I In his reply brief, Trautman responds that his residency in Idaho is <br />2 irrelevant in determining whether the city was obligated to provide him with <br />3 notices of the decision and the appeal hearing. Trautman also responds that <br />4 petitioners' attorney never represented him during the proceedings below. <br />5 As we explained above, like the Court of Appeals we fail to see the <br />6 relevancy of Trautman's actual state of residence to whether the city committed <br />7 a procedural error. In addition, we see no evidence in the record that <br />8 petitioners' attorney represented Trautman during the proceedings before the <br />9 city. <br />10 ORS 197.835(9)(a)(B) authorizes LUBA to remand for procedural errors <br />11 that prejudice the substantial rights of the petitioner. We agree with Trautman <br />12 that the city's failure to provide Trautman with notice of the hearings officer's <br />13 decision and with notice of the appeal hearing prejudiced his right to <br />14 participate in the planning commission hearing on the appeal of that hearings <br />15 officer's decision. See Muller v. Polk County, 16 Or LUBA 771, 775 (1988) <br />16 ("[u]nder ORS 197.835[(9) (a)(B)] the `substantial rights' of parties that may <br />17 be prejudiced by failure to observe applicable procedures are the rights to an <br />18 adequate opportunity to prepare and submit their case and a full and fair <br />19 hearing.") Accordingly, remand is required. <br />20 The city's decision is remanded. <br />Page 6 <br />