of clear and objective land use application types, such as Planned Unit Developments, <br />Subdivisions and Site Reviews. As a reminder, the C&O Amendments are currently on appeal <br />(not yet effective), and similar changes for Willamette Greenway Permits were outside the <br />scope of that adoption package at the time. <br />As discussed at the June work session, a variety of policy choices were made as part of that <br />process as to the level of tree preservation versus mitigation, balancing the overall interest in <br />removing barriers to new housing, and where the regulations should apply. For these reasons, <br />the C&O Amendments (see Ord. 20647 beginning at EC 9.6885(2)) appear to be a good starting <br />point for considering whether or not to further revise the draft code to add similar tree <br />preservation standards to the approval criteria for clear and objective track Willamette <br />Greenway Permits. <br />For purposes of discussion at this meeting, staff will present concepts for how tree preservation <br />standards may be incorporated into the Willamette River Greenway Code Amendments. Staff <br />will present possible preservation and mitigation ratios that could be based on a similar <br />approach used for the South Hills area, in which increasing levels of protection or flexibility <br />were applied based on elevation. Put simply, the C&O Amendments dictated that the higher <br />one goes in elevation, the more preservation is required. In the context of the Greenway <br />regulations, the proposal would be river-centric, with ratios based on proximity to the river. <br />Effectively, this would establish higher levels of tree preservation as one gets closer to the river, <br />consistent with the intent of Goal 15. Staff will also assist the Commission in exploring other <br />potential customization, exceptions, and nuances that may be needed to integrate adopted <br />standards with those related to the Willamette Greenway. <br />Native Landscape Buffering <br />Another topic for additional input and possible direction relates to the proposed native <br />buffering requirements along the new Greenway setback line. The proposed standards in the <br />draft code EC 9.8814(3)(a) requires a 10-foot buffer of native plantings that will mature over <br />time to provide a visual buffer between development and the river, which effectively increases <br />the greenway setback by 10 additional feet. Staff would like confirmation regarding the <br />proposed width and location of the buffer, at 10 feet wide along the Greenway setback. While <br />it could be revised to provide something wider, or narrower, staff believes the proposed 10- <br />foot width helps to meet the overall intent and provides a well-reasoned approach given the <br />comparison with other codified landscaping standards. While the location of the native <br />landscape buffer could also potentially be more flexible, the proposed location along the <br />setback line is clear and simple, and has a direct relationship to the intended protection of <br />scenic values along the river consistent with the intent of Goal 15. <br />At the last meeting, staff presented information about the justification for the proposed 10-foot <br />buffer width as compared to other similar buffering standards in the code, and the differences <br />between the existing "L-2" and "L-3" landscape standards which provide for different planting <br />requirements that could affect visibility between proposed development and the river. Staff <br />reiterated that the proposed reliance on the "L-2" standard would still allow for filtered views <br />to and from the river by having a lower shrub height between 30-42 inches versus the "L-3" <br />standard, with a shrub height at least 6 feet high. Both standards also include the same <br />