I tinder the third assignment of error. <br />2 THIRD ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR <br />3 In this assignment: of error petitioner challenges the <br />4 tindings and the supporting evidence relied on by the city in <br />5 determining Permawood's proposal satisfied various development <br />6 code criteria. Our attention is directed to the following <br />7 parts of the code: (1) site plan review (§13.040), (2) <br />8 greenway conditional use permit. (§11.130), (3) flood fringe <br />9 (§§11.130) and (4) variances (§15.030). Below we consider each <br />10 of petitioner's challenges. <br />if A. Site Plan Review Criteria <br />12 1. Ade uac of Sewer ,S stern. <br />13 Section 13.040(1) of the development code requires a <br />14 determination that "the adequacy and continuity of public <br />15 facilities is sufficient to accommodate the proposed <br />ifi development." In connection with this criterion, petitioner <br />17 cha.'Llenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the <br />18 city': conclusion Permawood's facility could be accommodated by <br />19 the existing sewer system. The principal argument is that the <br />20 city did not have sufficient information to determine whether <br />21 waste water discharged by Permawood would contain toxic <br />22 substances at levels exceeding the sewer system's treatment, <br />23 capacity. <br />24 <br />The city <br />adopted findings <br />with <br />respect <br />to the <br />waste writer <br />25 <br />issue under <br />code §13.040(1). <br />`.t'he <br />findings <br />can be <br />summarized as <br />26 follows. <br />Page 18 <br />