required to be submitted and approved prior to occupancy of any building in <br />Phase I. All buffering and screening requirements of the City Code will need to <br />be adhered to." <br />LSL argues that the Application also violates this condition. LSL's theory is that <br />because there is no definitive proof of the original occupant submitting a landscaping plan prior <br />to receiving an occupancy permit, it must be assumed that the condition was not satisfied. LSL <br />offers no legal basis for why it should be presumed that the City did not enforce compliance with <br />this condition prior to issuing the occupancy permit. Nor does LSL provide an explanation for <br />the existing landscaping, despite the City's purported failure to enforce the landscaping <br />provision: <br />Regardless, WinCo is at a loss to understand how LSL could make this argument <br />when it has submitted a new landscape and screening plan that goes beyond all current standards. <br />As the City correctly noted: <br />WinCo's "landscape plan indicates the area will be landscaped to current <br />L-3 screening standards and includes 15 trees, 102 shrubs and 157 ground cover <br />plants. It is noted that EC 9.6420(3)(d)3a only requires L-2 Landscape standards, <br />and the applicant has voluntarily exceeded these requirements of by proposing <br />L-3 landscape standards which will help in screening the new receiving area. In <br />addition, 8-foot high CMU walls are proposed adjacent to the loading dock and <br />the compactor areas to provide additional screening and noise buffering." <br />Page 19 - WinCo Foods, LLC's Response to Appellants' Statements of Alleged Errors <br />MILLER NASH GRAHAM & DUNN LLP <br />ATTORNEYS AT LAW 4816-6071-2143.6 <br />TELEPHONE: 503.224.5858 <br />3400 U.S. BANCORP TOR'ER <br />I11 S.W FIFTH AVENUE <br />P ORTLAND. OREGON 97204 <br />