Seto v. Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District
1991 Ore. LEXIS 40, 311 Or. 456, 814 P.2d 1060 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state general law, clearly intended to address substantive statewide social, economic, or other regulatory objectives, prevails over contrary local policies and does not violate constitutional Home Rule provisions, equal privileges or immunities, or due process, provided it does not interfere with the local government's freedom to choose its political form and has a rational basis for any classification.
Facts:
- The Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon (Tri-Met) planned the Westside Corridor Project, a light rail extension, estimated to cost nearly $1 billion.
- Various regional and state governmental bodies identified the Project as a top transportation and air-quality priority for the Portland metropolitan region and the state.
- A full funding agreement with the federal Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) by September 30, 1991, was necessary to secure 75% federal funding, a difference of about $227 million compared to 50% or less.
- The usual land use siting and review process would extend beyond the critical federal funding deadline of September 30, 1991, requiring final resolution of land use issues by July 31, 1991.
- In response, the 1991 Legislative Assembly enacted Senate Bill 573 (the Act) to establish an exclusive, speedy siting process for the Project.
- The Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) established specific criteria for Tri-Met to use in making decisions on the light rail route and associated facilities, which was not challenged.
- Tri-Met applied the LCDC criteria and adopted a Final Order on April 12, 1991, for the Project.
- Petitioners Kane and Seto appeared before Tri-Met to raise objections to the Project's plan.
Procedural Posture:
- The 1991 Legislative Assembly enacted Senate Bill 573 (the Act), establishing an exclusive and expedited land use siting process for Tri-Met's Westside Corridor Project.
- Pursuant to the Act, the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) established criteria for Tri-Met's siting decisions; no petition for review of LCDC's order was filed.
- Tri-Met applied the LCDC criteria and adopted a Final Order on April 12, 1991, for the Project.
- Petitioners Kane and Seto appeared before Tri-Met, raising issues regarding the Project, thus preserving their standing for subsequent review.
- Petitioners sought review of Tri-Met's Final Order before the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA), as provided by the Act.
- LUBA issued a "Final Opinion and Recommendation to the Supreme Court" recommending that the Tri-Met Final Order be affirmed, finding petitioner Kane had standing and addressing the issues raised.
- Petitioners timely sought judicial review of LUBA's decision and Tri-Met's Final Order in the Oregon Supreme Court, challenging LUBA's recommendation.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state legislative act (SB 573) establishing an expedited, exclusive land use siting process for a major regional transportation project violate local governments' Home Rule rights, equal privileges or immunities, or due process rights under the Oregon and U.S. Constitutions, or allow a transportation district (Tri-Met) to exceed its statutory authority by not holding a public hearing on an environmental impact statement or adopting mitigation measures in its final order?
Opinions:
Majority - Graber, J.
No, the state legislative act (SB 573) does not violate Home Rule rights, equal privileges or immunities, or due process under the Oregon and U.S. Constitutions, nor did Tri-Met exceed its statutory authority in a manner reviewable by this court. The court affirmed LUBA's decision and Tri-Met's Final Order. First, the court confirmed petitioner Kane had standing under the Act, finding LUBA was not wrong as a matter of law. The court also clarified it would only consider issues addressed by LUBA, rejecting new constitutional challenges regarding deadlines and Article IV, section 23, that were not timely raised before LUBA. Regarding Home Rule, the court applied the LaGrande/Astoria test, which states that a general law primarily addressing substantive statewide objectives prevails over local preferences if it does not affect the local government's political form. The court found SB 573 was a general law addressing legitimate state objectives (e.g., land use regulation, economic development, transportation priority, air quality) and did not interfere with the local governments' choice of political form. Thus, it did not offend Home Rule provisions. Concerning equal privileges or immunities and equal protection claims, the court held that petitioners, as individuals, lacked standing to assert that local governments were deprived of rights. Furthermore, the court found the geographical classification inherent in project-specific legislation was permissible if the legislature had authority to act and the classification had a rational basis. The court concluded the legislature had authority and a rational basis, upholding the classification. Due process challenges regarding standing requirements were also dismissed because petitioners had complied and showed no prejudice. Finally, regarding Tri-Met's authority, petitioners argued Tri-Met exceeded its authority by not holding a public hearing on the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) and not adopting mitigation measures. The court found the Act's review process was limited to whether Tri-Met acted in accordance with the alternative land use siting process established by the Act, which did not require an SDEIS hearing in its Final Order. The court also clarified that LCDC criteria #3 and #5 required Tri-Met to identify impacts and consider or demonstrate potential mitigation measures, not to adopt them in its Final Order. Tri-Met's extensive findings were deemed compliant with these requirements.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the Oregon Supreme Court's interpretation of Home Rule under the LaGrande/Astoria test, allowing state legislation addressing significant statewide social and economic objectives to supersede local land use policies. It clarifies that such state intervention is permissible for large-scale public works projects with regional and statewide importance, provided the local government's form of government remains undisturbed. The ruling also highlights the court's strict adherence to statutory limitations on judicial review, emphasizing that challenges must be timely and within the scope defined by special legislative acts designed for expedited processes. This precedent enables the state legislature to create streamlined administrative and judicial review processes for major projects deemed vital to state interests, potentially limiting local control over land use decisions in specific, extraordinary circumstances.
