I ordinance :interpretation where it is reasonable, we have also <br />2 indicated that reasonableness depend: on the locality's ability <br />3 to provide a credibl.e explanation of how the interpretation <br />4 carries out legislative intent. Dawson v. _Boardman, supra; <br />`1'heland v. Multnomah Coura~a, 4 Or LUBA 284, 287-290 (1980). <br />6 That explanation must do more than simply reject arguments <br />7 inconsistent with the preferred interpretation or assert, in <br />8 conclusional terms, that the preferred construction is <br />9 corrects We read the above-quoted findings to have both of <br />10 these deficiencies. A remand is therefore in order. 1.0 <br />11 Based can the foregoing, this assignment of error is <br />12 sustained. We reverse the city's decision that the code gallows <br />13 lase of residentially zoned land for access to Permawood's <br />14 site. We remanded the alternate decision concerning <br />15 nonconforming use. We also remand the city's decision for more <br />16 Specific findings on the floodway issue and on the question of <br />17 whether and why the proposal qualifies as a "light industrial. <br />18 " <br />use. <br />19 SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR <br />24) In this assignment of error, petitioner: contends the city's <br />21 decision violated goals and policies appearing in the <br />22 comprehensive plan with respect to protection of the greenway. <br />23 We note the third assignment of error addresses greenway issues <br />24 in connection with specific provisions of the development cede <br />25 which implement the plan. Because the plan and code <br />26 interrelate, we will take up the issues concerning the greenway <br />Page 17 <br />