We writers seek a metaphor, a simile or verbal illustration to summarize a complex issue in a few words.
The controversy over a proposed new village in Irvine provides one: Trojan Horse.
The reference is not to the magnificent white stallion at USC football games, but from Greek mythology, meaning an offer that appears to be a gift, while in reality it conceals danger.
Trojan Horse was one of the milder descriptives hurled by opponents of an Irvine Company plan presented to the Irvine City Council on April 14. “Bait and switch,” “blackmail” and worse now grace the public record. However, others testifying praised the company’s planning expertise and community outreach efforts.
The unrest began in summer of 2025, when the Irvine Company proposed to close and develop the Oak Creek Golf Course. A Christmas tree of benefits including a school site and cash outlays were among the ornaments included in that plan. Missing was any reference to the fact the golf course is listed as permanent open space on a plan approved by Irvine voters in 1988. In that agreement, the Irvine Company gave up parcels of open land to be preserved in return for increased development on other parcels in the city.
Conceived and supported in 1988 by now Mayor Larry Agran, what became known as the Irvine Open Space Agreement has been touted by Agran and others in intervening decades as a sacred guarantee that land set aside for open space could never be developed without a public vote.
Faced with an outpouring of opposition, as well as conflicting legal opinions about the requirement for an election, the council kicked the can into 2026. The Irvine Company, likely surprised by the well-organized opposition (which included two former mayors, a councilmember and a retired Irvine Company executive), regrouped and unveiled a revised plan for the village with a 50-acre “nature park” at its heart. Thereafter the company sponsored a comprehensive community outreach program, inviting thousands of residents to review and comment on details of the planned open space (full disclosure–I attended one).
After blitzing residents with colorful mailers depicting what might be built within the proposed park, and featuring it in its monthly newspaper, The Irvine Standard, the company asked the city on April 14 to amend the city zoning ordinance “to provide an optional process for the city to consider a public nature park and trail system…as an alternative to the existing Zoning Ordinance that the site be retained …as a public golf course.”
Not included in the request and the city staff report was any description of the development that would occur in the village adjacent to the proposed park, or an election for city residents to consider it.
For opponents of the Oak Creek village, it was deja vu all over again. Dozens of them descended on the council to rail against the proposal, denounced as a thinly-veiled attempt to stack the deck in favor of development when a plan for the entire village–homes, commercial properties and the park–is submitted for final consideration in the future.
Their concern wasn’t hard to understand, as the language of the zone change laid out a process “as an alternative…to establish provisions allowing open space requirements…to be satisfied through a combination of land dedication and equivalent improvements with a total value equivalent to 162 acres, including dedication of a minimum 50-acre park, recreational improvements (and bridges).” The zone change process language then notes as part of the overall open space dedication “require dedication to the City of Irvine of 312 acres of open space in…Orchard Hills and Portola Springs…”
In other words, when the proposed village comes up for approval, the city could accept open spaces now in citrus and avocado orchards miles from Oak Creek to make up for some of the loss of the 191-acre golf course.
Also in the staff report was an appraisal of the golf course, valued as open space ($3.6 million) and if continued to be operated as a golf course ($42 million). Not valued was what the property would be worth if sold for development; based on recent land sales in Irvine of $6 to $7 million an acre, for 162 acres, in the range of $1 billion. (The price for the golf course land could be lower to account for the cost of removing landscaping and re-grading the property, but it would still be well over $900 million).
Three members of the council chose to comment, with Councilman James Mai pressing the city attorney to confirm that taking action on the matter did not mean the project was being approved in any fashion. Mayor Agran promised that “I will do everything I can to see that we have a proper vote on whatever is decided.”
The last word went to former Irvine Company vice president Michael LeBlanc, who has made it a moral mission to prove the Oak Creek matter requires a public vote. LeBlanc brings unique perspective and credibility; he was intimately involved in negotiating the 1988 agreement between the city and the Irvine Company.
LeBlanc said the change to the zoning process “conflates” the issues of the open space agreement and park dedication rules. Doing so, he said “will allow the Irvine Company to get credits both for open space and park obligations when (the new development plan) comes forth. They will say we get park credits by the introduction of a favorable formula for the golf course value so as to offset land dedication requirements by virtue of improvements they want to install.” LeBlanc said the city “ought to do a general plan amendment to deal with the whole picture” claiming the zone change language could have far greater impact than just the Oak Creek project.
Notwithstanding LeBlanc’s comments, and those of dozens of others, the council approved the zone change language by a 6-0 vote. Councilman Michael Carroll was absent.
My gripe with the Oak Creek matter is the city’s apparent willingness to accept citrus and avocado orchards in the northern part of the city as valuable open space. It isn’t. Maintaining orchards is expensive, the trees eventually die, and the city’s past record of citrus management is hardly stellar. I also continue to be amazed that some electeds and staff act like the 1988 agreement is an ancient fantasy that can be ignored.
This issue is likely to go into hibernation until after the city council elections in November. Whatever happens thereafter, look for litigation and further controversy to continue.
Michael Stockstill is retired and lives in Irvine. He worked for the Irvine Company 1978-91 and is the co-author of two books on the history of the planning and development of the Irvine Ranch.
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: