1 Opinion by Ryan. <br />2 In Oakleigh-McClure Neighbors v. City of Eugene, _ Or LUBA _ <br />3 (LUBA No. 2014-001, August 21, 2014) (Oakleigh 7), we remanded a decision <br />4 by the city approving a tentative planned unit development application for the <br />5 reasons set forth in our opinion. As relevant here, after intervenor-petitioner <br />6 Simon Trautman (Trautman) filed his petition for review, we denied <br />7 Trautman's motion to intervene because we determined that he had failed to <br />8 file his motion within the deadline set out in ORS 197.830(7). Trautman <br />9 appealed our decision to the Court of Appeals, and the Court of Appeals <br />10 reversed our decision, concluding that Trautman's motion to intervene was <br />11 timely filed under ORS 197.830(7). Oakleigh-McClure Neighbors et al. v. <br />12 City of Eugene, 269 Or App 176, 188, 344 P3d 503 (2015) (Oakleigh 11). <br />13 Trautman's motion to intervene is therefore allowed. <br />14 After the Court of Appeals issued the appellate judgment on April 15, <br />15 2015, Trautman and intervenor-petitioner Conte moved to allow additional <br />16 briefing on the assignment of error raised in Trautman's petition for review that <br />17 was filed on June 7, 2014, in order "to address the scope of the remanded <br />18 decision before the [city] * * * " and "to address the appropriate remedy for the <br />19 city's failure to adequately provide notices of the hearings and notices to <br />20 persons within the notice area." Motion to Allow Briefing on Remand Issue 1, <br />21 2. We issued an order allowing petitioners, the city, and intervenor-respondent <br />22 Oakleigh Meadows Co-Housing, LLC (Meadows) to respond to the motion. <br />23 Petitioners support the motion for the same reasons that are set forth in the <br />24 motion. Meadows objects to the motion, pointing out that ORS 197.850(11) <br />25 requires LUBA to "respond to the court's appellate judgment within 30 days." <br />Page 3 <br />