MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
OF THE CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE
PLANNING COMMISSION
November 13, 2025 @ 5:00 p.m.
San Clemente City Hall Council Chamber
910 Calle Negocio, San Clemente, CA 92673
Teleconference via www.san-clemente.org
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Cosgrove called the Special Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of San Clemente to order at 5:02 p.m. The meeting was offered in person at San Clemente City Hall Council Chambers, 910 Calle Negocio, San Clemente, California, 92673, and also via live stream from the City’s YouTube Channel
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Patrick Griffin led the Pledge of Allegiance.
3. ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: Chair Cameron Cosgrove; Karen Prescott-Loeffler; Gary McCaughan; Brett Freeman; Patrick Griffin
Commissioners Absent: Vice Chair M. Steven Camp; Chair Pro Temp Scott McKhann Staff Present: Jonathan Lightfoot, City Planner
Zach Rehm, Principal Planner
Elizabeth Mitchell, City Attorney
Tamara Tatich, Recording Secretary
These minutes reflect the order in which items appeared on the meeting agenda and do not necessarily reflect the order in which items were actually considered.
4. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS/SPECIAL PRESENTATION
None.
5. MINUTES
None.
6. ORAL AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None.
DRAFT
Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes of November 13, 2025 Page 2
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
None.
8. PUBLIC HEARING
A. A Continued Appeal Hearing for Cultural Heritage Permit (CHP) 25- 306, Amending CHP 16-376, Miramar Events Center, 1700 N. El Camino Real
A continued appeal hearing to review the City Planner’s approval of insignificant modifications to previously approved project plans at the historic Miramar theater property to extend an exterior security wall and alter related landscape and hardscape features near the wall and to modify interior details within the building including a bridal stairway access, demising curtains, and plaster treatment to the auditorium side walls to create Moorish arches.
The Planning Commission will also consider whether the project is Categorically Exempt from the requirements of the CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15301 (Class 1: Existing Facilities), §15302 (Class 2: Replacement or Reconstruction), and §15303 (Class 3: New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures).
Commissioners Prescott-Loeffler, Griffin and Freeman disclosed that they toured the Miramar property with staff on November 5, 2025.
Commissioner McCaughan stated he also toured the site at a different time; and Chair Cosgrove stated he toured the site and met with applicant and informed him of public comments.
Chair Cosgrove opened the public hearing.
City Planner Lightfoot summarized a presentation titled, “Miramar Theater Revisions, November 13, 2025.” A copy of the presentation is available by contacting the City of San Clemente Planning Division. The presentation highlighted:
• Historic and pre-construction imagery
• Prior approvals
• 2017 approved elevation imagery
• Interior and exterior changes
• Comparison renderings of approved and proposed elevations • Revisions that were incorporated from staff and Design Review Subcommittee comments
• Appeal Municipal Code 17.12.140
• Secretary of Interior Standard objectives and guidelines • Updated egress with added Condition of Approval that the applicant receive approval of an updated Architectural Review of Orange County Fire Authority prior to permit issuance; and
• Concluded with a staff’s recommendation to adopt the Resolution.
DRAFT
Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes of November 13, 2025 Page 3 City Planner Lightfoot stated that both parties expressed interest in being partners in the future and that there’s an opportunity for an amicable solution in that the Appellant prioritized considerations of the exterior spaces, while the Applicant is focused on interior for functionality.
Applicant Roger Cellini representing Wedgewood Weddings, the tenant and eventual operator of the Miramar Theater summarized a presentation titled, “AAHA Studio, Miramar Theater Interior TI,” dated November 11, 2025, a copy can be requested through the City of San Clemente Planning Division. The presentation highlighted their commitment to bring the theater back to life through adaptive reuse, preserving its historic character while allowing it to thrive as a modern event space. Mr. Cellini stated the key elements are the demising wall and the staircase to the back, and opined that the arches complement the space by tying in with the existing historic elements. Mr. Cellini expressed the courtyard was too small for outdoor ceremonies and that the expansion provided more room and security for clients and staff.
Appellant Larry Culbertson summarized a presentation titled, “Appeal of Approval of the Miramar Theater Plan Revisions,” a copy can be requested through the City of San Clemente Planning Division. The presentation included historical imagery of the surrounding Historical District as well as photos, renderings and plans of the current project; and asked to reverse the City Planner’s determination to approve revisions to the Miramar Event Center Plans. Highlights of the presentation included:
• Historic integrity of the building and alleged incompatibility with the Secretary of Interior standards
• There are no front fences or walls in front of the primary elevations of any of the historic buildings in the North Beach Historic District • The proposed wall blocks public exterior views of building • Only two exit routes, raising safety concerns
• Mural removal or relocation violate preservation standards • Proposed new arches create a false historical narrative • The tenant’s operating plan would orient weddings towards the back wall instead of towards the historic theater stage
• Opined that a fountain is more appropriate than a fireplace on the patio
• Revisions weren’t vetted by a historic preservation consultant; and • Final construction plans and details were not provided Public Comments:
Wayne Eggleston, former Mayor and Planning Commissioner expressed his opposition of the extended wall (with fountain) and that DRAFT
Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes of November 13, 2025 Page 4 the walls between the Miramar and El Camino Real should be eliminated.
Amanda Quintanilla, resident stated that a third-party specialist was not consulted; that the privacy wall impacted the view of the building; and ADA compliance concerns.
George Gregory, resident expressed displeasure with foundation design; walls disconnected from neighborhood; and electrical gear should be screened.
Mr. Cellini’s response to the Appellant and public speakers was that the murals were not in the design having been told they were not needed; the curtain is vital to the operation; the arches are believed to help with the acoustical issues; recognizes the historical and cultural importance of the theater; and desire to restore its purpose.
In response to questions from the Commission, staff estimated the work on the current shell permits to be 90% completed; clarified that the murals were contemplated to be removed but reconstructed in the 2017 project approval; and noted that the final temporary demising feature may be a moveable partition other than a curtain pending OCFA review.
The Commission questioned the Applicant on the arches and sound attenuation. The applicant responded that the arches mimic the historical elements and sound effectiveness can be tested once installed.
Discussions between the Commission and Applicant ensued on transitioning from the ceremony to reception utilizing the various usable space opportunities available within and outside the venue; practicality of outdoor ceremonies on the patio; the financial impacts; a fireplace versus fountain. At the conclusion of the discussion, the Commission asked the Applicant if they were able to state resolutions resulting from the meeting with the Appellant, and Mr. Cellini stated Wedgewood could concede not extending the courtyard wall; and his understanding is that the Appellant and Historical Society would agree to allowing the interior curtains and staircase; however, the contention is the arches and murals.
The Commission confirmed with City Planner Lightfoot that staff’s recommendation is reflected in the Resolution, and City Planner Lightfoot stated that a new Condition of Approval Section 5 to reflect an OCFA architectural review be made.
City Planner also stated that the Resolution can be modified to meet the objective of leaving the exterior in its current state, which would be a modification of Section 4 to indicate the changes approved by the Commission.
DRAFT
Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes of November 13, 2025 Page 5 Chair Cosgrove closed the public hearing and opened discussion with Commissioners that highlighted:
• The bridal staircase is a good safety feature, allows for late arrivals and grants an additional emergency exit.
• Curtains are needed for operations: privacy and as a sound barrier. • Arches will assist with necessary sound attenuation and are compatible with historic materials and details.
• Opined that the murals are not a character defining feature of the theater; noted that they could be recreated in the future. • Some Commissioners commented that the exterior extended privacy wall (with fountain) should be removed; others noted support for a fence that reduced visual obtrusiveness.
• Agnostic on the fireplace/fountain feature in the existing primary patio space.
• Support for making the business economically viable.
• The city and fire department will address ADA and fire exits during plan check reviews.
• The Miramar tower is the primary character defining feature. • Noted that Walls are needed for outside weddings due to noise. • There should be a fountain instead of a fireplace to mask noise, suggests a self-filler feature.
• Significant work has already been done, and it would be very expensive to demo the concrete.
• The applicant has the ability to talk with staff about alternatives if the enclosure is denied.
• Found the Appellant’s comments on the extension of the exterior privacy wall (with fountain) to be compelling due to the Secretary of Interior Standards that prevent permanent interventions that obscure or alter the historical character.
• Outside ceremonies on the expanded patio area that would be enclosed by the extended privacy wall is not a viable use of the space as it is disjointed from the existing primary patio area. • Concerned about the heavy traffic sound competing with wedding proceedings if people are seated in front of the box office.
IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN, AND SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER PRESCOTT-LOEFFLER, AND CARRIED 4-1, COMMISSIONER
MCCAUGHAN NAY, VICE CHAIR CAMP AND CHAIR PRO TEM MCKHANN ABSENT
TO DETERMINE THE PROJECT IS CATEROGRICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF CEQA, AND TO ADOPT RESOLUTION PC 25-020, AFFIRMING THE CITY PLANNER’S DETERMINATION TO APPROVE CULTURAL HERITAGE PERMIT 25-306, AMENDING CULTURAL HERITAGE PERMIT 16-376, MIRAMAR
EVENT CENTER, EXCEPT FOR THE OUTSIDE WALL MODIFICATIONS, SUBJECT
TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL WITH THE ADDITION OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITION OF APPROVAL, “THE APPLICANT TO RECEIVE APPROVAL OF AN
UPDATED ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE.”
DRAFT
Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes of November 13, 2025 Page 6
9. NEW BUSINESS
A. Staff Presentation on the Status of the Parking and Transportation Demand Management
Principal Planner Rehm summarized a presentation titled, “Staff Update:
Parking and TDM Plan,” dated November 13, 2025. A copy of the presentation is available by contacting the City of San Clemente Planning Division. The presentation included responses to the Commissioner’s Comments provided during an October 8, 2025 Study Session on the Parking and TDM Plan. The summary highlighted:
• The consultant is updating maps to differentiate private lots, publicly leased private lots, and city-owned public lots.
• The City is tracking parklets and has updated Excel sheets. About ten parklets are occupying about 30 street parking spaces along Ave Del Mar and three parklets occupy public parking in the Pier Bowl. • The State extended parklets indefinitely; the City program expires July 1, 2026 unless extended.
• The City is prioritizing private lot leasing because it is cost effective. • Staff are analyzing increases in public parking capacity with restriping or parking structures and reviewing prior analysis from 2006 and 2019. • The library lot is still the best option for a parking structure. • The consultant recommends automated license plate reader (ALPR) technology.
• Replacing coin-only meter heads with credit card options is also being considered.
• The City is trying to come up with best practices for neighborhood electric vehicle (NEV) parking criteria.
• The City is reviewing parking data on parallel blocks in the downtown area to see if they can be broken down further.
• Trolley-based real-time tracking is available on the City website. • A more advanced app would cost money to develop and operate. • The consultant is working on pro-forma that will estimate the time it may take to realize certain benefits.
• The City collected about $1.2 million last year from meters and $600,000 from enforcement and fines.
• Half of the enforcement money can be rededicated to parking or the general fund, while the other half goes to the clean ocean fund. • The plan will have a general list of options and things that could be done in the near future.
• The City is considering providing flexibility in the zoning code for small businesses short on private parking.
• A written document is expected in a few weeks, with a public hearing hopefully in December or January.
• The Commission can provide written comments or have a one-on-one or two-on-one meetings with staff.
DRAFT
Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes of November 13, 2025 Page 7 The Commissioners inquired about parking passes, that staff advised the program is not a significant revenue center, although popular with users. A Commissioner noted the downtown area closest to Del Mar faces more parking challenges due to employees that park for an entire work shift. A parking co-op or employee parking off-site could be a solution. Staff stated the consultant is analyzing employee parking alternatives.
10. OLD BUSINESS
None.
11. REPORTS OF COMMISSIONERS AND STAFF
A. Commissioner Reports
None.
B. Tentative Future Agenda
The November 19, 2025 meeting has been cancelled due to lack of business.
C. Administrative Permit Report
D. Staff Reports
12. ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Commission adjourned to the Adjourned Meeting of the Planning Commission to be scheduled for Wednesday, December 3, 2025 at 6:00 p.m., which will be held at the San Clemente City Hall Council Chambers located at 910 Calle Negocio, 2nd Floor, San Clemente, California.
Respectfully submitted,
___________________________
Cameron Cosgrove, Chair
Attest:
___________________________
Jonathan Lightfoot, Secretary to the Planning Commission DRAFT