East Campus University of Oregon (CA 25-02, RA 25-01, Z 25-03) <br />Findings Page 16 of 36February 2026 <br /> <br /> <br />and stated his opposition to potential traffic calming measures on Agate Street that may have <br />the effect of increasing cut-through traffic. FNA Member Steve Gab and other opponents called <br />for traffic lights along Agate Street as a mitigation measure. <br />The Council finds that the TPR Analysis was prepared using parameters established by the City <br />for relevant study intersections, study periods, regional growth rate, assumed transportation <br />study improvements, and the performance threshold to be met. The Kittelson TPR Analysis <br />explains that it evaluated a “worst case” traffic scenario, and communications from City Staff to <br />Kittelson in the record show that City Staff recommended specific intersections along Franklin <br />Boulevard, Agate Street and Villard Street for Kittelson to develop that worst case scenario. <br />Because the Kittelson TPR Analysis shows that all of these intersections will continue to perform <br />within acceptable levels of service and these intersections were chosen to represent a worst- <br />case scenario, it is reasonable to conclude that other local intersections will also perform within <br />acceptable levels of service. The opponents did not provide any evidence to the contrary. Nor <br />did opponents explain why traffic conditions on other local streets such as Orchard Street and <br />Walnut Street would suffer worse conditions than the studied streets, or would otherwise fail <br />to meet the applicable acceptable level of service under the TPR. <br />The Council therefore finds that the Kittelson TPR analysis covered an adequate area to <br />demonstrate compliance with the TPR. <br />Another potentially related issue concerns future road vacations in the East Campus area. <br />Opponents including FNA and Mark Zola expressed their opposition to future road vacations in <br />the East Camus area. The University’s proposed amendments do not include any future road <br />vacations. All vacations must be approved by the Council through a land use proceeding that <br />broadly considers the public interest in a road vacation proposal. The Council therefore finds <br />that vacation proceedings are the proper venue to consider potential traffic impacts from any <br />road closure in the East Campus area. <br />6. Construction and truck traffic <br />Opponents express concern regarding construction-related traffic, including trucks. Similar to <br />events described above, the Council finds that construction traffic is outside the scope of TPR <br />analysis because it would not be appropriate to build road infrastructure to accommodate <br />construction events. The Council finds that construction-related transportation issues are <br />better managed through temporary measures in the affected area. <br />The University explained that in response to concerns about truck traffic, it studied vehicle <br />circulation patterns and established new service routes that eliminate the need for trucks and <br />service vehicles to use neighborhood streets east of Villard Street. The Council cites this as an <br />example of appropriate transportation measure that is outside of TPR requirements. <br />7. Mitigation <br />FNA asserts in its January 19 letter that the University “must propose mitigation measures that <br />will impact [sic] all the anticipated impacts prior to development.” However, the state TPR <br />requires only that the City put in place measures to address “significant” effects to the