Eugene Hearing Official <br />July 31, 2024 <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />The Woodward letter correctly summarizes what standards apply until right now because Eugene <br />does not have an acknowledged MH ordinance. The current status of the city’s MH ordinance is: <br />It was readopted after being initially adopted by the City.1 The readoption was prior to the filing <br />of this application. On the date of the July 10 hearing, it was remanded by LUBA a second <br />time.2 The City has until July 31 to appeal the LUBA decision. <br /> <br />Thus, at this moment, the unacknowledged city MH ordinance applies, as do the MH Statute and <br />the MH Rule. That status will continue if the City appeals the LUBA decision. If the City does <br />not appeal, then on August 1 the MH law that applies will be the MH Statute, MH Rule 3 and the <br />MH Model Code.4 <br /> <br />Thus, depending on the status of things at the time of decision, the City needs to make findings <br />of compliance under either the city’s MH code (addressed in staff report) or the Model Code <br />and, of course, the MH Statute and Rule apply in either instance. <br /> <br />The staff report applies the PUD standard in EC 9.8320(8)(a) to propose Condition 20 to prohibit <br />future development of Lot 39. This is premised on the assumption that a city may apply its <br />overlay zones to rollback or limit MH rights created by the statute. Thus, under the discretionary <br />General PUD track in EC 9.8320, the City will contend it has discretion to deny MH because it <br />has discretion to deny any housing proposal in that track. Under the clear and objective track in <br />EC 9.8325 relevant here, the City will contend its code allows it to negate all MH rights above <br />the 901’ elevation. <br /> <br />Both positions are contrary to state law. The MH Statute, now at ORS 197A.420, says: <br /> <br />“Except as provided in subsection (4) of this section, each city with a population <br />of 25,000 or greater * * * shall allow * * * all middle housing types in areas <br /> <br />1 Ordinance No. 20705 (ordinance readopting MH regulations following remand) <br /> <br />2 See Conte v. City of Eugene, __ Or LUBA __ (No. 2024-023, July 10, 2024). The remand of <br />the city’s first MH code was in Coopman v. City of Eugene, __ Or LUBA __ (No. 2022-056, Jan. <br />27, 2023), rem’d, 327 Or App 6 (No. A180682, July 12, 2023). <br /> <br />3 State statutes and their implementing rules always apply directly. <br /> <br />4 With no appeal filed and effective MH code, the MH Statute and MH Rule state that the Model <br />Code applies to the City. And, of course, the MH Statute and MH Rule continue to apply <br />directly.