ER-4 <br />1 decision or limited land use decision was mailed as shown on the governing . <br />2 body's records."' However, after the NITA was filed, the city discovered that <br />3 it had failed to mail notice of the decision to all persons who participated orally <br />4 or in writing during the proceedings before the city, and on February 4, 2014, <br />5 after the 21-day deadline for intervention had expired, the city subsequently <br />6 provided a second mailed notice of the decision to the remaining persons <br />7 entitled to notice of the decision. The city then presumably provided an <br />8 updated list of "[a]ny person to whom written notice of the land use <br />9 decision or limited land use decision was mailed as shown on the governing <br />10 body's records" to Neighbors. Thereafter, on February 20, 2014, Neighbors <br />11 provided a certificate of service to LUBA certifying that Neighbors served a <br />12 copy of their NITA on additional persons whom the city identified as being <br />13 mailed written notice of the decision on February 4, 2014, and who were. thus <br />14 entitled to be served with a copy of the NITA under OAR 661-010-0015(2) and <br />15 (3)(f)(D). One of those additional persons was Trautman. On March 11, 2014, <br />16 68 days after the notice of intent to appeal was filed, and 20 days after being <br />17 served with a copy of the NITA, Trautman moved to intervene on the side of <br />18 Neighbors in the appeal. <br />19 Trautman's late filing of his motion to intervene undoubtedly occurred <br />20 because the city failed to initially mail notice of the decision to all persons who <br />1 ORS 197.830(9) requires the petitioner to serve copies of the NITA on the <br />"the applicant of record, if any, in the * * proceeding." The requirement to <br />serve copies of the NITA on "[a]ny * * * person to whom written notice of the <br />land use decision or limited land use decision was mailed as shown on the <br />governing body's records" is entirely a requirement of LUBA's rules of <br />procedure and has no counterpart in the statutes governing LUBA's review <br />procedures. <br />Page 4 <br />000053 <br />