City arborists and transportation staff on Oct. 1 briefed the Austin Environmental Commission on a 12-recommendation plan intended to make street trees an integral, managed part of the city’s right of way.

The presentation — led by Naomi Rochmel, the city arborist for Austin Development Services, and Michelle Marks, a transportation officer with Austin Transportation Public Works — summarized work by a Technical Advisory Review Panel (TARP) formed after a City Council resolution to identify barriers to street trees and recommend code, manual and program changes.

The TARP’s recommendations are organized as a sequence the panel says should be addressed from regulatory foundations to maintenance and then capital planning. “One of the key issues is heat mitigation … on average 10 degrees cooler,” Naomi Rochmel said, describing the immediate cooling benefits of trees. “Trees are infrastructure. They're the only infrastructure that increases in value as it ages if properly maintained,” she added.

Why it matters

Panel members told commissioners the city’s existing regulatory and administrative framework spreads rules across multiple criteria manuals and code sections, which creates inefficiency and confusion for applicants and staff. The TARP report recommends consolidating right-of-way standards in the Transportation Criteria Manual (TCM), producing standard drawings and product lists for tree pits and soil cells, and updating utility-clearance rules to permit more flexible placement when modern planting techniques (root barriers, soil cells) are used.

Key recommendations

The working group's 12 recommendations presented to the commission include:
- Update the Transportation Criteria Manual (TCM) to clearly define the sidewalk corridor and consolidate right-of-way tree requirements.
- Adopt standard specifications and drawings for tree pits, tree trenches, irrigation and soil cells to give practitioners a preapproved menu of solutions.
- Review utility-criteria clearance and spacing rules to identify situations where reduced clearances (for example, from 9 feet to smaller distances) are feasible with contemporary mitigation (root barriers, soil cells).
- Update the city’s approved street-tree species list to reflect changing climate conditions and local microclimates, including overhead-utility-compatible species.
- Consider whether city code should require street trees as part of frontage improvements, while recognizing many barriers could be fixed administratively.
- Improve interdepartmental development-review workflows so right-of-way tradeoffs (meter locations, easements, sidewalk alignment) are resolved earlier in plan review.
- Clarify outreach and education so applicants and consultants know new requirements and aren’t surprised by late-stage comments.
- Reassess the city’s license agreement process for right-of-way plantings. The report recommends eliminating case-by-case license agreements for street trees and exploring two alternate approaches: (a) a clear, universal code requirement that adjacent property owners maintain trees, or (b) the city assuming maintenance responsibility and funding that service.
- If the city assumes maintenance, create a comprehensive right-of-way tree inventory to prioritize pruning, removals and long-term care and to build maintenance schedules.
- Use the inventory to support a prioritized capital program and targets for street-tree canopy infill.
- Incorporate street trees as baseline scope items in major public capital projects once administrative foundations and maintenance systems are in place.
- Coordinate utility partners so costly utility relocations can be paired with tree investments when corridors are reconstructed.

Staff and panel members emphasized the package is intended to move as a “waterfall”: fix the regulatory foundations first, then processes, then maintenance and capital programs. “We’re briefing boards and commissions,” Michelle Marks said. “Departments are reviewing the recommendations now and we’ll deliver a memo to mayor and council with an interdepartmental work plan.”

Maintenance, funding and equity

A central tension in the recommendations is who will pay for and perform maintenance. The city’s current approach requires a site-specific license agreement for most private actors who place improvements (including trees) in the public right of way; presentations described that process as lengthy, duplicative across departments and a deterrent to planting.

TARP recommends studying alternatives that range from a universal code requirement that adjacent property owners maintain street trees (a common approach in many U.S. cities) to the city providing cyclical professional maintenance. Staff said many peer cities that maintain right-of-way trees do so through organized crews and, in some cases, partnerships with nonprofits. The commission discussed community stewardship models (for example, Friends-of-Trees groups and volunteer planting/adoption programs) as a supplement to public maintenance.

An inventory was highlighted as an early priority. Naomi Rochmel said an inventory helps identify gaps, prioritize removals and prunes, and estimate resource needs. “One of the benefits of having a street tree inventory is you know what you have and you know where your gaps and your planting is, but also you understand your maintenance needs,” she said. The inventory would also support equity-based prioritization (transit access, affordable housing location, heat-vulnerable neighborhoods) and help the city apply soil-volume and species guidance tailored to microclimates.

Speakers noted nursery supply and species availability are practical constraints: some utility-compatible cultivars are hard to source at scale. Commissioners urged staff to coordinate with local nonprofits and vendors to scale propagation and distribution. A community speaker said that TreeFolks — a local nonprofit partner referenced in the discussion — gives away thousands of trees annually; staff said TreeFolks and other partners are already part of planting programs.

Safety and design

Commissioners asked about safety concerns tied to older engineering guidance that prioritized clear zones for vehicles. Staff and presenters said contemporary evidence and practice favor lower vehicle speeds, separated travelways and deliberate plantings that can slow traffic and protect pedestrians. Panel members cited research showing continuous plantings and medians can calm traffic while also providing shade, stormwater interception and air-quality benefits.

Next steps

Transportation Public Works and Austin Development Services plan to deliver a memo to mayor and council with an interdepartmental implementation plan and a link to the full TARP report. Staff said they will also brief other boards and commissions and solicit feedback as departments build work plans for regulatory updates, inventories and funding strategies.

Commissioner reactions and community input

Commissioners and community members expressed support and raised implementation concerns: long-term maintenance costs, potential budget impacts, the legal and administrative rollout if the license-agreement process changes, and the need to coordinate with state agencies (TxDOT) for corridors under state jurisdiction. Staff said TxDOT has worked with the city before to reduce clear-zone requirements in urban contexts and that those discussions would continue on a case-by-case basis.

The presentation concluded with staff seeking the commission’s input on priorities and offering to return with further briefings — including the urban-forestry inventory effort led by Austin’s parks forestry group and updates on procurement and nursery pipeline development.