I vegetation, wildlife habitat, archaelogical sites, historic <br />2 sites, etc:.) have been adequately considered and utilized." <br />3 Section 13.040 (2) , Albany Development Code. Petitioner: claims <br />4 the city dial not address the hazards presented by Permawood' <br />5 use of toxic substances, such as cement, to the following <br />6 special features: (1) the Willamette River and river-related <br />7 wildlife and vegetation, (2) the main .sewer_ interceptor located <br />s on the property and (3) the adjacent park sites. <br />9 For the most part, the feature, identified by petitioner. <br />10 are given specific recognition by other: criteria applied by the <br />11 city in this case, i.e., criteria relating to the Willamette <br />12 River Creenway. We'note the site plan criteria loosely require <br />13 the city to give "adequate consideration" to special features, <br />14 while the Greenway criteria are expressed in more protective <br />15 terms. Since we read the greenway criteria to include the <br />16 concerns embraced by 513.040(2), we consider petitioner's <br />17 points in connection with our review of the city's action under <br />I1; the greenway criteria. See pages 25-36, infra. <br />19 With regard to the presence of the main sewer interceptor <br />2t3 on the site, petitioner warns that if the interceptor is <br />21 damaged, toxic substances could flow from the site into the <br />22 river. Assuming the interceptor qualifies as a "special <br />23 feature" covered by Q3. 040 (2) , however, it is not clear what <br />24 sort;, of "consideration" petitioner- claims is required by the <br />25 code. `.t'he city adopted rs finding indicating awareness of the <br />26 presence of the interceptor and a determination that no <br />Pete 21 <br />