San Clemente design review subcommittee backs Miramar signage plan, urges marquee and mural study

The Design Review Subcommittee of the City of San Clemente on Aug. 27 reviewed a discretionary sign permit (No. 25‑337) for the Miramar Event Center and restaurants at 1700 North El Camino Real and voted unanimously to forward the item to the Planning Commission for a noticed public hearing.

The subcommittee’s discussion centered on three proposed elements: an illuminated projecting (blade) sign with push‑through lettering, non‑illuminated cut letters on the bowling‑alley façade, and a monument sign at the site frontage. Christopher Wright, senior planner, said the project sits inside the city’s architectural overlay district and therefore requires a discretionary sign permit because of sign area and the proposed illumination.

“This is a project related to the Miramar Theater project underway, which they want signage,” Wright said during his presentation. He described the projecting blade sign as internally lit with push‑through letters, a wall sign on the bowling alley that would be non‑illuminated, and a modest monument sign at the entry. Wright told the committee staff interpreted the proposed push‑through lettering and internal can as a form of neon‑style illumination that should be reviewed by the discretionary process.

Staff recommended adding a changeable‑letter marquee to echo the historic theater character, reconstructing cornice detailing on the tower and, separately, considering a thematic mural on the alley side to acknowledge the property’s history. Wright also estimated installation of a changeable‑copy marquee could be a significant owner expense, “probably be in the $25,000 range,” while alternative mural or banner options could cost less; he added a large restoration program could increase total project costs substantially.

Public commenter Larry, who identified himself as a community member, said he supported the marquee concept while expressing caution about what copy would appear on a changeable sign. “I like the idea, but I’m considering what verbiage would be up there,” he said, asking whether staff or the owner would control content. Wright and staff clarified that a changeable‑letter marquee would function like a traditional theater sign and would not require a new permit for each message, though content review and enforcement would follow standard city rules.

Committee members discussed aesthetic tradeoffs. Several members said the building’s current restored finishes are “understated” and that a marquee could evoke the theater’s original appearance, but others warned a large marquee could visually overpower the tower and the new entrance. One member urged caution about imposing a marquee on an owner who might not want the additional cost or maintenance.

On murals and cornice recreation, staff said the tower artwork found during restoration does not appear to be a legally protected historic feature; staff recommended recreating tower cornice detailing to match historic finishes while keeping the alley side open to a more contemporary themed mural. Committee members generally favored recreating cornice detail on the tower while leaving the larger alley wall as the more appropriate location for creative public art.

The subcommittee concluded by voting to forward the discretionary sign permit to the Planning Commission for a noticed hearing. The committee recorded a unanimous vote to send the item to the Planning Commission for the next available agenda; the record shows three members present voted yes.

Next steps: staff and the applicant will coordinate a Planning Commission hearing date, likely in September, and the applicant will refine sign dimensions and mockups to address committee spacing and legibility concerns before that hearing.