East Campus University of Oregon (CA 25-02, RA 25-01, Z 25-03) <br />Findings Page 15 of 36February 2026 <br /> <br /> <br />3. Event traffic <br />Opponents frequently cite traffic associated with events at Matthew Knight Arena and Hayward <br />Field as justification for additional traffic analysis and mitigation requirements. For example, <br />FNA Board member Kay Rose argues that the Kittelson TPR Analysis wrongly excludes traffic <br />from these two event venues in its analysis. The Council finds that these facilities are outside of <br />the Limited Institutional plan area and East Campus Overlay zone affected by the University’s <br />proposed amendments and that the allowed uses at these facilities will not change as a result <br />of the proposed amendments. <br />At the City Council hearing on January 20, FNA representatives described their past land use <br />appeal related to Matthew Knight Arena, and the University subsequently placed the <br />conditional use permit that resulted from that appeal and permitting process into the record in <br />this proceeding. That permit demonstrates that the arena is subject to a City-approved <br />transportation demand management program (TDM). The Council therefore finds that traffic <br />management associated with Matthew Knight Arena events is governed by that conditional use <br />permit and the Council may not alter that permit through this proceeding. <br />Kittelson’s technical memo from January 27 explains that accepted TPR analysis does not cover <br />high-volume special events because it is not appropriate to design transportation infrastructure <br />for these events. Such a design would result in overbuilding of infrastructure and the <br />misallocation of public funds. The memo explains that event traffic is more appropriately <br />managed through temporary operational measures. <br />The Council concurs with this analysis from Kittelson and finds that the event traffic <br />management desired by the opponents is beyond the scope of the analysis required by the TPR <br />for this application. The Council finds that other programs and processes are better suited to <br />manage event traffic such as the TDM associated with the Matthew Knight Arena conditional <br />use permit. <br />4. Pedestrian traffic <br />Opponents argue that the Kittelson TPR Analysis does not adequately account for the impacts <br />of pedestrian traffic on the local road system. FNA Board member Kay Rose for example <br />suggested to the Council that Kittelson’s TPR Analysis “completely miss[ed]” the “unregulated <br />flow of students and other pedestrians” on Agate Street that impede vehicle traffic. Kittelson’s <br />January 27 memo explains that its traffic counts were collected on a typical weekday when the <br />University was in normal session, during both peak and off-peak times and that Kittelson’s <br />analysis focuses on the busiest fifteen minutes within that peak hour. The Council finds that <br />these study parameters are consistent with accepted TPR methodology and adequately account <br />for pedestrian traffic. <br />5. Geographic scope of TPR Analysis and traffic diversion into local neighborhoods <br />Opponents argue that Kittelson’s TPR Analysis did not study a broad enough geographic area <br />and/or that the study is inadequate to evaluate other roads in the neighborhood. FNA member <br />Tom Jordan expressed a related concern regarding “cut-through” traffic into the neighborhood