Recommendations on City Staff Amendments to the Tree Ordinance

In general, the amendments do little to correct the ordinance’s faults, which keep it from adequately protecting our urban forest. They appear to be, for the most part, a reaction to problems as perceived from the viewpoint of the land development industry.

There is a better solution

All of the ordinance’s shortcomings could be better repaired by strengthening the ordinance. For example, tree are often removed to make room for additional parking spaces. Simply reducing the allowable mitigation in lieu of preservation would eliminate much of this removal.

Major problems are not being fixed

From our perspective, there are significant problems that are not addressed by the amendments. Examples of these problems include:

Increasing clear-cutting of land prior to sale for development through exploitation of questionable agricultural exemptions; citizens placed high importance on this problem 6 years ago when the ordinance was being revised. While we were assured the problem was fixed, it is now abundantly clear that it was not.
Trees preserved in single-family residential development are being severely injured and even killed because there are no root protection requirements.
Excessive use of the fee in lieu of preservation; instead of preserving large heritage oaks, some developers are simply paying a fee to destroy the trees. Conservationists opposed the "fee in lieu" when the 2003 ordinance was adopted.
Most importantly, the ordinance does not provide sufficient tree canopy cover to meet scientific recommendations. Tree canopy cover on completed developments is still well below the level needed to achieve the 35% overall tree canopy goal for San Antonio.

Line item recommendations on City Staff amendments for November 2, 2006

See the PDF file City Staff Tree Ordinance Amendments for November, 2006 for the text of the amendments. Also see staff's PowerPoint presentation Proposed Tree Preservation Ordinance Amendments. Note: our reference to the presentation does not constitute an acknowledgment that the document accurately describes either the amendments or the cTc's position on the amendments.

35-493(c) Work Commencing Before Issuance of a Tree Permit

We support this amendment increasing application fees for persons clearing trees without a permit.

35-523(d)(1) Significant trees

We are opposed to reducing preservation standards for Ashe juniper because of the:

increase in aquifer water usage,
increase in impervious cover over the aquifer contributing zone,
increase in stormwater runoff,
degradation in air quality, and
degradation of water quality that will result.

35-523(d)(3) Non-native trees

We support this amendment because these species, in certain areas, compete with native trees. However, exempting these trees will not increase preservation of native trees on development sites, since requirements for those trees are not changed by this amendment.

35-523(e)(1) Table 523-1

In the spirit of compromise with the ISDs, we are not opposing this reduction in preservation for athletic fields. However, we are opposing inclusion of sports stadiums in this amendment.

35-523(e)(3) Tree Stand Delineation Alternative

We are awaiting the final revision of this amendment before making a recommendation.

35-523(f) Table 523-2 Mitigation

We do not oppose reducing mitigation for Fraxinus species. We oppose reducing mitigation for Celtis species, as these species have unusually high air pollution removal and are exceptional food sources for wildlife.

35-523(i)(1) Root Protection Zone

We are opposed to reducing the size of the RPZ based on ineffective “alternative construction” methods. The amendment could reduce the size of the unpaved area around the base of a tree by up to 90%, or even more for very large trees. Trees’ capacity for absorbing stormwater runoff will be virtually negated by this amendment.

Appendix A (Definitions)

Athletic field – We oppose classification of off-site sports stadiums as school athletic fields. Furthermore, the definition is ambiguous and will likely be the subject of a future UDC amendment to clarify its intent. What is included in the “off-site sports playing field”? Are bleacher areas included? Is the track surrounding the field included?

Multi-trunk tree – We support this amendment for large tree species only.

Woodland– We support the proposal to set a minimum size for woodlands because it benefits the urban forest to preserve trees in undivided stands.