Irvine City Council members are in the beginning stages of contemplating another residential village in the city — a development that could replace the Oak Creek Golf Club with 3,100 housing units, a new school, parks and other community spaces.
But residents are ringing alarm bells that the plan, in conjunction with the Irvine Company, would violate the golf course’s preservation as permanent open space, a designation passed by voters in 1988.
Some residents argue that since voters originally chose to preserve the golf course as open space 37 years ago, it should remain open space — or it should at least appear before the voters again if the city wishes to change its use to residential.
However, city leaders say that the specific wording of that resolution from 1988 gives the council the authority to remove the preservation designation without placing the item on the ballot for voter consideration.
Oak Creek Golf Club Designated As Open Space
In 1988, the city council voted to place an item on the June 7 ballot known as Initiative Resolution 88-1.
This resolution outlined the conservation of certain open space areas across town to help balance development with open space as the city grew.
That effort, which was approved by voters during the summer 1988 election, included a map outlining various spaces to be conserved as open space. The map includes an overlay for Oak Creek Golf Club, designated as “conservation/open space.”
But Irvine City Attorney Jeff Melching said the specific wording of that resolution gives the council authority to make changes without consideration from voters.
The resolution says the “City’s General Plan shall be amended to reflect the changes” included in the map.
During a city council meeting on May 13, Melching told the council this wording has a different meaning than if it had said “the General Plan is hereby amended.”
“The people did not directly legislate an amendment to the city’s general plan,” Melching said during that meeting. “The people advised the city council that it should make amendments to the general plan.”
“And because the measure was structured that way, that gives the city council the discretion now to re-amend the general plan to remove that preservation designation without going back out to the voters,” he said. “You have the legal right to do that.”
Critics disagree, arguing that it was the will and belief of the voters at the time that this area would remain open space forever.
Sally Anne Sheridan, 89, was on the city council in 1988 when the resolution was approved.
She said it’s the council’s responsibility to respect the voters’ intentions and at least give them the opportunity to vote on whether or not they want to remove the open space designation.
“When you’re a council person and you pass a resolution — you put something on the ballot and people vote for it — you should abide by the vote of the people,” Sheridan said in a phone interview. “If you’re going to change that, put it back on the ballot.”
She recalled that the original purpose of the Oak Creek open space was to ensure the center area of the city wasn’t jam-packed with housing as it grew.
Michael LeBlanc, former senior vice president for the Irvine Company, worked with the city on the initiative on behalf of the company in 1988.
“I was disappointed, frankly, in both the company and the city to seemingly ignore the open space agreement and the will of the voters,” he said in a phone interview.
He said the plan to remove center-city open space isn’t good planning and should be reconsidered.
“I think both the city and the company should respect the will of the voters, the merit of having center-city open space and stick with that plan,” LeBlanc said. “The otherwise is an unfortunate precedent that they set, and it should give cause for concern for everyone that a lot of the other open space areas — like Bommer Canyon and the Quail Hill open space — could be changed for development by the city council without regard to the open space initiative.”
At city council meetings on May 13 and May 27, dozens of speakers voiced opposition for replacing the golf course with housing. Some mentioned the open space agreement, and others discussed the importance of the public golf course for families and the community who enjoy the sport.
Other critics voiced concerns about traffic congestion that would worsen with the addition of thousands of new residents and vehicles. An online petition opposing the plan has also gathered about 3,400 signatures as of June 17.
Some speakers at the meetings supported the plan in order to create more housing, especially for low-income residents, which they say is much needed.
Oak Creek Could Become Irvine’s Last Residential Village
At the May 13 meeting, the council unanimously approved a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Irvine Company that lays the groundwork to potentially move forward on the project. It still requires assessments, including an environmental review and traffic study, that are expected to last for at least the next year.
At another meeting on May 27, the council directed staff to host public meetings to gather community feedback on the project before returning to the council with the information for a study session.
City leaders said the new neighborhood would become the city’s final village development.
Early designs for the proposed village include about 3,100 housing units, a new school and library, parks, trails and community spaces.
The MOU would also require the Irvine Company to provide at least 1,000 housing vouchers that offer a discount off market-rate rents for two years as part of the city’s “Irvine Cares” initiative.
Terms of the MOU also include adding 315 acres of new permanent open space in the Orchard Hills and Portola Springs villages to replace the golf course preservation, which is 164 acres.
It also includes approximately $90 million of community benefit fees that would be paid to the city by the Irvine Company.
Jeffrey Davis, senior vice president at the Irvine Company, praised the plan at the meeting on May 13.
“We do feel that this plan does represent a strategic convergence of Irvine’s long-standing master planning principles in terms of community benefit and the city’s commitment to addressing local housing needs, beginning almost immediately, with the unique transitional housing concept that is the embodiment of grace, compassion and dignity,” he said at the meeting.
Council members generally supported the project, which is still in the early stages.
Mayor Larry Agran – who was mayor when Irvine voters approved the open space initiative in 1988 – said the new open land outlined in the development proposal would be more accessible than a golf course.
“The Oak Creek Golf Course, as beautiful as it is and as valuable as it is as center-city open space, is not publicly owned,” Agran said at the May 13 meeting. “It is open space that is not free for people to use as compared with what is outlined in the MOU — the open space that we would be getting far exceeds the size of the Oak Creek Golf Course. It’s about double the size of the Oak Creek Golf Course or more, and it would be free.”
Councilmember Melinda Lui said she preferred housing over a golf course.
“This open space is an exclusive, expensive golf club — it is not accessible to the rest of us,” she said.
“In the aggregate of things, I would rather have more housing.”
Councilmember Kathleen Treseder expressed some hesitation over the voucher program instead of sticking with the city’s inclusionary housing ordinance, like other developments.
“I’m hoping that we can go over this some more, maybe more chance for me to talk with the Irvine Company and see what they’re thinking of and make sure that they’re aware it’s not the whole council that is necessarily asking for this,” she said.
The voucher program is meant to get at-risk individuals into affordable housing quickly in units that already exist instead of waiting for new developments to be built. The vouchers would be valid for two years since they’re meant to provide cheaper housing temporarily before transitioning into market-rate housing.
The plan is an ongoing discussion that is slated to appear at more public meetings in the future. Removing the preservation designation from the golf course will require an official vote from the council, which hasn’t been decided yet.
“I was there in 1988,” Agran said at the May 27 meeting. “I do remember the conditions under which that particular provision was written into the open space discussions and ultimately assumed by the voters to make changes to the open space initiative immune to tampering without another vote of the people. I don’t think this is the place to continue that discussion.”
“I do think it will have to be taken up again,” he said.
Angelina Hicks is the Voice of OC Collegiate News Service Editor. Contact her at ahicks@voiceofoc.org or on Twitter @angelinahicks13.