The Irvine City Council recessed to a closed session Tuesday, July 22, 2025, to confer with legal counsel about anticipated litigation concerning the Oak Creek plan under California Government Code section 54956.9(d)(2) and (3), and later reconvened with no reportable action, the city said.

The closed session concerned one matter described by the council as "significant exposure to litigation." The session was not detailed on the public record; after the meeting the city attorney reported there was "not this afternoon" any reportable action.

Why it matters: the Oak Creek plan and whether the city will undertake election or other steps has been contested in public comments; residents argued at the special meeting that placing a related measure on a city-funded special election would saddle taxpayers and that the council should uphold prior voter decisions. Those concerns were raised during the public-comment portion before the council recessed to closed session.

Two members of the public spoke before the council moved into closed session. "The vote already happened," said Mr. Neshanian, a resident, arguing the council should uphold the earlier vote and not "represent the developer" by putting the matter to another vote. He also asked why the city would pay costs to run a special election and pay for an investigation related to the Great Park plan, and said the council's duties are to "the citizens."

A second commenter, identified only by the telephone number used to connect, told the council that homeowner associations oppose the Irvine Company proposal and said the commenter had submitted more than 200 emails against the proposal compared with seven in favor, a figure the speaker attributed to those who contacted the council. The telephone commenter also accused Councilmember Melinda Liu of having misrepresented public access to the golf course and said, "Honestly, I don't even trust the ballot measure you would put to the voters." These claims were made by speakers and are reported as such; the city did not present documentary evidence during the meeting.

Council procedure and outcome: the council opened the special meeting at 4:35 p.m., the city clerk explained public-participation procedures including Zoom access and time limits, and the council recessed to closed session to consider the single item of anticipated litigation. The council later reconvened and the city attorney stated there was no reportable action. A motion to adjourn the special meeting was moved by Councilmember Carroll, seconded by Councilmember Melinda Liu, and carried by roll-call vote with all members present voting "yes." The council then adjourned the special session.

What was not decided at the meeting: the council did not disclose any settlement offers, litigation strategy, or any direction taken in closed session on the Oak Creek matter; the transcript and the city attorney's statement record only that there was one closed-session item and that no reportable action was announced.

Next steps: the meeting record and written comments will be posted to the city's website; the council did not announce further public hearings or timelines on Oak Creek at the special session.