City of Albany v. Linn County

(1) Mere statements in a comprehensive plan that an Urban Growth Boundary Management Agreement governs certain procedures are not sufficient to incorporate the latter into the former. (2) Whether a county comprehensive plan meets the Goal 2 requirement that it be consistent with those of local governments is evaluated with respect to individual development applications, not county code text amendments. (3) A county meets the Goal 2 requirement that it coordinate its comprehensive plan and implementing measures with those of local governments where it provides the local governments with notice of proposed text amendments and an extended open record period, responds to issues raised, and incorporates comments into the amendments.

In 1988, the county and city entered into an Urban Growth Boundary Management Agreement (Agreement) to establish a joint management procedure for the area between the city’s urban growth boundary and the city limits (urban fringe). Under the Agreement, the county must obtain city approval for zone changes within the urban fringe, but it need only obtain city input with respect to variances. In 2019, the county amended the Linn County Code (LCC) to define the term “density,” when used in the context of zoning districts, as “the minimum designated property size that may be permitted without a separate land use decision or property size variance.” The county also changed the purpose statements for the urban fringe zoning districts at LCC 930.600 and .700 from protecting the urban fringe for future urban density to managing uses within the urban fringe to allow for effective development. The city argues these amendments were intended to facilitate the reduction of parcel sizes through variances, rather than zone changes, thereby not requiring city concurrence.

Under LCC 921.824(A), zoning code text amendments may be approved if they are, among other things, “consistent with the intent of the policies within the applicable section(s) of the Linn County Comprehensive Plan [LCCP].” In the first and second assignments of error, the city argues the 2019 amendments are inconsistent with the LCCP (codified at LCC Chapters 900-907), the city’s comprehensive plan, and Statewide Land Use Planning Goal 2.

LCC 905.600(D) notes that a sprawling development pattern results in underutilization of services because it is not easily converted to a “denser” service area, and that a “poorly managed UGB” may result in the “loss of productive resource lands.” The city argues the county’s definition of density conflicts with LCC 905.600(D) because it allows the county to approve variances for substandard lot sizes which will result in the loss of productive resource lands and a mismanaged UGB. Because LCC 905.600(D) uses the term “denser” in relation to service areas, while the county’s definition of density expressly applies only to zoning districts, LUBA concludes the two do not conflict.

LCC 905.610(E) provides that the urban fringe zoning districts are intended to “protect” the urban growth area for future urban development. The city also argues that both the county’s definition of density and the revised purpose statements conflict with LCC 905.610(E) because they focus on management rather than protection. Because other LCCP policies anticipate managing the urban fringe so as to support its future conversion to efficient urban use, and because such management is consistent with the dictionary definition of “protect,” LUBA concludes that the amendments do not conflict with LCC 905.610(E).

The city’s comprehensive plan defines density as the “number of living units per acre of land.” The city argues that, because the Agreement incorporates this definition, and because the LCCP incorporates the Agreement, the county’s definition of density conflicts with the LCCP. Alternatively, the city argues the county’s definition of density conflicts with the city’s and therefore violates the Goal 2 requirement that county comprehensive plans be consistent with those of local governments. Because nothing requires that the Agreement be incorporated into the LCCP, and because mere statements in the LCCP that the Agreement governs certain procedures are not sufficient to incorporate the latter into the former, LUBA concludes the Agreement was not incorporated into the LCCP. LUBA also agrees with the county that, under Goal 2, the LCCP’s consistency with the city’s comprehensive plan should be evaluated with respect to individual development applications, not text amendments.

The city also argues the county violated the Goal 2 requirement that county comprehensive plans and implementing measures be coordinated with those of local governments. Because this requirement is satisfied by inviting an exchange of information and using the information gained to balance the needs of local governments, and because here the county provided the city with notice and an extended open record period, responded to the issues raised, and incorporated comments into the amendments, LUBA concludes the county met its Goal 2 coordination requirement. LUBA also agrees with the county that the city’s legitimate interests are protected because variance procedures allow city involvement in the decision-making process by providing for city review and comment on partition applications and by requiring the county to find that variances are consistent with the city’s comprehensive plan. The first and second assignments of error are therefore denied, and the county’s decision is AFFIRMED.