E we have previously held that Permawood's proposal fox' <br />2 access to Geary Street across residentially zoned land is <br />3 impermissible under the development code and has not been <br />`E est=ablished as a protected nonconforming use. Putting that <br />5 question aside for purposes of this assignment of error, <br />6 however., we must disagree with petitioner's attack. There is <br />no dispute the proposed access is at the widest portion of <br />Geary Street. The question whether this circumstance renders <br />the proposal safe is primarily one of judgment, not fact. <br />EO Without a clear showing the city's conclusion is not <br />EE reasonable, we defer to the city's judgment: on such questions. <br />E2 Moreover:, it is cleat: the city council did consider the safety <br />E3 issue. See e.g., Record at 25. The fact it reached a <br />E~ conclusion unsatisfactory to petitioner is not a reason for <br />ES this Board to reverse or remand the decision. <br />E6 In summary, we sustain petitioner's challenge under <br />0 S13.040(1) . Accordingly, we must remand the decision. OAR <br />18 661-10-070 (1) (C) (2) . However, we reject the ether challenges <br />19 under §13.040. <br />20 B. Greenway Review <br />2E Section 11.130 of the development code requires issuance of <br />22 a greenwGay use permit: for the development: of land within the <br />23 Willamette River Greenaway. The criteria or permit: issuance <br />24 carry out a goal and related policies in the city's <br />25 comprehensive plan. The goal requires the city to "protect, <br />26 conserve, enhance and maintain the natural, scenic, historic, <br />Page 24 <br />