I anything in the SHS that expressly designates some areas, but not others, for <br />2 preservation or park usage, except the language stating that land above 901 feet <br />3 in elevation "be preserved." Finally, the Neighbors also challenge the hearings <br />4 official's alternative findings that the proposed PUD is consistent with at least <br />5 one of the seven purposes listed in the Ridgeline Park section of the SHS. <br />6 In its response brief, the city does not defend the hearings official's <br />7 primary conclusion that the subject property is not designated for preservation <br />8 and therefore the above-quoted SHS recommendation does not apply to the <br />9 proposed PUD. The city argues, however, that the hearings official and <br />10 planning commission correctly found that the PUD is consistent with at least <br />11 one of the listed purposes of the SHS Ridgeline Park section, and thus <br />12 consistent with the SHS. <br />13 Given the city's apparent reluctance to defend the hearings official's <br />14 primary finding, we will assume without deciding that that finding is erroneous, <br />15 and that the above-quoted SHS language has the effect of designating land <br />16 above 901 feet in elevation for preservation, subject to the two listed <br />17 exceptions, which require a finding of consistency with SHS purposes. <br />18 However, that presumed error is harmless, because we agree with the city and <br />19 the Dreyers that the Neighbors have not demonstrated that the hearings official <br />20 erred in her alternative findings of consistency with at least one of the seven <br />21 listed SHS purposes. <br />Page 28 <br />