COURTESY COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT
The Columbia River Crossing would replace the Interstate Bridge connecting Portland and downtown Vancouver.
The Oregon Supreme Court upheld a state board's review of the land use order on the Columbia River Crossing, rejecting most of the arguments made by opponents of the CRC.
In upholding the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals' ruling on the Land Use Final Order, the Supreme Court sent back the portions of the CRC land use review that pertain to the Columbia River.
Metro approved the Land Use Final Order in August, effectively fast-tracking the land use review of the CRC project in Oregon. But state rules say the order's jurisdiction ends at the urban growth boundary, which is on the north shore of Hayden Island. Metro's order extended all the way to the Washington state line, and both LUBA and the Supreme Court said that was, so to speak, a bridge too far.
The respondents in the Supreme Court case, Metro and TriMet, did not dispute that claim.
Metro land use attorney Dick Benner said the council could move the urban growth boundary to the Washington state line – a move which would likely be appealed by Columbia River Crossing opponents – or it could amend the land use order to end at the north shore of Hayden Island.
He said the latter is less likely to be appealed.
If the Metro Council amends its land use order, the Portland City Council would have to approve the land use conditions of the CRC project over the Columbia River.
Appeals of any amendment to Metro's land use order would be limited, and would go directly to the Oregon Supreme Court, Benner said.
CRC opponents tried to convince the Supreme Court that the political justifications for expanding Interstate 5 over the Columbia River were counter to the principles of the Land Use Final Order process, established in 1996 to speed land use review of any light rail project connecting Oregon City and Vancouver.
But the Supreme Court, in an opinion from Chief Justice Paul De Muniz, said "it was politically impossible for the light rail project to proceed without also building new interstate bridges across the Columbia River."
The opponents argued that the highway improvements were unnecessary from an engineering perspective, meaning they were outside the scope of the Land Use Final Order.
But the court said the complicated political history of the CRC – essentially, that Vancouver won't support extending light rail into Washington without also widening Interstate 5 – means the highway improvements were indeed necessary to build the light rail project.
"Because we already have concluded that political necessity was a permissible reason for Metro to authorize those highway improvements contained in its land use final order, evidence of that political necessity is relevant," the court said.
Calls to the Northeast Coalition of Neighborhoods a CRC opponent who appealed Metro's land use approval, was not immediately returned.
Update 4:12 p.m.: Coalition for a Livable Future policy director Mara Gross said this in reaction to the ruling: "I stil think it's bad policy to shortcut the land use process on a project this big. It's a major investment and we want to look at all the issues."