Oakley Embraces Delta Themed Park While Removing Ball Fields

At its September 26 meeting, the Oakley City Council agreed to move away from ball fields and go all in on a 55-acre delta themed park.

This was a reversal for the council, who had advocated for a sports complex of four baseball fields, but have since moved forwards recreational options to better utilize the delta from a boat launch, fishing, trails and water access.

The move comes as Oakley saw a split vote after a community meeting with the public which saw 70 votes for “alternative 1” and 72 votes for “alternative 2” – see plans below. The debate had always been ball fields versus other activities.

During the work session, staff and its consultant provided an overview of the two previous plans, while offering a third concept draft plan–which removed the fields completely. The work session sought to further nail down a concept design for the future 55-acre park. The park is located on the delta waterfront at the north end of Sellers Avenue within the City of Oakley and has been in the works since 2002. The estimated costs are between $50 million to $60 million by the time the park is fully built out–the city will be depending on being awarded grants to fund the project.

The first concept drawings were released at a special work session on July 19, 2023.

During the presentation, Brian Fletcher of Callander Associates, highlighted the ball fields and the comment they kept hearing was if the city was not going to create a complex (4-fields) then Oakley should not utilize ball fields at all at the park—which he called surprising.

He further explained that through the ball field discussion, they learned of the Dal Porto Ranch Park design which includes 3-baseball fields and a separate soccer field (could be separated into 4-soccer fields) which would take the pressure of having the fields at the regional park. He also shared Oakley has 16 ball fields on city properties (baseball or softball).

“We look at how this compared to Antioch, Brentwood and Oakley has more fields per resident than those two communities,” said Brian Fletcher. “Oakley has 1 field for every 2,700 residents. Antioch has 1 field for every 5,700. Brentwood is 1 field for every 6,400 residents.”

He provided an Option 3 which removed ball fields completely which took the pressure of doing too much in a 55-acre space and gave Oakley the ability to go with more nature themed planning—such as multi-purpose trails, pump bike track, a skate park, disc golf course, open space for camping.

A new option, Option 3, was presented to the Oakley City Council which eliminated plans for ballfields.

He provided an Option 3 which removed ball fields completely.

Fletcher shared that this new proposal would open Oakley up to new grant funding where the other two plans were limited—such as boat launch facilities, trail and open space grants—which would allow Oakley to get funding sooner and get people using the facilities.

Vice Mayor Anissa Williams stated she was all in on ball fields in the beginning but now likes the third option by taking out the ball fields because down the street they will have better options.

“If I am going camping, I want some alternatives for kids such as a pump track or skate boarding,” said Williams who encouraged more day use options for families if anglers are out fishing.

Fletcher said without the ballfields, it opens up a lot of space because they don’t need as much parking—it opens it up for a pump track, disc golf, hiking and walking trails with access including fishing off the shoreline.

Mayor Aaron Meadows stated “less is more” and didn’t want the park loaded up with a bunch of stuff just to fill it.

“I do lean towards alternative 3,” said Meadows.

Councilmember Hugh Henderson agreed with alternative 3 which he called in the right direction.

“We have opportunities and other parks that take care of other things. This is our one piece of property that allows us to showcase our delta. Our one access to the water and making that the priority in this is very important,” stated Henderson.

Meadows confirmed that the Corp yard area would be a new area, not moving the entire city operation to that space. He expressed concern that the city was growing and in the future they would have to build another one—lets do it once and do it there.

Councilmember Shannon Shaw also agreed in option 3 if they were not going all ball fields then make this a water themed park. Her concerns were over the park and play structure about how “nature” they were getting stating youth still would want a traditional playground structure and not just logs.

Fletcher explained they could do both nature and a play structure with the trails.

Councilmember George Fuller confirmed alternative 3 was simply alternative 2—but without the ball fields. He endorsed the new plan. He also argued about a plan to include a wedding venue noting the city already has multiple wedding venues and if the city was now going to compete with them.

“I am a little hesitant because if we have wedding venues now that are privately owned, I don’t know if we want to go in competition. If we are going to rent it out, we will also charge a fee similar to what the private ones do which includes security, maintenance and that nature,” stated Fuller.

He also liked alternative 3 because it was getting into diversity, equity and inclusion—they are opening up the river to everyone with recreational use to the entire community, opens up other outdoor uses such as trails.

Shaw also stated she liked the idea of a pump tract, but advocated for inclusion of a splash pad to keep with the water theme. She was not sold on the RV parking. She was also not in favor of a full disc golf, and instead use a 9 hole course to fill in the park.

Meadows stated if they lost the ball fields, he would prefer to have a full course.

Fuller asked City Manager Josh McMurray about the number of fields in Oakley if they remove the two fields and what it looks like in the future.

McMurray referenced you are always going to have people who say there are not enough fields but if you look at the per capita the city was doing a good job and it was a decision that council needed to weight.

“This is really our only access to the water in terms of a city owned property,” said McMurray. “Although we have room for fields, we also have other fields coming online… in my assessment we have a fair enough of field space, but that is a subjective statement because others may feel like we don’t.”

The council confirmed they supported the direction of concept 3 which staff will continue to work on that plan which will come back to the council at a later date for review.

Online survey regarding its Oakley Regional Park.

Results show that participates are essentially split with 70 votes for Alternative 1 vs. 72 votes for Alternative 2. The big debate continues to be sports fields (baseball or soccer) versus recreational options–such as fishing, boating and water access. This is only a work session, so no final decisions will be made Tuesday, however, the council is still looking for feedback from the community.

Here is a look at the results:

Community Meeting #2 Survey Data Summary
Oakley Regional Park Master Plan

Number of Attendees who were at Outreach Meeting #1