According to the wording of Criterion 1, we contend that the policies discussed are "applicable <br />adopted Policies of the Metro Plan," and thus are relevant as they form the substantive basis for <br />the content of the Metro Plan. However, the Hearings Official asserts the primacy of the fact that <br />the City has zoned the subject property for low-density residential development and the applicant <br />does not propose a higher density (DHO, pp. 14-15). Upon citing this City zoning action, the <br />Hearings Official rejects any further relevance of Metro Plan Policies as applying to approval <br />criteria for determining compliance. <br />Thus the Hearings Official limits the scope and effect of the specific content of the Metro Plan. <br />The Metro Plan is not simply a zoning ordinance. Its content defines the basis for the approval <br />standard of Criterion 1: "The PUD is consistent with applicable adopted policies of the Metro <br />Plan." We reject the Hearings Official's claims that restrain the applicability of Metro Plan <br />policies. They are not limited by prior LUBA decisions regarding the efficacy of the language <br />"consistent with applicable adopted policies" and rejections of specific plan policies as <br />mandatory approval standards. <br />Careful examination of decisions in LUBA No. 92-287, McGowan v. Eugene, p. 9, lines 4-13 <br />and p. 15, lines 12-18 reveals that prior opinions are narrower and focused on more vague <br />language, such as "encourage" compliance. This does not support the over-broad decision of the <br />Hearings Official to dismiss the following seven Policy statements of the Metro Plan. <br />The Hearings Official dismisses Policy A. 10, Policy A. 13, and Policy A. 17 in the Metro Plan <br />Residential Land Use and Housing Element with the unsupported claim: "none of these policies <br />constitute a mandatory approval criterion for the proposed development. By their terms, they are <br />directives to the City to guide the City in implementing the Metro Plan" (DHO, p. 14). <br />In a similar manner, the Hearings Official dismisses Policy A. 11 and Policy A. 20 with the same <br />unsupported claim: "these policies provide direction to the city, and are not mandatory approval <br />criteria for the proposed development" (DHO, p. 15). <br />For Policy E. 2, the Hearings Official limits it to be "primarily implemented through the specific <br />code provisions, addressed below, that provide direction as to how the site's natural features are <br />to be protected consistent with the property's zoning." Thus, the only relevant portion to the <br />Hearings Official is that "this policy directs preservation `to the maximum extent practical' " <br />(DHO, p. 15). However, how to interpret that phrase is not considered by the Hearings Official. <br />We note here that, relevant to this policy and issues of protecting the proposed preservation and <br />conservation areas of the site, we discuss the Hearings Official's error regarding imposing <br />Condition 8 (above, pp. 2-3). <br />Policy J. 8 is dismissed: "There is nothing in this policy language that establishes any approval <br />criterion applicable to the proposed development" (DHO, pp. 15-16). <br />Consequently, we hold that each one of the seven Policies of the Metro Plan included under <br />Criterion 1 must be regarded as a separate error by the Hearings Official: Policy A. 10, Policy A. <br />11, Policy A. 13, Policy A. 17, Policy A. 20, Policy E. 2, and Policy J. 9. The contents of the <br />2 <br />