Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Oak Creek Open Space topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge council to keep Oak Creek decision to voters, accuse rezoning process of misleading information
Summary
Multiple residents told the Irvine City Council they believe a proposed rezoning of the Oak Creek golf course would strip protections from land reserved by Resolution 88‑1, urging the council to place the question on the ballot and to correct perceived misinformation presented to the Planning Commission.
A wave of public commenters at the March 24 Irvine City Council meeting urged elected officials to put the fate of Oak Creek open space before voters, saying the proposed rezoning process and recent Planning Commission briefings have omitted or misstated key facts.
"A change of use from this golf course to a 50‑acre park is completely dishonest," said John Albritton, who told the council he had attended both Planning Commission and Irvine Company meetings and called earlier briefings "dishonest." Several speakers argued the proposed change would tacitly allow the Irvine Company to pursue housing development on adjacent land.
Joanne Slobodian, who identified herself as representing Protect Irvine Open Space, told the council the city previously voted 7‑0 to bring the issue to voters and said that public expectations have not been met: "Where's the ballot?" She urged council members to "keep your promise" and place the measure on the November ballot so residents can decide.
Multiple commenters cited Resolution 88‑1, adopted in 1988, saying the resolution protects the parcel and that rezoning would remove or undermine that protection. "If it's protected in the general plan, it stays protected unless the people vote to change it," one speaker said, calling the current rezoning push "piecemealing this parcel of land." Several residents asked staff and council to correct what they described as a Scrivener's error and to be transparent about easements and potential effects on the resolution.
Speakers also disputed the credibility of outreach used to justify the project. One commenter asked the city to audit online surveys the Nature Park website uses to cite community feedback, and another alleged certain supporters were employed by the Irvine Company.
Council members did not take action on rezoning during the meeting. Mayor Egan and other elected officials listened during the public‑comment period; staff and council later noted the April 14 council agenda will include a rezoning item and advised residents to monitor that process for formal deliberation.
What happens next: several residents urged the council to postpone or revise staff recommendations ahead of the April 14 hearing and to provide clearer documentation about the effect of any change on Resolution 88‑1 and associated easements.
