At least seven Old Palo Alto neighbors submitted a petition Friday expressing "strong opposition" to a proposal to cut down two large redwood trees in the 2000 block of Byron Street.
One of the trees is classified as a city street tree.
"We love to have the trees around," said neighbor Paul Donahue, whose wife signed the petition.
"They're healthy for us. They make our life nice and add value to our home. There're no negatives."
But for Lauren Janov and Mark Grossman, who have applied to cut down the remaining two redwoods at their home at 2063 Byron, the trees are a threat to Grossman's health.
The couple had also applied to cut down four redwood trees in June, providing a doctor's note documenting Grossman's allergies on July 9.
They relied on the same note for the Oct. 9 application, which listed allergies as the reason for removal.
On Aug. 15, Janov and Grossman -- along with the Bonomi family on Lowell Avenue -- received permits to remove a total of six redwoods due to allergies.
Planning Director Steve Emslie said he is "still evaluating" the latest request and will make a decision early next week. One of the trees is partially on a city easement, meaning it is considered a city street tree -- it is on the city's tree inventory and is pruned and cared for by city crews, he said.
Emslie said there is absolutely no move to remove redwood trees from the protected-tree list, despite the argument that they are "not native to Palo Alto."
An arborist's report, submitted along with the Oct. 9 tree-removal application, says the 70- and 90-foot-tall trees are in "good health."
Janov declined to comment Friday.
After the neighborhood learned of the removals, the city's planning department instituted a new procedure to notify neighbors and the tree-protection nonprofit Canopy of tree-removal applications, City Arborist Dave Dockter said at the time.
On Oct. 17, about 17 households received notices about the proposed removals.
The vast majority of the neighbors oppose cutting the trees, neighbor S.D. Sicotte wrote in an Oct. 25 e-mail to the city.
"I love trees; that's one of the reasons I live in Palo Alto," resident Bob Herriot said Friday.
But only Janov and Grossman have the right to appeal Emslie's decision, Assistant City Attorney Don Larkin has said. Neighbors have no standing to appeal.
The previous allergy-based tree removals sparked debate in a city full of tree lovers, raising the issue of private-property rights versus community wishes and city guidelines.
Councilman Jack Morton has called the ability for property owners to remove trees classified by the city as "protected" due to allergies "a real loophole."
Canopy Executive Director Catherine Martineau has pointed out that tree pollen, which causes allergies, doesn't respect property lines.
"Let's say somebody is allergic to a specific tree and his or her neighbor has this tree. We're not going to cut down the neighbor's tree, are we?" she said in September.
Mature redwood trees were added to the city's list of "protected" trees in 2001. Coast live oaks and valley oaks were listed as protected in 2006.
To remove a protected tree, even on private property, an owner must submit an application.
All 40 requests to remove redwoods in 2006 were approved, City Arborist Dave Dockter said. He also said redwoods are no more dangerous than any other tree, and that they are native to Palo Alto.