The Kyle City Council on Feb. 15 approved a motion to relocate a large, historic live oak on Old Stagecoach Road, voting 6 to 1 to pursue “Option 2” — transplanting the tree to a new site — after more than an hour of public comment and technical briefing.

The Porter Oak, described by city staff as roughly 51 inches in trunk diameter and several hundred years old, stands within about 6 inches of the roadway and has been the subject of repeated council discussions since at least 2020. Councilmember Chris Heizer moved the motion; Mayor Mitchell seconded it. Councilmember Zuniga cast the sole “no” vote.

Why it matters: the vote balances competing public priorities — resident calls to preserve a tree many speakers described as historically and culturally important, against engineering, drainage and safety concerns tied to a voter-approved road project. Staff and consultants told the council that each option carries trade-offs in cost, schedule, and risk: cutting the tree (Option 1), moving it (Option 2), or redesigning the road around it and altering nearby stormwater infrastructure (Option 3).

City staff presented three alternatives. Option 1, removing the tree, was estimated at about $10,000 for removal and would keep the road project schedule unchanged. Option 2, transplanting the tree to an easement north of the site on property associated with the 6 Creeks subdivision, was estimated at approximately $730,000 to $950,000; staff said the move would require certified-arborist oversight and ongoing aftercare (staff estimated roughly $1,000 per month for one to two years of post-transplant maintenance). Option 3 — redesigning the roadway to leave the tree in place — was presented with three possible outcomes depending on drainage feasibility and FEMA/Atlas 14 approvals: Outcome A (enlarging nearby basins) was estimated at roughly $2.7 million and an added 4–6 months to the project; Outcome B (larger, more distant basin work) at about $3.4 million with a 1–1.5 year delay; and Outcome C (if basin expansion or FEMA approval proved infeasible) at approximately $6.4 million with a 1.5–2 year delay and the potential acquisition of four homes for stormwater detention expansion.

Council and staff emphasized why the detention basin and updated rainfall standards matter. Staff warned that altering the existing detention basin near the tree triggers Atlas 14 design requirements and possible FEMA permitting, which could increase scope and cost. Staff also explained that constructing the recommended retaining wall near the tree to meet sight-distance and roadway-grade requirements would intrude about 2 feet into the tree’s critical root zone, a factor both for Option 3’s risk to the tree and for the feasibility of keeping the tree in place.

Public commenters — including students, long-time residents and members of the local group Kyle Trees — urged the council to preserve the tree in place or, if necessary, relocate it with full protection and stronger local tree protections going forward. “If you cut this tree down, you’re cutting our history down,” said Eleanor Di Domenico, a fourth-grade student at Negley Elementary. Organizers with Kyle Trees asked the council to strengthen the city’s tree ordinance and to pursue external recognition programs such as Tree City USA and the Texas Tree Coalition. Several residents who would be affected by the road/redesign alternatives warned they had learned about some acquisition scenarios only via social media and opposed any option that would displace families.

Council debate focused on public safety, voter expectations tied to a 2022 road bond, and practical constraints imposed by drainage and utilities. Mayor Mitchell and several council members said fulfilling the road bond and providing a safer, pedestrian-friendly roadway for thousands of daily users weighed heavily in their decision, but they also signaled support for preserving the tree where feasible. “For me, I would be willing to make a compromise and vote to try to remove, to move the tree from its current location, which would be Option 2,” Mayor Mitchell said during the discussion. Councilmember Tobias and Mayor Pro Tem Heizer both voiced support for Option 2 as a compromise that preserves the tree while allowing the voter-backed road project to proceed on schedule.

Formal action: The motion to approve Option 2 (relocate the tree) was made by Mayor Pro Tem Chris Heizer and seconded by Mayor Mitchell. Roll call: Mitchell — Yes; Heizer — Yes; Rizzo — Yes; Harris — Yes; Tobias — Aye; McKinney — Yes; Zuniga — No. The motion carried 6–1. Staff said that, if relocation proceeds, the tree would need to be moved no later than November 2025 to meet the road construction schedule and that certified-arborist oversight and ongoing maintenance would be required as part of the relocation contract.

Next steps and outstanding issues: the council’s vote sends staff back to finalize a relocation contract and scope. Staff warned that pursuing Option 3 to keep the tree in place would require additional, detailed hydrologic and FEMA work and would introduce months to years of schedule delay and multimillion-dollar cost increases. Several council members urged that the city also pursue code changes and stronger tree-protection policies to prevent similar conflicts in the future. Residents and local advocates urged the city to seek private fundraising and external designations to help offset public costs and spotlight tree preservation.

The council closed the meeting after adopting Option 2.