On review from the Court of Appeals. Judicial Review of the order of the Land Use Board of Appeals. 71 Or. App. 581, 693 P.2d 651 (1984). Allen L. Johnson, of Sullivan, Josselson, Johnson Kloos, Eugene, argued the cause and filed the brief for petitioner on review.

It seems unlikely that the legislature would have intended to allow the election to proceed when, under the statute, its result could have no effect whether the measure passed or not. See Heritage Enterprises v. City of Corvallis, 71 Or. App. 581, 693 P.2d 651, aff'd 300 Or. 168, 708 P.2d 601 (1985). Moreover, as we said in Yamhill County v. Dauenhauer, 6 Or. App. 422, 427, 487 P.2d 1167 (1971), aff'd 261 Or. 154, 492 P.2d 766 (1972), concerning another proposed initiative measure that was contrary to state law:

Relatedly, both Oregon appellate courts have recognized in other contexts that a process culminating in a single consummated action can be subject to land use laws in some of its particulars, but not in others. See, e.g., Heritage Enterprises v. City of Corvallis, 71 Or. App. 581, 693 P.2d 651, aff'd 300 Or. 168, 708 P.2d 601 (1985) (governing body's action approving annexation proposal for submission to voters is reviewable as a "land use decision," but approval or rejection of proposal by voters is not). With the foregoing as prologue, we turn to petitioner's three assignments of error.

However, annexation also has a second aspect that is more a political than a planning concern and that is comprehensively regulated by other statutes, in this instance ORS 222.111 et seq. The line between the two parts of the process has been well-defined in Petersen v. Klamath Falls, supra, and in later cases, like Stewart v. City of Corvallis, 48 Or. App. 709, 617 P.2d 921 (1980), rev den 290 Or. 491 (1981), that have explained Petersen: The decision by a city or other governing body that proposes an annexation is an act of planning that must comply with the land use laws; however, the subsequent acts that are necessary to finally adopt or reject the proposal, generally a popular vote under the ORS chapter 222 procedures, are not controlled by or subject to the land use laws. Rather, they are subject to the state statutes and complying local legislation that pertain to annexation procedures. See also Heritage Enterprises v. City of Corvallis, 71 Or. App. 581, 693 P.2d 651, aff'd 300 Or. 168, 708 P.2d 601 (1985). The exercise of obtaining consents to annexation in lieu of an election is part of those annexation procedures and is subject to the annexation statutes.

When the only decision to be made is a land use decision, to which specific land use provisions and requirements must be applied, the governing body must, and the electorate cannot, follow the procedures or be confined to the substance of those requirements. See Heritage Enterprises v. City of Corvallis, 71 Or. App. 581, 584-85, 693 P.2d 651, aff'd 300 Or. 168, 708 P.2d 601 (1985). In sum, to hold that a land use decision may be referred to the electorate would be the equivalent of holding that it need not be made in compliance with the procedural and substantive requirements of state statutes.

The Supreme Court and this court have repeatedly recognized that the permissibility of annexations and incorporations is subject to state law. See, e.g., Petersen v. Klamath Falls, 279 Or. 249, 566 P.2d 1193 (1977); Heritage Enterprises v. City of Corvallis, 71 Or. App. 581, 693 P.2d 651 (1985); 1000 Friends of Ore. v. Wasco Co. Court, 62 Or. App. 75,659 P.2d 1001, rev den 295 Or. 259 (1983). Indeed, it has also been recognized that, under some circumstances, the state legislature can require annexations without a public vote.