As a downtown developer, Elizabeth Wong fully understands the power of the appeal in slowing down a project.

In February 2017, her proposed mixed-use development at 429 University Ave. narrowly won the City Council's approval after more than three years of reviews and a formal appeal by neighbors who deemed her project at the former site of Shady Lane too massive and architecturally incompatible with the area.

Now, Wong finds herself on the other side of the debate. On Monday night, the City Council will consider an appeal of another downtown project: the proposed expansion of the Nobu restaurant, which is located at the Epiphany Hotel at 180 Hamilton Ave. The appellant is Yo LLC, which is managed by Wong.

In appealing the proposal to open a new Nobu location next door to the Epiphany, at 620 Emerson St., Yo LLC, is seeking to reverse the approval that project received from the city's planning staff on April 19. Palo Alto's Architectural Review Board had also voted on April 5 to approve the proposal, which calls for a new, 4,063-square-foot two-story building to replace the existing structure formerly occupied by Stanford Florist.

For Yo LLC, the biggest issue is parking -- specifically, the city's decision to allow the property owner to pay "in-lieu parking fees" instead of providing actual parking on the site. The project would remove three existing on-site parking spots.

Planning staff had determined the removal of parking spots is reasonable. The location and size of the property, combined with Americans with Disabilities Act requirements, local standards for refuse collection make it "infeasible to provide additional parking onsite in an efficient or convenient parking layout," according to a report from the Department of Planning and Community Environment.

Wong disagreed with this determination and argued that the city's decision on parking sets a dangerous precedent. In an interview with the Weekly, she noted that if every restaurant in downtown's parking assessment district were given the same right to remove parking spots, the area would lose more than 2,000 parking spots. This, she said, represents "a tremendous loss to the city."

"Whatever you grant this applicant, you have to grant to other applicants," Wong said.

Wong also argued that by approving the proposal, the city is essentially giving the restaurant special treatment. Any project building within Palo Alto, she wrote to the architecture board in February, "should comply to the requirements of the City's existing land use policies."

"Yo LLC objects to special treatment the City has granted Nobu restaurant because it is a very popular and well-regarded restaurant and to Larry Ellison, the owner, because of his immense status in the business community."

The tiff over parking spots isn't the first clash between Yo LLC and the project applicant, who is listed in the project plans as PA Hotel Holding LLC. Last year, Yo LLC filed a lawsuit against the property owner alleging breach of contract, fraudulent concealment and negligent misrepresentation.

According to the suit, Yo LLC made a bid in 2013 to buy the property from the owner, Krucker Trust (represented by Ruth Krucker), for $3.25 million. The two parties entered into a purchase agreement and the sale was set to close escrow in 2014. That, however, did not happen because of a separate legal dispute between Krucker and her husband, Adolf Konigsreiter, over ownership rights. In July 2016, the Krucker Trust was deemed the "sole and rightful" owner of the property, according to Yo LLC's court filing.

Yo LLC maintains that the Emerson Purchase Agreement remained in effect, despite these disputes. However, in January 2017, Ruth Krucker, as trustee of the Krucker Trust, sold the property to PA Hotel Holding for $4.25 million.

The complaint from Yo LLC argues that by selling to PA Hotel Holding, Krucker and Trucker Trust "have breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to honor the Emerson Purchase Agreement and by breaching their contractual obligations."

Yo LLC's formal appeal focuses on the issues of parking, congestion and the provision of a code-compliant restroom; Wong's February letter to the board alludes to the ongoing litigation as another reason the application should not be approved.

"Yo LLC has a contract to purchase the property which predates Applicant's ownership of this property," Wong wrote. "Approval of this application and the proposed demolition and development work proposed to follow may have to be reversed depending upon the outcome of the pending litigation."

The council is scheduled to consider Yo LLC's appeal at its meeting this Monday. Planning staff is recommending that the council reaffirm the project's approval and reject the appeal. Because the appeal is listed on the council's "consent calendar," it would take three council members to remove it from the calendar and give Wong a full public hearing.