51Dh1 9 f.1F 1'> _ 13 AT NIGHYAY Zli/NRIISE VAY INTERCHANGE CIF]C HIRNAY nm N } } Y~~~}~ f~Y 4A ~t~ I. ~ R ~~R ~F" ~j ~sC bs '1" S ~el i , • ;n#' ~ i~ kk ~ N ~ J~G + : :9 . Y , ~ ; d ` .r 4.. ~lrlj! . ~ F tY' ~ic~ d .Cr ri Rht ~ ` ~ ,,i ~ n ~ V ` ~ d ~ie n~ y5 ' ti: ~ ~ 1 ~P Y fr: ~ ` t .p ~ + + ~ f't~ ter` A' ° y~ , ' w ~ i. t . ~ .C .*'t . . . ~ , ~ . € °4 ' ` An ` . . , ~ . .)v; . JI5 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ F _ _ _ _ _ _ EXISTING ~~M )FS _ _ _ . 'P ~ Y~ ~.'i Z ~ V S _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ AVEMENT _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ ~ Y . \~~T " ~.r: may. ~~'tfT':+'N F'.. _ _ _ _ _ _ .4~ ~ \ sru]c X~y~-_i__~~AVEAIENi ~r ~ A.wA' ~ y a,. C _ ~ .t , Y~ y ~ T~. . Y✓p. : ~E {y p ~ W ihM)., _ .Sz yh .Y. .W ~ I J/~ h ti~.A 'o ~ " i R - S~> f ' A : S~ t ~ n ~ Y v9\~: /T~ ti. c~ 1 ~ .c. w.t~. 1 ~ I.5 AT HIGHWAY 217/KRUSE WAY I.S, VICINITY OF CARMAN DR. OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION sEPrMaanx,, sG ALTERNATIVES ~ SHEET40F5 ~IIIII~~I IIIIIIIIIIII'IIIIILIII1111!I!IIIIIIIIItIIIiIIIIIIhIIII )1111111111 (III III~IIIIIIIIII{ IIIIIII IIII1~1 1111111 IIIIIII 1111111 IIIIIII III Itl III III III III III III III III III nl r, _--.~'.a:::. I ~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1111.,IIIIIIII NOTE: IF THlS MICROFILMED I 2 3 4 5 6 ] $ 9 10 II 12 . DRAWINi I5 LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT 15 DUE TU THE QUALITY OF7HE ORIGINAL DRAWING. OE 6Z EZ LZ 9Z SZ bZ EZ ~ZZ IZ OZ 6t 81 LI 91 Sf bl EI ZI II OI 6 8 L 9 S b E Z I01Y1~• ~ 1 U!I IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII Ilillllll IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII uulun uuluu unhnlluu6u I I I _ dnuluulnlilnliluuluuh+~thlnhulluitlnubulllllllllllllllllllAIIII~IIIIIIIIIIIAIIIIIIJIUlI911~llItINI1IIlIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIJJllllll111111)I111~IIIlWl1~(UIIIIIIIIII~IIII1 G EEE RUAR,Y ;1~ . . ~ . _ _ _ NOTES .r ~ e :W~:, y..:.,. t ,y~I I ~_i x ~ _ _ ' _ _--i ~~i/ITHIGHWAY:?17~KHUSE'~'Ja\Y I I Inalienv'I! JI~I;~Irrc,P;.,~1;A4i ~ I - - I ~ I I t_ _ I . , _ ~ _ _ _ R_Te~,~IA'I ~e 9 ~IIIIIl11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111t1111111111 111111111111111 Illlllllllllr 11111 1 1111111 1111111 1111111 1111111 1111111 1111111 1111111 III III III III III III III In I z 3 I ~ I I I I I I ~ I ,I I l i ~ l l l rrnL: :r arts IaICRUnLlael: _ 4 5 6 7 8 9 I'0 I I 12 l1RFWIIN., Iv L[$S CLEAR 711AIV iMIE NOllCE, II I`.; PVC i~ MF ;71 i;,11TY OF I!f OP.IGINAL DRAWING. _ _ OE 6Z BZ LZ 9Z SZ bZ fZ ZZ IZ OZ 61 BI LI 91 SI bl EI ZI II OI ~6 8 L 9 S b F Z 1"~~'• Iglllllllll Jllld IIIIIIIIIIIIIIN11111116u1hlu6mb11JIIIIIII:ILIIIIIIILIIIInnnululuuhwhudu~lllnlriull. .1!~11Lu11u116ud~I~IlnuhnlnnhluludunhulhmlunlunllJIJIIJuLIIIh IULnlluu6minnluuC~iulnnluub~n~ln Ludludlluhlu In APPENDIX B - LEVEL OF SERVICE 87 C. Unstable Flow LEVEL OF TYPE OF CHARACIERISTTCS SERVICE FLOW Controlled Access Highways Urban and Suburban Arterials A Free Flow B Stable Flow C Stable Flow (Design Level) D Approaching Unstable Flow E (Capacity) F Appendix B - Levels of Service As defined by the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual Average travel speeds near 60 mph generally prevail. Vehicles are almost completely unimpeded in their ability to maneuver within the traffic stream. The average spacing between vehicles is about 440 feet. Speeds of over 57 mph are maintained. The average spacing between vehicles is about 260 feet. The ability to maneuver within the traffic stream is only slightly restricted, and the general level of physical and psychological comfort to drivers is still high. Flows approach the range in which small increases in flow will cause substantial deterioration in service. Average travel speeds are still over 54 mph. Freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream is noticeably restricted and land changes require additional care and vigilance by the driver. Average spacings are about 175 feet. Small increases in flow cause substantial deterioration in service. Average travel speeds of 46 mph. Freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream is severely limited, and the driver experiences drastically reduced physical and psychological comfort levels. Even minor incidents can be expected to create substantial queuing. Operations in this level are extremely unstable, because there are virtually no usable gaps in the traffic stream. Vehicles are spaced at about 80 feet at relatively uniform headways. This, however represents the minimum spacing at which stable flow can be accommodated. Any disruption to the traffic stream causes following vehicles to give way to admit the vehicle. Any incident can be expected to produce a serious breakdown with extensive queuing. Forced Queues form behind breakdown points, such Flow as traffic accidents, merge and weaving points and locations where peak flow rate exceeds the capacity of that location. 89 Average travel speeds usually about 90 % of the free flow speed for the arterial class. Vehicles are completely unimpeded in their ability to maneuver within the traffic stream. Stopped delay at signalized intersections is minimal. Average speeds usually about 70 % of the free flow speed for the arterial class. Ability to maneuver within the traffic stream is only slightly restricted and stopped delays are not bothersome. Drivers are not generally subjected to appreciable tension. Ability to maneuver and change lanes in midblock locations may be more restricted than in LOS B, and longer queues and /or adverse signal coordination may contribute to lower average travel speeds of about 50 percent of the average free flow speed for the arterial class. Motorists will experience an appreciable tension while driving. Borders on a range on which small increases in flow may cause substantial increases in approach delay and, hence, decreases in arterial speed. This may be due to adverse signal progression, inappropriate signal timing, high volumes, or some combination of these. Average travel speeds are about 40 % of free flow speed. Characterized by significant approach delays and average travel speeds of 1/3 the free flow speed or lower. Such operations are caused by some combination of adverse progression, high signal density, extensive queuing at critical intersections, and inappropriate signal timing. Arterial flow at extremely low speeds below 1/3 to 1/4 of the free flow speed. Intersection congestion is likely at critical signalized locations, with high approach delays resulting. Adverse progression is frequently a contributor to this condition. APPENDDC C - RIGHT-OF-WAY PAMPHLETS 91 a t: C: G A .L W y 7 G.,a G " p E c m O G G M O p io 3 N G w O O m u v C 140, •p to 00 W .w O O O C i m W a to o.= ~ W- O a'~ .c y O S eo d O > 0,17 O a m •a E p W G •F, 7° 'a aci W W ~ E W a W A G. W O' W a. O y. M G W ° J] a = W p, a; n •O C p m W A >,E ° c 0 x ev o~c m m o o t'a a s >1y > 3 EE y> o ct. 3 a a W W a W m ° O. of to O' a. Oo O OO W O Y Lo p V a. p. Qm W 20G w W,a.- >UCm...a... W(x ti•..33a:ea E u m O G O G R. G O. W 'O W 17 p.w G or G W G a' O. E 'ao .'G.. a E W or E p p m O ,C m W w W O E •p O >.1] e„ ~ i, tl. tl. a O a e0 O w ev W a1 G E u w O x m p to G O.`~ „'O W o O W G O arc > C3, a G vi •N W G A S m io m S b a G V W .0 G W 4 n> w W O W > 1 o, •c °•a c dv . G o o v aW Q. m o, m y v m c 60v 3 m c- 7W. - c° 0 3 ev ° a 3 c w^ ai G ai U ;nom a a, 3 m W a, a c ai ae G m R.y ev e. y m,, w E r .Ll W O p a . > 0.° > O O i., " m O O m m d .G E 'C OO O Q• E a. f° ami u . m m a o p m~Lti W S.. _ C4 C v or E W 00 v io d Q m S - E to m a+ •O' 00 V O G n' d " 00 t]. E A w W W C m .C rGma.d°'3apac a -G a vc m r. >,a ~,WO0 G n. o0 We cWE e>oo 33o'c~E:o a.M x► CcC~caG, m° w --Z O v.m~ u~'m Z ¢E~yaoo °~cGaa,gto W=:EoE o= Ooeo.0 to S. :3 r _ a w _°•m cm c >,d 0 i° a E o o h> yw ° E o o oo R w r. Z' 3 afl, r W to a H~ a,• °ci O G o ° m ° ~ , o a' :o w w p,E~ o u o WS ° m m.a C p~Q ...A m~ _ cr w G m m b L 3 Q. •a it .a m G S m O q io u W Q' W w W m m p• > > G t m um, G O W : E- .C o m C,0 G G O m^ E m 3 a W eu p E n. O u W m m G m 0 a O .C a E m O W~ O O W W Cb w o D.~~. •a. O MO p. ~ da'~" ~ vyi~ G O.c >m .COO M.- MW C 0:3 m-Ct ~~Q a~ ~mo 60Coyc wa,~.•zU a°°0. m O Y C4 ,G .c a ' w 8 is a m .Q o.a d •o G eo m C G a C 0. •o m a m 0.O W ¢ CG a: G. ~a+ D, w 00 W to c W u W m W O G bow •c W .d c w W W W C W b ,C v a tD W V S G S a W O .c 'O E wa~i•$~ > c m 3 E.a o H A3:E E'ea =.2 ~ ¢m E ° E- d°•' a•-•v F m a ° a, ~c- a, G a, m a c o a a a o a $,';g 'o eu o. E o m •O a G W St O ea of Pi ar w-9 m E c W no t+,a0 E c G w m W X d a.w 3aL] a~ off, i s m~~3 r c>5 n w°: o o•Wo Caa, °v °¢U o E r s c °>,v Www « W.... .-ww W •C V m ) W • m M c >.W Gb .C°O• m.~.7ao°M d~i .C Om C.o~y~ aMio ~ g. .GOO aGi0 -0 W-0 NXJ° G > bb G G .G N P m~ . a 9 3 e0 •p -:5 m V. ~gGOO 'ceo°.m,~Cpam, am+wd w hem, m"' ~'a,piti° o~co ~w o•G - V. M W ooh m y 'm-- m m 0 ,^w, R. o. G W v, A° A G G F 0.0 w G c c c m G~ E W m u+1'f a W as m Q O'L 'C pw w aJ .m. es e. m w m G mt... v Mo- ~ O m 0.4/ 0 W c 3 ~ °=ar~3w °>.cw •°C°' CEUr emo~arc z 0eegiE~m~cc m oo- W ~ E m m~ v~ a, c_ x o w G o E V G m ° o.:3 ° c ~ro d ~6 b m A o cV a 5 a vW W.o ~ $.UW 0W4 30~.[ Z 5) .c ~.WCO •oa,w ° ,°co.cea o°~ ¢ •CEmoW „gym, ai xw ~ w '=W G °A. i0 > m• j O O E m v y m E b G fn WW O =W W C T W 'C m W ¢ W W M 0= W m ai , v d CO m V m. •y m z G V c G. h .G G Qr 'o W .c Q x~" W G O. ai W m m Oi ° w .c01. a' 0 L 3 b W = o ~ ~ a W W o ° 0 2! a' ,cW. ,>o w M- eo m 3 E a up d o c 3 eon > m c.°o = aW' 8 c c E a>, x y 3 cad r. c O °•w m 3 C S m m U O o M='6 O p ai v .C m c G O G ~i c .n W m .p z .,F c mp 8 3 W O .c ° aW m o v[~ s°s c ao o°S acoc d F aw m E o G.w y a. m. m ~ c ~ a .c N m G.. 5mr ~0 10 c F ~ xW., °v ' m LL•[ W c m y m to-z ' es°- c 0 in w p o °.,c aGi P. G m E o w = ami rv", 0o E Oa m 3 a v O G .8 m 'A d C •C7 C W^ •p O s v eu c m C W 6 c °b tea, a,o 0. 010.0 SSW, am, °o-R au,Q a Or_ G5 9ox p WrA m E S c^ n E o M 3 ~.c a°, cv o a G, c c Z AW R~ I W o c m> a 0 a-'c o a 3 3 W v >w c p,BA vGm, a.eoa,a5.6^ 0. c,,q a•o..~ a 3 0 S ~'d 5 c G:°_ mU= O d U r_ 4L W W m O p m W G C C v 'C Z v a p c W G> m 0 ti c ec o O v 4 G v Ci y W ..L W a a m G C m p p W mA y C p O W G E A m G ao a. a •'ovn 0.m m c 2 E m > c: 3 G U 3 G e. _ G 0 a E m ® °o, ~o w R o. ® F LL. Oct 3- w o o ® ® y y m a) to w O rr c., Z0. %&0 $ o C. 01 E w 11 g 0. C; _ m ° 3 a I" d m d a d ~ N c o2m I '=e°n~ Z.o o c N~ oZ t~ (n is m e0 w W y W w o M O0 g c w x 0 O co d w r, O p~ U aw 30 o° ~c$~' n vm o~ w... za .r .00 op wco w ~O 6 wQ O w'G. m .N+ p O Fi N o Q w3 a cn 3 O o c s~ M aN w° Z F a , >a =z 3~z ~ z " ~i0 O ED o~ p°0ot'j N ypC b N 7w a o m W N U v cm c ~ H C d E F FO O4 C N m i ' ~ t. e0 ,F o a O p 00 G n 0 F en t0 o G ~O G w? S F to G to go 'c o w t] G O a x u G m 10 w O~ a v y" y a 0 . W f M. ° w O - v I -z :2 m i w a 3 60'G ayi a~i G 3 E ~6 a T x y , oa. o w G ~ w dy p w M w m ao 0 G w w p+ G 00 w w s N LYm V V o a R G C' w ~o a•0 3 a. o y m^ r3 ~C at R ' O + G p w G C W m w ° 0 0 p G G w m a w to m w G w : w a G 3 p X • ai°i 2mo w w° ~l . a awi w o . y a i O P y w eo ^ to c. w o ° > C ~ . a n G w a. w o c m o ~o d c w ru r° as >t°. 5 o w•0 , 0 a E o Z`a $ o ° o cG, w o m , ~ w a, A.7 w m . 0 ep m 0 E w w G A an v O b G z a m a '0 t;l G y ~u .°C 'O w w w p G wC G 0. awr 0 . a R. v d c t O ° yo a O r Gi m c O .'G.. •tt N m a° ' d> ° 'd ° G N O Q. C ~ ,p > . G ° L a O G y A G C a ~ r O G C ~ 0o d G p w u o nu i. d 'd en i O ~ E S • ~ wE > ° ao•5w 2` Gz a; °o A =2 y u to r~ dF, o m a d fio.y a lu 1. , - '0 ~S w a 3 0 ° ~ , r. wF o a>, a c q cc 0 . w o D.-. 10 E= 3 c ° d w w x aaw w 41 % „w, w.o y m booy ~ > ,c c o E ° ~ o M > ° ° a to d y w Ca~wo w 'o a o~ c a in ec wp c ..m GG. ? m to G Q c 6. c:~ . a Q cst.: d , 3 0 G 0 GA O° 3 ` a 4 E E 166c' c A w w rx, p W.0 ~ en ° ° m y 0. = w n ° v G cc O cc o ~ ~ d d c w > w w 10 o S •v ~ m t' a ~ 0 > d ti c G o u ~ ~ 7 > ~ d ~ ° . 0 N. u ` v r to F ` a y ti s iaw 8 ppa. w G O i~ o s o E E..w E G G .c m u O , c w w G` Y .c 0 E G E w vG tlC w 0 o ~o Q u wQ a Qa, ; G O G w v 0>` O fo G. c c u w m ,o~m w~ c- c u v ~c G t ` c c s v GEC _p =y0 to d0 -%t 0 0 odoCC 2 G;~~w.. ~C -C 9xV6 a: 6 w'2 SP L w m G is io •3 G G O E u 'O v E A G y awi w E u a a 'Gpp .vw O. w L F rs E B: g o O G C~ O A 3 >44 'eN cs O co F G b ' a O m 0 0 0 ..Ga.• •y R. w 0 o '0 O y e v a t N a G _ a o cc > rv; C A T0 0 i 0 R eon 3 a A V Cs. d ec R 4 E o m c u d o s eo;E~ .oo.. w :too cy ts,cwtwo ymww>. cm0°.==O an N 'J' o G y m G 40G a N Nix h ° M.S w a E w N ~.r w G w w a Loo w w C Q-_ w w y O ► to ° ep C C m O w J] a C E G O E N a. >1 C '0 O o ts e0 E oyi m d w w w ie o L en 'a w> y w$ w w w Q a a r a w w G >.ia m° :j Q a A o G u w F• 0, r. O eo E .d w. 0 y W O in w o.m ~i~ d ~°c c a aGi'c 0 0. G O -r> to M w l7i a 3 w o.Ewp oF W i° y w o y Z os °°a E- w T, aF.p. -5 °::m a,C w`-w.. =Ic tiu W~ a M=Ea w Go„a,. a a^ .G o w G p. 1c p w G E O 7 C c p a 'n w a, G cm+ i~ > w w~ m E ° V w d° E eo - ,o s - 91, 3 00~ r° c~ d a Q O. a~ G 6~i c o. ~ C aGi G° G C~4 m° b A Ow. w a w a v= G C S a^mi w weoco. v w mwv, m Ew E oo= 3 - a. wa>+ c w.2°meccc°1w u w~ wo v E E v C m o E w c 0 0 .w~ os aw,w c°,' nv A E ti'$ w G v o y? n ci °OG eo EF 0 °;E o C7 m p, A °v o 0- o00 > w w a w o E E w~ w G m > d u O ~ .0 m •C N_ w N G a vi E ~p G a o. y w N .d w 'C m O a w G y w w G v b w 'in G m 'c v w o m u .n G m N U w L d O O A a •0 m C i. w w 'd w O A M E G C h 'O " C a am. G t: N 3 ti> p c G A O F '0 0 L+ w r. O y E c .0 m M w es, w~ a R O Q 'oa„S w o- w N w In ~ o. G w o 0w> y uC o G o_ 00 >.w to ap0o ono ~ww ~uw $ m a. two c E ss~ a o; a, w ,cam m o° 'c a c w E ~.c¢ c y N z v Em.oo-'o.a¢ ova FXs.°E c~. } ~s awicsGO..1.,Gwar>. cti uw„ t;c G O~ O c y r K C C .t ° o ai O G v c eo r w> O o G w .b 3 c m eGa v Q. d 'u0 an mA.0. am w'0 3wu•ov mRo mv.°wN T.o0._3 - ° Ee cao,c0 0.0 3 Q E m; c•uoco u6yN~.cm.c~$E' cu0.$^gEu~ A a~ >>+.5o •eo V, To a ° F m>ogOU m`o rn D6. W E y3~.m aor mu. 0..2. a E d is vC~edW 06 W o~ } t•°•~ Eo~,nw3q~o= W g $ O E oc Czi7 ° o w E E dn W-9 m c. m a Wm, o m E" m_ u 0. X o,mcbm °x'°'0.'.G .LU..da'°°c o '.uia$ to ° oo ^ e ami 00z 'yoEnt~ c< eo W eo AZ !?w~,°~^.3 m~ ...Q•$m >E, u. Z O Z2 .'nm 'o 'Omo " zFW E^ .-S.e. o•a cv W v m c.^! A 0 0 u 42 Z du 'Z'x ='auiaciud o`+=t•o' > c '0 ~o f9 ~NX 'aW 6Q~s'a„i'O E~5~eramY.9 O E3 •~c ~^.W -Yey,~Sc~~•= N > m 0.o m e 6: :C Y c m •O $ p u ami d Cd Z 0. o d oZo °aEQov°oE•«m^co ]-I E c •oo E tc,v2 m aEa`+ =,z .4 Q A~ co ci Q =cg o > ~me$eda ~~0^le a `md c8- oc=~$vo;33~8E z d °nS $ WOE p'.o^.0mg0 e ~ ud A >S'm $og.°.9mpy+cgY? W a w.'s h o e z a z YY z oer.9 am ~~•L er9F £.°;o A L^ ~.^o~'em U 2a TEm`Meo o0.3ea eE~ Er a ° A =a°om8m>>~m -,•o~ $ or.b•g .n CO a op.9 ep v e yo 7 w A.+o~aoJ$c eY.6 <o~~~~pvo~'.cev E°X3m oho E$a.. vESa~m&=E-fil.5 n.$YCKEa~ y~ YV J~ r rr0, : A Ya'`s Y c e e+.-cY,.1 m N~ <co.3c ••ppc~'seo F p E•€ O T Y ~1r V e E O'O ° N ~CrsO~r $ ~y O ~om ILU i'~ r/ Co ■ • ■ C:z L" LL_ 5 x w O U r t: i C O pO R5~ 0 Ea E- Y 0 e~ u •E n~ 0 0 e s~ [r O m p~p~• C.) ~.6s C) CD C. C,9 I.bJ Myp N O) 3 ~ m C t` fio V:z m~ w N T h W O° x ism o ~y ~o O aEg Z =E~ ea ~Eoa .o o ao c~ t7 y ~ o Y 0.r c> CS 6 p Cz,o Wi ~g z„oz Y. OaND w P. O ON m ON UO n 30iOf f60 a~ co dF~a ~E- z 0 6 a 0 a z c.. O V F ti OFc"Nn 0<< F U o V C !2000 aoaw o m T b p. C o o C Q.ue..~aE~e~~~~~ Y...{ ~ ~'p aW e° Y' v"Oomo;o~Z rbO'O > Y 'O s x C Y s ~Y a c~f+:$~c G_~~E~EaB~~~d Y t E T ~ p pM iC 7 $Y~ OR C Oi 3 iia Ep'^e$~o$q ogS.YbO Ct EaYV60's'ae T C Q s T~v EC4.O V 80 a C O .s 8 ~ m C_ •a em la ; M H T>p Y O In ~ _vE :4 mu zqo ~"~EmB$,oYFB'e co c~ E m m^ 6o O V O e •m $ E s t m C V C Y C l Y e 0. o> omYSSK °e e` mo c Y-r°• E"~Q u e ~gu T p oEeeu c$a.8o ea~ 'vea L~c e o o t°v ~v• E c•m= II c ,4, s E o c•o m o cv £eu;L mo~a•Q.= Ac ° u o °2am>°e ..m>°.: am eo mn~, •-•E. °u'a m$, c E c m_ v ~u qee 0 $ TmQ e e a0.i •ps~ -~coeo -2 Z,o u:4m`o A :.u. Qg vs c cs: r O' ai e m r c e c o; v E- m d ° 0 9 c o E o s E e v e s u n ~c`e •ad a ~co jyvEmrm = usir o. `c OE 33 cr. em u0. z 0 F E a 0 Z E - w O F z W F K W Q z O U W a 0 _ q E asodFc~ o ov o •4~OC~~3 .o p e OQij~>:~c'~~ 3 tl O a s a-Ve E .C 'cae O o T.q'O 42 0 UT 3 NO .,y.+ o«o z 6ir ~~.E$ aoa 111; is Y E o z~Tpyy~p3 ~Q. F~~Cj at 1 r'Gg ^Ci Y~~•'•'9C rJ«~ BYQ C 6'~7A a 7 0.8 .Q~ V Q O m 0 > F._ O C T~ Bs.o.5 & `o a w 0. q .4 E . O y$ q a ~ C o G° 9 O ~e ~ yy 3 HSI _O -~yE'° $ Ho *IwoI$~ai ~o..-A. $C~ oozo 8 ae e8$ oe1~S>.°a oy mg33$c°,E$9 ~8aa~:.EE'' Yoh- ="Jou aa'~~ "e ®z ~~o m° ~°M °simtloo~°uozy a $9 q° aoo ~~°p y 4 Q M p « .9 O O O •.a- ~oa9Y.E gS~°~Q°3a5~dr3o3:e Ea °ys o~orJ at~gp8 o®oQCSq "O''$gs $ y¢$ a o~ a. CZ~- 8,9 E'a gol cp E M° ,C 9 x Q„ a o e E^ E q 9 E~ Tf~ y O tt E V j,. mQ o ua~. m m v Yd m y N zA t•' S a o oA~ 8° a m C « c Qsae `e a 9 co ea oz sda o$ xoca° osQ °ogoc w ; S~ 8 'd vu q...u« zo q~n`aF °Qq L:~« « ~O«mRu ~'.7aQL .g $ ,r,~ o ° E ~s T.. ,q ~ ° ~ ~ m•C m ~ $ c'$ ; u m a ~ o..r ~ O° ;S 'a4 0 Z. a •p : m ° g 6 p«a .+m r~ASokq 5 a°„•.~v SSS° yYyQO~ ~mwmo~ EE~~Q,w~oA~+S.S Q 5 d2T~`•~E°°~o$qo oaSo o~'pam ceQQb+oc IA Qe 6a~~.°.E oa~o~o4 woTao o~aE° A; J., N ~des'~ a p°0. 3 z- .-SOS sF ° $S -Z -oc°rJ«°~ 0 E Q 9° m 0. r°G $ ~S yyyc u r3e 00 oA .°oo.+a.oy ° oaaaio$~QOE° "p « ~'~z°°eS°~.°.= aq~s„o oa3«a e.B.°° ~E$d~e °o=.°..t .o*o yr. 9€ErS`•8~ °o~.c m'b8° .Q,~ gg«y m S9 is °v._vv t o 0 ozE t•9o .t E~'~ .c 5~4 S.9.:•C.°=Sc :a 0.moo mS a- oa m o 6e E8 c._c2a ~e~ & a 'BgESc -e'sE oc .ohs 8• b ~a w3$$ 0 o o.•^ c .y a mEr~°m a 5Eg ;S'•oya am ~9 tl~OQ~rs° °xQss2=-g-gzO° u~~g8m~ OrJ.~°.e° am5=oe°c-osQ~$ oco°~ $ o°• 63~:.•ao ,ou660" Eoaei mca._p $eQ of .c m~+3my$.m ° cE„ cEz•o aEo a Q u s8o~4~~9 c o u 3oedicp°~E FLEE Foa3 ee ~eZ'o°°mo le E V Q. v= m ° V° y o °'so - O 7 Q ES'Ex u $z E Gr. g o2 o.° Ew'o° z E e 3rs ~v d e$ o o t o-- x E E a EF E Q o o :F CIO E$ E ° 3 M m N Mog,,° ue E-s o~a'O•S~y EC 7 0~ d L y E 72 a0 a°a ~dE ° ° °v E c a m5A15- cm°L9 gEpm Q m O u •ooE«~O C^°qv E o ~ E c 3 ~ s o~ ° .°o o m ° d u c a . °Ot=~E°- 'Dicer, C QOM yL'm ~P-.~. ° c cE c eu~ E o . x u c m Im V oo p 4 n 4; V E 0 o25S r~ v °o 9,20 ° y « O. E u W T •OV u- C Y~ a, o e p c v~ E"z a°ie~sm ° °o W ^o a > o z„ m .~o E9-03:!=u°cm x~ •3>,~E°~~vcc m° a m a =•c ° c to W°°' d 7 •o o C FP E m ,o W _ ` >.m cm ai .o.~ c4 n r> E m x D.>_ °eddc O E^- c ° Zd~~ dE';~Ec •O . V _ -2 80 S°=oae z3~O.to, `7uc°TC mE'Q.o 'Ca^«°'$ 3 des of y T E E ~ u $Q 7 3 o m m~ m 0 m s cEa°~?S'"S° W eo«'o«°m omny mwd a. Ee~3>s O a ° 06 r.- - z F.> c C GF Ii E a ~E c m a, a0 ° E aM TE _ . ° m m m m a m =.-o m E c n 0-0 - ac Z v o > > x m a u ~m.°mo,OUocE p a.~~s F ¢E`cg m~ O V T (n 0 Y b U .Z V =0 16 ° ~O C 3 M .°_'ama W aES~~s ~ °~.m mTn o•O .:e Q z°°es«aucc.n O uQ~c~~ 3°°~eoo Ee din''-::°° a W m°v a •v m °,o mx' ~o•o.o~~c Q `o-coal.;s° ~ u~°vo m3 _ m cz n~cc^o's co°u O m°°x'udaci ~ en,~E-°>, du a m'E 0vz°' a d g ti En E CL 5 42 c `cu3c mEuzEt o=+d3 1970 RELOCATION ACT - MONETARY BENEFITS RESIDENTIAL I BUSINESS & FARM Owner-oocupant of 180 days or more prior to initiation of negotiations for the pawl. Housing Additive Including Costa incidental to purchase of replacement dwelling And Including Increased interest cost on replacement dwelling Or Rent Supplement Plus Actual reasonable moving coats or Moving costa based upon sebedule Or Storage of personal property up to twelve months $22.500 max. $5.250 max. Actual Actual Owner-occupant of 90. days or more but less than 180 days and tenant-occupants of 90 days or more occupancy prior to ini- tiation of negotiations for the pawl. Rent Supplement $5.250 max. Or Down payment benefit and costs incidental to purchase of replacement $5,250 max. dwelling Plus Actual reasonable Actual moving costs Or Moving costa based upon schedule Or Storage of personal Actual property for up to twelve months with prior approval Owner-occupants and tenant-occupants entitled to same benefits. Must occupy at ini- tiation of negotiations for the parcel. Actual reasonable Actual moving costs Or Negotiated moving cost payment not to exceed No more than lower of two estimates low estimate secured by agency Plus Actual value or Tangible personal estimated cost property loss due to to move, relocation whichever is lower Plus Reasonable coat of $1,000 mac search for new site Plus Storage of personal Actual property for up to twe: -e months with prior approval Plus Reestablishment expenses $10,000 max. at the replacement site or Fixed payment in lieu of Average of net all other benefits - earnings for requires approval of two years prior agency to year of relocation $1,000 min. $20,000 max. APPENDIX D - STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE LETTER 99 Department of Transportation STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION 0 Parks and Recreation Division 525 TRADE STREET SE, SALEM, OREGON 97310 January 8, 1990 Pieter Dykman Environmental Section Highway Division 324 Capitol St. NE Salem, OR 97310 RE: I-5 and Highway 217/Kruse Way Washington County Dear Pieter: Our staff archeologist has received your request for clearance letter for archeological resources for the above- referenced project. Since no sites were found in the project-effect area and no further archeological work is recommended, we concur with the determination that the project would have "No Effect" on sites on, or eligible for inclusion on, the National Register of Historic Places. If you have any questions you can contact Dr. Leland Gilsen at 378-5023. Sincerely, D. W. Powers, III Deputy SHPO DWP:LG:jn I-5.LTR APPENDIX E - NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA 103 APPENDIX E NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA Activity Catesorv A B C D E Hourly A- Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA) Leg Noise Levels Description of Activity Category 57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of (Exterior) extraordinary significance and serve an important public need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose. 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, (Exterior) active sports areas, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals. 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not (Exterior) included in Categories A or B above. Undeveloped lands. 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting (Interior) rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums. SOURCE: U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Federal- Aid Highway Program Manual, Vol. 7, Ch. 7, Sec. 3, Table 1. 105 APPENDIX F - NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR DUALITY STANDARDS 107 { Ambient Air Quality Standards for Oregon Federal Standards Primary Secondary Oregon Pollutant Averaging Time (Health) (Welfare) Standard Total (1) Suspended Particulate Particulates 10 um, or less in size (PM10) Ozone Carbon Monoxide Sulfur Dioxide Nitrogen Dioxide Hydrocarbons (6) (Nonmethane) Lead Annual Geometric Mean 24 Hours (2) Monthly (3) Annual Arithmetic Mean 24 Hours (2) 1 Hour (4) 8 Hours (2) 1 Hour (5) Annual Arithmetic Average 24 Hours (2) 3 Hours (5) Annual Arithmetic Average 3 Hours (2) (6-9 a.m.) Calendar Quarter 75 U9/M3 260 ug/m3 50 ug/m3 150 ug/m3 0.12 ppm 9.0 pgn 35.0 ppm 0.03 ppn 60 ug/zn3 150 ug/m3 50 ug/m3 150 ug/m3 0.12 pgn 9.0 pgn 35.0 pgn 0.14 ppn - - 0.50 pgn 0.053 ppn 0.053 ppn 60 ug/m3 150 ug/m3 100 ug/m3 235 ug/m3 10 mg/m3 40 mg/m3 60 ug/m3 260 ug/m3 1300 ug/m3 100 ug/m3 160 ug/m3 1.5 ug/m3 1.5 ug/m3 1.5 ug/m3 Notes : ppn - parts per million u9/m3 - micrograms of pollutant per cubic meter of air mg/m3 - milligrams of pollutant per cubic meter of air um - micrometers (1) The federal standard for TSP has been replaced by the PM10 standard. As of 1/88 DDQ planned to maintain the TSP standard for Oregon. (2) Not to be exceeded on more than one day per year. (3) 24-hour average not to be exceeded for more than 15 percent of the sattples in a calendar month. (4) A statistical standard, not to be exceeded more than an average one day per year based on the most recent three years of data. (5) Not to be exceeded more than one time per year. (6) EPA repealed this standard in January, 1983. DEQ is considering similar action. INDEX 72nd Avenue i, viii, 1-4, 6-8, 10, 12, 15, 19, 24, 32 A c^ident viii, 2, 3, 6, 12 Air Quality v, vi, vii, 44, 47, 57, 61, 107 Alternative A i, iii, iv, vi, vii, viii, 1, 6, 8-10, 19-21, 24, 26, 27, 32-35, 37, 39, 40, 47-50, 52, 53, 55, 65 ' Alternative B i, iv, vi, viii, 1, 6, 7, 10, 11, 19, 22, 23, 26, 32-35, 37, 39, 41, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 54, 57 Ball Creek 50 Bicycle vi, 1, 5, 24 Build i, vi, viii, 6, 15, 17-19, 24, 26, 27, 31, 32, 34, 35, 37, 39, 44, 45, 47, 50, 55, 57 Clackamas County 26, 57, 60 Fanno Creek v, 50, 52, 55 Goals and Objectives vi, 5 Hazardous Materials vii, 57 Highway 217 i, viii, 1-6, 8, 10, 12, 15, 19, 21, 23, 24, 26, 27, 32, 49 1-5 i, iii, viii, 1-6, 8, 10, 15, 19, 20, 22, 24, 26, 31, 34, 35, 37, 38, 47, 49 Interstate 5 i, 5 Kruse Way i, iii, 1-6, 8, 10, 12, 15, 19, 24, 26, 27, 31, 34, 38 Lake Oswego i, iii, 1, 5, 8, 12, 19, 24, 26, 27, 31, 47, 52, 57, 60 Land Use vi, vii, 5, 26, 31 LDS Temple 26, 37, 38 Level of service vi, vii, 5, 12, 15, 26, 27, 87, 89 LOS viii, 12, 15, 17-23, 89 No Build i, vi, viii, 6, 15, 17, 18, 27, 31, 37, 39, 44, 45, 50 Noise iii, iv, vi, vii, viii, 33, 35, 37-44, 57, 103, 105 Pedestrian vi, 1, 5, 24 Right-of-way iv, v, vi, vii, viii, 10, 24, 32-34, 52, 55, 91 Safety i, 2, 5, 12, 59, 61 Soils iii, 27, 49 Tigard i, iii, 1, 5, 8, 10, 12, 19, 26, 27, 31, 47, 48, 57, 60 Tigard Triangle 1, 8, 10, 12, 19, 26, 27, 31 Traffic i, iii, vi, viii, 1, 2, 4-6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 19, 26, 27, 31, 37, 43, 44, 47, 50, 57, 59, 89 Transit vi, 24, 33 Troutdale 49 Utilities vii, 47 Volumes viii, 1, 2, 6, 8, 12-15, 24, 37, 47, 50, 89 Washington County 12, 52, 57, 60 Wetlands i, iii, iv, v, vi, vii, 26, 27, 49, 50, 52, 55, 57, 61 Zoning viii, 26, 30 109 Section: City Council Subiect: Appointed Boards, Commissions, Committees Name/Address Term Expires (Term S ar- d) Alice L. Schlenker 12-31-92 257 Iron Mountain Blvd. (01-01-89) Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Jack K. Holman 12-31-90 781 North Shore Road (01-01-87) Lake Oswego, OR 97034 (01-01-83) Richard L. Durham 12-31-90 3413 Royce Way (01-01-87) Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Lee C. Fawcett 12-31-90 4000 Carman Drive, #74 (01-01-87) P Lake Oswego, OR 97035 (08-06-85) Daniel E. Anderson, Pres. 12-31-92 1651 Larch Street (01-01-89) Lake Oswego, OR 97034 John R. ("Jack") Churchill 12-31-92 788 Cabana Lane (01-01-89) Lake Oswego, OR 97034 William Holstein 12-31-92 p 2747 Glen Haven Road (01-01-89) Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Procedure No: 1 Page 2 Mayor Telephone 636-8258 (O) 636-1413 (H) 646-7454 (O) 636-4816 (H) 638-2413 (H) 657-6958, Ext. 313 (O) 636-3543 (H) 620-8900 (O) 635-8317 (H) 636-6153 (H) 228-0035 (O) 635-6448 (H) 4-Year Terms (Expiring 12-31- ) Meets 1st and 3rd Tuesday of each month, 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers Established by City Charter, Chapters III, IV, and V Councilors must file a Statement of Economic Interest with State Ethics Commission by April of each year REVISED 10/30/90