Parks commission denies Queen Anne palm removal, approves two other setback removals

The Santa Barbara City Parks and Recreation Commission on Wednesday voted to deny a property owner’s request to remove a Queen Anne (Queen) palm at 1607 Chino Street while approving two other setback removals elsewhere in the city.

Brett Volpe, standing in for the urban forest superintendent, told the commission the Street Tree Advisory Committee recommended removal of the Chino Street palm because its heavy fronds and petiole bases could damage nearby structures and had already dented a gutter. “The fronds when they release with the petiole bases are quite heavy,” Volpe said, and the committee considered those factors in recommending removal with a 20-foot-or-taller replacement under the municipal code’s public-safety provision.

Commissioners pressed staff about precedent, frequency of frond drop and alternative mitigation such as trimming. Commissioner Clark noted the palm’s value to the Santa Barbara skyline but also the limited canopy and carbon-sequestration benefits of palms. Commissioner Nielsen asked how often Queen palms shed fronds; Volpe said roughly monthly and that pruning intervals for that species are about every two years. After discussion, Commissioner Ramsey moved to disagree with the committee and deny the removal of the healthy Queen Anne palm; a second was offered and the motion passed unanimously.

Separately, the commission accepted the Street Tree Advisory Committee’s recommendation to remove a juniper at 1347 Cliff Drive that encroached into a driveway entrance and created sight-line problems. Staff said the committee did not require a replacement tree for that site; commissioners approved the removal unanimously, citing safety concerns where vegetation impedes safe egress.

On San Jose Lane, the commission reviewed an application that sought removal of two Mexican fan palms in a front setback where staff observed 14 palms on the property. Applicant Marilyn Simon Gersick described active stairway reconstruction and a household member with disabilities, saying the stair tree’s roots were “destroying that retaining wall” and that the stairs were “too narrow” for safe access. After questions about whether the work was tied to a pending permit, the commission voted to approve removal of the tree impinging on the stairs — but only after the necessary permit is issued — and to deny removal of the patio-adjacent palm.

The commission’s decisions distinguish between removal for documented safety or accessibility impacts and removals requested for maintenance burden or aesthetic reasons. Appeals of commission decisions go to the City Council; staff told applicants they have 10 days to appeal.