CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETTIMG AGENDA PACKET 7-7-26

franchise colors) and Policy 16 (discourages franchise and prototype architecture and signage). As a result, the project does not demonstrate that approval would serve the general welfare as contemplated by the City’s adopted community character policies. Accordingly, the City Council cannot make this finding. 2. The site design, including building placement, parking and circulation, landscape, and outdoor space, enhances the pedestrian experience, embraces natural features, promotes connections, creates visual interest, and relates to the character of the surrounding development. The proposed canopy treatment relies primarily on a dominant franchise color field rather than a context-sensitive architectural composition that reinforces the established Downtown entry character. Because the color band is disproportionately large and visually dominant from the public right-of-way, it draws attention away from building form, materials, and the broader streetscape composition and therefore does not enhance the pedestrian experience along this Downtown approach. Further, the emphasis on franchise color diminishes the ability for landscaping and streetscape elements to complement architectural features, strengthen vistas, and reinforce an established gateway character. Accordingly, the City Council cannot make this finding. 3. Architectural considerations, including character, scale, massing, and quality of design, have been incorporated to ensure the project integrates with the existing site and has a cohesive relationship with the surrounding context. The proposed canopy design 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 proposed canopy color band occupies approximately 63.8% of the canopy height, altering the perceived scale and emphasis of the canopy when viewed from the public right-of- way. Rather than reading as a balanced architectural feature with subordinate branding, the canopy reads as a dominant graphic/branding element, which is not compatible with the intended Downtown gateway context and is inconsistent with the City’s direction to avoid franchise/prototype architecture and signage (General Plan Community Character Element Policy 16). The disproportionate band undermines architectural quality and results in an inappropriate relationship to the site, public views, and surrounding development patterns. Accordingly, the City Council cannot make this finding. 4. Exterior lighting, signage, amenities, mechanical equipment, and other architectural features are integrated into the design of the site and building. The canopy color band functions as a large-format branding device rather than an architectural element integrated into the overall design concept. Given its size and prominence, the band is inconsistent with integrated sign design and does not meet the record-supported threshold that would keep branding subordinate to architecture. The proposal conflicts with General Plan Community Character Element Policy 15 / Program 15.3 (minimize bright franchise colors; attractive sign design and materials) and Policy 16 (discourage franchise and prototype architecture/signage). Page 157 of 214