East Campus University of Oregon (CA 25-02, RA 25-01, Z 25-03) <br />Findings Page 13 of 36February 2026 <br /> <br /> <br />Representatives of the University of Oregon met with the City to discuss and establish <br />appropriate methodology for the analysis, and on June 6, 2025, the applicant submitted a <br />Transportation Planning Rule Analysis as information supporting the applications. <br />The TPR Analysis was prepared by licensed professional transportation engineers at Kittelson & <br />Associates, Inc. using parameters established by the City for the relevant study intersections, <br />study period, regional growth rate, assumed transportation improvements, and performance <br />threshold to be met; and includes data related to estimated weekday PM peak hour trips for <br />surrounding roadways and five intersections within and adjacent to the East Campus planning <br />area. <br />The analysis included two evaluations: the initial evaluation was based on potential traffic <br />impacts resulting from “worst case scenario buildout” for the year 2045 modeled under current <br />zoning, development standards, and use allowances; while the second evaluation was based on <br />the potential traffic impacts of the “worst case scenario” development that could occur by 2045 <br />as a result of the proposed cumulative amendments. <br />The provided analysis finds that, upon approval of the Code and Refinement Plan Amendments <br />and Zone Change, and assuming that full buildout of the entire study area is achieved by the <br />year 2045, all study area intersections are estimated to operate acceptably during the typical <br />weekday PM peak hour condition, based on current City performance standards. The TPR <br />Analysis concludes that the University’s proposed amendments are expected to result in an <br />increase in the trip generation potential of the East Campus area, but that the increase is not <br />expected to have a significant effect on the transportation system under the standards set forth <br />in the state TPR. Additionally, the Kittelson TPR Analysis concludes that no changes to the City’s <br />functional classifications or street design standards are warranted, and existing adjacent <br />facilities are adequate to support additional trips generated as a result of the amendments. <br />Evaluation of opponents’ arguments <br />Opponents of the University’s proposal make a variety of arguments related to alleged traffic <br />impacts of the proposed amendments. Those arguments that relate to the TPR are discussed in <br />this section, and the Council evaluates other traffic arguments under EC 9.8424(1)(c) below. <br />Opponents express concern about increases in traffic generally, traffic associated with events at <br />Matthew Knight Arena and Hayward Field, pedestrian traffic, diversion of vehicle traffic through <br />Fairmount neighborhood streets and traffic associated with construction in the local area. <br />Regarding the Kittelson TPR Analysis, opponents frequently assert that the study is “flawed” <br />and call for additional or different traffic study and traffic mitigation measures. The opponents <br />did not provide any competing traffic analysis, or other reliable factual evidence directed <br />towards the technical standards of the TPR, to challenge the Kittelson TPR Analysis. The <br />remainder of this section evaluates the alleged flaws in the Kittelson TPR Analysis. <br />1. Traffic volume and intersection performance. <br />Opponents generally lament traffic in the East Campus/Fairmount area and express concern <br />that the proposed amendments will worsen traffic conditions. FNA’s January 19 letter, for