Attachment A <br />planning efforts. As noted above in relation to the RRSC neighborhood plan, staff anticipates a <br />City-wide multiple corridor project to be completed by the end of 2026. At this stage, staff <br />believes that existing height limitations and the proposed Greenway protections are sufficient <br />to meet the requirements and intent of Goal 15. Further limitation of building heights does not <br />seem warranted given the key provisions in the draft code, including the Greenway setback, <br />tree preservation zones, native landscape buffering and other standards such as limiting the <br />length of building facades near the river. <br />Further Review of Tree Preservation Standards <br />As discussed at the Planning Commission's second public hearing and in prior meeting <br />materials, staff is proposing to add tree preservation and removal/mitigation requirements to <br />both the proposed clear and objective approval criteria (Clear and Objective Track) and the <br />existing discretionary approval criteria (Discretionary Track) for Willamette River Greenway <br />Permits, to enhance the protections applied to new development within the Greenway. These <br />newly added tree standards are responsive to testimony and concerns about adequate <br />Greenway protections within the draft code, and have been modeled after similar standards <br />recently adopted as part of the City's larger effort over the last several years to create clear and <br />objective standards for other land use application types. <br />The proposed preservation and mitigation ratios are based on a similar approach used for Clear <br />and Objective Track housing applications in the South Hills area, in which increasing levels of <br />protection or flexibility are applied based on elevation. In the context of the proposed Clear and <br />Objective Track Greenway regulations, the proposed standards are river-centric, with ratios <br />based on proximity to the river and according to Tree Preservation Zones in proposed Figure <br />9.6885(2)(e). Effectively, they establish higher levels of tree preservation as one gets closer to <br />the river, consistent with the intent of Goal 15 and matching the percentages suggested in <br />testimony to date. <br />As this is still a relatively new addition to the proposed code amendments, staff will revisit this <br />topic for any additional questions or discussion needed before moving forward with the <br />updated draft code. Staff will also be providing Commissioners with several specific site <br />examples showing the impacts of the proposed Greenway setback and related tree <br />preservation zones on properties located throughout the Greenway. <br />Native Landscape Buffering <br />Another topic for additional input and possible Planning Commission direction relates to the <br />proposed native buffering requirements along the proposed new clear and objective Greenway <br />setback line. The proposed standards in EC 9.8814(3)(a) require a 10-foot buffer of native <br />plantings between the development and the Greenway setback line that will mature over time <br />to provide a visual buffer between development and the river, which effectively increases the <br />Greenway setback by 10 additional feet. Staff did receive initial support from the Commission <br />at the last deliberations meeting to keep the proposed width and location of the buffer, at 10 <br />feet wide along the Greenway setback. While it could be revised to provide something wider as <br />suggested in some testimony, staff believes the proposed 10-foot width is reasonable and <br />comparable to other codified landscaping standards. While the location of the native landscape <br />Page 10 of 43 <br />