Planning commission approves tree-variance for proposed 1 MW solar site in District 7

The San Antonio Planning Commission approved a variance on April 23 allowing the removal of 12 trees and reduced on-site preservation for a proposed solar project at or near 4950 Callahan in Council District 7.

Commissioners voted to allow the project to preserve 17.7% of significant trees on-site instead of meeting the standard preservation requirement, and approved mitigation in the form of a payment calculated from 101.0 inches of required mitigation. Staff presented the request as a tree-preservation variance tied to a parcel in the 100-year floodplain and to the city’s tree-preservation ordinance.

Why it matters: The vote lets the applicant proceed with a solar installation that staff said cannot meet the city’s typical on-site tree-preservation measures because of site constraints, including panel siting and proximity to existing utility and floodplain features. The commission’s decision affects how the site will be revegetated or funded via mitigation rather than larger on-site plantings.

Staff presentation and proposal: A staff presenter summarized that the project site is being developed for a solar array and that the applicant requests a variance from the tree-preservation ordinance for trees within the 100-year floodplain. Staff reported the site proposes 17.7% preservation, with 21 total significant trees on the site and 12 slated for removal, and recommended approval of mitigation (101.0 inches) and payment in lieu.

Applicant and technical responses: Tim Hallen, representing the project proponent and stating he works with Harbor Renovables, told commissioners the site is about five acres and constrained by existing improvements and utility areas. He said solar panels must remain unshaded, limiting where new trees could be planted. The project consultant (identified in the record as the certified arborist) and the applicant showed the site plan and noted conflicts with service areas and an adjacent wastewater-treatment area that they said would be damaged by root systems.

Questions and staff clarifications: Commissioners asked why mitigation was limited to a payment rather than on-site replacement, and whether the mitigation amount and planting alternatives had been fully explored. Staff and the applicant responded that the parcel’s configuration and existing paved/service areas limit planting opportunities, and that mitigation through payment is the recommended remedy when on-site replacement is infeasible. The site was described in the record as having been developed previously (circa 1985, as stated by the applicant) and having only narrow planting opportunities.

Outcome and vote: Commissioner Profet moved to approve the variance as amended; a commissioner seconded. The roll call recorded votes in favor from Commissioners Profet, Mailem, Sánchez, García, López, Bustamante, Seaguel and President Peck. The motion passed. The commission record lists mitigation as 101.0 inches with payment in lieu to the city’s tree fund.

What the decision does not do: The commission’s approval is a land-use variance tied to tree-preservation requirements; it does not itself grant final building permits or other development approvals. The record reflects the commission approved mitigation measures rather than full on-site preservation.

Next steps: The applicant may proceed with subsequent permit steps consistent with the variance and applicable permitting requirements.