Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press Orange council to investigate alleged inconsistent code enforcement
Summary
Multiple residents told the City Council the planning and code-enforcement departments have allowed an illegally altered structure to stand and that permits were issued retroactively; a preservation group also urged staff to finish a promised preservation ordinance rather than narrow the design-review committee’s scope.
Residents and preservation advocates urged the City of Orange Council on Tuesday to address what they said are inconsistent applications of city code and long‑delayed preservation commitments.
"When the city of Orange hired its new city attorney earlier this year, she stated that the city of Orange must ensure the consistent and equitable application of the law. I am here because this has not happened," said Lloyd Cecino, a resident who told the council that a nearby property underwent substantial alterations without required permits and that planning approved a permit 11 months after the work was completed. Cecino cited municipal-code references during his remarks and asked the council to re‑investigate the matter and hold staff accountable.
Cecino’s comments were followed by additional public testimony from a family member who said a staff member suggested planting cypress trees rather than enforcing the code and said the suggestion was not a feasible remedy. "If this is how your staff enforces the law, then what message are you sending to the public?" the speaker asked.
Robert Boyce, president of the Old Town Preservation Association, urged the council not to rush a directive that would limit the Design Review Committee’s (DRC) purview. He said the city’s 2010 general plan and related environmental documents anticipated mitigation measures that remain largely unfulfilled and that the association has prepared a draft comprehensive preservation ordinance. "Tonight, we respectfully ask that you postpone agendizing your recent directive," Boyce said, asking staff to complete the preservation ordinance and re‑engage the working group.
Council members acknowledged receipt of the concerns and asked staff for clarifications about the upcoming design‑review hearing and Mills Act program status during the council reports section. No formal action on enforcement process or on Boyce’s requested postponement was taken during the meeting; the council heard the public comments and proceeded with the consent calendar and scheduled ordinance hearings.
What happens next
The council did not vote on a specific enforcement action at the meeting. Council members asked staff for clarifications about the criteria that the community development director will use to determine historical significance and about qualifications required to make those determinations ahead of a public hearing officially noticed for Oct. 28, 2025. Residents asked the council to direct staff to re‑investigate alleged retroactive permitting and to provide a status update on the proposed preservation ordinance and Mills Act program.
