Piedmonters were divided when the Piedmont Recreational Facilities Organization (PRFO) Blair Park sports field proposal on Moraga Avenue in Moraga Canyon gained Council approval. The project was subsequently withdrawn by PRFO when the cost of the project escalated and a lawsuit ensued. During the consideration of the project, no concern was raised about a lack of a property line survey.

In January 2014,  working on steps to improve Blair Park using proper plantings and correcting deferred maintenance, the Park Commission  recommended to the City Council a survey of Blair Park be obtained to identify the property line on the southern boundary. This recommendation suggests that despite the numerous plans, drawings, meetings, and landscape specifications for the PRFO proposal, the City had no verification of exact property lines when the Blair Park project was approved.

“4. Survey south property line so the City has a clear understanding of private and public property lines (boundary survey); “(Park Commission recommendation)

“• survey the park’s southern property line to ensure City property is properly defined; ” (Mr. Bob Birkeland,  Blair Park Principal Landscape Architect of Restoration Design Group)

Major planning projects, such as the estimated over $10 million PRFO sports field project, typically start with a certified property survey prior to the expenditure of $100,000’s on plans and planning processes.  It is estimated that costs of the failed project exceeded $1 million.

Without legally defined property lines in building projects, the result can be costly property line lawsuits, significant monetary settlements, and even demolition of new construction. Given that many of the property owners surrounding Blair Park objected to the project, settling property line disputes could have proven to be an unanticipated expense and delayed implementation of the plan.

PRFO was genuine in their attempts to find an at-home grass play space for youngsters, and there is no information to indicate PRFO suspected at the time property lines may not have been verified through a survey.

The lack of information on Blair Park property lines raises a question: Over the years, how did the City know what property to maintain as a part of Blair Park?

Cost overruns, unidentified risks, legal and engineering oversight are addressed in the finally adopted Risk Assessment Policy.

Following Piedmont’s unplanned expenditure of well over 3 million tax payer dollars, a result of the  failed Blair Park/Moraga Canyon sports complex project and faulty private underground utility project, residents and groups such as the Piedmont League of Voters (LWV) were concerned and offered suggestions on how to protect Piedmont from future unplanned financial impacts.  The City Council finally unanimously approved a Risk Assessment Policy.

Risk problems centered on the lack of step-by-step monitoring and reporting of risks and costs.  The new policy lays out actions to alert the Council, the public and the staff when capital projects costing over $300,000 are considered, approved and implemented. Public knowledge early in project development was specifically requested by the LWV and others.

The policy is intended to provide a thorough review of projects prior to expending large amounts of City time and money on projects without public knowledge and involvement.

Rob Hendrickson, a construction law attorney and civil engineer who served on the LWV’s Task Force on Civic Governance, repeated the monthly accounting recommendation presented in April, 2013 by then LWV President Julie McDonald.  He urged that as a project was being implemented a monthly accounting should be presented to the Council to assure staff was monitoring the project and the public was aware of problems.  This request was echoed by High School student Julie Adams, who felt this was common in business and should be a part of the policy.

Tim Rood, candidate for City Council, agreed with the accountability measures noted in the LWV communication.

Acting City Attorney Michelle Kenyon cautioned against including specific timelines for the City Administrator, such as monthly reporting, as this could result in further risk if the timeline was not met. Council member  Jeff Wieler stated the responsibility for compliance rested with the City Administrator as part of the job description and non-compliance would be dealt with through personnel evaluations and ultimately through the  Council election process.

Public Works Director Chester Nakahara who was responsible for drafting and redrafting the much belabored policy responded to concerns. Numerous “and/or” clauses in the policy language were at issue as to when and what would be presented to the public and Council during the conceptual and implementation phase of a project.  Nakahara pointed out that the requirement that the City Attorney and City Engineers review projects would be an expense for the City.

Excerpts from the City Charter:

The City Administrator, “Shall keep the Council fully advised as to the financial condition and future needs of the City…”

The City Attorney is to “Represent and advise the Council and all City officers in all matters of law pertaining to their offices;” “Approve the form of all contracts made by and all bonds given to the City, endorsing approval thereon in writing;” “All contracts shall be drawn under the supervision of the city attorney.”

The City Engineer description states, “There shall be a city engineer who shall have supervision over all matters of an engineering character as required by State law, or as assigned by the City Council.”

Council member Garrett Keating supported contract review by the City Attorney to protect the City from risks on public and private projects.

Review by the City Engineer is intended to make certain all projects are properly engineered and contracts are appropriately specified.

Consultants employed to oversee or advise on projects would be an additional cost of any project.

City Administrator Geoff Grote, who is retiring within weeks, stated that the policy would not prevent all future problems, while acknowledging the policy would be helpful and could be modified as needed in the future.

Mayor John Chiang was repeatedly thanked for bringing the policy to the Council for approval prior to his February retirement from the Council.

Click for the staff report and communications.

Click for draft minutes to view changes approved by the Council.

Restoration Design Group’s (RDG) schematic design for Blair Park was presented to the Park Commission on Thursday, December 12.  The public was encouraged to attend.         Submit comments to mfeldkamp@ci.piedmont.ca.us.

The Friends of Moraga Canyon (FOMC) have commented on the schematic design, noting discrepancies with the terms of the City’s Blair Park Improvement Plan contract with RDG. One omission they note is the failure to include a pathway through the park. Read the complete FOMC list of omissions/ deviations from the contract.

RDG schematic design for Blair Park

– Hopes and ideas to shape up the landscape of long neglected Blair Park drew a number of speakers at the Piedmont Park  Commission meeting on October 2^nd. –

The Commission first heard presentations by Bob Birkeland, landscape architect of Restoration Design Group (RDG) and arborist Jim Clarke of HortScience, Inc., the two firms collaborating on a landscape design plan for Blair Park. Birkeland and Clarke outlined their initial assessments of the park’s potential, its constraints, and the condition of many of its trees.

Among their conclusions: 41 of the 54 Monterey pines bordering Moraga Ave. are in poor condition and should be removed.  Lack of irrigation in the park is the key limiting factor to existing trees and to establishing new, drought-tolerant species. (Birkeland explained that Cemetery Creek is diverted into a culvert buried 22 feet below the park’s landfill.) The coast live oaks and California bay tree should be pruned, ivy vines should be severed at the base of tree trunks, and blackberry and ivy will require repeated control.

Audience members then described their concepts for improving Blair Park and what the park means to them.   Scenic Avenue resident Morissa Sherman, who makes award-winning plum and blackberry jams from Blair Park, said she hopes the park’s fruit trees will be retained. She also described her love of watching the park’s wildlife, from red-tailed hawks to foxes.  Peggy Esposito, who has lived on Moraga Avenue for 35 years, said she chose to live there because it was near an undeveloped area and to her the park “is much more than a gateway to Piedmont.” She proposed creating a bio-swale for park irrigation. She also told the Commission the Monterey pines were planted in the early 1970’s by students working one summer for Piedmont and that the trees were not what the City had ordered but were planted anyhow.

Piedmont resident Sinan Sabuncuoglu said, “Blair Park gives us a chance for a new way of stewarding the environment – to preserve and restore the rich ecology.” He suggested “involving everyone in planning a Bay-friendly landscape” possibly with community gardens and a plan that evolves over time with amenities such as a par course, bike path, bocce ball and horseshoes.  Scenic Avenue resident and former Piedmont Mayor Al Peters noted that the park is “a major, welcoming entryway to the City” and he said the tall story poles that were erected two years ago for the sports fields proposed by Piedmont Recreation Facilities Organization, should be removed. He also commented on the live oaks on the park’s hillside that are being killed by overgrowing ivy vines and said “I want the City to properly maintain the oak forest.”

The Park Commissioners expressed their agreement with the speakers and support for maintaining the park.  Commissioner Nancy Kent said she sees the need to assess the trees on the hillside slope and would like to enhance the slope for wildlife.  Commissioner Patty Siskind said, “I think everyone wants to improve the park, and it will definitely be pursued.”  She and Commissioner Anian Tunney were  concerned about the cost and source of irrigation.  Birkeland said there are number of possibilities, such as having a water truck drive across the street from the Corporation Yard. Commissioner Mary Geong said she was glad to hear that Friends of Moraga Canyon is willing to raise funds to help pay for park improvements, as one speaker had indicated. Commission Chair John Lenahan concluded, “We need to maintain the park. We will have a different and hopefully better Blair Park.”

A proposed landscape improvement plan for Blair Park is scheduled to be presented by RDG and HortScience at the December 12, 2013 meeting of the Park Commission.

– Blair Park proposal divided the City and resulted in misuse of City and private funds. – 

At the September 16^th Piedmont City Council meeting, the Council decided in closed session that the City would “absorb” any amounts still owed it by Piedmont Recreation Facilities Organization (PRFO).  Lost in the forgiveness of PRFO’s debt to the City is the full financial cost of the failed attempt to put a football size soccer field in Blair Park. Mark Bichsel, former City Finance Director, prepared several schedules summarizing expenditures made by the City of Piedmont from the inception of project costs on October 2, 2008 through December 31, 2012. In this period the City expended $838,689. Much of this was reimbursed by PRFO, by my calculations over $500,000.

Friends of Moraga Canyon (FOMC) spent over $70,000 in its opposition to the project and in addition received a $15,000 settlement to pay outstanding legal fees. I am not privy to what costs PRFO paid on its own behalf, but it is safe to say that collectively the City of Piedmont, PRFO and FOMC spent close to $1,000,000 in pursuit of the Blair Park project. This does not even count the financial costs of untold hours spent by City staff on this ill-advised project.

I believe the Blair Park proposal resulted in an appalling misuse of City and private funds. My plea is for the Council to take seriously the need to: 1) establish and follow risk management policies, as recommended by the Piedmont League of Women Voters; 2) listen to and acknowledge competing interests; 3) perhaps most importantly, work out resolutions to controversial issues that bring the community together rather than divide. Only then will the City Council represent the best interests of the entire town.

Al Peters, Former Piedmont Mayor

September 23, 2013

The Piedmont Park Commission will conduct a public hearing on Wednesday, October 2, 2013 at 5:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, located in City Hall, 120 Vista Avenue to consider a landscape plan for Blair Park.  Restoration Design Group (RDG), the consultants chosen by the City Council in consultation with the Friends of Moraga Canyon to develop the Landscape Improvement Plan for Blair Park will make a presentation. RDG will report on existing conditions, site constraints, and their investigations and observations. Presentations will be made by the project team composed of Bob Birkeland of RDG and Jim Clark, their Arborist from Hortscience. The information  presented will serve as a baseline from which their plan and ideas will develop.

This is an opportunity for all stakeholders to voice their opinions regarding Blair Park. Comments from the Public Hearing will allow the Park Commission to prepare recommendations to the Consultant for the landscape improvements and maintenance at Blair Park. This is the first of the two public hearings that will be heard by the Park Commission regarding this matter.

The Park Commission meeting, including this issue, will be televised on KCOM-TV, Channel 27, the City’s government access TV station and broadcast on the City website.

You may write to the Park Commission by e-mail www.mfeldkamp@ci.piedmont.ca.us.

For further information, contact Mark Feldkamp, Parks & Project Manager at 420-3064.  

Have you ever looked for a letter or comment in the press without finding it?

Readers often post comments at the end of our articles.  To learn Piedmonters’ thoughts on any news article or opinion essay, return to an article during the following weeks or years after publication and scroll to their end.  Readers can also use the search function on our site to go back to prior news articles for the history of policies and projects and read opinion pieces.  For example, to read the comments on the City Council settlement with Piedmont Recreational Facilities Organization (PRFO), scroll to the end of the PRFO Settlement article where comments are located.  Comments on all prior articles can be accessed through our search tab found on the left side of the home page using the steps as noted.

 1.   Go to SEARCH on the left side of the PCA home page

2.   Enter the desired subject in the search space, for example, PRFO, Schools, etc.  All articles on the subject will present.

3.   Scroll down the page, click on the headline of desired articles.

4.   Scroll to the end of the article to read COMMENTS on the article.

With an election coming, a change in City Administrator, educational policies, and financial issues making current news, the Piedmont Civic Association (PCA) provides a forum for comments, opinions, and articles. Our goal is an informed citizenry. PCA civic news is disbursed and stored on the internet unencumbered by space limitations faced by commercial businesses.

PCA does not support or oppose candidates for public office nor take positions on ballot measures.  All comments and opinions reflect the opinions of their authors and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association.

 Everyone is encouraged to submit information or comments to:

editors@piedmontcivic.org.

Since January, the City Council has been in negotiations with Piedmont Recreational Facilities Organization (PRFO) to receive payment of the outstanding reimbursement obligation in connection with PRFO’s proposed Blair Park sports complex. 

The press release states in part:

In the settlement agreement, PRFO has agreed to let the City retain the $95,000 balance in a separate $125,000 Indemnification Guarantee fund, after a $30,000 settlement negotiated by PRFO attorneys in defending the City in the lawsuit filed by Friends of Moraga Canyon challenging the proposed project. The $95,000, coupled with the initial deposit of $118,000, brings the total to $213,000 paid by PRFO towards the City’s stated total incurred costs of $326,533, leaving a balance of $113,533 to be absorbed by the City.

Click to read the entire settlement agreement and press release.

Letter to the Piedmont City Council,

I was distressed to read in the Piedmont Post a front page story which discussed the long standing PRFO payment dispute and stated that the Post apparently agreed with some unidentified person who had “correctly pointed out” that the PRFO should not be expected to reimburse the City for the City’s outside legal and technical experts’ costs which allegedly “duplicated” similar efforts already provided by the PRFO.

Never mind that there is no such restriction in the Indemnification Agreement which was negotiated and entered into in secret, even more troubling is the notion that the Post apparently believes that the City should have just accepted what the project proponents asserted and should not have done their own due diligence.  In other words, government for sale to project supporters?  Approving a hotly contested project is a governmental function, and not something that can or should be sold to the highest bidder.

Regardless of whether Councilman McBain believes that 3000 residents wanted the Park, that doesn’t give the Council the right to abrogate its fiduciary obligation to all of the City’s citizens – yes, that’s right, Councilman McBain, even those who don’t agree with you – to independently perform whatever analysis was needed to be done to independently allow the Council to come to the conclusion that the Council was being called upon to make regarding the approval of the project and its EIR.

We know from the construction documents (eg, City/PRFO lease) that were prepared by the project proponents that they contained serious oversights (illegal under contractor’s licensing law, no bond required by PRFO (as opposed to Webcor) so the City was financially exposed, etc).

On what possible basis can anyone argue that the City should not have performed its own independent analysis which was required to discharge its governmental functions, including basically gutting the City’s own General Plan through exceptions for this project.

I am hoping that the Council does not buy into the Post’s apparent “editorial” position that the City should have just accepted everything that the project proponents said, and should forget about the prominent campaign slogan that the park was a gift.  A gift to who?  To the project proponents?  Certainly not to the City under present circumstances, as the Council is apparently unwilling to enforce the agreement it entered into, and now according to the Post is apparently contemplating compromising its responsibilities to all of its citizens to act impartially and independently when discharging its duties.

Rob Hendrickson, Piedmont Resident

Editors’ Note:  The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association. 

– Options proposed have not been made public. – 

For months the City Council agendas have included a non-specific item in Closed Session entitled “Potential Litigation.” The speculation has been that the City was contemplating legal action against Piedmont Recreational Facilities Organization (PRFO) for non-payment of approximately $220,000 owed the City for legal and other expenses in connection with the proposed sports complex in Blair Park.  Mayor John Chiang, evidently breaking the privacy of closed sessions, has been quoted in the POST stating progress is being made on resolving the outstanding amount.

The sports complex did not proceed, a result of legal action against the City by Friends of Moraga Canyon (FOMC).  The legal settlement with FOMC included a recently approved contract for a design to improve landscaping in Blair Park.