“Library System Update” and “Feasibility Report” Offer Early Insights Into Possible Future of Irvine Public Library System
In the interest of full transparency, I offer the following disclosures: I am a patron of University Park Library. At the Council Meeting discussed here, I spoke in support of a mix of library sizes. Between January and July 2021 I worked as a constituency assistant to then-Councilmember Larry Agran.
On October 14th Chris Slama, Director of Community and Library Services, and Julie Zeoli, City Librarian, provided Council a “Library System Update” that, among other things, offered initial insight into plans for Irvine’s library system. You can watch the presentation here and review the slidedeck here.
Per the staff presentation, Irvine Public Library (IPL) currently consists of three libraries:
- Heritage Park Library: city-owned and open to the public;
- University Park Library: on lease from County until June 30, 2030 and open to the public; and
- Katie Wheeler Library: on lease from the County until December 31, 2029 and opening to the public in January 2026.
If you do the math, you’ll note that in the unlikely scenario that no action is taken by mid-2030, Irvine could be down to just Heritage Park Library. As such, in April 2025, staff was directed to “prepare a citywide analysis of the adequacy of locations and suitability of library services” including but not limited to an Orchard Hills library-community center hybrid.
The August community report-back on the Feasibility Study, per consultancy Johnson Favaro, can be reviewed in detail here. The resulting list of “Candidate Main and Branch Libraries” includes:
- Heritage Park Branch Library – District 3 (existing)
- Orchard Hills Branch Library – District 1 (new)
- Civic Center Main Library – District 3 (new)
- Great Park Main Library – District 2 (new)
For locations including proposed cross streets, see the enclosed image.
Caption: Locations for proposed Candidate and Main Branch Libraries and service areas. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLVLeCCxz9M.)
Notably, at the first meeting I attended (June 5, 2025) a library was being proposed at the Turtle Rock Community Park site. Come August, the option had been taken off the prospective list citing community pushback and the Feasibility Study was “still undetermined how best to serve the southeast Irvine communities”.
Of note, maintaining University Park or Katie Wheeler was not presented as an option in the consultant’s final report. At the meetings I was present for (June 5, 2025 and August 5, 2025), University Park, specifically, was deemed not viable as a future site. At the time of those meetings, as I recall, reasons for its exclusion were related to the minimum square footage requirements established for the feasibility study. In effect, if the envisioned minimum branch square footage was observed, locating a branch library at the existing location or building it out at the University Park community centre would conflict with efforts to preserve green space, ensure sufficient parking, and maintain the low-rise character of the neighborhood. Furthermore, at the time, staff and consultants indicated the County was likely not open to renewing the lease agreement.
Nevertheless, in their October 14 presentation, staff acknowledged the City “could also consider other options” in addition or instead of the four aforementioned candidate libraries, including renewing leases with the County for Katie Wheeler and University Park, or building a new University Park Library on the community center lot. In discussing the University Park options, staff comments were consistent with what was said in the public consultations I was present for, except for the suggestion that there may be an option to extend the lease on University Park. This came as a surprise in light of previous comments that the County would not entertain a lease renewal.
The staff report went on to acknowledge community interest in a village-style library system.
The presentation also emphasized the “Library Master Plan Study”, a process now underway to substantiate the library’s mission, vision, values, priorities and more. This is not to be confused with the Feasibility Study which is primarily concerned with identifying candidate library sites.
Apart from noting the estimated operating cost “inclusive of staff, materials, and operations for an approximate 25,000 square foot branch would be roughly $3.5-4 million annually in 2025 dollars” the staff report did not cover budget, an update on spending thus far, or financing the new library system.
Public Comments
Public input was moderate and amicable. There were 13 public comments, 1 e-comment, and 1 correspondence item. They broke down as follows:
- 7 Public commenters were in support of promptly establishing a Main Library at the Great Park;
- 4 Public commenters (myself among them), one “e-commenter”, and one correspondent addressed the theme of including small community branch libraries and/or maintaining University Park Library;
- 1 Public commenter spoke in support of the proposed Orchard Hills Library; and
- 1 Public commenter spoke generally in support of IPL and establishing a poet laureate program.
Great Park Main Library Feedback
Per the Feasibility Report and staff report to Council, there are two “Main Libraries” being considered at this time, one at the Irvine Civic Center and another in the Great Park. Proponents of the Great Park Main Library spoke of a coalition spanning the city in support of accelerating such an undertaking. Among other points, speakers noted:
- Plans for such a library are already included in the Great Park plans;
- Widespread public support for such a facility;
- A “Friends of the Great Park Library” group is already forming; and
- Opportunities for fundraising directly from the community or developers.
They also emphasized a wish for expedience. The spirit of these comments was summarized by remarks from Raj Bhatia, Vice Chair of the Planning Commission, speaking in his capacity as a Great Park resident. As he put it:
“Importantly, we can accelerate this project without compromising the existing framework plan and pursuing creative funding solutions as well. We should invite key stakeholders such as Fivepoint Ventures to collaborate in the build out whether through naming rights, joint use opportunities, public or private partnerships, or development concessions. This approach would align public benefit with private innovation, ensuring the main library would be a reality sooner than later and without diverting resources from other planned amenities. A main library at the Great Park would be a generational investment; one that unites the city, supports our students, and strengthens our community fabric.”
Of note, on the Consent Calendar for the October 28, 2025 Council Meeting, Item 3.4 called on council to “ADOPT A RESOLUTION TO FORMALLY INCORPORATE AND EXPEDITIOUSLY BUILD A CENTRAL OR MAIN LIBRARY BRANCH IN THE NORTHERN SECTOR OF THE GREAT PARK FRAMEWORK PLAN AND EXPLORE FUNDING OPTIONS OUTSIDE OF THOSE ALREADY ALLOCATED IN PHASE I”. This motion passed unanimously.
Small Branch Library Feedback
The second thread centered on concerns that the Feasibility Study did not include an evaluation of branch libraries that are less than 20,000 square feet or the merits and drawbacks of leased spaces. Taken together, this group of speakers expressed support for a variety of branches across the city making specific mention of University Park Library. Much of this thinking was summarized by University Park patron, Lee Handy who said, in part:
“It seems reasonable that before discarding ideas such as having some smaller branch libraries, or leasing space for libraries, we would want to know the factual and mathematical analysis leading to the conclusion that these ideas don’t make sense for our city. We have unserved communities in Irvine that need libraries immediately. If we only plan for new construction of large-sized libraries, it will be years before we can get them funded and built.”
Response From the Dias
The “Library System Update” was a receive and file matter, nevertheless, Mayor Agran and Councilmember Tresader offered the following comments:
Mayor Agran: “Personally, I’m interested in a couple things. One, possibilities of leasing space in the shorter term to provide immediate relief from what is already a badly overcrowded situation, notwithstanding the improvements that we’ve made over the summer and the like. The second thing is, obviously it’s a financing matter. […] One of the things I hope you will be reaching out on, with the passion that people have for the expanded, improved library systems, you might want to ask a question of whether people are comfortable with the idea of a library bond issue […] are they willing to consider a bond issue or other publicly approved mechanisms for additional funding that would be required to expand and improve the system on an expedited basis?”
Councilmember Treseder: “I appreciate the Great Park residents coming to advocate for building the main library and the Great Park. I think really carefully about what the Great Park residents would like because it is their funds, its neighbourhood. I think regardless of whether we get private funds right away for a main library, I would support in the future a vote, hopefully have a vote in the near future, to invest in designing the main library so that we could be making some first steps toward that, and give y’all a bit of time to compile a bit of private funding and so I’m willing to take that first step.”
Next Steps
Staff plans to return with another report in approximately three months. Per Mayor Agran this is estimated to be sometime in January and no later than the end of the first quarter.
Subscribe to the IPL’s newsletter to be contacted with opportunities to participate in the IPL planning process.
You can also complete the IPL future planning survey between now and November 16, 2025.
To share your thoughts with City Council, email your representative directly (for emails, scroll to the bottom of this page) (https://cityofirvine.org/city-council-staff). You can also email them all at once using [email protected].
As always, you can submit eComments or speak at Council, click here for how-to.
To bypass the forms and character limits associated with eComments, you can also email your comments directly to [email protected] and your comments will be included in the public record.
