Opinion: Oak Creek Golf Course Isn’t Public—But We Can Protect What Is
The Irvine Company proposed a new planning area and a new development that will replace the Oak Creek golf course. For those of us who live near Oak Creek Golf Course, the emotional pull is strong. I chose my home in large part for the access to the course. I love golf and want to play it with my wife. So I understand why many want to “save the golf course.”
But here’s the truth: Oak Creek golf course is not public land. It was never transferred to the public. No matter how many old maps label it “Preservation,” it was never subject to the phased process, and transfer of ownership required by Irvine’s 1988 open space initiative, known as Resolution 88‑1. The Irvine Company still owns it—and they have the legal right to develop it.
That’s hard to hear. But it also means we’re focused on the wrong threat.
The Real Vulnerability
What most Irvine residents don’t realize is that many of our public parks and open spaces aren’t legally protected either.
They may be publicly owned. They may be operated as parks. But if they’re zoned for residential or commercial use—and many are—they could one day be sold or repurposed by a City Council majority without any vote of the people.
Think about that for a moment.
The Portola Springs Community Park, Quail Hill Community Park, Turtle Rock Open Space, Gateway Preserve, and Tomato Spring Open Space are all publicly owned open spaces enjoyed by residents—and yet none of them are protected under 88‑1. And they won’t be, unless we act.
The 2025 Ballot Measure
Thankfully, the City is preparing a new open space preservation ballot measure for November 2025 that would:
-
Expand and modernize the inventory of voter-protected open space;
-
Include thousands of acres never covered by 88‑1;
-
Require voter approval before any future development could occur on those lands.
This measure would finally bring the public protections many wrongly assume already exists. This measure will be discussed at the July 22nd Irvine City Council Meeting.
It’s not just about adding new land, of which it does—it’s about also securing what we already have.
A Better Public Conversation
My hope is that our civic energy can shift from symbolic fights—like trying to “protect” private land that was never ours—to something more lasting and meaningful. While some may continue to cast the developer as the villain, the real challenge—and the real opportunity—is for serious community members to focus on what we can do: secure permanent, voter-protected status for the parks and open spaces we already own.
Meanwhile, the proposed Spectrum Village development is entering a 12–18 month public process. This is a valuable chance for residents to participate constructively—to help shape outcomes, raise legitimate concerns, and advocate for community benefits that reflect Irvine’s values. There’s room at the table—but only if we come in good faith.
Let’s rise above the anger and misinformation. Let’s elevate the tone of our public debate to reflect the spirit of the city we love. And let’s seize this rare opportunity to lock in lasting protection for the publicly owned open spaces that truly serve our community—while helping to shape a new part of Irvine’s future.
We owe that to the next generation—and to the legacy that is the City of Irvine.
References
The City of Irvine’s 1988 Public Resolution 88 – 1
Read the document
The City of Irvine’s Public Open Space Protection Strategy
Learn about how Irvine protects publicly owned open space
City of Irvine Open Space Preservation Ballot Measure
Read the details of the upcoming ballot measure to be discussed on July 22nd at the City Council meeting
Irvine Company – community CONNECTION | Community Update on the Irvine Spectrum District
Learn about the proposed new Spectrum Village plan and special features
3 Comments
Talljohn
July 20, 2025 at 11:23 pmOak Park/Oak Creek
This is clearly not about solving some critical housing need. Because building 1,500 multi-million-dollar homes on land that will hold 15,000 to 20,000 apartments is not about solving a critical housing need. It is clearly also not about affordable housing, when no more than 200 housing units would be incorporated into this location at any one time and for only two years. This is just about making the richest real estate developer in the country, Donald Bren, richer. He is 93 years old. He doesn’t need more money. This doesn’t benefit the Irvine community at all. Just Donald Bren.
Also, the trade of 300 acres in the hinterland north of Irvine, basically land that nobody will ever see and nobody will ever use, is not comparable to the open space that Oak Creek is in the middle of the city, the golf course, along with the open space that is the driving range. This land is actually enjoyed by many thousands of Irvine residents each and every week. In comparison, the only real estate trade in history that would be worse than this one is the trade that occurred by the Indians for some shiny beads in exchange for Manhattan Island in 1626. That was absolutely a truly horrible deal. This one is almost as bad. This space which is currently being used as a golf course and driving range doesn’t need to remain a golf course and a driving range, but it should never be paved over for bullshit reasons. This open space in the heart of the city should remain open space as the voters intended in 1988, and as they believed it was permanently codified into law with their vote at that time, as permanent open space.
Crit
July 21, 2025 at 11:33 amHi Talljohn,
I appreciate your cut and paste ability, I can do that too, but let’s separate emotion from fact, and bring some clarity to the conversation:
️ This isn’t 1,500 mansions.
You’re citing high-end hypotheticals, but the actual proposal includes a range of housing—market-rate and affordable—clustered along transit corridors, aligned with Irvine’s General Plan and RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Allocation) obligations. It’s not a luxury land grab. It’s city planning.
General Plan Housing Element (City of Irvine) – Aligns new growth with affordability and sustainability.
Housing Element 2021–2029
Donald Bren isn’t the one voting. We are.
This isn’t about enriching a billionaire—it’s about voter choice. The ballot measure being challenged by opponents doesn’t greenlight development. It simply lets residents decide whether privately owned land should be reclassified—nothing more, nothing less.
Legal letters ≠ legal vetoes. Letters like the one sent on July 17 have no legal standing unless followed by a lawsuit, which hasn’t happened.
Understanding CEQA Legal Tactics – Holland & Knight
Land “you can’t see” isn’t worthless.
Calling donated land in north Irvine “useless” dismisses places like Bommer Canyon and Orchard Hills—critical parts of Irvine’s open space network, used by thousands. This isn’t about visibility. It’s about access, connectivity, and real conservation.
Irvine Open Space Preserve Map – Most protected land is in the foothills, and heavily used.
City of Irvine Open Space Map
No dedication = No protection.
The 1988 Resolution (88-1) didn’t freeze every green area in amber. It created a phased process requiring formal land dedication and city acceptance. That never happened for Oak Creek. So it’s not legally protected, regardless of how people remember it.
Resolution 88-1 (Section 2 and 4): “Lands not accepted or dedicated by Council action remain subject to future planning.”
Resolution 88-1 (PDF)
Irvine Watchdog: What Resolution 88-1 Actually Does
Watchdog Article
️ Let’s talk about “intent.”
Voter intent doesn’t override what voters actually approved. Courts don’t speculate on “what people probably meant”—they interpret what the text says. If no dedication happened, no protection applies. It’s that simple.
⚖️ Ballot interpretation principle – The California Legislative Analyst’s Office affirms that legal effect > voter assumptions.
LAO: Interpreting Initiatives
⚖️ Pala Band v. San Diego (2021) – Cited by opponents, but applies only to land formally dedicated or transferred.
Case Summary – Justia
CEQA ≠ censorship.
The legal letter argues that even placing the issue on the ballot requires CEQA review. But CEQA only applies to projects with a potential physical environmental effect—not public discussions or advisory votes.
CEQA Guidelines – § 15378: Defines “Project” as something with a direct environmental effect. A ballot measure isn’t that.
CEQA §15378 – Casetext
AB 130 / SB 131 (2023–2024) – Passed by the Legislature to streamline housing and stop the misuse of CEQA as a stalling tool.
Gov. Newsom CEQA Reform Press Release
CalMatters: CEQA Reform Summary
In Summary:
You’re right that we shouldn’t “pave over” the truth. But that’s exactly what happens when facts are replaced with nostalgia, legal process is replaced with vibes, and voter choice is replaced with scare tactics.
I respected your engagement with this issue, and my content. I have worked my tail off tracking down and providing you the relevant links to why I believe what I believe and thereby backing up my opinion with established facts. I ask that you do the same. Restating what others tell you is how we get into the weeds. I read massive amounts of information daily and am committed to the truth of the matter, not my feelings or preferences.
I strongly believe that 88 – 1 is a clearly written document and that any misunderstanding of it is on the individual. We don’t change law to what those who misunderstood it say it was, we follow it as written. 88 – 1 states that it is a program and that it uses a phased process with the landowners agreement to transfer into the publics ownership land that then becomes protected by requiring any use change from open space to trigger a public vote. That simply did not happen, therefore it is Irvine Company land.
Let’s protect what’s truly at risk, not what was never secured. Let voters speak. And let’s stop calling a private golf course “public open space” just because it’s green and nearby. We can all see that it is the impending growth that is the primary motivator. No previous open space saving actions prior to Oak Creek golf course is a dead giveaway. I know it might be hard to let go of, I love golf and hoped to teach my wife to golf across the street, but it is the truth.
Talljohn
July 22, 2025 at 11:06 amCrit,
A few things:
1) What are you getting paid by the Irvine Company to carry water for them??? Nobody spends this much time writing these diatribes in opinion letters and hundreds of responses in the comments sections without getting paid.
2) You are correct on the land that is the golf course they will not be building mansions, but they will be building multi-million-dollar homes. This is not affordable housing. This is also, as I said, not being done to solve a critical housing need because they are wanting to build low density housing on the golf course. If it was truly about building critical housing, then we would be putting 5 story apartment buildings on the property. This is clearly not about critical housing. This is clearly not about affordable housing.
3) Yes, they are planning on building some apartments (1,600) next to the golf course, but that is land that the Irvine company has that is not on the golf course. They do not need the golf course land to build these apartments. That land is on the business park land next to the freeway. These apartments are also not going to be designated affordable housing. They are proposing to have no more than 200 vouchers for low-income housing at these apartments and those vouchers expire in two years. So, any mention of affordable housing is just complete bullshit.
4) This is about enriching a Billionaire. The Voters already spoke in 1988. Concessions were made back in 1988 with the Irvine Company and the payback for these concessions was putting the lands into a permanent open space designation.
5) Open land in the center of the city of Irvine is certainly more valuable than 300 acres that are next to the 2,104 square miles of open space that are the Santa Ana Mountains. Those 300 acres are effectively inconsequential with where they sit. They aren’t being used by several thousands people each week as the golf course and the driving range are currently being used.
6) All of your parsing of words and attempted legal wrangling to undo something that the voters overwhelming voted for in 1998 to further enrich a Billionaire at the expense of the Irvine community is why we all hate government and billionaires.
7) This golf course is NOT private. It is a public golf course that is privately owned. Stop with the lies.
8) I agree with you that we should protect what’s truly at risk. What we are protecting is open space in the center of the city that if it is paved over would be lost forever. Again, as I said in my comment above, the land does not need to remain a golf course and a driving range in perpetuity. It could be changed into many other types of recreational options, but it can never be paved over and lost forever. The one thing that needs to be protected is open space in the center of where we live. That is what is truly sacred.
9) I will ask again, what are you getting paid by the Irvine Company to carry water for them??? Nobody spends this much time writing these diatribes in opinion letters and hundreds of responses in the comments sections without getting paid. How many pieces of silver are they paying you???
Comments are closed.