Email Subject: Request for a Clean, Vetted, and Transparent Great Park Deal

Message to Copy:

Dear City Council,

I am adding my voice to the growing number of Irvine residents who share the concerns outlined below. I fully align with these points and ask that they be addressed before any vote is taken on the proposed agreement with Heritage Fields.

The current proposal is unnecessarily complex and introduces major land-use changes without the transparent, community-driven process Irvine residents expect. At this time, I urge the Council to consider only the essential components of the deal and separate all other elements for future discussion.

Specifically, residents deserve clarity and deliberation on:

* The re-zoning, new entitlement, and land swap and  whether they are in the City’s best interest and whether the City is receiving fair value.

* Immediate use of the $5 million in CFD funds, paid by Great Park Neighborhoods homeowners, for already-approved Phase I projects, the primary one being the main library.

* Future application of up to $10 million in developer-provided funding.

The proposal now folds in new features such as housing, retail, a services center, and a columbarium; none of which have undergone Irvine’s established vetting process. Historically, any addition to the Great Park Framework Plan supported by GPN entitlements or CFD funds has required:

* Robust, extended community engagement, outreach, and resident task-force consultation.

* Preliminary planning on land use, scope, financing, and alignment with the Great Park vision.

* A full staff review and public presentation.

* A vote by the Great Park Board to include the element.

* A formal Council vote to adopt it into the Framework Plan.

The main library is the model example of how this should work: years of surveys, extensive community engagement, consultant-led outreach, and clear planning. It was vetted, supported, and moved into Phase I only after proper process and formal adoption by Council.

By contrast, the new elements included in this deal have been introduced with just one week of notice, without community engagement, staff analysis, or proper review. The proposal also suggests allocating new funds to these unvetted elements ahead of approved Phase I priorities.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that you vote no on the deal as currently structured, or move forward only with the components that have been fully vetted and already committed.

If a ballot measure is deemed necessary (which is unclear for a City-owned facility such as a library), I ask that you consider placing only the main library on the ballot at this time. The library is vetted, broadly supported, urgently needed for current and future residents, and would unquestionably pass. As Irvine continues planning for significant affordable housing expansion, accessible public resources like a library are even more critical.

Other elements can and should be discussed through an open, transparent, resident-informed process over time.

Thank you for your consideration.

[Name]

[Irvine Resident]

Copy Text & Email the Irvine City Council

Follow this link to send an e-comment to the City Council Meeting:

5.1 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE, AMENDMENT TO A DENSITY BONUS AGREEMENT, WITH AN ASSOCIATED PROPERTY EXCHANGE TRANSACTION BETWEEN HERITAGE FIELDS EL TORO AND THE CITY OF IRVINE FOR LAND WITHIN PLANNING AREA 51 - City of Irvine

I urge Council to vote no on the Area 51 agreement as structured, or approve only fully vetted components.

This proposal introduces major land-use changes without Irvine's transparent process. Elements including housing, retail, a services center, and a columbarium were introduced with one week's notice, no community engagement, staff analysis, or review.

Historically, Great Park Framework Plan additions require robust community engagement, preliminary planning, staff review, Great Park Board approval, and Council adoption. The main library followed this with years of consultation before Phase I inclusion.

Residents need clarity on: whether the rezoning and land swap serve the City's interest; immediate use of $5 million in CFD funds (paid by Great Park homeowners) for approved Phase I projects, primarily the library; and future application of developer funding.

I ask Council to separate unvetted elements for future discussion and move forward only with committed components.

Your comments and information will become part of the official public record. If you do not want your personal information included in the official record, do not complete that field.