When I moved to Irvine, one of the draws was the Oak Creek Golf Course. I imagined teaching my wife the game and enjoying the greenbelt as part of an active lifestyle. That vision shifted when the Irvine Company proposed replacing the course with the Spectrum Village project — 3,100 homes, landscaped parkways, a community park, a school, affordable housing vouchers, and 315 acres of new public open space.
So it may surprise some to hear that while I would prefer the golf course to remain, the facts tell a different story than the slogans dominating Irvine’s current debate over land use and open space preservation.
What Resolution 88-1 Actually Protects
A ballot initiative passed in 1988, called Resolution 88-1, took stock of all the potential open space land in Irvine and established two programs that work together to bring private land into public ownership in order to protect it. The protection it provides is that in order to change the use of publicly owned land dedicated as open space it requires a ballot initiative. The two programs are:
- Phased Dedication Program – process transfers ownership to the City.
- Compensating Development Opportunity Program – exchanges development rights elsewhere for ownership of open space.
A group called “Save Irvine Open Space” (SIOS) has claimed the golf course is “protected open space” under Resolution 88-1. They claim that the simple inclusion on the map of potential open space land of the Oak Creek parcel — a golf course since 1996 — protects the land from development.
The first paragraph of Resolution 88-1 rejects that claim with the phrase “the City of Irvine and, with the cooperation of the major landowner, to achieve public ownership of significant portions of that open space,” making clear that not all designated open space would be acquired. To date, significant portions — totaling 5,250 acres — have indeed achieved public ownership.
However, the problem is that the Oak Creek Golf Course has always been privately owned by the Irvine Company. It has never entered either program, never been transferred to the public, and its “Preservation” General Plan designation (blue area) is not legally binding — it can be changed by a City Council vote.
Put simply: the golf course is not legally protected open space, and it never was.
Why We’re Talking About Ballot Measures
The reason we are discussing ballot measures at all is because SIOS refused to accept that Resolution 88-1 doesn’t protect the golf course. They demanded that the matter go to a public vote. The City Council asked staff to review and propose a potential ballot initiative. During that process, the City staff discovered that thousands of acres of actual public open space — including community parks — lacked voter-approval protections.
The logical step was to draft a measure to protect that land and reaffirm Resolutions 88-1’s process. But SIOS rejected it outright, because it didn’t prevent the housing development proposed by the Irvine Company. Instead, they escalated their campaign against the company, disregarding its decades of cooperative planning with the City and successful land donations through Resolution 88-1.
This made their true priority clear: stopping housing on the golf course, not protecting open space citywide.
Save Irvine Open Space: Built on Misinformation
The Save Irvine Open Space (SIOS) name itself is misleading — this is a golf course, not public open space. The group’s campaign rests on a series of misrepresentations:
- Claim: 88-1 protects the golf course.
Fact: False — it only protects land formally transferred to the City. - Claim: The “Preservation” zoning protects it.
Fact: False — zoning can be amended by City Council. - Claim: The course’s water hazards are “lakes.”
Fact: False — these are man-made features designed for a golf course. - Claim: The golf course is a “wildlife refuge.”
Fact: Oak Creeks Audubon membership does not make it a “wildlife refuge”. - Claim: The issue was “voted on twice before.”
Fact: False — relies on the false 88-1 premise that it protected open space. - Claim: A “loophole” could open 16,000 acres of open space to development.
Fact: False — the law as written has secured 5,250 acres of permanently protected, publicly owned open space. Irvine’s total open space inventory — protected and unprotected — is roughly 16,000 acres.
When confronted with facts, SIOS pivots — from “protected” under Resolution 88-1, to “misled public,” to “missing easement in 1996” (irrelevant, as public ownership is still required). And a pivot doesn’t mean they won’t circle back to prior claims already disproved.
They use fear to rally turnout — most recently with their “loophole” claim that 16,000 acres of open space are under threat. This fear-mongering packs City Council meetings, after which they claim to represent a majority. Disagree, and you’re branded a “paid operative,” as leader Christina Shea did in a comment on an opinion piece. They have even threatened political retribution and demanded the City Attorney’s removal for explaining the law — all matters of public record.
This is not a preservation group — it’s an anti-growth coalition cloaked in green language willing to say anything to get what they want.
Some, like columnist Michael Stockstill, repeat the claim that Oak Creek Golf Course was “designated in 1988 by a vote of the people as permanent open space.” That is simply not accurate. Resolution 88-1 identified land that could be acquired with the cooperation of the landowner through two specific programs — the Phased Dedication Program and the Compensating Development Opportunity Program. Oak Creek has never entered either program, never been transferred to public ownership, and no “permanent open space” designation was ever recorded for it in the City’s inventory.
In a recent opinion article, Stockstill’s suggested ballot language — “Shall the Oak Creek Golf Course, designated in the 1988 Irvine Open Space Initiative as permanent open space…” — would embed this false premise directly into the ballot itself, misleading voters before they even read the arguments for or against. As the City Attorney’s August 5, 2025 report makes clear, the Preservation zoning is a planning designation, not a legal protection, and it can be amended by City Council.
This isn’t just a difference of opinion — it’s a question of whether the debate is grounded in the documented legal framework of Resolution 88-1, or in a narrative built on a misreading of history.
According to the August 5, 2025 staff report, Council is weighing five possible measures:
- Voter Protection + Oak Creek Exception – Protects 2,075 acres of city-owned open space. Allows rezoning of Oak Creek if 315 acres of new open space is deeded to the public after full review.
- Voter Protection Only – Same as #1 but removes the Oak Creek exception — retroactively restricting private property never in the public system.
- Oak Creek Exception Only – Allows rezoning of Oak Creek only if the 315-acre trade is completed.
- Developer-Initiated Rezoning – Reclassifies Oak Creek for housing with no open space trade or protections).
- SIOS Initiative – Nearly identical to #4, but potentially delayed by reforms to CEQA (environmental studies). Filed by the same group claiming the land is already protected.
A 2025 special election would cost $1.8–$1.95 million, plus staff time, outreach, and potential litigation.
The City Council already has the legal authority under Resolution 88-1 to negotiate a public benefit without a ballot measure. If they want to protect all publicly owned parks and open space, Ballot Measure 1 is the way to do it.
- No vote on development: Golf course most likely closes; unprotected parcels may see a 5,000-unit plan with no open space trade. This, now alternate plan, was in development prior to the Spectrum Village proposal.
- Yes vote on development (Measures 1, 3, or 2+3): Potential 315 acres of new public open space, a school site, and a master-planned neighborhood with 3100 new residences — if the proposal passes full review.
Upholding the Law, Not the Loudest Voice
Resolution 88-1 is still a sound legal tool with a public history of success. Ballot Measure 1 strengthens it, adding voter protection for all city-owned open space while delivering new public land through the existing programs.
Preserving open space matters — so does preserving public trust, legal clarity, and civil discourse based on facts. Irvine can have all three, but only if voters and Council reject misinformation and pressure politics, and follow the law. I stand to lose a dream of playing golf with my wife across the street, but have gained an accurate understanding of an even bigger issue before us all.
It is my hope that we can protect the fabric of society — cooperative, collaborative discussions based on facts. We won’t necessarily always agree, but our friends and neighbors remain well-intended, good people.
Crit Van Tuyl is a community advocate, pre-law, double-major student in Political Science and Communication at CSULB, founder of the Irvine Dog Parks Association, and a legal researcher focused on land use and policy history in Irvine. His published work includes analyses of Resolution 88-1 and related development policy issues in Irvine Watchdog.
Opinions expressed in community opinion pieces belong to the authors and not Voice of OC.
Voice of OC is interested in hearing different perspectives and voices. If you want to weigh in on this issue or others please email opinions@voiceofoc.org.
For a different view on this issue, consider: