I dwellings from view from other parts of the city. Similarly, with respect to <br />2 Purposes 2 and 5, the Neighbors argue that preserving lower elevation trees <br />3 while cutting down nearly all trees on top of the ridgeline is not consistent with <br />4 those purposes. The Neighbors argue that these purposes are focused only on <br />5 protecting habitat and wildlife connections on lands above 901 feet in elevation. <br />6 The Dreyers respond that nothing in the text of the SHS cited by the <br />7 Neighbors limits evaluation of the purposes listed in the Ridgeline Park section <br />8 to lands above 901 feet in elevation. The Dreyers note that the Final Joint Parks <br />9 Committee report, a document adopted as part of the SHS, explains that the <br />10 exceptions to the recommendation to preserve lands above 901 feet "should <br />11 make provision for larger developments where the purposes of the basic <br />12 recommendation may be satisfied more adequately through preservation of <br />13 areas other than those above 901 feet." Dreyers' Response Brief, App 77. <br />14 We agree with the Dreyers that the Neighbors have not demonstrated <br />15 that, in evaluating whether proposed PUD development is consistent with one <br />16 or more of the listed purposes, the evaluation must be limited to lands above <br />17 901 feet in elevation. Nothing cited to us in the text of the SHS or elsewhere <br />18 indicates that development of land that includes areas that are over 901 feet in <br />19 elevation must consider only the portions of the property over 901 feet in <br />20 evaluating consistency with the purposes of the Ridgeline Park section of the <br />21 SHS. The Final Joint Parks Committee report cited by the Dreyers suggests <br />22 that the city contemplated that preservation of areas below 901 feet might <br />Page 31 <br />