1 Opinion by Ryan. <br />2 This matter is on remand from the Court of Appeals. Trautman v. City of <br />3 Eugene, 280 Or App 752, 383 P3d 420 (2016). The challenged decision is a <br />4 city decision approving a tentative planned unit development application for <br />5 property located on Oakleigh Lane. <br />6 Intervenor-petitioner Lovinger's (Lovinger) first assignment of error to <br />7 LUBA argued that the city committed a procedural error in failing to provide <br />8 notice to Lovinger of a planning commission decision, made during an appeal <br />9 hearing on an appeal of a hearings officer's decision, to reopen the evidentiary <br />10 record and accept limited evidence and testimony on the issue of the width and <br />11 safety of Oakleigh Lane. <br />12 We denied the assignment of error, and the Court of Appeals reversed <br />13 that aspect of our decision. The court held: <br />14 "[T]he city failed to follow the procedure prescribed by EC <br />15 9.7665(2) and ORS 197.763(3) and (7) to have notified Lovinger <br />16 of the nature of the hearing that occurred and the opportunity <br />17 available to her. * * * Without notice of that opportunity, Lovinger <br />18 suffered prejudice to her substantial right to participate. <br />19 Accordingly, we reverse and remand in order that LUBA may <br />20 instruct the city to provide notice of the opportunity of `any <br />21 person' to address the added evidence or testimony on the access <br />22 safety issue for which the record was reopened." 280 Or App at <br />23 765 (citations omitted). <br />24 In accordance with the Court of Appeals' decision, the city's decision is <br />25 remanded in order for "the city to provide notice of the opportunity of `any <br />Page 3. <br />