The ARB approved? They must be REALLY awful.

The sign is its own public benefit.

Rules are only for those who do not pals with the city council or who do not make campaign donations. Goes along with not following the rules for number of parking spaces the building should have.

Awkward, very awkward.

Greed is a communicable disease.The only solution is to put them in isolation. And get law breakers off our commissions.
Wonder what the payoffs are.

And so the town leadership steps onto the slippery slope again. This one leads to where we were when the sign ordinance was adopted in the first place. These actions set a new limit, and the next guy will want a little bit more, etc. ARB should be looking at a slightly bigger picture.

The building itself of course is the "disbenefit". Whether this excessive
signage looks particularly tacky, ugly, and just draws more attention to this oversized,disconnected,out of place building, remains to be seen, but that is the likely outcome. This is no surprise- the City is all in, the ARB, the staff, the local developers, the insiders- just go for it. The City crossed the line a long time ago. Check out the major excavation underway at Cowper/Hamilton, another Crescent Park Gateway project.

As a sidelight, the one through lane going north on Alma at Lytton, due to a left turn only lane rarely used,is backing up traffic severely on Alma.

Evil is as evil does.

What is the point of an ordinance when it is not followed? . We followed the ordinance with our downtown businesses. But now I see that the ordinance is just a suggestion. We'll keep that in mind when we blow up out signs to be twice the size, with neon, blinking and under the awnings, and tripping menus on the sidewalks to boot. That way we know that the people from the train tracks can see us!

ps, Everyone: go witness for yourself the pitiful job the city does at enforcing the ordinance on University Ave

Palo Alto is and has been sold to the highest bidder. There must be an insider fraternity/sorority that is making the decisions, making a mockery of past and present city building regulations, and in truth pulling down the city to their lower $tandard$. And the residents are powerless to stop it - or are they?

Palo Alto is and has been sold to the highest bidder. There must be an insider fraternity/sorority that is making the decisions, making a mockery of past and present city building regulations, and in truth pulling down the city to their lower $tandard$. And the residents are powerless to stop it - or are they?

Palo Alto is and has been sold to the highest bidder. There must be an insider fraternity/sorority that is making the decisions, making a mockery of past and present city building regulations, and in truth pulling down the city to their lower $tandard$. And the residents are powerless to stop it - or are they?

Palo Alto is and has been sold to the highest bidder. There must be an insider fraternity/sorority that is making the decisions, making a mockery of past and present city building regulations, and in truth pulling down the city to their lower $tandard$. And the residents are powerless to stop it - or are they?

Because that building isnt already in your face enough. That seems to be the rule - in-your-face building needs a sign that befits it.

Kate, residents are not powerless to stop this. There are these two things, referendum and initiatve. Referendum to stop city ordinances and initiatives to make our own. Why don't we residents who already know how to do this form a group to make it easier for residents to put forward referenda and initiatives? It's probably not worth thwarting one sign, but probably is wrth putting a stop to the excessive development.

Many hands make light work.