I suffice to show consistency with the listed purposes. Depending on the <br />2 topography and other circumstances, preservation of trees on lower elevation <br />3 slopes could limit impacts on the viewshed as well or better than concentrating <br />4 development on lower elevation portions. And it is possible that concentrating <br />5 development on a partially developed ridgeline away from existing lower <br />6 elevation habitat and wildlife connective areas could be more consistent with <br />7 Purposes 2 and 5 than concentrating development in lower elevation habitat and <br />8 wildlife connective areas. The Neighbors have not demonstrated that, as a <br />9 matter of law, evaluation of consistency with the listed purposes is confined to <br />10 portions of the property with elevations above 901 feet. <br />11 Finally, the Neighbors argue that the record lacks substantial evidence to <br />12 support the findings of consistency with Purposes 1, 2 and 5. The Neighbors' <br />13 evidentiary arguments are premised on their view, rejected above, that only <br />14 preservation of land above 901 feet in elevation can be evaluated in determining <br />15 consistency with Purposes 1, 2 and 5. The Dreyers cite to the evidence that the <br />16 hearings official and planning commission relied upon to find that the PUD is <br />17 consistent with Purposes 1, 2 and 5. We agree with the Dreyers that the <br />18 Neighbors have not established that the findings addressing consistency with <br />19 Purposes 1, 2 and 5 are not supported by substantial evidence. <br />20 The first assignment of error (the Neighbors) is denied. <br />Page 32 <br />