Opinion: The Proposed Oak Creek Golf Course Development: Be Careful What You Wish For
In Greek mythology there’s the story of the wealthy ruler, King Midas, who wished for the power to turn everything he touched into gold. Dionysus, the god of wine-making, grants him that wish. But Midas realizes the curse when his food, drink and daughter turn into solid gold, demonstrating the consequences of ill-considered desires – i.e., the proverb, “be careful what you wish for”.
The Oak Creek Golf Course property is currently identified as a “Preservation Area” pursuant to the City initiative Resolution 88-1, which was approved by the Irvine voters in 1988. However, the Irvine Company (TIC) recently proposed an open space nature park and completion of the Jeffrey Open Space Trail (JOST) on roughly a third of the golf course. They also proposed, among other community benefits, building a new K-6 or K-8 school at no cost to the Irvine Unified School District. All this in exchange for developing a new Oak Park residential village consisting of 2,400 to 3,100 housing units.
Those who wish to keep the Oak Creek golf course as a “Preservation Area” and deny the proposed TIC development should take the following into consideration:
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Irvine Watchdog.
State Housing Mandates Has Changed the “Landscape” In Irvine
In the past several years, the state legislature has passed housing mandate programs to address the housing crisis in California and reverse the shortage by compelling cities throughout the state to rezone certain areas for residential development. Cities that refuse to comply risk state fines, and even loss of local zoning control. To comply, the City of Irvine adopted a Comprehensive General Plan Update in August 2024 to facilitate required new housing in primarily three “Focus Areas” of the City:- Focus Area 1: Greater IBC (Irvine Business Complex) along Red Hill, Von Karman and Jamboree extending north and south of the 405 freeway
- Focus Area 2: Spectrum area that encompasses areas surrounding the Irvine Spectrum Center
- Focus Area 3: Great Park area
The Irvine Company Has the Right to Build 5,000 Units Next to the Oak Creek Golf Course
Focus Area 2 includes approved residential overlay zones that are next to the Oak Creek golf course. TIC owns 71 acres within those overlay zones, which gives TIC the legal right to build 5,000 housing units on those properties. See figure 1 below.
Figure 1: TIC Properties with Approved Overlay Zones for 5,000 Housing Units (Circled)
The Irvine Company’s Proposed Development vs 5,000 Units in the Overlay Zones: What’s the Difference?
Option A: TIC’s proposed development. TIC’s recent proposed development consists of:- A public nature park and trail on about a third of the golf course which will complete the JOST trail that begins just past Portola Parkway in the north, down to Quail Hill in the south.
- A new K-6 or K-8 school at no cost to IUSD, which will reduce overcrowding at nearby schools in Woodbridge, Cypress Village and other areas.
- Potential negotiated community benefits and money for expanding Irvine Connect transit, affordable housing, or other high demand City amenity.
- A new Oak Park residential village consisting of 2,400 to 3,100 housing units.
- A denser development of 5,000 housing units – apartments, for-sale condos or homes, or both.
- A public nature park and completion of the JOST trail.
- A new K-6 or K-8 school – which means nearby, existing IUSD schools will see an influx of new students from the development, overcrowding classes and school campuses.
- NO possible negotiations for additional community benefits and money, such as expanding Irvine Connect.
Huntington Beach Spent Millions and Lost in Trying to Disregard the Housing Mandates
Cities have unsuccessfully tried to ignore the state housing mandate with a resounding thud. Recently, the city of Huntington Beach, spending years and millions in legal costs, lost their case at every level within the state court system, including the California Supreme Court which refused to hear their case this past December. Irvine will see similar unsuccessful – and extremely expensive – legal efforts should it try to deny TIC’s right to pursue the alternative option to build 5,000 units on the approved overlay zones next to the golf course. This must be avoided given the City’s less than ideal financial situation.The Irvine Company Owns the Golf Course and Can Do What It Wants – While Still Obeying the Current Zoning
TIC is the owner of the golf course property and has already closed the golf course restaurant. And as the owner, TIC cannot be forced by the City to continue running the golf course and driving range, if it does not want to. The Oak Creek golf course is not a public “open space” like Bommer Canyon which is city-owned. Only golfers, who want to pay up to $230 to play golf there, can enter and walk on the property. The golf course property is currently zoned as 1.4 Preservation in which the zoning ordinance requires TIC to “maintain land in a natural, undeveloped state”. TIC can abide by the 1.4 zoning, while simultaneously fencing off the property from the public. TIC can also shut down the golf course while it bides its time for a future opportunity to negotiate a development deal.A Word About Traffic in Irvine
Irvine has tripled in size and is now a main employment hub for those who live in Southern California. However, due to the lack of affordable housing in and near Irvine, according to a UC Irvine study, the majority of those who work in Irvine – 56 percent – do not live here. This means every weekday, about 90,000 come into Irvine for their work. That represents about 90,000 additional cars that clog up our streets, twice-a-day, as they drive into Irvine to work and leave to return home. (Note that the 2022 UCI study is already out-of-date, as it does not include the thousands of new workers who drive into Irvine at the city’s new medical centers: UCI Health, City of Hope, Hoag Health Center, and the soon-to-be-opened, $500 million expansion of Hoag Hospital Irvine.) Those who complain that the proposed TIC residential development will increase traffic have not considered that the TIC development can reduce overall traffic in which some of those +90,000 workers may finally be able to live in Irvine, near their work.Conclusion
Demanding that the Oak Creek Golf Course remain a “Preservation Area” per Resolution 88-1, and rejecting TIC’s proposed, lower-density development that will include a nature park, completion of the JOST trail, a free K-6 or K-8 school, and other potential community benefits, means that Irvine residents will see a different – and worse – outcome. And that is a denser development of 5,000 units on the overlay zones that are next to the golf course. This alternative plan will NOT include any amenities such as a nature park, completion of the JOST trail, a new K-6 or K-8 school, nor any additional, negotiated community benefits and money. Those who wish to keep the Oak Creek golf course as a “Preservation Area” and deny the proposed TIC development should take all of this into consideration before deciding on which is a better solution for our City. Remember King Midas when it comes to the Oak Creek golf course. As King Midas discovered, getting what you wish for sometimes produces an undesired outcome.Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Irvine Watchdog.
Continue Following the Oak Creek Debate
Explore Irvine Watchdog’s continuing coverage of the Oak Creek Golf Course closing, the Oak Park development proposal, and the proposed Nature Park.
11 Comments
derek
March 18, 2026 at 7:35 amAccording to the written language of the zoning ordinance, the driving range is NOT included in Focus Area 2. Focus area 2 is defined in IZO section 5-9-3.B which can be seen here:
https://library.municode.com/ca/irvine/codes/zoning?nodeId=ZOOR_DIV5OVDI_CH5-9REREMIEOVDIRR_S5-9-3REPLDI
The language defining the Greater Spectrum Area RRMU Overlay District (aka Focus Area 2) states that it includes the “Spectrum 7 portion of Planning Area 12 (Oakcreek)”. A map of the Spectrum 7 Traffic Study Area can be seen in Exhibit F of IZO section 9-12-7. Here is a direct link to Exhibit F:
https://mcclibrary.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/codecontent/13239/463040/9-12-7_13.png
And here is a link to 9-12-7 if you would like to read the accompanying language:
https://library.municode.com/ca/irvine/codes/zoning?nodeId=ZOOR_DIV9PLAR_CH9-12PLAR12OACR_S9-12-7SPDERE
The driving range is clearly NOT included in Spectrum 7 and is therefore not included in Focus Area 2. Hence, TIC’s claim of entitlement to build 5000 units on the driving range is false and directly contradicts the statutory language.
This was brought to the City’s attention last year in a letter sent by attorneys representing Orange Tree Master Homeowners Association and Save Irvine Open Space. See page 5 of their letter:
https://irvine.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=&event_id=2674&meta_id=169411
This “scrivener’s error” was also brought up in numerous emails, letters and speeches to the City Council. Here is an example of one such speech:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ngdVyegsVg
Sadly, the City is refusing to fix this and continues to pump out maps, diagrams, presentations, etc that align with TIC’s marketing materials. At this point I think it’s more accurate to call this a “scrivener’s conspiracy” rather than an “error”.
Enabled by the City, TIC has continued to push their “gun to the head” message of fear and intimidation. They threaten to build a 5000-unit colossus of apartments on the driving range if they are not allowed to destroy the golf course. This message continues to metastasize and get amplified in social media and other vectors such as the Irvine Watchdog website.
haakonsn
March 18, 2026 at 4:18 pmAm I allowed in the golf course to bike on the paths with my kids as I would in a public park without a membership?
irvine-oldtimer
March 20, 2026 at 1:48 pmDon’t believe so — it’s priviate property (owned by the Irvine co) and usually those paths on a golf course are reserved for the golf carts. Anyone just walking around on the course or riding their bikes would be shoo’ed away by the golf course people.
mason.buck
March 18, 2026 at 9:48 amI can barely afford to rent in this city, definitely cannot afford to buy in this city, and as usual it’s those who already have theirs trying to pull up the ladder behind them. What part of a golf course full of non native turf grasses is “preserving the natural state of the land”?
derek
March 18, 2026 at 11:08 amHey Mason, the proposal by The Irvine Company to build 3100 luxury homes on the golf course does not include construction of even a single unit of affordable housing. Zero. Nada. Zilch.
You will not be helped at all by the multimillion dollar luxury homes that will be constructed there. If this displeases you then by all means communicate that to the City Council and/or vote accordingly.
mickscommentbar
March 18, 2026 at 1:01 pmHey Derek, review some academic literature on housing before being so confidently wrong. Building new housing OF ANY KIND helps affordability through a process called Moving Chains. It is a well studied phenomenon (you just ask new homeowners where they lived previously, go to that house and ask them where they lived previously…). New housing even at the top end of market has an effect in the “affordable” market.
That being said, the more housing the better, and IVC’s 5,000 apartment alternative is like threatening me with a good time.
derek
March 24, 2026 at 6:30 amah yes, the “trickle down” theory of housing propounded by several developer-funded studies: build for the fabulously wealthy and then some leftovers and table scraps will fall down to the less fortunate. This ingenious false narrative ranks up there with the “smoking is good” marketing campaigns from the 1950’s.
The fundamental problem is that developers can spend billions of dollars pushing these fake messages. Alternative viewpoints get swept away and lost in the tsunami of disinformation.
Jeremy Ficarola
March 24, 2026 at 6:42 amI’m sorry, supply and demand in a free market is “propaganda”? Don’t tell Adam Smith!
irvine-oldtimer
March 20, 2026 at 1:53 pmI watched online last night’s planning commission meeting and listened to the commenters, both in favor of the Irvine Co’s proposed nature park and trail on part of the golf course and those who were against it.
And after reading the above “be careful what you wish for” article, here are some thoughts – apologies that it’s so lengthy!
The golf course is privately owned by the Irvine co. Many commenters want to convert the entire golf course into a large nature park and a trail that’ll complete the Jeffrey open space trail, which sounds nice but no one explained how this’ll happen.
The land is privately owned and the owner, the Irvine co can do what it wants with it, even if the preservation zoning remains. They don’t have to make it accessible to the public (like the article said, they can continue to block access except for the golfers paying +$200 to play). They don’t have to sell it to the city (and Irvine is facing a shrinking budget and doesn’t have millions stashed in a secret account to buy it anyways). And they don’t have to keep running it as a golf course in which they already shut down the club house restaurant.
And no one addressed the elephant in the room which is the Irvine co has the right to build around 5000 homes/apts/etc. right next to the golf course because of the approved overlay zones that’s linked in the article. Even if someone provides proof that there was a “scribner’s error” and the driving range is excluded, that’s still a good chunk of remaining land that can be built with homes and apartments.
Someone commented that this is “extortion” – maybe so, but the Irvine co has the legal right because it’s already granted through the overlay zones. (It’s funny hearing many say how “corrupt” the Irvine co is, but no one mentioned that they help keep IUSD afloat with their $2 million donation each year to keep the art, music and science programs going at our schools.)
Some commenters suggested that new housing should be developed elsewhere in Irvine, and I partly agree. But the city can’t just tell the Irvine co “don’t build here – go build homes elsewhere”. The Irvine co owns much of the land in those overlay zones next to the golf course, in which they have the legal right to build there. (But my guess is the Irvine co doesn’t really want to build there and they probably prefer to build a smaller development as part of their proposed park, trail and free school.)
Reading about Huntington Bch which tried to ignore the state housing mandates, and wasted millions of dollars in legal costs, I don’t want to see Irvine try a similar fight with those overlay zones because Irvine doesn’t have the money and they will lose.
The other part of the “elephant” that no one addressed is what’ll happen when those 5,000 or so homes get built? Where will the students go to school in Irvine? No free school will be part of the deal. If you type in “IUSD schools near Oak Creek golf course” on Google maps, you can guess where IUSD will send these students which is in Woodbridge, Cypress Village and Oak Creek, and the way to increase capacity at an existing school is to add more portable classrooms which no one wants to see.
The article mentioned the Irvine co is offering the park, trail, free K6/8 school and other possible items in this “deal” in exchange for building a smaller number of homes of 2400-3100. (And watching the planning commission meeting, the city will also get to own another ~340 acres of public open space in Orchard Hills.)
Many of the commenters in favor said how this proposed nature park & trail in the heart of Irvine is a once-in-a-century opportunity and I agree. We would be foolish not to continue working and negotiating with the Irvine co on this deal, including a smaller Oak Park village development.
If you ask the city staff about the 2024 general plan update that’s mentioned in the article, it’s projected that Irvine will grow by about another 40% in the next +20 years. Irvine will continue to grow, and more housing will be developed throughout Irvine, like it or not. The article mentions +90,000 workers drive into Irvine everyday, which adds to our traffic. And that number WILL increase and make our traffic even worse unless we build more housing for those workers, including affordable housing.
edmondsmeyerson
March 20, 2026 at 8:01 pmYour comment shows the difference between being emotional about a subject and actually using your brain instead of your emotions. I totally agree with everything you said and actually think that if the city negotiates from a strong position they can get more for the city in the long run. By the way this is the only open space in the city that the city does not own.
irvine-oldtimer
March 22, 2026 at 3:34 pmA few more thoughts –
The opinion piece on the Watchdog website, “A ‘Nature Park’ — Or a Portion of It — Under Power Lines?” is misinformation, and IMO, a scare tactic. Watching Thursday night’s Planning commission meeting, it was confirmed that the land under the power lines is owned by SoCal Edison (not the Irvine Co) and it will NOT be part of the proposed nature park and connection of the Jeffrey open space trail. And Manassero Farms already uses that land under the power lines.
Some are viewing this as a choice between having all of the Oak Creek golf course remain zoned as “preservation”, OR convert 50 acres of the golf course into a nature park and trail along with 3100 housing units. That is incomplete. As the above article said, the two choices are:
A) Keep the golf course zoned as “preservation”. Since it’s owned by the Irvine co, they shut it down and fence it off or keep it open only to golfers who pay +$200 to play there. But it won’t be public “open space”. (The Irvine co will never just “open up” the golf course land as-is to the public due to liability issues – it would require a lot of money (but whose money?) to build paved walkways, trails, lighting, signage and other public safety features.)
The Irvine co can then redevelop the land in the overlay zones next to the golf course for up to 5,000 housing units. But there will be NO free K6/K8 school to prevent overcrowding schools in Woodbridge, Oak Creek and Cypress Village. And NO negotiated benefits & monies to expand Irvine Connect and other possibilities.
Or B) Have Irvine co build a 50 acre nature park and trail on part of the golf course (which will be 20% larger than Bill Barber park) and give it to the city as a public open space — PLUS Irvine Co will build a K6/K8 school for IUSD, AND they will gift another 340 acres of public open space to the city, AND other negotiated benefits and monies to the city like expanding Irvine Connect.
Others suggested that the city negotiate a “land swap” deal with the Irvine Co for the Oak Creek golf course, like they did with Bommer Canyon in which the Irvine Co gifted Bommer Canyon (and other open space lands) to the city in exchange for development rights on lands they owned in other areas.
But, there’s NO remaining Irvine Co-owned land that the city can rezone for housing which could be part of a “land swap” deal for the golf course. If you look at the zoning map in the above article, the only land left to develop is mostly in the Great Park and IBC – BUT Irvine Co doesn’t own any of this land. Also, the Irvine Co already has the legal right to build 5,000 housing units next to the golf course – they don’t need to negotiate any “land swap” deal to build there. And, they don’t have to include a free school or any other benefits or monies.
Finally, someone said the Irvine Co should sell the golf course land to the city at a defined rate of $232,000 per acre (based on the current Preservation zoning). But multiply that by 190 acres and that’s a selling price of $44 million! Based on expected trimming to the city budget next fiscal year, certainly not Irvine. Also, regardless of Resolution 88-1, the city cannot “force” the Irvine Co to sell the golf course. And I bet that the Irvine Co views the selling price to be much more than $44 million.
Many of the commenters at the Planning commission meeting urged the city and council to continue negotiating with the Irvine Co for this once-in-a-century opportunity for a beautifully designed park and open space trail to be built by the Irvine Co, a free school, and other benefits and monies, in exchange for a lower density development of 2400-3100, versus 5,000 on the land next to the golf course that will come with NO city and school amenities. And I agree.
Comments are closed.