Land Use: Language in a land use final order on remand which contradicts the LUBA holding is surplusage and without legal effect. A party automatically has standing before the Supreme Court by virtue of participation in LUBA hearings.

Metro adopted a land use final order which approved replacing Interstate 5 bridges over the Colombia River with new bridges and a light rail line. Plaid Pantries challenged the land use final order on the grounds that Metro exceeded its statutory authority because the order affected areas outside of Portland’s urban growth boundary. LUBA agreed that Metro had exceeded its statutory authority and remanded the land use final order that affected land outside the boundary and affirmed the remainder of the land use final order. Metro adopted the land use final order on remand. The order on remand included language to the effect that the new I-5 bridges are authorized in both Metro’s and Portland’s plan. Plaid Pantries argued that that language is not supported by substantial evidence, and that it exceeded Metro’s authority. The Court held that because LUBA already held that the land use final order cannot apply to parts of the project outside the urban growth boundary any findings or language in the land use final order on remand are surplusage, extraneous to the decision without legal effect. The Court also held that Plaid Pantries had standing to appear by virtue of its appearance before LUBA and their brief before LUBA constituted a response. Affirmed.