I The city addressed petitioner's concern that hazardous <br />substances used by Permawood might escape and reach the river. <br />3 The findings indicate that substances such as cement and <br />4 chemicals used in the manufacturing process would be contained <br />5 in units inside or adjacent to structures meeting building code <br />6 requirements. In the event the containment structures, such as <br />7 the cement storage :silo, gave way in a flood or other disaster, <br />8 the city concluded that hazardous substances would not reach <br />9 the river. Instead the city determined the substances would <br />10 filter into the ground or be contained within protective <br />vegetation to be installed by Permawood between the river and <br />12 the plant. Record at 23. The city accepted as "plausible" <br />13 Permawood's argument that escaping cement would mix with gravel <br />14 and moisture on the site to form concrete, rather than flow <br />19 into the river or elsewhere. Id. <br />16 Petitioner's concern that toxic substances used by <br />17 Permawood, particularly cement, are difficult to contain even <br />iii under normal. conditions, finds support in the record. Ms. <br />19 Margaret Pritchard, an engineering consultant retained by <br />20 petitioner, testified at length on this subject. See <br />21 transcript of council hearing, January 10, 1984, attached to <br />22 petition as Exhibit F. Manifestly, the concern is of direct <br />23 relevance to the plan's greenway goal and policies. <br />24 Respondents assure us the city's findings on hazard <br />25 containment are supported by substantial evidence in the <br />26 record. However., respondents do not refer us to places in the <br />Page 26 <br />