13 <br />rules "governing the conduct of review proceedings brought before it under <br />ORS 197.830 to 197.845." <br />Pursuant to that authority, LUBA adopted OAR 661-010-0015(2), which <br />requires the notice of intent to appeal to be served on all parties who <br />participated in the proceeding before the local government.4 Because the <br />Notice of Intent to Appeal was not properly served on Mr. Trautman, until <br />February 20, 2014, the deadline for the motion to intervene was not triggered <br />until that date. <br />This understanding is consistent with other context of the provision at <br />issue. ORS 197.805 provides that "[i]t is the policy of the Legislative <br />Assembly that decisions be made consistently with sound principles <br />governing judicial review." One of the principles governing judicial review is <br />to ensure that participants have their day in court. The Court of Appeals has <br />noted the importance of ensuring parties have their day in court, when it can be <br />done "without doing violence to the regular disposition of litigation." Mary <br />Ebel Johnson, P.C. v. Elmore, 221 Or App 166, 171, 189 P3d 35, rev den, 345 <br />R OAR 661-010-0015(3)(f)(D) technically provides that the notice shall be <br />served on "any other person to whom written notice of the land use decision or <br />limited land use decision was mailed." ORS 227.175 requires written notice to <br />be provided to all participants in a hearing and, that notice was not provided to <br />Mr. Trautman until February 2014. <br />OCTOBER 2014 <br />