The City of Austin regulates tree protection on residential sites with strict code requirements and technical standards for drawing submission, review, and on-site implementation. Tree Protection Plans (TPPs) and details appear throughout residential permit sets, often triggering focused review by Austin’s Development Services Department (DSD) and City Arborist. Every stage-graphic sheet conventions, call-outs, code notes, material specs, mitigation calculations, inspection notes, and jobsite fencing-demands accuracy and up-to-date code alignment. Projects within the City of Austin must address the adopted Land Development Code (LDC), the Environmental Criteria Manual (ECM), and local amendments from permit submission through jobsite enforcement. The following guide compiles the code-anchored best practices, dimensioning standards, code call-outs, graphic details, and real plan-review redlines for compliant tree protection documentation and on-site execution in Austin’s SF-1 and SF-2 zoning districts, with relevant references to the 2021 International Residential Code as locally amended.

Drafting Tree Protection Zones (TPZs) and Critical Root Zones (CRZs) On Austin Site Plans: Code-Mandated Delineation, Dimensioning, and Impervious Cover Calculations

Regulatory Foundation and Trigger Thresholds

The Austin Land Development Code Chapter 25-8, Subchapters B and C sets the regulatory framework for all regulated trees on residential parcels, with additional technical requirements detailed in the Environmental Criteria Manual (ECM Section 3). Any development activity on a lot triggers the need to inventory, graphically indicate, and dimension tree protection for all trees with a diameter of 8 inches or greater at breast height (DBH). If the tree reaches a diameter of 19 inches DBH (any species), it is “protected”; those at 24 inches or greater in select species categories are “heritage” trees with further restrictions (LDC §25-8-604).

Best Practice: Documenting Tree Location, Type, and CRZ on Plans

Survey information and graphical clarity underpin compliance. The following must be included directly on the site plan:

  • Each tree’s location, species (using both common and botanical names), and DBH. Example call-out: “Q. virginiana (Live Oak), 14” DBH.”
  • A dashed circle representing each tree’s Critical Root Zone (CRZ). In Austin, the CRZ radius equals half the tree’s full canopy spread or 10 feet, whichever is greater (DSD Tree Guidance).
  • A solid-line Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) at the outer limits of proposed fencing, which will always enclose the full CRZ but may be further enlarged for construction phasing or spatial access purposes.

On every sheet featuring site work, include a legend with the following symbols:

  • Existing tree - solid-filled circle with trunk label
  • Tree to be removed - same, but with an X over it
  • CRZ - standard dashed line per ECM graphics convention
  • TPZ fencing - heavy solid line, typically in contrasting color or weight

Dimensioning must be explicit. Site plan notes should specify: “CRZ radius shown for all trees 8” DBH and greater. TPZ shown with fencing location, minimum 10’ radius or as required to fully protect CRZ.” Call-outs must indicate the measured radii (e.g., “CRZ radius: 14’-6””). Failure to label these radii precisely is a frequent source of DSD review redlines: “Revise site plan to include CRZ for all existing trees 8” DBH and larger with dimensions.”

Dimension example on plan:

  • “CRZ Radius 14’-0” (Based on 28’ canopy spread)”
  • “Tree Protection Fence (solid line) at TPZ: Radius 14’-0” min. (typ.), see Detail 3/TPP1”

Impervious Cover Calculations for SF-1 and SF-2 Lots

All impervious cover calculations must account for the maximums permitted by zoning-40% for SF-1 and 45% for SF-2 (LDC §25-2-492). The code-mandated convention requires showing these calculations on the site plan or a dedicated zoning data block. Calculations must itemize:

  • Total lot area (sf)
  • Maximum permitted impervious cover (sf and %)
  • New and existing impervious cover areas (house, driveways, patios, walks, decks, pools)
  • Unique conventions: For decks with gaps over pervious soil, count only 50% of deck area per LDC §25-8-63

“Impervious cover exceeds maximum allowable for SF-2 zoning; adjust site design accordingly” is a frequent plan-review comment. Clearly differentiate between pervious and impervious surfaces-use shading, hatching, or textured fills as per the legend. Overlay these surfaces against the CRZs and TPZs on the site plan to ensure no uncontrolled expansion of impervious area into protected tree zones.

Typical Sheet Titles, Legends, and Required Notes

Use “Tree Protection Plan,” “Grading and Tree Protection Plan,” or “Site Plan with Tree Protection” as sheet titles. Legends on each relevant sheet must contain:

  • Symbol for surveyed tree: ▲ (Preserve), ◼︎ (Remove)
  • Dashed line: “CRZ Boundary”
  • Bold solid line: “Tree Protection Fence”

Notes block must include:

  • “All trees 8” DBH and greater surveyed per LDC §25-8, Subchapter B.”
  • “No construction activities, storage, or parking within TPZ. See Detail 4/TPP2.”
  • “Limits of disturbance and impervious surfaces shown; see Impervious Cover Schedule.”

Drafting Details for Tree Protection Fencing, Trenching, and Mitigation: Austin’s Material Specs, Replacement Protocols, and Standard Detail Conventions

Tree Protection Fencing: Code Dimensions and Material Specifications

The ECM (Section 3.6.1.B) and standard detail call-outs require that all tree protection fencing meet the following minimum standards for material, height, and placement:

  • Fence Height: 5’ minimum (ECM 3.6.1.B)
  • Material: Chain-link mesh fencing, orange plastic mesh as alternate (if permitted by City Arborist)
  • Fence Posts: Steel T-posts at 10’ o.c. maximum spacing
  • Location: Placed at or beyond CRZ; always shown on plan with dimensions and reference to standard detail-e.g., “Tree Protection Fence, 5’ CHAIN LINK, Detail 1/TPP2, run at CRZ of Tree #304.”

Include a detail drawing (usually at 1-1/2” = 1’-0” or similar) with labeled post spacing, fence height, and signage-this is a common plan reviewer requirement.

Fence call-out example: “Provide 5’ min. height chain-link fence with steel posts at 10’ o.c. at limit of TPZ per ECM 3.6.1.B. Signage at 50’ o.c.: ‘Tree Protection Area - No Entry.’”

Failure to follow these conventions triggers frequent redlines: “Revise tree protection fencing detail for 5’ minimum height and material specification.”

Trenching, Root Pruning, and Root Zone Protections: Drawing-Set Notes and Details

Trenching within any CRZ requires detail callouts, ECM reference, and careful construction sequencing. No mechanical trenching is allowed within TPZ/CRZ unless directly authorized and mitigated. Add or call-out the following on plans (per ECM Appendix K, Section I.H):

  • “Trenching and excavation within CRZ by hand only. Exposed roots >2” diameter to be cleanly cut by hand saw, pruned flush to trench wall, and protected with pruning compound within two hours.”
  • “Backfill all trenches as soon as possible, using high-organic topsoil. If backfill not completed within 48 hours, cover exposed roots with moist burlap or wood chip mulch (8-12” deep).”

Detail sheets must pictorially show:

  • Hand trenching method with shovel icon
  • Root pruning sample cut
  • Protective mulch blanket over exposed roots

Trenching near protected or heritage trees should always link to a mitigation note. If root barrier installation is required, indicate material type (heavy-duty plastic, 18” deep min.), exact location, and phased installation schedule.

Redline example: “Trenching within CRZ not permitted as shown. Revise to specify hand excavation and root protection per ECM Appendix K.”

Mitigation Strategies and Replacement Tree Scheduling

Tree removal or encroachment into the CRZ-both possible only on review and approval-requires explicit mitigation per ECM Section 3.5.4. Plan sheets must include:

  • A “Replacement Tree Schedule” table: columns for “Tree #”, “Species”, “Caliper Size”, “Quantity”, and “Planting Location Reference.”
  • Mitigation rate calculations: For example, a heritage tree (Appendix F species, 24” DBH) requires planting an equivalent 300% of the removed diameter as new inches of caliper (i.e., 72” aggregate caliper), with each replacement tree at least 2” caliper and selected from ECM Appendix F approved species.
  • General note call-out: “Replacement tree mitigation per ECM 3.5.4: provide [X] new trees, [2” min. caliper] each, from ECM Appendix F.”

If field-verified replacement tree locations differ from plans post inspection, require a revised schedule to be submitted before final CO inspection. DSD will often comment: “Provide species, location, and caliper of all mitigation trees. Revise schedule and callouts for ECM compliance.”

Integrating the Certified Arborist Report, Tree Inventory Data, and Preservation Notes: Sheet Layouts, Legends, General Notes, and DSD Compliance

Certified Arborist Input and Tree Inventory Requirements

Removal or impact to a regulated tree (≥19” DBH any species; ≥24” heritage in restricted species) obligates the applicant to provide a Certified Arborist Report per LDC and ECM. The Arborist Report will list, for all impactful trees:

  • Tree number (corresponds to tree tags/labels on plan)
  • Species (common and scientific name), DBH
  • Health/status (excellent, good, fair, poor, dead)
  • Description of proposed impact (removal, encroachment, construction activity)

Best practices include summarizing the essential Arborist Report data into a prominent “Tree Schedule” within the main permit drawing set. Sheet symbolism and numbering should match exactly-Tree #101 on the site plan matches Arborist Report #101. Incorporate a “Preservation Notes” panel near the schedule, with specimen notes such as:

  • “Tree #104: Quercus macrocarpa, 22” DBH, Good-Preserve in place. No work within TPZ. Install root protection per Detail 7/TPP3.”
  • “Tree #108: Ulmus americana, 28” DBH, Poor-To be removed. Replacement trees per Schedule.”

Legend, Symbol, and Graphic Conventions

Use a clear, code-compliant legend on each drawing sheet that references trees or tree protection:

  • Filled triangle: “Existing Tree to Remain”
  • Filled triangle with X: “Tree to be Removed”
  • Dashed circular line: “Critical Root Zone (CRZ)”
  • Bold solid circle: “Tree Protection Fence”

Each tree must be labeled with its unique number and DBH. All CRZs labeled with radii, all TPZs with actual fence setback shown at scale. Color-coding may be used if drawings are submitted electronically. Legends should list all abbreviation meanings: TPZ, CRZ, DBH, etc.

Sheet-Level General and Code Notes-DSD’s Critical Review Item

Include lengthy General Notes blocks that reference specific sections of the LDC and ECM, as the DSD reviewer will flag vague or missing code associations. Example required notes:

  • “Tree protection in accordance with LDC §25-8, Subchapter B and ECM Section 3.”
  • “Refer to Certified Arborist Report dated [MM/DD/YYYY] for all protected tree impact analyses.”
  • “Prior to sitework commencement, contractor to coordinate with City Arborist to verify tree tagging and protection fencing location.”
  • "Impervious cover calculations per LDC §25-2-492 for [Zoning District Name: SF-2], see cover sheet/schedule for totals."

DSD review comments frequently note: “Sheet lacks reference to Certified Arborist Report for protected trees” and “General notes must cite specific Austin LDC and ECM sections.”

DSD Redlines, AB+C Response Practice, and Plan-Review Insights: Navigating Compliance at Drawings Stage

Common Redline Issues and Preventative Drafting Tactics

Typical plan-review redlines issued by Austin’s DSD for TPPs and related plan sheets include:

  • “Omitted tree survey for regulated trees ≥8” DBH. Provide complete inventory per LDC §25-8-604.”
  • “CRZ and TPZ boundary radii not dimensioned or not shown for all protected trees.”
  • “Tree protection fencing not shown at adequate distance from trunk. Minimum per ECM Section 3.6.1.”
  • “Replacement tree schedule missing or incomplete-species, size, or location not specified.”
  • “Impervious cover schedule exceeds code maximum for SF-1/SF-2 zone.”

Preventive measures include rigorous annotation, referencing, and full alignment between survey, plan, and schedule data. Use drawing software layer standards to ensure all trees, CRZs, fencing, storage zones, and replacement trees are distinctly visible, uniquely numbered, and coordinated through every affected sheet.

Responding via the Austin Build + Connect (AB+C) Portal

When the DSD returns comments, best practice is to respond directly in AB+C with:

  • Specific citation of revised sheets (e.g., “Revised Sheets TPP1, TPP2 now show CRZ radii in plan and section view.”)
  • Extraordinary clarity in clouding and tagging all revised areas; cloud/highlight all drawing changes per standard convention.
  • Verbatim cut-and-paste of redline language in response, indicating where in the plans/code the revision is located and confirming ECM and LDC compliance by section number.
  • Direct re-submission of updated Arborist reports/schedules if tree inventories, species, or mitigation strategies have changed.

AB+C responses that simply say “Noted” or “Revised” without sheet references and code tie-back often prolong review rounds-DSD expects grammar and code-attached clarity (“Revised CRZ on Sheet C-2 per ECM 3.6.2; see tagged cloud at Tree #107.”).

Key Plan-Sheet Call-Outs and DSD Sheet Submission Conventions

Continue the following on all DSD submissions for TPPs, especially on multi-stage or multi-lot developments:

  • Bold, boxed call-out: “SEE DETAIL 5/TPP2 FOR TREE PROTECTION FENCING” at every tree shown with fencing.
  • Dedicate a plan sheet index line item to tree protection: “TPP1 Tree Protection Plan: Site and CRZ/TPZ, TPP2 Details, TPP3 Tree Schedule/Mitigation.”
  • Cloud all changes between submittal rounds, and add a “Tree Protection Plan Revisions” block with date and summary per round.

On all sheets, ensure code references in the notes block remain current to the specific edition and adopted amendments (2021 IRC/IBC as amended by Austin for 2023-2024 cycle).

Jobsite Implementation: Plan-Drawn Contractor Duties, Storage Zones, and Inspector-Facing Enforcement Notes

Jobsite Drawings as Enforcement Documents

Once plans are permitted, contractors and inspectors rely on the submitted TPPs and detail sheets for onsite compliance. The Environmental Criteria Manual (Section 3) requires that the full CRZ of each regulated tree be fenced off with chain-link fencing, at the locations shown on the plans and to the specifications detailed thereon.

Contractor and field notes (to be quoted verbatim on the plans):

  • “Install 5’ min. height chain-link fence at limits of TPZ before mobilizing equipment or commencing site clearing. Fencing must remain intact throughout all construction.”
  • “No material storage, laydown, or equipment access permitted within any TPZ or CRZ area. Storage zones as indicated-see site plan.”
  • “Do not park vehicles, store soil, or deposit construction debris inside limits of CRZ (dashed line). Violations subject to fine per LDC §25-8-604.”
  • “Pre-construction site walkthrough with City Arborist required prior to start of work.”

Location and boundaries for storage zones must be indicated graphically on site plan sheets:

  • Hatched, colored, or boundary-marked “Material Storage/Equipment Zone-Outside All TPZs” area
  • Explicit distances from nearest trees and CRZ boundaries

Other sensitive no-go areas-existing water quality features, neighbor’s TPZs, drainage easements-should also be noted with similar graphic clarity on the permit/constuction drawing set. These constraints should appear in both the “Site Protection Plan” and the “TPP” sheets.

Material Specifications, Inspections, and City Enforcement Notes

All fences are to be chain-link (5’ height), staked with steel posts, and must bear “Tree Protection Area - No Entry” 8.5” x 11” minimum size signage every 50 feet per ECM Section 3.6 and city standard detail (ECM Appendix K). Mulch inside TPZs is to be natural wood, 8-12” depth at all root exposure points (ECM Appendix K.IV.C).

On all plans, under “Inspector Notes,” prominently state:

  • “TPP measures to be verified by inspector PRIOR to start of demo, grading, or excavation.”
  • “After approval of TPP installation, ongoing monitoring at key construction intervals is required and must be documented.”
  • “NO removal or relocation of tree protection fencing permitted without written approval from City Arborist.”
  • "All mitigation/replacement tree locations as shown on plan to be field-verified by inspector at final."

Real-world experience proves the importance of jobsite signage, visible fencing, and well-marked zones. Inspectors require direct visual confirmation of all fencing and must observe signage before any other work begins-failure to meet these standards results in field stop-work orders.

Plan-Review and Jobsite Enforcement Redlines: Graphic Examples

Examples of inspector and reviewer comments or jobsite plan redlines include:

  • “Tree protection fence installed less than required radius; move to CRZ limit as per TPP.”
  • “No material storage zone identified on site plan; revise plans to show compliant location outside TPZ.”
  • “Tree protection signs absent at jobsite; install per code specification.”
  • “Grade change within CRZ exceeds 6” allowable limit; implement mitigation or redesign.”

Contractor-facing drawings must therefore directly indicate fence post locations, signage mounting heights (minimum 4’ above grade), and all fence return lines at site gates or access points.

Conclusion: Drawing-Coherent Tree Protection for Code-Compliant Permitting, Review, and On-Site Preservation in Austin

Compliance with Austin’s tree protection regulations spans the full arc of residential project documentation-precise site plan CRZ and TPZ delineations, meticulous details for fencing and trenching, code-anchored mitigation strategies, full data integration from certified arborist reports, and unambiguous general notes and schedules. Every drawing sheet must connect real tree inventory data, code-mandated dimensions, and zoning-linked impervious cover calculations with clear legend conventions and material specifications that correspond to jobsite conditions. Navigating the Austin DSD review process-including specific redlines and sequenced AB+C responses-calls for a detail-oriented, code-literate approach at every touchpoint. On the jobsite, graphic clarity and inspector-facing notes enforce protection as designed. Through a template of best practices rooted in current LDC, ECM, and local amendments, the graphical, narrative, and enforcement aspects of tree protection documentation can move from plans to permits and into the ground seamlessly-preserving Austin’s urban trees and supporting all stakeholders in successful project delivery.

Kingsway Drafting & Design brings deep regulatory knowledge and graphic precision to every tree protection plan, ensuring code-aligned design from first sheet to final inspection.