This building has never followed the law. The council members who voted against it pointed that out clearly.

For example, you're not supposed to get to erect giant buildings that next to small nearby businesses and houses. And you're not supposed to make traffic worse on small streets, as this will do on Kipling.

[Portion removed.] We need government leaders and city staff with stronger spines to stop this.

The proposed building at the corner of University Avenue and Kipling Street is inappropriate in size, mass, scale and design. Kipling St is a charming street lined by Victorian homes. The solid cement square structure shares no design linkages with any of its surroundings. The proposed building violates the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan,and Downtown Development Guidelines. This building has been rejected by the Palo Alto Architectural Review Board (ARB) numerous times. It was also unanimously rejected by the Historical Review Board (HRB) as being too large and incompatible with neighboring architectural design. Multiple Birge Clark will be demolished and replaced with a design that the ARB says does not benefit the city. The City Council gave the developer a gracious opportunity to get the design right, but the developer has failed to do that and now is the time for the this building design to be permanently denied.

If it were approved, the developer would nearly triple the existing cubic square footage due to a series of giveaways and incentives from the city including Transfer Development Rights (TDRs). This has allowed the building to go from an existing one story structure to a massive four story complex. It is not pedestrian friendly as it lacks overhangs, alcoves and warmth. It will cast a tall shadow neighboring buildings. It is located on the most narrow street in downtown Palo Alto where parking is already very difficult and cars sideswipe one another when passing. It is under parked by dozens of parking spaces and will further worsen the downtown parking problem and traffic congestion.

The developer has refused to work with the neighbors and citizen groups to offer any concessions. Unfortunately the goal of maximizing square footage for profit has torpedoed the age old adage of being a good neighbor. This building represents everything that is wrong with the current state of Palo Alto development including profits over people and community. Now is the time for this building to be permanently denied by the Palo Alto Planning Department and City Council. The citizenry deserves a better designed project that will benefit all.

Immediately before Elizabeth Wong's appeal was put on the Council agenda two years ago, newly elected Council member Greg Tanaka returned the $5,000 campaign contribution he had received from a member of the Wong family in order to participate and vote in favor of the Wong project. I trust that if this comes before the council again the City's legal council will rule that Tanaka has a conflict of interest and must excuse himself.

This should have been approved. Wong has been wronged.

If you need a poster example of developer greed, this is it. Some people object to that word but how else to explain the obsessive insistence on oversized and under-designed project on our major street. Yes, *our* main street.

Tanaka also had a banner or other advertisement over the property.

"This building has never followed the law. The council members who voted against it pointed that out clearly. "

Uh, in the story.

"council members agreed that the proposed development complies all the objective zoning criteria relating to density, height and setbacks."

Someone didn't read the article.

Mrs Wong's original project was not approved until she followed the City's recommendations and rules. Once approved she could have started building, but instead, she changed the approved project to something that would have NOT been originally approved. It's only fair that the "new" project goes to the City Council again. [Portion removed.]

[Post removed.]

Rejected by ARB means it's not ugly enough.

I think Wong has shown that she has no interest in working with the Palo Alto community or city officials to get this right. It looks like the goal of the Wong family is to maximize their profits above all else by building an ugly, soulless structure right in the middle of our downtown.I hope the city will do the right thing for the residents and scrap this horrible project.

Does Wong own the land/property?

> Immediately before Elizabeth Wong's appeal was put on the Council agenda two years ago, newly elected Council member Greg Tanaka returned the $5,000 campaign contribution he had received from a member of the Wong family in order to participate and vote in favor of the Wong project.

>> Tanaka also had a banner or other advertisement over the property.

Wow. So much for transparency.


>> This should have been approved. Wong has been wronged.

If so, how do you right a Wong? Especially if...

>>>...she intended to deceive the City of Palo Alto with her project in Feb 2017 when she had no intention to follow through that project.
>>>>...Wong has shown that she has no interest in working with the Palo Alto community or city officials to get this right.

Inquiring minds want to know.

If the project did not have final approval why
were the two beautiful large healthy ornamental carob trees on Kipling cut down by the City? They were a feature of not just Kipling but of Downtown Palo Alto.Every effort should have been made to preserve them even with the project. On the face of it - this is shocking even in present day Palo Alto.

This proposed development has been a nightmare from the beginning. It’s too bad Shady Lane ended up leaving University Avenue because of this ill-fated project. They are sorely missed. I’m so glad they landed in wonderful new home-a beautiful, light filled octagonal building in the Sharon Heights Shopping Center in Menlo Park. And you can actually PARK there. :-)

This building is so out of place on Kipling and on University. Where will the water and sewer accommodations for the increased number of tenants come from? Parking is already limited severely and traffic continues to pile up in both directions on University and it's connecting streets.
I would truly miss Shady Lane which was a tenant for more than 40 years and provided access to local artisans. Luckily,
Shady Lane has moved up to Sharon Heights Shopping Center where it has a beautiful, light filled octagon right next to Starbucks, Safeway, Wells Fargo, CVS and other businesses that make it a practical and lovely place with nothing but great parking.

Aren’t those also Birge Clark buildings? Even if not, they are architectural delights, unlike Wong’s square and sharp edged glass and dull stoned half block mass of UGH.