13 service, the service provider had the authority to condemn an easement: <br />14 "The parties argue at great length whether the existing easements and <br />15 applicable property law establish that the district has an easement over <br />16 petitioner's property; however, that is not the issue before us. The issue is <br />17 whether PZC [Portland Zoning Code] 33.652.020A.1 is satisfied. It is well <br />18 established that, where there is conflicting evidence over whether an approval <br />19 criterion is satisfied or can be satisfied, a local government may either (1) find <br />20 that the approval criterion is satisfied, or (2) find that it is feasible to satisfy <br />21 the approval criterion and impose conditions necessary to ensure that the <br />22 criterion will be satisfied. Rhyne v. Multnomah County, 23 Or LUBA 442, <br />23 447 (1992). In this case, the hearings officer apparently did both-he found <br />24 that the district had an easement over petitioner's property and also imposed a <br />25 condition that the district obtain an easement to provide sanitary service to the <br />26 subdivision. Thus, even if petitioner is correct that the existing easements do <br />27 not grant the district the ability to connect the proposed subdivision to the <br />28 existing line on petitioner's property, the finding that the district will condemn <br />29 the easement if necessary is sufficient to demonstrate that it is feasible to <br />30 satisfy PZC 33.652.020A.1. If intervenors ultimately cannot satisfy the <br />31 condition of approval then they will not be able to develop the subdivision." <br />32 50 Or LUBA at 565-66 <br />33 We then distinguished our initial decision in the present appeal: <br />Page 7 <br />