Preservation Power Grab? Questions Raised Over Proposed Historic Ordinance in Orange
As the City of Orange continues to navigate the balance between historic preservation and economic vitality, a recent push for an expansive preservation ordinance has raised concerns among property owners, business leaders, and residents. At issue is a draft historic preservation ordinance authored by members of the Old Towne Preservation Association (OTPA). City staff ultimately declined to move forward with the draft as written, instead recommending that the City Council retain an independent professional firm to develop a new ordinance. The Council approved an agreement with Chattel, Inc., citing the need for a legally sound, balanced approach that aligns with local, state, and federal requirements.
Interior Spaces Pulled Into Regulation
One of the most controversial provisions in the OTPA draft would have allowed the City to regulate interior spaces of buildings that are “regularly open to the general public.” That language is broad. It could apply to apartment lobbies, hotel common areas, restaurants, retail interiors, office building common areas, and event venues. Once designated, even interior modifications could require historic review, regardless of whether the exterior of the building is altered.
Critics argue this represents a significant expansion of land-use control, extending preservation authority into spaces that must evolve to remain functional and economically viable.
Inventory Growth and CEQA Implications
The draft ordinance also proposed that the City’s historic inventory be reviewed every five years and periodically updated through additional surveys. While this may appear administrative, the implications are substantial. Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), properties identified as “potentially historic” are often treated as historic resources during environmental review. As a result, routine inventory updates could expand CEQA constraints across the city without a direct policy decision by the City Council.
Opponents say this approach effectively shifts major regulatory decisions from elected officials to administrative processes, leaving property owners subject to new restrictions without clear notice or consent.
Development Stalled Before a Decision Is Made
Another provision would have imposed an immediate freeze on permits once a landmark designation application was filed, before any determination on the merits of the application. Under that structure, a single application, even one filed speculatively or for leverage, could halt construction, renovations, or redevelopment indefinitely. Many cities with established preservation programs instead require higher thresholds, allow limited work to continue, or impose firm time limits to prevent abuse.
Without such safeguards, critics argue the provision creates unnecessary risk for property owners and discourages investment.
Permanent Recordation, Permanent Consequences
The OTPA draft also required that all designated landmarks and historic district properties be formally recorded with the Orange County Recorder. Recording a designation on a property’s title can affect financing, insurance, resale value, and long-term flexibility. These impacts apply even in cases where a property owner opposed designation, particularly within historic districts.
Property owners have raised concerns that such permanent encumbrances stem from discretionary decisions with long-lasting consequences.
City Council Chooses a Different Path
In response to these concerns, City staff recommended that the Council move away from the OTPA draft and instead commission an independent ordinance. The agreement with Chattel, Inc. reflects that decision. The scope of work acknowledges prior efforts by OTPA and Orange Legacy Alliance but places responsibility for drafting with a professional consultant experienced in preservation law and CEQA compliance. City staff emphasized the importance of a comprehensive ordinance tailored to Orange’s needs rather than one authored primarily by advocacy groups.
Tensions Surface at City Hall
The debate spilled into public view during the October 28 City Council meeting. District 1 Councilmember Arianna Barrios left the dais before the meeting concluded, following the Council’s vote to amend the Design Review Committee’s purview. Councilmember Dumitru offered to rearrange the remaining agenda items to accommodate Barrios, but the offer was declined, and Barrios did not return for the remainder of the evening’s votes.
The moment highlighted growing tensions between preservation advocates seeking expanded authority and council members focused on limiting regulatory overreach at a time when Orange is pursuing economic revitalization.
What Comes Next
The discussion is not about whether Orange should preserve its history; there is broad agreement on that point. The question is how preservation policies are written, who controls them, and how they affect property rights and economic development citywide. As the Chattel-led process moves forward, residents will have the opportunity to weigh in on an ordinance that could shape Orange’s future for decades. Whether the outcome reflects balance and transparency remains to be seen.
What is clear is that historic preservation in Orange is no longer just a question of architecture; it is a question of governance, accountability, and how the city chooses to grow.