## Facts

- The Oregon Legislature enacted Oregon Laws 1991, ch. 3 (SB 573) to create an expedited, project-specific land-use siting and review process for the Westside Corridor light-rail extension in the Portland region.
- SB 573 consolidated route, facility, and related highway-improvement land-use decisions into a single “Final Order” issued by Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon (Tri-Met).
- The Legislature cited the project’s statewide/regional importance, estimated near-$1 billion cost, air-quality and planning goals, and the need to meet federal funding deadlines.
- Petitioners Peter Seto and Henry Kane participated in proceedings before Tri-Met and challenged Tri-Met’s Final Order.
- SB 573 assigned exclusive review of Tri-Met’s Final Order to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA), with further judicial review taken directly to the Oregon Supreme Court.
- LUBA issued a final opinion and recommendation to affirm Tri-Met’s Final Order, and petitioners timely sought review in the Oregon Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether SB 573 and Tri-Met’s Final Order unlawfully displaced or infringed local land-use authority, including home-rule authority.
2. Whether SB 573’s project-specific, expedited siting and review procedures violated the Oregon Constitution.
3. Whether Tri-Met acted within the authority delegated by SB 573 and whether LUBA correctly recommended affirmance of Tri-Met’s Final Order.

## Decision

- The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed LUBA’s decision and Tri-Met’s Final Order.
- The court upheld SB 573 as a valid legislative choice to create an exclusive alternative to the usual ORS chapter 197 land-use process for the specified project.
- The court rejected constitutional challenges premised on asserted improper usurpation of local land-use authority.
- The court accepted LUBA’s conclusion that Tri-Met’s Final Order complied with SB 573 and stayed within Tri-Met’s delegated authority.

## Legal Principles

- The Legislature may establish a project-specific land-use siting and review process that departs from the ordinary land-use framework when addressing a matter of statewide or regional concern, subject to constitutional limits.
- Oregon home-rule authority does not prevent state legislation from preempting or superseding local land-use controls when the legislation addresses statewide policy rather than internal local governance.
- When an administrative body is assigned exclusive review in a specialized statutory scheme, judicial review focuses on the statute’s validity and whether the agency and decision-maker acted within the statute and constitutional constraints.

## Conclusion

The Oregon Supreme Court upheld SB 573’s consolidated, expedited mechanism for siting the Westside Corridor light-rail project and affirmed LUBA’s recommendation and Tri-Met’s Final Order, concluding that the Legislature could centralize decision-making for a major regional transportation project without violating home-rule or other asserted state constitutional limits.


Seto v. Tri-County Metro. Transp. Dist. of Or., 311 Or. 456, 814 P.2d 1060 (Or. 1991)