188 Oakleigh-McClure Neighbors v. City of Eugene <br />to a case in which a motion to intervene was allowed, even <br />though it was filed "four months after the notice of intent to <br />appeal was filed, several days after the respondent's brief <br />was filed, and one week from oral argument." Testimony, <br />House Committee on Environment and Energy, HB 2502, <br />Mar 17, 1997, Ex A (statement of Christine Cook), In sup- <br />port of her suggestion to amend the bill, she expressed con- <br />cern that "[m]any deadlines in LUBA appeals are flexible" <br />and commented that "[a] late intervenor can act as a spoiler <br />in mediation proceedings, and can also significantly change <br />the nature, number and intensity of legal arguments in a <br />LUBA appeal, at a time when it is difficult for other parties <br />to respond." Id. The bill was eventually amended to include <br />the requirement, now codified at ORS 197.830(7)(c), that <br />"[f] ailure to comply with the deadline * * * shall result in <br />denial of a motion to intervene." Thus, although the legisla- <br />tive history supports the notion that the legislature intended <br />to establish a "hard and fast" deadline, it does not address <br />the question raised here-viz., the import of "filing" for the <br />purpose of the commencement of that deadline in light of <br />LUBA's rules on service of a notice of intent to appeal. <br />We conclude that a notice of intent to appeal is <br />effectively filed, for purposes of determining the timeliness <br />of a motion to intervene under ORS 197.830(7) by a person <br />required under OAR 661-010-0015(2) to be served with the <br />notice, on the date of that service. Here, Trautman was <br />among the persons required to be served with the notice <br />of intent to appeal because he provided written testimony <br />before the city. He was served with the notice on February 20, <br />2014. Thus, as to Trautman, the notice of intent to appeal <br />was effectively filed on that date. Trautman filed his motion <br />to intervene on March 11-within 21 days of February 20. <br />Accordingly, it was timely, and LUBA erred in denying his <br />motion. <br />Reversed and remanded. <br />