1 which requires the city to provide notice of the hearings officer's decision to <br />2 "[a]ny group or individual who provided written or oral testimony prior to the <br />3 close of the public comment period[.]"' The city also did not provide notice of <br />4 the planning commission appeal hearing to Trautman as required by EC <br />5 9.7665(1)(e), which requires the city to provide written notice of the appeal <br />6 hearing to "[a]ny person who submitted written comments in regards to the <br />7 original application." <br />8 In his assignment of error, Trautman argues that the city's procedural <br />9 errors in failing to provide the required notice of the hearings officer's decision <br />10 and notice of the appeal hearing "meant that Trautman was not able to review <br />11 the Hearings Official's decision and present contrary argument in the local <br />12 appeal proceedings." Trautman Petition for Review 6. Citing Johnson v. <br />13 Jackson County, 59 Or LUBA 94 (2009), we understand Trautman to argue <br />14 that failure on the city's part deprived Trautman of his substantial rights to <br />15 participate in the appeal hearing before the planning commission. <br />16 Meadows responds that Trautman failed to provide the city with a <br />17 correct address for purposes of mailing notice of the decision and notice of the <br />18 appeal hearing, and that Trautman lived in Idaho when both notices were sent, <br />19 and for those reasons he has failed to establish that the city's failure to provide <br />20 the required notices prejudiced his substantial rights. Meadows also contends <br />21 that the city provided notices of the decision and appeal hearing to the attorney <br />22 who is representing petitioners at LUBA and therefore satisfied its obligation <br />23 to provide notice to Trautman. <br />1 ORS 227.173(4) requires "[w]ritten notice of the approval or denial shall <br />be given to all parties to the proceeding." <br />Page 5 <br />