I environment and realize the full potential of our desirable and distinctive qualities, daily <br />2 decisions that concern change must be guided by environmental design principles, such as <br />3 site planning, in combination with other planning policies." Metro Plan, III-E-1 (Emphasis <br />4 added.) According to petitioner, the text and context of Policy E-4 support reading Policy E- <br />5 4 as a separate, mandatory approval criterion that applies to the applications. <br />6 Petitioner also challenges the city's conclusion that Policy E-4 is fully implemented <br />7 by EC 9.8320(3), (4), (8), (12) and (13) and EC 9.8090(2) and (3) or that those sections of <br />8 EC 9.8320 and 9.8090 make it unnecessary to separately apply Policy E-4. We set out the <br />9 text of those provisions in Appendix A. According to petitioner, the EC provisions cited by <br />10 the city do not contain any language that suggests that they are intended to implement the <br />11 purposes stated in Policy E-4 to "enhance[] desirable features" of the area and "promote[] <br />12 their sense of identity" but at most the provisions require the public facility to mitigate some <br />13 of the effects of development on those features. Finally, petitioner argues that to the extent <br />14 the planning commission adopted alternative findings that Policy E-4 is satisfied, those <br />15 findings are inadequate to explain the basis for that conclusion. <br />16 Intervenor responds by arguing that Policy E-4 is aspirational rather than mandatory, <br />17 and that it does not provide specific direction for the city in considering a permit application. <br />18 Intervenor maintains that the city correctly found that the cited EC provisions implement <br />19 Policy E-4 and argues that petitioner does not point to any evidence in the record that a <br />20 neighborhood feature or identity is not preserved or enhanced by the telecommunications <br />21 tower. <br />22 We do not think that the city's interpretation of the Metro Plan is correct. Gage, 133 <br />23 Or App at 349-50. We agree with petitioner that Policy E-4 constitutes an "applicable" <br />24 Metro Plan policy that the city must separately address. The text of Policy E-4 does not <br />25 generally direct the city to undertake future planning efforts to fufill its purpose, but rather <br />26 provides fairly specific and mandatory direction that public facilities such as the <br />Page 6 <br />