Irvine council introduces zoning text amendment to consider Oak Creek nature park after marathon public hearing

The Irvine City Council on Tuesday moved to introduce a zoning text amendment that would create an option for the city to consider a public nature park in Planning Area 12 — the Oak Creek property — after a marathon public hearing that drew more than 100 speakers both for and against the plan.

Planning Manager Alyssa Matthews told the council the amendment would give the city a process to evaluate whether a nature park and trail system could satisfy the open‑space obligations now tied to the Oak Creek golf course. “This zone text amendment allows the city to consider a public nature park and trail system on a portion of the golf course subject to a future park plan,” Matthews said, and stressed it “does not authorize any development or modify the general plan or zoning designations.”

The Irvine Company, which filed the amendment, presented its outreach and design work. Jeff Davis, representing the company, said the proposal would create “up to 360 acres of publicly dedicated open space, including 50 acres to be dedicated and built as a future nature park,” while noting the change being considered at this meeting is procedural and would not itself reclassify land use. “This is an option that allows a different means of fulfilling open‑space obligations,” Davis said.

The meeting’s public record showed deep division. Dozens of speakers urged the council to reject the zone‑text amendment or put a simple, citywide ballot question to voters, arguing the 1988 initiative (often referenced as Resolution 88‑1) created permanent preservation for Oak Creek and cannot be undone without a public vote. Doug Carstens, who identified himself as representing the Orange Tree Homeowners Association and Save Irvine Open Space, told the council: “We oppose this zone change and we ask that you vote no or submit it to the voters.” Derek, a resident of Orange Tree, called the proposal “a backdoor attempt to remove open‑space requirements” and said residents need enforceable commitments from the Irvine Company about the remaining acreage.

Other residents and community groups pressed the opposite view. Supporters said a publicly accessible nature park, improved trail connections and a nature center would benefit a broader cross‑section of Irvine residents. Christy Chen, who said she attended the planning workshops, said the project “will create a safe, beautiful place where people of all ages can spend time outdoors.” Several speakers asked the city to preserve tree canopy, create pollinator gardens and build grade‑separated crossings to complete the Jeffrey Open Space Trail.

City Attorney Melching and staff repeatedly told the council the text amendment before them would not change the property’s general plan preservation designation (1.4) and — as written — would not allow residential development without further, separate approvals. Melching said the preservation designation explicitly prohibits residential and industrial uses and that any future development would require a general plan amendment and, if necessary, a public vote.

After council members questioned staff and the applicant about trail design, easement offers and where any future environmental review would occur, the council introduced the ordinance for first reading by title only. The motion carried 6‑0.

What happens next: staff and the applicant will need to pursue discretionary approvals and environmental review (an EIR was discussed as the likely route) before any land‑use change could happen. City staff estimated an environmental review process for a development application typically takes roughly a year; councilmembers and members of the public said they expect litigation, further hearings and possibly a ballot measure if a development proposal is brought forward.

The council’s vote on introduction does not itself change the general plan or permit construction. Councilmembers, applicants and attorneys repeatedly emphasized that point during and after the hearing.

The council left the record open during follow‑up questions and scheduled the later steps for review and public comment. The planning commission had unanimously recommended the ordinance when it considered the item in March.

Ending: Councilors said they would expect more analysis, a full environmental review if an application is filed, and additional public hearings before any change in the use of Oak Creek could occur. The council introduced the zoning text amendment for first reading; no final land‑use approvals were granted.