I with, or that it is feasible to do so, as part of the first stage approval (as it does <br />2 under the first option described above). Therefore, the local government must <br />3 assure that the second stage approval process to which the decision making is <br />4 deferred provides the statutorily required notice and hearing * * 23 Or <br />5 LUBA at 447-48 (footnotes omitted). <br />6 Where the local government takes the first approach-finding that the approval <br />7 criterion is met or that feasible solutions to identified problems exist, and imposing necessary <br />8 conditions-those findings and conditions may be challenged as inadequate or not supported <br />9 by substantial evidence. Salo v. City of Oregon City, 36 Or LUBA 415, 428-29 (1999). <br />10 The city argues that the above framework is typically applied when the identified <br />11 "problem" involves a fact-specific technical or physical issue posed by the development, <br />12 such as the ability to construct public facilities or avoid hazardous conditions. According to <br />13 the city, that framework is more problematic when the identified "problem" involves an <br />14 alleged legal impediment that is beyond the local government's jurisdiction or authority to <br />15 resolve. The city argues that the meaning of the Kingswood Heights CC&Rs, specifically <br />16 whether the CC&Rs prohibit the proposed secondary access, is a question of law or a mixed <br />17 question of law and fact that is within the jurisdiction of the circuit court, and will be <br />18 definitively resolved only if residents of the Kingswood subdivision invoke the circuit <br />19 court's jurisdiction seeking to stop the proposed secondary access.2 The city argues that its <br />20 interpretation of the CC&Rs will have no binding legal effect in any circuit court action, and <br />21 that it makes little sense to require the city to interpret the CC&Rs in the first instance. <br />22 Rather than require the local government to engage in a non-binding legal analysis to <br />23 resolve a question of law that the city has no authority to determine, the city recommends <br />24 that the obligation to evaluate "feasibility" should proceed differently than when the city is <br />25 evaluating technical or physical feasibility. According to the city, the local government <br />2 The city notes that petitioners are not residents of Kingswood Heights subdivision, and do not have the <br />ability to enforce the terms of the CC&Rs. <br />Page 5 <br />