CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETTIMG AGENDA PACKET 7-7-26

WHEREAS, on June 16, 2026, the City Council denied the Project pursuant to inconsistencies with the required findings listed in PMC Section 18.20.050.B.1 through 6 and as outlined in Section 4 below; and WHEREAS, the City of Pleasanton was the lead agency for the Project, and the City Council was the decision-making body for denying the Project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE, AND ORDER THE FOLLOWING: Section 1. Prior to acting on the Project, and at a properly noticed public hearing, the City Council reviewed written and oral agenda reports, conducted a public hearing on the Project and took testimony, and received into the record all pertinent documents related to the Project (collectively, the “Record Evidence”). The City Council’s de novo determination is based on its own independent review of the Record Evidence, which is incorporated into this Resolution by reference. Section 2. The Project is not consistent with the adopted and applicable General Plan Programs, Policies, and Goals related to community character and the discouragement of franchise and prototype architecture and signage. As such, the Project does not comply with the requirements of Government Code Section 65860. Section 3. Findings for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) With respect to CEQA, the Project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080(b)(5) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15270, which statutorily exempts projects that a public agency intends to deny. Therefore, no additional environmental review is required. Section 4. Findings for Sign Design Review Denial With respect to the denial of P25-0300, the City Council makes the following findings as required by Section 18.20.050.B.1 through 6 of the Pleasanton Municipal Code: 1. The project's approval is in the best interest of public health, safety, and general welfare. The Project, as designed, is not in the best interest of the general welfare, which encompasses not only health, spaciousness, and balance, but also beauty. Berman v. Parker (1954) 348 U.S. 26. The proposed canopy composition is not a balanced architectural expression because the color band occupies 63.8% of the canopy height, making color the primary defining feature rather than the relationship of architectural components and materials. The disproportionate band undermines architectural quality and the cohesive relationship of building components, colors, and materials. The Project site serves as a prominent Downtown gateway/entry corridor, where the streetscape's visual character contributes to Pleasanton’s community identity and general welfare. The proposed canopy design, specifically the oversized, franchise-forward color band, creates an overly brand-forward visual emphasis that detracts from the intended Downtown entry character and does not reinforce the site’s relationship to the City’s broader aesthetic context and natural/visual setting. The proposal conflicts with the General Plan Community Character Element, including Policy 15 / Program 15.3 (attractive sign design and higher-quality sign materials and colors, minimizing bright Page 156 of 214