1 Meadows argues that additional briefing would cause further delay in <br />2 contravention of ORS 197.850(11). <br />3 We conclude that we have already received adequate briefing from the <br />4 parties on the issue presented in Trautman's petition for review and that <br />5 additional briefing is not warranted. We now resolve the assignment of error in <br />6 Trautman's petition for review. <br />7 TRAUTMAN ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR <br />8 A. Motion to Take Evidence Not in the Record and Reply Brief <br />9 In its response brief, Meadows moves to take evidence not in the record <br />10 which, as we understand it, seeks to establish that Trautman was living in Idaho <br />11 at the time his letter to the hearings officer found at Record 1308 was submitted <br />12 into the record. In Oakleigh II, the Court of Appeals questioned the relevance <br />13 of a similar argument by Meadows regarding whether Trautman was living in <br />14 Idaho at the time his letter was submitted into the record. Oakleigh II, 269 Or <br />15 App at 178 n 2. We also fail to see the relevance of Meadows' argument to <br />16 Trautman's assignment of error. The motion to take evidence is denied. <br />17 Trautman filed a reply brief to respond to Meadows' response brief. <br />18 The reply brief is allowed. <br />19 B. Assignment of Error <br />20 As we explained in Oakleigh I, the hearings officer's decision approved <br />21 the application for a tentative planned unit development, and some of the <br />22 petitioners appealed the hearings officer's decision to the planning <br />23 commission. Prior, to the initial hearings officer's decision, Trautman, along <br />24 with his wife and mother-in-law, submitted a letter into the record opposing the <br />25 application. Record 1308. The city did not provide notice of the hearings <br />26 officer's decision to Trautman as required by Eugene Code (EC) 9.7335(l)(d), <br />Page 4 <br />