Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Environment Trees topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Residents urge Hays County to protect heritage trees after large clearing near Dripping Springs

Hays County Commissioners Court · May 12, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Two residents described recent bulldozing of a 26-acre tract near Dripping Springs and asked Hays County to adopt stronger protections—suggesting commercial tree ordinances, replacement requirements, and a county liaison to help residents get answers.

Ana Pena, a resident who said she lives in the extraterritorial jurisdiction of Dripping Springs, told the Hays County Commissioners Court that in April a developer bulldozed large areas of green space and wildlife habitat—removing heritage trees and brush to build a big-box shopping center and parking lots. "The destruction of green space and wildlife habitat will have a negative impact not only on our quality of life but our environment and biodiversity," Pena said, adding that springtime is when wildlife are breeding and many animals had already lost habitat.

Pena cited SB 2038 as a factor she believes limits local authority within excluded ETJs and asked commissioners to consider rules that would require developers who work in formerly ETJ land to save or replace heritage trees. Manuel M. Pena, who said he grew up near the site and whose granddaughter attended a school behind the cleared parcel, described the same 26-acre site just west of the Hays County line off 290 and said "nothing was basically saved" when the trees were removed. He urged the court to consider a commercial tree ordinance and recommended a county liaison to help residents get clear answers from overlapping city and county offices.

Court staff did not present any immediate policy changes during the public-comment period. Commissioners acknowledged the concerns and asked staff to track the issues raised. The court did not take formal action on the request during this meeting; several commissioners said they supported further discussion about options for increased protections and improved public communications.