I river." Petition for Review 24. Petitioners argue that the city's construction of EC <br />2 9.8815(2) as requiring access only "along" the river instead of "to" the river is <br />3 inconsistent with Goal 15 guidelines.' <br />4 Lombard responds, and we agree, that EC 9.8815(2) implements Goal 15 <br />5 and is part of the city's acknowledged code; thus, Goal 15 is not directly <br />6 applicable to the application. More importantly, Goal 15 guidelines and EC <br />7 9.8815(2) focus on "adequate public access" along the river. That provision does <br />8 not require public access to the river from or across the subject property where <br />9 public access is otherwise adequate. The city properly determined that current <br />10 public access along the river provided by the public riverfront path is adequate. <br />11 Petitioners do not argue or explain why the current public access is not adequate. <br />12 This subassignment of error is denied. <br />13 C. Willamette Greenway policies <br />14 EC 9.8815(3) requires development within the Greenway to conform with <br />15 applicable Willamette Greenway policies as set forth in the Metro Plan. Metro <br />4 OAR 660-015-005(C)(3)(c) provides: <br />"3. Use Management Considerations and Requirements. <br />Plans and implementation measures shall provide for the <br />following: <br />CC***** <br />"c. Access Adequate public access to the river shall be <br />provided for, with emphasis on urban and urbanizable <br />areas[.]" (Boldface in original.) <br />Page 18 <br />