CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETTIMG AGENDA PACKET 7-7-26

adjoining buildings; The proposed canopy color band is disproportionately large (63.8% of canopy height), which changes the perceived scale and emphasis of the canopy when viewed from the public right-of-way. Rather than providing a balanced architectural feature that transitions appropriately with the streetscape at a Downtown gateway, the canopy reads as a dominant graphic/branding element, which is also discouraged by General Plan Community Character Element Policy 16. This results in an inappropriate relationship to the site and public views along the corridor. 3. Appropriate relationship of the proposed building and its site to adjoining areas, including compatibility of architectural styles, harmony in adjoining buildings, attractive landscape transitions, and consistency with neighborhood character; At this Downtown entry location, the project should contribute to a cohesive, context- sensitive character. The dominant franchise color treatment is not compatible with a locally integrated architectural approach and does not promote harmony with surrounding development patterns that rely on architectural form and materials rather than large-format franchise color fields. Accordingly, the proposal is not consistent with the intended neighborhood/Downtown character. 4. Preservation of views enjoyed by residents, workers within the city, and passersby through the community; Because the site is part of a gateway into Downtown, views from public streets are particularly important. The oversized color band draws attention away from building form, materials, and the broader streetscape composition, visually interrupting the quality of views experienced by passersby. The design therefore does not adequately preserve the visual experience along this Downtown approach. 5. Landscaping designed to enhance architectural features, strengthen vistas, provide shade, and conform to established streetscape; The proposed canopy treatment relies primarily on a dominant color field rather than architectural design that can be complemented by landscaping and streetscape elements. By emphasizing franchise color over integrated architectural composition, the canopy diminishes the ability for landscaping to serve its intended role—enhancing architectural features and strengthening the gateway streetscape. The proposal does not demonstrate a design approach where landscaping and architecture work together to reinforce an established Downtown entry character. 6. Relationship of exterior lighting to its surroundings and to the building and adjoining landscape; Page 161 of 214