Guest Opinion Guest Opinion (January 30, 2004)

Design competition would address new questions about Bernal property
by Bob Nickeson

There are several problems with the current plan for the Bernal "sports park" that I believe are the result of a rushed and myopic planning process.

The fast track plan for the park, initiated with the creation of the Bernal Community Park Task Force, was designed to avoid potential conflicts with new property residents, concerning lighting of the sport fields. The Task Force charter was to plan a 35-50 acre "community" park on the site. However, this quickly became an exercise in maximizing the number of sport fields on the maximum number of available acres, in the minimum amount of time. I recognize and acknowledge the work and effort of the Task Force. The members faithfully fulfilled an open-ended directive, without consideration for any plans for the rest of the property. But I believe the charter given them by the then-City Council was misguided, and also that circumstances have changed since this process began.

One changed circumstance is that the construction of houses that was to follow the initiation of the park has already been completed. So any intent to forestall possible objections to the lighting of facilities is now a moot point. Secondly, it appears that of the 318 acres that were acquired, only about 144 can be utilized. This means 35 percent of the available land is taken, compared to 16 percent estimated originally (or 11 percent, using the 35-acre figure). Furthermore, there has been a schizophrenic nature to the planning process for the property from the outset. In addition to creating the Community Park Task Force, the council soon afterward created the Bernal Task Force, to assess and prioritize other potential uses for the property, from cultural arts to 4-H and YMCA-type youth clubs. However, there was no coordination or collaboration between these two groups, and the opportunity to devise plans that considered integration of the various development proposals was missed, again due to the hasty pace of the sports park agenda.

The Bernal Task Force's proposed vision for the property was as a "jewel of Pleasanton, reflecting the heritage of the Valley," and serving "as a focal point, town gathering place ... one of an open space/park-like setting with ... uses and facilities carefully integrated within it." But given the flawed process, this was somehow supposed to occur with a third of the available prime land location already taken. In this situation, the jewel becomes an incidental bauble, shoehorned around a multiplex sports field complex.

No one in this community wants inadequate sports facilities for its young people. The question is whether the existing plan is the appropriate design for this particular property, as a whole. If the city simply wants a second sports complex, at its southern gateway, and a few blocks from its downtown, the answer may be yes. But if it wants a truly community park, that seeks to incorporate and integrate all the possibilities for the property, and create a special place for all of Pleasanton to enjoy, I don't think the current plan lays the proper foundation.

A design competition is an opportunity to address these questions, and a six-12 month delay is worth getting the right plan. Unlike a sports park, the Bernal property is a unique piece of Pleasanton's heritage. What becomes of it should be just as unique and compelling. We don't have that plan yet. -Bob Nickeson was a member of the Bernal Task Force and is on the Pleasanton Energy Committee. He is an engineer with Alzeta Corp. in Santa Clara, which specializes in combustion technologies.

E-mail a friend a link to this story.