I provided greater public benefit than the previously required <br />2 100 foot easement. However, petitioner does not explain why a <br />3 factual basis for such a conclusion was required by Policy No. <br />4 3 of the plan. We find nothing in the plan's expression of a <br />5 preference for recreational use requiring the city to insist on <br />6 preci,sly the same dedication previously fOUnd acceptable. <br />7 Presumably, a ~RCide variety of approaches could satisfy -the plan <br />8 policy, given its very broad terms. Accordingly, we do not <br />9 sustain this charge, <br />10 Next, we address petitioner's contention the city's <br />11 decision contravened Greenaway Policy No. 6. That policy <br />12 requires the city to limit: the change or intensification ot <br />13 uses; "...to insure compatibility with the gr_eenway goal and <br />14 policies." Albany Comprehensive Plan at 25. Petitioner <br />1.5 argues, in essence, that the nature of Pertuawood's facility is <br />16 :rut,-h that it cannot be made compatible with the. plan's greenway <br />17 goal, quoted at pace 25, ,u ae <br />18 Without question, Permawood's proposal represents a major: <br />19 change over the past utilization of this greenway site. Land <br />20 occupied by only a warehouse and a cabinet shop is to be <br />21 converted into an industrial facility operating seven day, a <br />22 week and on a 24 hour- .a-dray basis. Heavy trucks and machinery <br />D will be utilized, new buildings are to be erected, and <br />24 potentially hazardous materials are to be used. <br />25 The city correctly points out the plan policy in question <br />26 does not Iarohibjj land use changes in this greenway. Rather, <br />Page 2 8 <br />