Plan. The existing zoning of R-1 Low Density Residential with the Parks and Open Space (POS) <br />designation does not inherently conflict as the primary golf course use is allowed in R-1 per EC <br />9.2750. Buildings supporting this use are allowed. While the cell tower will be added on the golf <br />course, the primary use of the development site as a privately owned golf course will not <br />change. The Planned Unit Development and Conditional Use Permit criteria regarding <br />compatibility found below can appropriately be used to address the impacts of the cell tower <br />on the "open space". The Metro Plan has no provisions expressly prohibiting <br />telecommunications facilities or other structures in areas designated POS. <br />The applicant's written statement provides general findings of consistency with regard to <br />adopted Growth Management, Residential Land Use, Environmental Design, Transportation, <br />Public Facilities and Citizen Involvement sections of the Metro Plan. Specific policies are not <br />addressed. <br />Use of the Metro Plan <br />The staff report and opponents to the proposal contain discussion of many Metro Plan policies. <br />It is thus helpful at this point to discuss how to use the policies in the Metro Plan. The Metro <br />Plan explains, "Use of the Metro Plan requires a balancing of its various components on a case- <br />by-case basis, as well as a selection of those goals, objectives, and policies most pertinent to <br />the issue at hand." Metro Plan at 1-5. The Metro Plan also explains that some of the policies, <br />"call for immediate action; others call for lengthy study aimed at developing more specific <br />policies later on; and still other suggest or take the form of policy statements. <br />In a prior decision of the hearing official, Z 09-6, upheld by the Planning Commission and LUBA, <br />the hearing official explained: <br />"LUBA has made clear that not all text in a comprehensive plan may be used as <br />approval criteria. In fact, LUBA observed with respect to a 2003 City of Eugene <br />zone change application, "As our cases have recognized, local governments face <br />a 'recurring problem' in 'identifying the relevant approval standards, if any, in <br />the local government's comprehensive plan."' Bothman v. City of Eugene, 51 Or <br />LUBA 426, 438 (2006) (quoting Save Our Skyline v. City of Bend, 48 Or LUBA 192, <br />209 (2004)). LUBA further explained: <br />"[E]ven where a plan provision might not constitute an independently <br />applicable mandatory approval criterion, it may nonetheless represent a <br />relevant and necessary consideration that must be reviewed and <br />balanced with other relevant considerations, pursuant to ordinance <br />provisions that require, as does EC 9.8865(1) and (2), consistency with <br />applicable plan provisions." <br />Hearing Official Decision (PDT 10-2, CU 11-1) <br />