New tree ordinance headed to Council
July 1, 2009 (updated Feb. 27, 2010)

Proposed amendments to the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance are finished and making their way to a City Council vote on April 1st. Next up is a Planning Commission public hearing.

Planning Commission public hearing on proposed tree ordinance

Date: Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Time: 2:00 p.m
Place: Board Room, Development & Business Services Center, 1901 S. Alamo
Agenda: Click here

On February 23rd, the developer-dominated Technical Advisory Committee recommended weakening the proposed ordinance by reducing the number of trees required to be planted. The Planning Commission can vote for or against the ordinance as written or recommend changes based on the TAC's or its own reckoning.

It is anticipated that the Infrastructure and Growth City Council committee will hold deliberations at its March 16th meeting. If the committee decides favorably, the ordinance will be sent to City Council for a vote on April 1st.

What changes are being proposed?

Preservation, which is at the heart of this ordinance, is left largely unchanged. The most noteworthy addition is an overall canopy cover requirement for completed developments.

Here are the most significant changes being proposed:

• A post-development canopy cover requirement of 25% commercial, 38% residential, would be added. This is the percentage of the entire development covered by tree canopy, and is met through both preservation and planting. Newly-planted trees are counted as if they were fully grown. Required planting on land with few trees, such as south side farms, will be substantial. However, developers can pay a fee instead of meeting this requirement.
• No more than 80-85% of all trees, including heritage trees, could be destroyed. Currently, 90-93% can be destroyed.
• Mitigation fees (fees instead of trees) would double to $200 per diameter-inch
• Home builders would be required to protect trees’ root systems. Currently, there is no limitation on root system destruction.
• A loophole would be closed which allows developers to clear-cut large tracts where a farm or ranch house stands.

Will the new ordinance meet City Council's directive?

A recently completed $400,000 Urban Ecosystem Analysis recommends tree canopy cover goals for specific areas of our city: inside City limits - 40%, Aquifer transition and recharge zones - 55%, Central business district - 15%. City Council expressed clear support of these goals at its October 29th meeting.

However, the proposed changes ignore the 55% canopy cover goal for the Edwards Aquifer. Furthermore, analysis using GIS software and databases shows it is unlikely that even the 40% citywide goal will be achieved. Low preservation requirements and "fees instead of trees" will ensure our City's tree canopy continues to decline.

Summary of proposed ordinance

Single-family residential preservation standards (tree survey method):

• trees standing in the way of proposed streets, easements, and rights-of-way are exempt from preservation requirements and all may be removed.
• 80% of the significant and heritage trees left over after clearing for streets and easements may be destroyed.
• If more than 65% of significant trees are removed from the lot, developer must pay a mitigation fee (fee instead of trees).
• If any heritage trees are removed from a lot, developer must pay a mitigation fee.

Commercial/multi-family preservation standards (tree survey method):

• 80% of significant and heritage trees may be removed.
• If more than 60% of significant trees are removed, developer must pay a mitigation fee.
• If any heritage trees are removed, developer must pay a mitigation fee.

Preservation standards (tree canopy method):

• Standards are uniform for all types of development
• 80% of significant and heritage trees may be destroyed.
• If more than 70% of non-heritage tree canopy is removed, developer must pay a mitigation fee
• If more than 20% of heritage tree canopy is removed, developer must pay a mitigation fee

Post-development canopy cover:

• A new requirement for canopy cover over the entire area of a development has been added.
• Requirements are met through preserving existing trees, planting 1½” caliper trees or by paying a fee. Newly-planted trees are credited as if they were fully grown (but discounted by 25% to compensate for mortality).
• A finished residential subdivision must have at least 38% calculated tree canopy cover. If there is insufficient preserved canopy, developer must plant trees or pay a fee. This tree cover is what is anticipated after newly-planted trees mature.
• A finished project must have at least 25% calculated tree canopy cover. If there is insufficient preserved canopy, developer must plant trees or pay a fee. This tree cover is what is anticipated after newly-planted trees mature.

Other provisions:

• No more than 10% of trees in floodplains or environmentally-sensitive areas may be destroyed
• The mitigation fee is increased from $100 to $200 per diameter-inch.

Explanation and recommendations for new ordinance

Tree preservation requirements – two options

Tree survey method

Developers have two options for determining preservation under the current ordinance. Only one of the options, the "tree survey method", is commonly used. In the proposed ordinance this method is unchanged with one exception. Instead of allowing 90% of trees to be destroyed, it is limited to 80%. As in the current ordinance, if more than 65% of significant trees (or any heritage trees) are removed, the developer must pay a fee to the City.

It is important to note that, under this method, the percentages apply to the "net" subdivision area. In reality, far more trees can be removed than the percentages indicate. That is because up to 1/3 of a subdivision may be comprised of “excluded areas” such as easements, streets, and rights-of-way.

Tree canopy method

The second, rarely used, “tree canopy” method is where developers designate ½ acre or larger tree stands for preservation. Individual trees aren’t surveyed. It has been weakened to make it more attractive to developers by:

• Eliminating the ½ acre minimum size for tree stands
• Eliminating the requirement to preserve native understory vegetation
• Most importantly, allowing mitigation (paying a fee to the city) in lieu of preserving trees. Developers can remove more than the specified amount of tree canopy, but no more than 80%.

cTc recommendations

• Exclusions for easements and rights-of-way should be eliminated from the tree survey method.
• No more than 70% of significant trees or 50% of heritage trees should be allowed to be destroyed, even if a fee is paid.

Completed tree canopy requirement

In addition to the preservation requirements, a new requirement for finished tree canopy cover has been added. This is the percentage of the overall project area covered by trees, and both preserved and newly-planted trees are used to meet the percentage. For calculating tree canopy from newly-planted trees, developers pretend the trees are mature and fully-grown. They can choose to pay a fee to the city instead of complying with this requirement.

City staff is counting heavily on this requirement to meet the citywide canopy cover goals set forth in the 2009 Urban Ecosystem Analysis. On farms or land without many existing trees, it is hoped that this requirement will lead to greatly increased tree canopy. The requirement is for 38% overall tree canopy on single-family residential development and 25% on commercial/industrial/apartment development.

cTc recommendation

While we support the requirement, we do not agree with allowing it to be entirely fulfilled by paying a fee. Developers are already afforded the ultimate in flexibility here, since new trees can be planted wherever convenient.

Incentives

Staff has added an array of incentives for such practices as:

• preserving ½ acre or larger tree stands
• planting/preserving trees on the west or south side of buildings
• preserving heritage trees
• preserving native understory vegetation

In all cases, the developer is rewarded with extra credit which is used to reduce required planting. While these practices are desirable, the “incentive” is always a substantial reduction in trees required to be planted.

Tree ordinance review board

Many cities, but not San Antonio, have a board to review variance requests and advise their City Councils on urban forestry issues.

cTc recommendations

Establish a Tree Ordinance Review Board. Such a board would consider variance requests, review the effectiveness of the ordinance, recommend improvements, and make regular reports to City Council. A 2/3 majority should consist of citizens with no interests in land development, real estate, construction, engineering, or other related businesses.

Piles of dead trees on a development site where an agricultural exemption is claimed
click to enlarge

Agricultural use and “existing house” loopholes

You may be aware that Representative Mike Villarreal introduced legislation to close the “agricultural use” loophole. His bill died in committee.

Although the draft ordinance does not close this loophole, City staff believes it will discourage exploitation of the loophole because developers can use trees they save to meet canopy coverage requirements. However, it will still be there for them to use if it is advantageous.

The “existing house” loophole, which has been used to clear trees from ranches and farms where a farm or ranch house stands, has been closed by limiting the exemption to parcels ½ acre or smaller.

cTc recommendations

We support these changes.