I economic and recreational qualities of they Willamette River, <br />2 its banks and adjacent lands." Albany Comprehensive Flan at <br />3 31. Plan policies call for the protection of vegetation, fish <br />4 and wildlife habitat and the river's scenic character <br />h Recreational and scenic uses are cl+fassitierd as "preferred," but. <br />6 the intensification or change of existing uses is permissible. <br />l Proposals in the latter category must be limited ".,.to insure <br />8 compatibility with the greyenway goal and policies«" Albany <br />e3 Comprehensive elan at 31-32. <br />iii Petitioner attacks the city's approval of Permawood's <br />II proposal under the above-mentioned provisions of the plan and <br />12 the implementing permit: criteria in the development code. We <br />13 take up these concerns below. <br />lit 1. Alle at:ions Under the Plan <br />15 Three claims emerge from petitioner's discussion of the <br />16 plan's greenway goal and policies: <br />17 (1) Permawood's facility would introduce hazardous <br />substances to an environmentally sensitive site <br />16 in they greenway, yet the city obtained no <br />information and attached no conditions with <br />19 regard to the adequacy of plans in the event: of <br />disaster (e.g., flooding) or accident, (e.g., <br />20 escape of cement and other chemicals during <br />storage, manuta„uring or employee cleanup); <br />21 <br />(2) In approving the proposal, the city agreed to <br />22 G-accept public dedication of less river front land <br />than it had previously required of another <br />23 permitee, thereby contravening a plan policy <br />favoring recreational uses in the clreenway; and <br />2.4 <br />M- Permawood's facility is a heavy industrial use <br />25 and cannot: be made compatible with greenway goal: <br />and policies due to the natures of the <br />26 manufacturing process. <br />N*e 2 5 <br />