Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks And Recreation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ontario council reviews options to rebuild Littleton Field, staff proposes baseball‑themed water feature
Summary
City staff presented four rebuilding options for the historic Littleton Field after a fire — from full grandstand reconstruction to a multipurpose field and a staff‑favored baseball‑themed water feature — and asked the council to endorse a concept and direct next steps; council members called for more public outreach before final direction.
The Ontario City Council heard a staff presentation on options to replace the historic Littleton Field grandstand damaged by fire and asked for further public input before choosing a path forward.
City Manager presented four alternatives and preliminary cost estimates, saying the most elaborate option — rebuilding a 3,500‑seat grandstand to modern construction standards — would place restoration costs “in the neighborhood of $28,000,000,” not including parking. He added that adding a parking structure to accommodate that size could push the total project cost “over a $100,000,000.” A lower‑cost multipurpose approach using surface (artificial turf) athletic fields was estimated at about $20–23 million, while adding a dedicated community‑center/library annex raised the staff estimate into a $47–51 million range. Staff described a preferred concept centered on a baseball‑themed water feature/splash pad, walking trails and possible small annex space that would honor the park’s history while limiting capital and operating costs.
The presentation framed the alternatives around honoring the site’s history, neighborhood relevance and fiscal stewardship; staff asked the council for direction to develop program budgets and a project‑development timeline and to return to the council with refined cost estimates and design options.
Council members praised J. Littleton’s legacy and the community value of the site but repeatedly urged more neighborhood outreach. One council member said the public had little time to digest four detailed options posted shortly before the meeting and moved to return the item at a future council meeting so residents could review and comment on the alternatives. The council agreed that the community should be invited to compare the options — restoration, multipurpose fields, community center with annex, or the proposed water‑feature concept — before the council provides final direction to staff.
Because staff’s figures were presented as preliminary estimates during the discussion, the specific dollar amounts should be treated as planning‑level numbers subject to change pending design, procurement and insurance settlements. The City Manager asked the council to indicate whether they endorse staff’s historic theming and the water‑feature direction so staff could develop project budgets and next steps with the Parks and Recreation Commission and return with a final concept.
The council received the report for the record and members agreed to bring the item back with broader public notice and opportunity for neighborhood feedback before any final decision.
