HomeMy WebLinkAboutCS Minor League Baseball; Centerfield Partners 2011Agenda Item No:
Meeting Date:
4 a
August 15, 2011
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Department: Community Services
Prepared by: Carlene McCart, Director,-MCity Manager Approval:
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSAL OF CENTERFIELD PARTNERS LLC FOR
A THREE-YEAR AGREEMENT TO UTILIZE ALBERT PARK STADIUM AND
BASEBALL FIELD FOR A PROFESSIONAL MINOR LEAGUE BASEBALL TEAM
RECOMMENDATION: Approve Resolution
BACKGROUND:
In April 2011, Centerfield Partners, LLC, submitted a Proposal to the City to bring professional
baseball to Albert Park Field. The Proposal submitted by Centerfield Partners requires an
Agreement due to the multi -date, multi-year non exclusive use requested, and the offer by
Centerfield Partners to make improvements to the facilities as well as pay standard rental fees for
use of the facility.
The Centerfield Partners application process thus far has been as follows:
Staff and Centerfield Partners met February through April 2011 to discuss the feasibility of the
site and facilities to accommodate the Proposal, along with schedules, process, fees, and other
potential issues.
Staff brought a draft of the resulting Proposal to the Park and Recreation Commission on April
28, and May 19, 2011 to determine if the Commission would recommend to the City Council, as
the Council's advisory board, that an Agreement with Centerfield Partners be considered.
On April, 45 members of the public attended the Commission meeting. The Commission
requested that City staff provide additional information on the following issues:
■ Compliance of the Proposal with General Plan 2020
■ Compliance of the Proposal with the Albert Park Master Plan
FOR CITY CLERK ONLY
File No.: —
t
Council Meeting: `
Disposition: Com E€ ;` t
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 2
• San Rafael Municipal Code, Chapter 18 as it applies to noise in and around Albert
Park
■ Feasibility of light shields on existing field lights
■ Parking requirements and availability
■ Existing uses of Albert Park Baseball Field and Stadium
• Community promotion opportunities
In May, 37 members of the public attended the second Commission meeting concerning the
Proposal. The Commission voted unanimously to recommend the Proposal to the Council with
the provision that a public review mid way through the first season of the Agreement be
conducted to address any issues that exist at that time.
The following additional outreach meetings were undertaken by Centerfield Partners:
■ Federation of Neighborhoods
■ Business Issues Committee
■ Redevelopment Citizens Advisory Committee
■ Downtown Business Improvement District
Staff and Centerfield Partners entered into negotiations for a multi-year, non exclusive
Agreement for the use of Albert Park Baseball Field and Stadium, following the Park and
Recreation Commission recommendation. Centerfield Partners was required to produce
implementation plans to address parking, traffic, security, service of alcoholic beverages, noise,
concessions, community benefit and a site plan. The implementation plans were reviewed by the
office of the City Attorney, Community Development, Fire, Police, Public Works and the
Community Services Department. Comments and requirements as the result of this review were
incorporated into the Agreement and its attached implementation plans.
The proposal and Agreement was brought to the City Council on July 18. After the presentation
from staff and Centerfield Partners, forty four members of the public spoke. Twenty-one
members spoke in favor of the proposal citing benefits to the community, local businesses and
hotels of family oriented entertainment at reasonable cost to the community. Twenty members
spoke against the proposal, citing negative impacts such a parking, traffic, noise, vandalism and
criminal behavior to the surrounding neighborhoods of Albert Park. Three members spoke in
favor of the proposal with conditions. Due to the late hour after the comments were submitted,
the Council directed staff to return within four weeks with responses to the questions raised and
after a Council sub committee of the Mayor and Councilmember Connolly convened a meeting
between neighborhood representatives and Centerfield Partners. Attachment A included in this
report is the list of questions and responses generated at the City Council Meeting, July 18.
A Community Meeting was held on August 4. Fifty-nine people were in attendance.
Presentations on the primary issues of parking, traffic, noise, alcoholic beverage service, site
improvements and community benefit were made by staff and Centerfield Partners. Members of
the public asked questions on each topic. A meeting to respond to those questions was scheduled
for August 9. The responses to questions posed at the August 4 meeting appear in this report as
Attachment B. These were also posted on the City Website prior to the meeting.
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 3
At the community meeting of August 9, fifty-six people attended along with the City Council sub
committee of Mayor Boro and Councilmember Connolly, Centerfield Partners, City Attorney,
and Community Services, Economic Development, Police and Public Works Department
representatives. Presentations were made to address the questions generated at the August 4
meeting. Community concerns remained over the environmental review of the proposed use.
Centerfield Partners has agreed to fund an Initial Study of Environmental Impact under the
California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), to be conducted by an outside consultant hired
by the City to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed use.
The list of questions posed by the community at the meeting of August 9 is included in this
report as Attachment C. Responses will be addressed as part of the Initial Study to the extent
they are appropriately within the purview of environmental review, and otherwise through
coinciding staff review, and made available for public comment before a recommendation is
presented to City Council for review.
ANALYSIS:
Centerfield Partners offered changes to the Agreement at the August 4 meeting. These are:
• Commitment to a dispute resolution mechanism that will allow City and community to
identify and resolve use issues as they arise.
• Commitment to lower the parking fees to $2 for at least the first season to incentivize
parking at the Seagate Partners parking lot.
• Commitment to increased signage to direct parking away from neighborhoods, the
Community Center and Albert Park Tennis Courts
• Restriction of the sale of alcoholic beverages through the seventh inning of play or 10:00
p.m. which ever comes first.
• Offer to provide security patrols into adjoining neighborhoods
• Offer to investigate a neighborhood parking permit program
• Review of current levels of insurance requirements
• Review of use of music at games
Questions continue to be raised, including a request for further environmental review. As noted
above, Centerfield Partners has agreed to fund an Initial Study for the proposed use. According
to the legally mandated parameters of an Initial Study, the impact topics likely to require study
are:
• Aesthetics, including potential light and glare impacts
• GHG emission
• Land Use and Planning, consistency with applicable General Plan policies and programs
• Noise
• Public Services
• Recreation
• Transportation/Traffic
As the scope of the study is developed, more topics may be included. However, under applicable
law, some of the concerns voiced by the residents at the community meetings are not considered
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 4
to be "environmental" impacts appropriate for inclusion in the Initial Study. Staff will study and
prepare responses to those issues in a parallel manner to coincide with the presentation and
public review of the Initial Study. Paul Jensen, Community Development Director will present
more information on the Initial Study Process at the meeting.
The City Council Sub Committee, Centerfield Partners, staff and community have worked
together since July 18 to identify issues and resolutions around the proposed Agreement for use
of Albert Park Stadium and Baseball Field for professional baseball. Negotiated concessions
were reached. Many of the questions were addressed. Concerns for environmental review
remained a primary issue. In response Centerfield Partners has agreed to fund an Initial
Environmental Impact Study, commissioned by the City. The Initial Study may result in
preparation of a Negative Declaration, a Mitigated Negative Declaration, or an Environmental
Impact Report pursuant to the requirements of CEQA. The Study will delay Council action on
the proposed Agreement until findings are reviewed and presented, presumably in the first
quarter of 2012.
For their commitment to the Initial Study process, Centerfield Partners has requested, and staff
recommends, that the City Council express its preliminary support for the proposed Agreement,
with the intention and understanding that any future formal approval of the Agreement by the
Council will only occur after proper consideration of the results of the environmental review
process as per the CEQA requirements.
A similar action was taken by the City Council in October 2010 when it approved the conceptual
design and proposal for the Canal Community Garden. A collaboration of agencies, led by Trust
for Public Land, developed a proposal and conceptual design for a community garden for a
parcel at the comer of Bellurn Blvd. and Windward Way owned by the City. The City Council
approved the concept and preliminary design pending the City planning process approval for
development. With this approval the Trust for Public Land was authorized to develop plans and
conduct fundraising for the project sited on City property.
Although this proposal is a request for use of existing facilities and not a development project,
like Trust for Public Land, Centerfield Partners needs assurance that the City agrees in concept
with the proposed use, pending all mandated and requested conditions are satisfactory to the City
Council.
The attached Resolution states that assuming the completion of environmental review shows that
any significant environmental impacts can be adequately eliminated or mitigated as required by
CEQA, the proposal by Centerfield Partners presents the City of San Rafael with a unique
opportunity to partner with a commercial venture for the primary purpose of bringing affordable
family-oriented entertainment to the community, and that, in return for the use of a public
facility, the City will gain much needed improvements to Albert Park Baseball Field and
Stadium along with revenue to support those facilities not only for professional baseball but for
all community users.
The proposed resolution make clear that the City Council cannot grant actual approval to the
proposal Agreement until such time as the environmental review process is completed in
accordance with CEQA and the results of that review can be considered as part of the decision-
making process. The City Council may, however grant support for the proposal while retaining
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 5
the ability to deny it in the event that the environmental review reveals that the project will
present unacceptable environmental impacts.
FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact to the City with this action. There is commitment
from the City to provide staff time to analyze and report on the issues not included in the Initial
Study.
ACTION REQUIRED: Approve Resolution Expressing Support for the Proposal of
Centerfield Partners LLC for a Three -Year Agreement to Utilize Albert Park Stadium and
Baseball Field for a Professional Minor League Baseball Team
Attachments
A. Resolution
B. Questions and responses from the July 18, 2011 City Council Meeting
C. Questions and responses from the August 4, 2011 Community Meeting
D. Question and comments from the August 9, 2011 Community Meeting
E. Correspondence received since July 18, 2011
Attachment A
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSAL OF CENTERFIELD
PARTNERS LLC FOR A THREE-YEAR AGREEMENT TO UTILIZE ALBERT
PARK STADIUM AND BASEBALL FIELD FOR A PROFESSIONAL MINOR
LEAGUE BASEBALL TEAM
WHEREAS, Centerfield Partners LLC, (CFP) has exclusive Bay Area territorial rights to
enter a newly formed minor league team into the independent North American (Baseball)
League and the United (Baseball) League, and has submitted to the City a proposal for a
three-year agreement to make the City of San Rafael the home of the new team; and
WHEREAS, the proposed San Rafael team will play teams from Calgary, Alberta,
Canada; Chico, California; Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; Henderson, Nevada; Walluku,
Maul, Hawaii; and Yuma, Arizona; and
WHEREAS, CFP brings a wide scope of skills and experience to the business of
management and operation of a professional baseball organization; and
WHEREAS, to accommodate the new team, CFP proposes to make permanent
improvements to the Albert Park Stadium and Baseball Field that are sorely -needed and
which the City currently lacks the ability to fund in any other way, including aesthetic
improvements such as painting and enhancing the grandstand fagade and cleaning and
refurbishing the existing locker and restroom areas; and safety improvements such as
replacement of the damaged backstop screen, installation of new dugout area fences, and
installation of padding on the light pole near the third base line; and
WHEREAS, the greater San Rafael community will reap the benefit of the proposed
improvements, which will greatly enhance the safety and enjoyment of attendees and
players during every use of Albert Park Stadium and Baseball Field, from Little League to
Adult leagues, for years to come; and
WHEREAS, in support of the proposal, City staff has required CFP to produce
implementation plans to address issues related to parking, traffic, security, service of
alcoholic beverages, noise, concessions, and community benefit, which plans are
receiving review by the office of the City Attorney, and the Community Development,
Fire, Police, Public Works and Community Services Departments, and which continue to
be modified to address community concerns; and
WHEREAS, in May, following two public meetings of the City's Parks and Recreation
Commission to review the main elements of CFP's proposal, the Commission voted
unanimously to recommend the proposal to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has held one public meeting to consider CFP's proposal
and to hear community comments, and a City Council subcommittee has held two public
meetings for the purpose of hearing and addressing community concerns in more detail;
and
WHEREAS, in the course of the public process to consider the proposed Agreement,
several members of the public have alleged that the proposal presents potential adverse
environmental impacts that should be considered prior to any action by the City Council
to approve the proposal; and
WHEREAS, in order to fully inform the City Council and the public of any potential
adverse environmental impacts, CFP and the City intend to undertake the preparation of
an Initial Study of Environmental Impact pursuant to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"); and
WHEREAS, the proposed Initial Study may result in preparation of a Negative
Declaration, a Mitigated Negative Declaration, or an Environmental Impact Report
pursuant to the requirements of CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the City Council intends that any future approval of the agreement proposed
by CFP shall be based upon the results of a complete environmental review process
pursuant to and compliant with the requirements of CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that, assuming the completion of environmental
review shows that any significant environmental impacts can be adequately eliminated or
mitigated as required by CEQA, the proposal by CFP presents the City of San Rafael with
a unique opportunity to partner with a commercial venture for the primary purpose of
bringing affordable family-oriented entertainment to the community, and that, in return
for the use of a public facility, the City will gain much needed improvements to Albert
Park Stadium and Baseball Field along with revenue to support those facilities not only
for professional baseball but for all community users;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby expresses its
enthusiasm and preliminary support for the CFP proposal to bring a professional minor
league baseball team to San Rafael.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby affirms that, by adopting
this Resolution, it cannot and does not intend to grant actual approval to the CFP proposal
until such time as the environmental review process is completed in accordance with
CEQA and the results of that review can be considered as part of the decision-making
process, and that the City Council retains the ability to deny the proposal in the event that
2
the environmental review reveals that the project will present unacceptable environmental
impacts.
1, Esther Beime, Clerk of the City of San Rafael, hereby certify that the foregoing
resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the San
Rafael City Council held on the 15th day of August, 2011 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
3
ESTHER BEIRNE, City Clerk
Attachment B
A Public Commentary
City Council Meeting
July 18, 2011
Proposal for Albert Park
Common topics expressed: Concerns - Parking, Noise, Traffic, Safety, and Process.
Support - Family Oriented Entertainment is desirable for San
Rafael and the Park, Proposal Brings a Business Enhancement
Opportunity
44 Comments were presented at the meeting. 21 in support of the proposal, 20 opposed the
proposal, 3 supportive with conditions.
Staff responses are in bold
1. Concerns, not opposition; use not community serving; attendance estimates are double the
existing uses; CEQA applies; more discussion warranted; presence of alcohol objectionable;
proposal doesn't take into account pre season games, try outs, and practices impacts of traffic
and noise; use usurps community use; teams are displaced, revenue income is lost; proposal
should go through the Planning Process.
Use provides community with family oriented entertainment at
reasonable price. The service of alcohol is typical for this use and
historical for this site. No pre season games are anticipated and
practices are not open to public, negating traffic/parking impacts.
The proposed use reduces field availability for non -community and
private baseball activities, a list of which is available for review.
Current revenue is less than commercial rates proposed, and
provides no upfront money to make improvements. The proposal
falls under Facility Use Permit process not land development
process.
2. Proposal gives kids something to do; kids will bike and walk to the Park; kids like to see
baseball players.
Agrees midway with proposal with acceptable mitigation of parking, traffic, noise, lights
impacts.
4. Proposal should go through the proper Planning Process.
The City, as stated in the Municipal Code has separate processes to
manage development (Planning Permit) and use of public facilities
(Use Permit). The planning process is for land development/property
renovation projects. The proposed use is not a project but utilization
of a public recreation facility (a Permitted Use under the Zoning
Ordinance). The City Attorney and the Community Development
Department both determined the planning process does not apply to
this proposal.
5. Proposal will require substantial maintenance service levels; Albert Park Lofts residents
currently park in the SRCC parking lot; TEAM approach to alcohol management has no data
to support its effectiveness.
Maintenance of field turf and facilities will remain consistent with
current service levels. Seagate has put notices on cars parked
illegally in there lot, presumably Albert Park Loft tenants. The
Lofts have no agreement or easement to use the parking lot. The
Lofts facility includes adequate parking for tenants. The TEAM
approach has been adopted and utilized by every major sport league
in the country, and other organizations, in a concerted effort to
avoid over indulgence by sport events attendees. The widespread
use of the program is an indication of its effectiveness.
6. Outreach/response from CFP outstanding; supports proposal.
7. Use will decrease property values; 90 decibels is aircraft take off levels.
An active, family centered community park should be of benefit to
property values over less used or miss used park facilities. Upscale
neighborhoods surround the Maui and Yuma ball parks, without
report of negative impact to property values or noise. The Maui
Economic Development Director confirmed this for her County. SR
Municipal Code allows sports arenas to reach 80 decibels prior to
10:00 p.m. Prior experience in Albert Park indicates the noise levels
can be expected in the 50-60 decibel range.
8. Supports use; staff has provided necessary information and analysis.
9. Southern Heights impacted by noise from park, tennis courts currently and this use will
increase noise levels.
Acoustics will change with weather and wind directions. Noise
generated from the field use may carry to the Southern Heights
neighborhood. The level would have to be consistently above the
levels set by the Municipal Code to constitute a violation. It is
unlikely that would happen, but readings will be taken periodically,
and specifically is there is a complaint, to assure compliancy with the
Noise Ordinance. Staff supports the noise management plan as a
reasonable method to maintain noise levels below those allowed by
the Muni Code.
10. GPNA voted not to recommend or oppose the use; requests tours, meetings better
communication needed to resolve issues; issue a moratorium and follow planning process.
Each City Council member has separately toured the Park with the
GPNA sub committee to review the specific conditions and concerns
for the use. A community meeting has been set for August 4 with the
City Council sub committee, City staff and Centerfield Partners to
discuss issues with community members. Facility use is not subject to
Planning permits or process.
11. School traffic, commuter and commercial traffic on Woodland Avenue is already bad, this use
will increase speeding, stop sign violations in neighborhood; proposal should have more
incentives for biking and walking to Park.
Staff studied the traffic patterns generated from this use and
determined minimal impact on Woodland. Game traffic does not
coincide with school, commercial or commuter traffic hours. Bike
parking is planned.
12. Concerns for drug dealing, vandalism, inebriated persons and increased foot traffic
exasperating problems; lighting is not good in neighborhood at night.
None of these issues have been reported from the communities of
Chico, Yuma, San Jose, Maui, where similar conditions exist. San
Jose has less crime around the minor league baseball stadium during
games than in the neighborhood in which it is located according to
SJPD. Centerfield's Security Plan has offered to scan the immediate
neighborhood to report unruly behavior or other safety issues,
should the neighborhoods want this service.
13. Fantastic opportunity to benefit business and hotels locally; support use.
14. (Traffic?) study has misleading information; traffic impacts will divert customers from local
business; crime will increase; hotel and alcohol sales will benefit.
Traffic review was conducted by DPW traffic engineers using City
models. Congestion is not considered to be an impact with the
current plan to move cars into the Seagate parking lot avoiding
queuing up to get into the lot.
15. Applauds the security plan for use; adjustments are reasonable to expect as more experience
is collected; Albert Park is an appropriate venue for this use.
16. Wooden fences the height of Centerfield will be an eyesore; extension of the netting at
Parkside is needed; no free viewing will be allowed (opposes this). Opposes use.
The Agreement allows for fence extension in left and right fields.
This could be an advantage for other users of the field. The City is
not requiring this improvement but would accept a reasonable
extension if CFP is willing to invest in the installation of a cyclone
type fence similar to the existing fence. There is no proposal for a
wooden fence. The fencing protecting the Parkside Children's
Center playground is efficient; no additional fencing is planned
there.
17. Online survey collected over 200 signatures from supportive individuals, some are Gerstle
Park residents; "urinating on the street and vandalism by game attendees" is an erroneous
perception. Supports use.
ki
18. Studies show noise pollution is detrimental to human health; delay the vote; use will produce
unhealthy noise levels.
Noise levels are not anticipated to reach allowed levels. Current and
historic large group uses of the Stadium and Park have not received
complaints over noise, with the exception of one evening when the
public address system was left on after hours.
19. Proposed use is an opportunity for San Rafael; other users will benefit, hotels and businesses
will benefit; source of employment for local residents
20. Refutes statement that Safeway has private security; contends Brian Sobel does not support
community parks; SRPD is understaffed and can't respond to this additional use; local
elections should be held by district/neighborhoods.
Safeway has periodic parking security as management deems
necessary. Signs are posted in the store parking lot that states the lot
is for Safeway customers only. SRPD is not anticipating an increase
in calls for assistance due to this use. The presence of private
security will improve overall security in the park and surrounding
area.
21. Plans for waste management should be included in proposal.
Discussions with Marin Sanitary Service have started. MSS will
have recycling facilities available in the stadium if this use goes
forward because the volume will justify the additional service
whereas now it does not. Recycling opportunities will then be
available for all users of Albert Stadium and baseball field.
22. Use will give SR national exposure; games will be much lower profile than opponents fear;
consider a shuttle service to ease parking or season tickets that include parking.
A shuttle service may be considered if attendance warrants. CFP
will respond to the inclusion of parking fees into admission tickets.
23. Related positive community experiences with baseball in Florida; supports use.
24. Parking from the use will encroach into Gerstle Park; closer to parkin the neighborhood than
other locations; use conflicts with parking for the tennis courts, Safeway, 7-11; verify with
Seagate permission to use SRCC lot.
The Seagate parking lot is significantly closer to the Stadium than
neighborhood parking. There is a signed letter of intent to lease the
parking to CFP. Tennis court parking is primarily along Lindaro
and portions of Albert Park Lane (both locations are further
walking distance than the Seagate lot to the Stadium entrance). The
tennis courts draws 24 players maximum, if all four courts are used
for doubles games, and about 12 players on average. Safeway and
7-11 will be alerted to game activity and may respond as their
managements feel necessary. Both businesses will benefit from the
El
presence of the baseball games, as they do now with patrons of the
Community Center and Bocce complex.
25. Embrace this opportunity for entertainment for seniors, families and singles; personal
professional experience with many minor league organizations refutes claims of unruly fans
or alcohol related problems; Crushers were embraced by Rohnert Park community.
26. Proposal has been processed too quickly; cost benefit analysis has not been done;
neighborhood parking permit program should be required.
Proposal has been processed with steps additional to the usual
approval process to be inclusive and transparent. A cost benefit
analysis is not warranted for a Use Permit. The City contracts with
professional services and commercial entities frequently to bring
recreation programming and opportunity to the community. These
contracts for lessons, programs, and entertainment are not designed
to provide profit for the City, but to cover costs. In this way
programs and services are offered at lowest possible rates to
residents. A neighborhood permit parking program has been
reviewed a number of times. The cost per resident to enforce it, and
the number of permits that would be required caused the idea to be
rejected by residents in the past.
27. Neighbors have understandable concerns. When parks are used less, crime exists. There were
no problems when the Seals played at Albert Park or when large high school events are
held there; support the use but please include bike parking.
28. Support the use with more study on impacts on Parkside Children's Center.
Child Care Center will not be impacted by games, as games are
scheduled after operations close. Practices will be held with batting
cages as they are now, with no impact on the Center.
29. Little for families to do in Marin; minor league baseball is an intimate experience; use will
combat less desirable behavior in the park.
30. Charge more for use of the park, the rental fees for Falkirk are more expensive; will busses
bring the teams in, if so where to they park; concerned for cleanliness of porta potties; field
maintenance in underestimated.
The fee in place is consistent with other stadiums that offer more
amenities. The Agreement calls for advance payment for use of
facilities, and allows for pre paid fees and permanent improvements
to Albert Stadium and baseball field. Visiting teams may use one
bus for transportation. Bus parking is available on Albert Park Lane
or the Seagate lot. Porta patties are leased with maintenance
agreements; they will not be open to the general public. Field
maintenance will continue on schedule to serve all the uses of the ball
field.
31. 70% of attendees arrive one hour before game time, big traffic impact; ticket prices too high?
CFP will gross over $1 mi.
70% of attendees will arrive within the hour prior to the game, not
simultaneously one hour before the game, allowing for a gradual
filling of the parking lot. Ticket prices are expected to be in the $6-
15 range, providing for per hour entertainment of $2-5. CFP bears
100% of the market risk related to revenue and expense.
32. Albert Park is a baseball facility designed for the proposed use; use is inclusive of all
residents; supports proposal.
33. Alcohol sales are inappropriate; tailgating will encourage drinking; violence, vandalism,
drunk driving will result; fence extension is too tall.
Alcohol is served at all the league venues. Maui has had one incident
of an inebriated patron in two years; Yuma has had none in seven
years. Alcohol is served at Marin Bocce Federation activities and
historically has been available at San Francisco Seals baseball games
at Albert Park. Alcohol must be served in a contained space. No
outside sales are allowed. The Alcohol Management Plan has been
reviewed and approved by the Police Department. Tailgating is not
allowed in the parking lots or on the streets. The potential fence
extension will be approximately 12 feet, cyclone mesh, and is an
option, not a requirement.
34. Chamber of Commerce conducted a survey where 96% of members surveyed supported the
proposal.
35. Proposal did not get proper notice; restrict public address system; give a % of profits back to
the neighborhood.
Proposal was noticed at two public meetings plus the Council
meeting. In addition information is up on the GPNA webpage, Bret
Harte HOA webpage and City webpage. Everyone expressing
interest, submitting a letter or e-mail was advised noticed of the City
Council Meeting and sent packet reports and documents. The
existing PA system will be restricted after 10 p.m. as per the Noise
Management Plan. The team will contribute to the community
through increased sales tax and outreach programs. Payment based
on the % of profits puts the City at risk for revenue, based on
estimated, not actual attendance.
36. Families and seniors support this use; no experience to substantiate negative behavior at
similar activities.
37. At a minor league baseball game in Bend Oregon, 1500 attended, fences were painted with
mismatched paint; people leaving
the game gave tickets to others entering; crowd was loud; there was damage to parked cars
from foul balls.
2
The Bend Oregon team is affiliated with a collegiate baseball league,
not a professional league. Local standards vary between
communities.
38. CFP will make a significant investment in the community; Tournament of Champions held in
the 1970's was a similar use, Reno Nevada minor league games are well supported and of
value to the community.
39. Proposal has unresolved issues: cost benefit analysis has not been done; show the best and
worst case scenario; make the six month review a 2 month review; use
sacrifices the neighborhood character.
The review is proposed for mid season, not mid year, and will be
held within the first 2 months of the each season.
40. There is no evidence of alcohol abuse at similar league games; wants the opportunity to see
minor league baseball; allows kids access to heroes.
41. Delay the vote; lack of proper notice; there has been no meeting with applicants.
Meetings were held with Chamber of Commerce, Downtown
Business Improvement District, Federation of Neighborhoods,
Economic Development Citizen's Advisory Committee and offered
to the Gerstle Park Neighborhood Association. Public meetings held
to date include Park and Recreation Commission, April 28 and May
19, and City Council July 15. The public is invited to a Community
Meeting on August 4 where City staff, CFP and Council sub
committee will be on hand to discuss issues and hear concerns.
42. Let families use Albert Park; this use is important for kids in the community.
43. Proposal brings revenue to the City, business, and provides jobs; CFP wants to be a
collaborative community Partner.
44. Proposal lacks economic data; use will drain business from downtown; Albert Park is in a
unique location in a residential area.
The Use Permit contains City staffs expected revenue and expense.
The Chamber of Commerce, Downtown Business Improvement
District and Economic Citizen's Advisory Committee support the
proposal, indicating these representative groups anticipate benefit to
the downtown businesses. Both Maui and Yuma stadiums are in
close proximity to upscale residential neighborhoods. Management
at the Maui stadium resolved the only noise complaint with a change
of the on -field microphone. Yuma has had no complaints over noise
generated by baseball games. Neither community reported other
neighborhood impacts.
B. Public Commentary
Received in Writing Since July 18, 2011
7
Baseball Proposal
1. As a local high school graduate and current baseball player in the Independent League, the
value of a team to community unity, jobs for youth, affordable entertainment for children and
good for business. San Rafael will embrace an Independent League team of its own.
2. Submission of "Noise having huge impact on health", an article on the long term health
impacts of noise from the publication Health Advocate, and a link to
wwwwashintonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/srticle/2007/06/04/ar2OOO7O6O4Ol43O
3. Parents picking up children at Parkside Children's Center would overlap patrons arriving for
games by 15 minutes causing congestion on Albert Park Lane.
Parking incentives for use of the Seagate lot are needed. Noise will increase from this use.
Traffic on Woodland will be impacted with baseball traffic making it difficult for Picnic
Valley residents to get home.
Attendance records show, on average 10 children are picked up from
the Parkside Children's Center in the summertime between 6:15 and
6:30 p.m. when the Center closes. There is designated drop off and
pick up parking outside the Center. Parking incentives are under
consideration. Noise generated from the games will be well within
the Noise Ordinance. Traffic analysis does not show Woodland
Avenue impacted, with games avoiding peak traffic hours and many
occurring on weekends when even less traffic occurs.
4. Baseball patrons will park in the neighborhoods. The City will need to resort to expensive
signs and residential parking permits to manage the issue. Ticket prices should include free
parking. Tickets should be scanned at the parking lot and gate to ensure patrons are not
parking in the neighborhoods. Stadium should be built near Home Depot. Patrons should not
be allowed outside the Stadium to loiter or talk to friends tweeting to them from the outside.
Patrons will "cruise" the area in their cars, talking in the streets, smoking and littering and
generally disturbing residents. Public address system should be used to announce the game
but not for "rock" or "pop" music.
After consulting with Seagate Properties, it was determined that
Albert Park Lofts has no agreement to park on Seagate property
and have been noticed in the past, before this proposa,l to cease
using the private lot. There exists ample parking on downtown
streets and garages closer to the park where patrons can park for
free after 6:30 on the streets and 8:00 p.m. in the lots. Scanning will
not detect where a patron has parked in other non- neighborhood
venues, or help identify those arriving by alternate transportation.
There is no land available for recreational use such as a baseball
stadium, around Home Depot or other areas of San Rafael. Music is
part of the game experience. It will be family friendly, and as per
the Noise Management Plan, will not be played after 10:00 p.m.
5. 36 cars were parked in the Seagate parking lot at 8:15 p.m. on July 19, presumably residents or
visitors to Albert Park Lofts. It is not fair to displace these cars. Coupled with the number of
office workers still parked in the lot after 6:15, the capacity of the lot to serve baseball
patrons is inadequate. The parking estimate is low. Delay the proposal.
M
Albert Park Lofts was built with adequate parking for the residents and
visitors. Nader Mansourian, Public Works Director surveyed the area
around 7 p.m. on August 1, 16 cars were parked in the Seagate lot next to
the Lofts. Seagate replies that employees of the San Rafael Corporate
Center leave enough capacity for the baseball needs in the lot after 6:15
p.m. on weekdays and over capacity on weekends. The parking estimate
is higher than national standards and formulated by the City Traffic
Engineer's office.
6. Centerfield Partners will make money from this use, and the City will not. Baseball patrons
will not eat downtown. Neighbors do not want the traffic and noise. Parking estimates are
low. People who support the proposal do not live in Gerstle Park.
Centerfield Partners as a private entity is assuming all the risk for
operating the baseball team and creating an entertainment
opportunity for San Rafael. The City will receive up front, much
needed, improvements to Albert Park Stadium and field that will
benefit all the users of the facilities, and relive the City budget of the
burden of these costs. The other cities surveyed have similar
revenue strategies, none of which make a profit from the
partnerships. The fees paid to the City are an increase over the
existing users from outside the community. This proposal is another
public/private partnership that creates recreational resources for the
residents of San Rafael. The City has many such partnerships, large
and small, that allow for programs and services to be made available
that are beyond the capacity of the City to provide. Albert Park is a
community park, larger and with more specialized features, ball
fields, tennis courts, community center, bocce complex, child care
center, than a neighborhood serving park like Sun Valley or Bret
Harte. It is appropriate for the debate on this issue to include the
greater San Rafael community as well as the residents of Gerstle
Park.
7. Proposed use is a commercial venture, inappropriate for a public park, and unlikely to respond
to the best interests of the community. Agreement calls for the applicant to be the exclusive
professional team to utilize the facilities. Agreement has insufficient framework for conflict
resolution. Certificate of Insurance should be required 30 days before the use begins. Cost of
trash removal has been overlooked. Given the hour of the game starts and the assumption that
patrons will park in the lot across the street from the Stadium, increase in downtown business
is unlikely.
Other examples of commercial ventures in San Rafael parks are
youth sport camps, volleyball tournaments, outdoor movie showings,
tennis lessons, etc. The incentive for customer service and
responsiveness is the privilege to utilize public facilities for public
programs. The City agrees that Centerfield will be more successful
in Albert Park if they are the sole professional team to play there for
the duration of the Agreement. Other public and private uses will
continue as they do now. Conflict resolution will be addressed
through the review process. Certificate of Insurance is typically due
I
30 days in advance of the start date of the use. Trash collection for
public buildings and facilities is included in the Franchise
Agreement between the City of San Rafael and Marin Sanitary
Service. No additional cost will be incurred for the proposed use and
the Stadium users will benefit with increased recycling
opportunities. Game starts will be both evening and weekend days
so downtown patronage is not limited to evening hours.
Sustainable San Rafael supports the proposal and asks for consideration of the following:
promote transit, bike and pedestrian access to the park; offer ticket price incentives to those
arriving by alternate transportation to cars; provide parking discounts for carpools; market
parking facilities and discourage on -street parking; promote re -charging of electric vehicles at
the City garages; fund improvements of Mahon pathway and crosswalks for safe night-time
use; promote Mahon pathway as access to games; support a downtown feeder bus route to
and from the new SMART station and Transit Center; implement Zero Waste measures;
adhere to the City's green building and drought -tolerant landscaping standards; partner with
local business for concessions, supplies and services and promotions; work toward
Centerfield becoming a certified Marin Green Business.
Centerfield Partners has agreed to implement green practices where
feasible. Improvements to Mahon pathway is not in the scope of this
Agreement.
9. Fairfax requires a Use Permit before Paul Lesh can build a music barn the same criteria should
be applied to the baseball proposal; concern for an influx of pigeons and sea gulls in the
neighborhood as a result of the use of Albert Park for professional baseball.
The baseball in Albert Part is a Permitted Use as per the Zoning
Ordinance. Unlike the construction of a new building on property
now occupied by an office building, this proposal does not require a
Use Permit. Garbage cans in Albert Park are covered to avoid
attracting scavenger birds and animals. The Stadium is enclosed on
the front and back so birds will not have access to popcorn or trash.
Trash will be cleaned up and secured each day.
10. More picnic facilities are needed in Albert Park; spend some of the Centerfield revenue on
tables and benches.
Group picnic facilities are in the Albert Park Master Plan and will
be installed when funding is available. Lonatese Garden and its
picnic facilities are available during the hours of operation of the
Community Center. Single tables and benches were removed from
Albert Park at the request of the Police Department. With increased
visits to the park by the general public, the presence of less
legitimate uses will diminish.
Attachment C
Public Commentary
Community Meeting
August 4, 2011
Albert Park Proposal
Attorney Questions (to be addressed by the City Attorney's office at the meeting of
August 9)
Why is an Agreement format, and not a contract issued for this proposal?
Why not do an Initial Study, whether it is a legal requirement or not?
Can the City answer the critical questions without an EIR?
What the options are for demanding an EIR?
Does indemnification cover the City in the event of damage or injury resulting in a
baseball landing outside the Park?
Parkin
1. Will the directional signs to the lot conform to city code?
Yes. It will be the same system as that for other City events.
2. Can the parking cost be in the ticket price?
To do so would be a disincentive to those who utilize alternative
transportation modes.
3. What will the impact be on the people who currently park at the Community Center —
will the baseball patrons displace them?
Signs can be posted at the Community Center on game dates to
exclude game parking and to designate parking for Center activities.
4. Why are the plans schematic rather than architectural?
Schematic plans are adequate for the proposal at this time.
5. Is a parking study required by Code?
A Parking Study is not required by Municipal Code but was
completed by Public Works Department.
6. Why won't the tennis players parking be impacted?
Signs can be posted on game dates to direct game parking from the
tennis courts to the Seagate lot.
7. Is there a provision in the Seagate agreement that requires free public parking?
There is provision for free parking for City events, and for lease of the
parking lot with City approval.
8. Can the 30 Albert Lofts residents that park on the Seagate lot have neighborhood
parking permits?
Agreement to utilize the Seagate parking lot is between Lofts and
Seagate. If permit parking plan is desired by the neighborhood, they
would set the jurisdiction.
9. Can there be weeknight designated parking for Parkside Children's Center pick up?
Drop off/pick up parking exists. With average of 10 children picked
up between 6:15 and 6:30 during summer months, no impact of game
parking is anticipated.
10. Will the rear lot be used for team parking exclusively? Why?
Staff recommends the 16 spaces available in front of the stadium be
used for team parking. This allows the spaces to fill before the gates
open, and to encourage patron parking away from the Community
Center and to the Seagate Lot. Entry in to the Stadium Parking lot is
shared with the Community Center and signage will be posted no
game parking on game dates.
11. Will the schedule of events and users for the Community Center building be
coordinated with game schedules? Why should local users be displaced for baseball?
Community Center may be reserved or scheduled 1 year prior to the
desired date, and typically is for most events. Centerfield schedule
will be managed to compliment Community Center and other park
use.
12. What will the parking impact be of a large event in the Community Center on a game
night?
Community Center parking will be designated for Center activities;
no change in current Center use is anticipated.
13. What reassurances are there that the midterm review will result in operational
changes? What accountability is there?
City, community and Centerfield, through the review process will
negotiate mitigations necessary to address issues. Customer service
and good community relationships are inherent to the commercial
success of Centerfield Partners. There is surety included in the
Management Plans
14. What benefit will there be for Downtown if people park at Seagate and don't go to
Fourth Street?
Patrons parking in the Seagate lot are in close proximity to local
business and may access as they choose.
15. Where will people working evenings at Seagate park on game nights? How will
Seagate tenants parking in the Seagate lot be removed on game nights?
Seagate management stated that parking is available for evening use
of the building in other on-site lots. The capacity of the lot leased to
Centerfield will accommodate the maximum number of cars
anticipated, as well as the number of employee cars present after
traditional work hours.
16. Why is the parking factor of 3 people per car average used?
Please refer to the Parking Plan. The City has factored 1 car per 2.5
average vehicle occupants, resulting in a maximum need for 480
parking spaces. The factor number is based on Federal Highway
Administration guidelines. Games will be attended by children and
families, reinforcing the factor assumptions.
The vehicle occupancy rate was based on various studies which
suggest that a rate of 2.2 to 2.8 be used for an event of this type.
Similar events at Dominican University also show that a vehicle
occupancy rate of 2.2 people per vehicle is typical. For the parking
and traffic analysis both the highest and lowest vehicle occupancy
rates were analyzed (2.2 and 2.8). (DPW)
It is assumed that a small percentage of patrons will arrive to the
game by bicycle or walking. Once those patrons have been removed
from the equation, the vehicle occupancy rate can be applied to obtain
the total number of expected vehicles. (DPW)
17. Is the $2 parking cost committed for the entire length of the Use Agreement?
Centerfield committed to charging $2.00 for parking for the first
season of the Agreement.
Traffic
1. Has the Albert Park Lofts traffic be factored into the traffic analysis? Will tenant
experience delays in getting into the Andersen drive entrance of game nights?
Yes, the traffic from Albert Park Lofts has been taken into
consideration. The game traffic was modeled on top of the existing
city-wide traffic volumes. Any traffic from the Albert Park Lofts is
included in the "existing" traffic model numbers. (DPW)
2. Is Andersen and Lindaro the choke point on traffic? What mitigations are proposed?
The main impact from the game traffic will be experienced at the
intersection of Second Street and Lindaro Street in the southbound
direction. However, it should be noted that the analysis of traffic
assumed the following:
Maximum number of attendees (sold out game)
Lowest vehicle occupancy rate (2.2 ppl per vehicle)
Very few vehicles use Andersen to access the parking lot
(majority use 2"d & 3rd Streets)
Traffic in downtown is at its absolute peak (usually
experienced earlier in the day than when game traffic is
expected.
Even when all these "worst case" items are incorporated, vehicle
backup is expected to be minimal. It is anticipated that the queue
from the Seagate parking lot may extend up Lindaro Street, to Third
Street, for a short period. (DPW)
This analysis is extremely conservative and because the City required
that the first pitch be rescheduled from 7:00 to 7:30 on Fridays, that
no money be collected at the entrance to the parking lot, that
adequate staff and signage be provided to manage the parking lot
access, the impacts to the traffic operations are expected to be
minimal. (DPW)
At Andersen & Lindaro, additional conflicting traffic will be
experienced, primarily due to the increase in pedestrians crossing
from the parking lot to the ball field. The City has proposed to have
the intersection of Andersen & Lindaro on flashing red and to have
police officers direct traffic at the beginning and end of each game in
order to ensure safe pedestrian crossing at this location. (DPW)
Both of these locations will be monitored by DPW staff in the field.
(DPW)
3. Will all traffic come in thru Central San Rafael?
It was assumed during the analysis of traffic that the majority of the
game traffic will access the site using downtown San Rafael since it is
the easiest path of travel. However, traffic from the South may be
directed to use Andersen Drive. In addition, traffic from West Marin
will arrive primarily on the Miracle Mile. (DPW)
4. is there a conflict with Parkside and game traffic?
Parkside is open until 6:30 PM. First pitch is scheduled to occur at
7:30 on Fridays. With most people arriving to the games within 60
minutes prior to the first pitch, there will be minimal conflicts with
Parkside. However, this will be monitored in the field. (DPW)
5. What will the impact be of local traffic diverting to other streets, especially Wolfe
Grade? Will emergency service access be impacted?
There will be minimal diversions. The impact to downtown San
Rafael traffic, even assuming a sold out game, with the conservative
2.2 people per car, and all traffic using Central San Rafael, will be
minimal and for a short duration of time. Therefore, there will be no
reason for traffic to seek alternate routes through the neighborhoods.
(DPW)
There will most likely be attendees from the Kentfield and Ross areas.
The most logical travel route for these patrons will be to use D Street
to 2" d Street and then over to Lindaro to access the parking lot.
(DPW)
Emergency Service departments will be notified of all game times and
will be able to plan their access routes accordingly on those dates.
The impact to emergency vehicles is anticipated to be minimal (DPW).
One of the first issues to be monitored in the field will be items related
to safety including emergency vehicle response times. In addition
traffic operations on all streets will be monitored. (DPW)
Noise
Has WildCare voiced a concern?
No.
2. Where are noise readings taken?
The Noise Ordinance, San Rafael Municipal Code, Title 8.13.040 states:
"For purposes of determining sound levels from any source of sound, a
sound level measurement shall be made at any point on any receiving private
or public property."
3. Will the sound carry into the hills?
Depending on environmental factors such as time of day, ambient noise, wind
and weather conditions, noise may be present. Past practice has not resulted
in neighborhood complaints. The Noise Ordinance restricts the level of noise,
but does not prohibit all noise.
4. How much non activity quiet time will remain?
There is a seasonal ebb and flow of noise associated with Park use. The City
will continue to operate Albert Park within the Noise Ordinance adhering to
noise levels and hours mandated.
5. Can there be a restriction on no PA use during practice, no music allowed during the
games, and is the noise consistent with the general plan policies listed in the Rossi letter?
The PA will not be utilized during team practices. Music is permitted during
the games, and Centerfield plans to have intermittent music during game
activities, but not after 10 p.m.
6. Is there music during practice?
No.
7. Did the Council read the World Health organization reports submitted by community
member?
The City Council received the reports.
8. Can the music be eliminated during the games?
Music is a typical component of baseball games. It will be permitted under
the proposed Agreement.
9. What will the impact be of the game noise and the post game clean up on Albert Park
Lofts?
PA speakers are positioned to project away from Albert Park Lofts.
Garbage and portable restroom service will remain on the same schedule
currently in place. Post game cleanup for evening games will not use
motorized equipment or vehicles to comply with the Noise Ordinance.
Safety
1. Will patrons be able to exit and re-enter the game; will there be hangers on idling
around the outside of the stadium?
When patrons enter or re-enter the stadium, all bags permitted as per the
Safety and Security Plan, will be searched. Security personnel will be
deployed at the entry gate to monitor baggage checks, and validate tickets.
Regular security patrols inside and outside the perimeter of the Stadium will
monitor behavior of those attending the game and those in the Park around
the Stadium.
2. What liability does the City have for balls leaving the Park?
The proposed Agreement contains an indemnification provision that requires
Centerfield to defend and indemnify the City for injuries and property
damage.
3. Who will pay if the fence heights need to be increased?
Centerfield has agreed to pay for fence extensions in center Left and center
Right fields. Additional fence extensions, if determined to be necessary by
the City, will be negotiated.
4. What ball protection has been given to WildCare and the tennis courts?
These areas are not impacted by baseballs due to distance and the existing
fences, and are not expected to be impacted by this use.
5. What is the City's position on whether balls will leave the park?
Baseballs generally do not leave the Park. In the case that one does,
Centerfield has indemnified the City for damages and/or injury.
Alcohol Sales
1. Can alcohol sales be stopped at the 7`" inning or 10 p.m. whichever comes first?
Yes.
2. Can the liability limit be raised to 3 to 5 million?
The City Attorney's determines the liability limit based on risk assessment.
The current level is determined to be adequate for this proposed use, but the
3. How much of the police interactions in other parks have been related to alcohol? (To
be addressed by the Police Department at the meeting of August 9)
Over the last 19 months, San Rafael Police Department responded to 61
incidents in City Parks. There are 18 City Parks.
4. How will the City deal with the inundation of Gerstle Park with seagulls?
This use will not attract seagulls similar to what occurs at AT&T Park.
Albert Park capacity under this proposed use is 3.3% of the capacity of
AT&T Park. The amount of garbage generated to attract seagulls is
commiserate with that percentage. Albert Park has 700 seats under a closed
Stadium where birds cannot enter. Garbage receptacles in the park are
covered to avoid scavenging by animals or birds. It is not anticipated this use
will attract seagulls or other pests.
community Benefits
1. What benefit does the City get from baseball?
The City will receive:
A. A community serving, family oriented entertainment activity in
Albert Park.
B. Improvements to the Albert Park baseball Stadium for community
users.
C. Revenue to cover direct and indirect costs.
2. Why isn't the City charging more for the use of the park? Is the fee schedule out of
date?
The fees charged for the use of the park are in line with what other
communities charge for similar uses. A City Agreement may include rates
and payment conditions distinct from the Master Fee Schedule. This
Agreement calls for base rental fees revenue, improvement credit, and direct
cost assignment. The Agreement will produce more revenue and benefit for
the City than the current use generates.
3. What is the cost to the City of processing this proposal and why isn't the City
charging for staff time?
The City does charge for staff time provided to develop recreational
programming or services. Revenue to support City costs is collected from
user fees once the program or service is delivered.
4. Why is an exclusive use being given to Centerfield partners?
Centerfield Partners will not have exclusive use of Albert Park Stadium and
baseball field. Other community and outside groups will have use of the
facilities before, during and after the Centerfield Partners use.
5. What local users are being shut out of using the field?
No local users will be affected. The current users that may have less dates
available to schedule Albert Park Stadium and baseball field are Top Speed
Baseball, a summer Bay Area collegiate team playing similar teams, Novato
Knicks, a semi -pro adult team, San Francisco National Adult Baseball
Association, a Bay Area adult recreational league, Bay Area Men's Senior
Baseball League, a Bay Area adult recreational league, West Coast Fantasy
Baseball League, a state-wide recreational league, and Redwood Empire
Baseball League, a Bay Area adult recreational league.
Attachment D
Public Commentary/Questions
Community Meeting
August 9, 2011
Proposal for Albert Park
Questions on Presentation
I . Does the estimate of City costs include Police Department costs?
2. What is the cost of the police attendance at tonight's meeting and the cost of
compiling the information he presented?
3. Will topography be included in the noise analysis and it's impact on the Southern
Heights neighborhood
4. Will the Initial Study address the health impacts of noise?
New Issues Identified at Meeting
1. Has a Noise Ordinance Exception been granted?
2. When will the modified Use Agreement be available for public review?
3. How many parks are in the League and where are they located?
4. Will local restaurants be offered the food sales concessions?
5. Will priority be given to hiring local youth at the park?
6. Clarify the benefits to the City and community
7. Can the City request a larger payment from Centerfield partners?
8. What is the air quality impact from the smoke and odor of the BBQ and grilling
activities?
9. What is the frequency of the activities scheduled on the field now, what are the
noise impacts, and how will this compare to the noise of the proposed schedule?
10. What is the schedule of road and home games; are the home games consecutive?
11. Will the noise study include quality of life issues and not just a discussion of dBA
levels and Code limitations?
12. In the waste collection, will there be a program for Zero Waste?
13. Will the congestion of cars exiting at the end of the game be covered in the Initial
Study?
14. Have the applicants considered lighting another field such as Dominican
University?
15. Will the Initial Study process notify all the impacted neighbors and not just those
in the surrounding area?
16. Will the Initial Study include a detailed analysis of City costs?
17. Does the Use Agreement include a termination clause?
18. Share the Risk Assessment with the Community
19. Address the question of whether advertising signs (sponsors banners) are allowed
in a park
20. Explain how people and property injured or damaged by balls will be
compensated
21. Is the attachment (Management Plan) to the Agreement legal as it relates to
alcohol, and how will it be enforced? Will employees be background checke;
who signs off on the Program?
22. What is the time line for all approvals and what is the sequence of events and how
will the community be involved?
23. Is the parking fee of $2 for just the first year of operation, followed by negotiation
of the fee for future years?
24. What is the impact on WildCare?
25. Has Council considered the impact of the project on General Plan policies,
especiallyNH-14, CD -2 and the entire Downtown neighborhood Design section?
26. Will Council consider a project to plan the future of Albert Park?
27. Where are the accessible parking spaces (ADA) located and will there be more
installed to accommodate the increased use to the field?
28. Will trees be removed?
29. Evaluate the fenced concession stand area and the impact on open space in the
park
14
Attachment E
Esther Beirne
From: Nancy Mackie
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 9:26 AM
To: Esther Beirne
Subject: FW: Professional Baseball at Albert Park
From: Cathey Ragucci [
Sent: Friday, July 22, 20119:26 AM
To: Al Boro; Greg Brockbank; Damon Connolly; Barbara Heller; Marc Levine; Nancy Mackie; Carlene
McCart
Subject: Re: Professional Baseball at Albert Park
As a neighbor who lives barely 2 blocks away from Albert Park, I do not consider baseball games with a
capacity of 1500 fans to be a small scale endeavor. Whenever there are amplified sports games at
Davidson Middle School, the noise level is disturbing enough - and that is a much smaller audience than
is being proposed for Albert Park. Homeowners in this area already have to put up with a lot of
construction noise during the day (today is a prime example, with jackhammers shattering the peace
almost constantly). I look forward to peace and quiet in the evenings. I remain unconvinced that there
will not be a lot more noise if this project goes through.
Sincerely,
Catherine Ragucci
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Cathey Ragucci < wrote:
Dear Mr. Mayor and City Council Members,
I am a homeowner on Picnic Hill who attended the meeting on Monday, and I was dismayed to
hear that residents of Albert Park Lofts are currently allowed to park in the Corporate Parking
Center. On my way home last night I drove through the parking lot and counted the cars parked
there. There were 36 cars parked there at 8:15 pm. I wonder how many people currently have
the fight to park in this parking lot that the city was counting on being empty for baseball
games. It would not be fair, and might be illegal, to force occupants to park elsewhere for so
many nights during the baseball season. I also wonder what would happen to all the Corporate
Center employees who decide to work past 6:15 in the evening. In my previous line of work,
many people routinely worked until 9 or 10 pm.
I am concerned that if no one knew about the current use of this lot, perhaps this project was not
thoroughly investigated before a vote was planned. I remain very concerned that the
neighborhood would be inundated with unwelcome traffic and parking on baseball nights. I
think the estimate of 350 to 500 cars is low, as often there are only 2 people to a car, and
sometimes people come straight from work. 750 to 800 cars is a more realistic estimate, I
believe.
I hope you will all work together with the community and delay a vote on this proposal until all
7/22/2011
. -I- - -- -
concerns have been adequately addressed.
Sincerely,
Catherine Ragucci
7;'2212011
---a-----
Esther
--I'-----
Esther Beirne
From: Patti Brennan on behalf of Al Boro
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 10:53 AM
To: Esther Beirne
Subject: FW: Professional Baseball at Albert Park
From: Cathey Ragucci [mailto:
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 20115:49 PM
To: Al Boro; Greg Brockbank; Damon Connolly; Barbara Heller; Marc Levine; Nancy Mackie; Carlene
McCart
Subject: Professional Baseball at Albert Park
Dear Mr. Mayor and City Council Members,
I am a homeowner on Picnic Hill who attended the meeting on Monday, and I was dismayed to
hear that residents of Albert Park Lofts are currently allowed to park in the Corporate Parking
Center. On my way home last night I drove through the parking lot and counted the cars parked
there. There were 36 cars parked there at 8:15 pm. I wonder how many people currently have
the right to park in this parking lot that the city was counting on being empty for baseball
games. It would not be fair, and might be illegal, to force occupants to park elsewhere for so
many nights during the baseball season. I also wonder what would happen to all the Corporate
Center employees who decide to work past 6:15 in the evening. In my previous line of work,
many people routinely worked until 9 or 10 pm.
I am concerned that if no one knew about the current use of this lot, perhaps this project was not
thoroughly investigated before a vote was planned. I remain very concerned that the
neighborhood would be inundated with unwelcome traffic and parking on baseball nights. I
think the estimate of 350 to 500 cars is low, as often there are only 2 people to a car, and
sometimes people come straight from work. 750 to 800 cars is a more realistic estimate, I
believe.
I hope you will all work together with the community and delay a vote on this proposal until all
concerns have been adequately addressed.
Sincerely,
Catherine Ragucci
7/25/2011
..15~ . ~^~
Esther Beirne
From: Patti Brennan onbehalf of/VBoro
Sent: Monday, July 25 2011 11:03AM
To: Esther Beirne
Subject: FW: Albert Park proposed changes
From: Anne Sheldon [
Sent: Thursday, July J1,2O116:]1PM
To: Al Bono; Barbara Heller; Damon Connolly; Greg Brockbank; Marc Levine
Subject: Albert Park proposed changes
Dear Mayor Boro, and City Councillors,
I attended the meeting to discuss the proposed Albert Park changes and am even more
opposed to the project than before. Here are a few points that you may not have had a chance
to consider yet:
1. The parking will create so many problems with baseball fans parking in surrounding
neighborhoods that the City will find itself paying a lot of money purchasing and installing
hundreds of'Residents Only' signs for said neighborhoods. Residents will have Uzbeissued
special stickers and will have to have them displayed on their windscreens.
2. If Centerfield Partners really wants to bring smiles to the faces of Marin's baseball fans, why
isn't it suggesting building a brand new stadium in one of the big empty spaces in Marin, such
as the area around Horne Depot? Parking would not be a problem there—a parking lot holding
athousand cars could bebuilt ifneeded. The reason isthat Centerhe|dPartners' only
motivation in making this proposal is the large amount of money that it is hoping to make.
3. One way that would ease parking if the project does go through is that ticket prices should
include the price ufparking. AND, the tickets could beelectronically scanned byaparking
attendant (volunteer orotherwise) upon entering the parking lot. Then the ticket holder goes
tothe stadium and the ticket isscanned asecond time. The second scan would reveal that the
ticket holder truly parked inadesignated parking area. }fthe second scan does not show the
original scan, the ticket holder would beprevented from entering the stadium. Of course,
those who walk Vrbike will need something else tOshow their mode Vftransportation.
4. Once somebody goes into the ball park, they can't come back out toloiter and talk tofriends
who are tweeting to them from the outside. That will cut down onthe number ofpeople
milling around Outside. And no car cruising the area.
Residents in surrounding neighborhoods do not want noise from people hanging around their
7/25/2O1l
'_Cl-_-'_
streets talking, possibly smoking and throwing their cigarette butts down on their street, etc
Please ask yourselves: Is this something that I would want in my neighborhood?
5. Regarding the PA system: The announcers should just announce the players and the play-by-
play. Not all of that "entertainment" with rock music and games for the 4 generations that
could beattending any given night. |twould beanabsolute nightmare for neighborhood
residents to be subjected to loud pop music etc. basically every weekend for months in the
summer. They will nolonger beable toenjoy beingoutintheirgardensre|axing,orjustteking
astroll around the neighborhood. Noise isterrible because you cannot get away from it.
Everyone will all be kept awake from it, from the very young to the very old. Why let afor-
profit deve|opertakethesepreciousthingsavvayfrnrnthehundredsofresidentsofsomneofthe
neighborhoods that the City represents?
Please consider these points and thank you for reading this email. VVereally believe that the
enormous change from being community park where baseball is already played and enjoyed,
to a stadium built by and managed by a for-profit commercial corporation will be a nightmare
for every resident in the surrounding neighborhoods whether they realize it now or not. Could
you please, please, request that CenterOe|d Partners find somewhere else in Marin to have the
stadium —everyone will support a stadium in an appropriate location, we're sure of that —1he
City will bypass so many insurmountable problems and you won't have to deal with a divided
San Rafael.
Sincerely,
Annie Filb«3nd family
Gerstle Park residents
7/25/2O|l
Esther Beirne
From: Patti Brennan on behalf of Al Bora
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 11:04 AM
To: Esther Beirne
Subject: FW: Concerns - Baseball at Albert Park
From: Tracey Hessel [
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 20117:42 PM
To: Pletcher, Mark; Al Boro; Damon Connolly; Barbara Heller; Marc Levine; Greg Brockbank
Subject: Concerns - Baseball at Albert Park
Dear Mr. Mayor and City Council Members,
I attended the City Council meeting earlier this week predisposed towards supporting the baseball
proposition assuming several main issues were addressed. I left with serious concerns because so
many important details are not yet worked out. I was glad that the decision was made to delay the
vote and sincerely hope that you insist on concrete answers prior to deciding upon moving forward
with the proposal.
Overall, I had two general concerns:
I was dismayed that, after what sounds like hours of discussion at multiple meetings of community
members, city staff and Centerfield Partners to discuss the key concerns, there were very few
concrete plans, but rather the common theme seemed to be that they were "still investigating several
options" to address those issues. It seems very premature and irresponsible to ask you to commit to
a plan without specific solutions to those problems being agreed upon.
I was also concerned that, given the very real and likely impact to the surrounding community
members (noise, parking, traffic, safety concerns, property value, access to the childcare center,
trash) it seems that the benefits to the city are actually minimal. Particularly surprising was that,
despite the shockingly low cost for the team to play at the field, the city would actually deduct any
expenses incurred in making what are really minor permanent improvements to Albert Park
(Painting and possibly? upgrading the bathrooms, improving the dugouts and the backstop). It
seems disingenuous to say that the benefits are both the revenue generated and
permanent improvements to the park since, in effect, those are one and the same.
Specifically, my remaining concerns include:
1) Parkside Children's Center. It is almost impossible for parents to park and get through the
narrow street even when there is just a high school softball game in session. While the game times
have been adjusted to 7:15, the gates would open at 6:15. Parkside does not close until 6:30.
2) Parking. Even at a low cost, it seems extremely likely that many people would chose to look for
street parking to avoid any additional expense. I strongly urge Centerfield Partners to develop their
proposal based on built in incentives for using their parking or not driving to the game rather than
relying on people to be willing to pay even a low additional cost for parking. As was suggested,
7/25/2011
- -C' - - - - -
building in the cost of parking to the ticket and validating as well as offering some incentive ($ off
concessions, etc) for proof of arriving on public transportation that would help to reduce the impact
on the surrounding neighborhoods. It should be possible to figure out the costs of potential
solutions and build them into the final proposal before you are asked to approve it.
3) Noise. You heard from many residents that they can already hear unamplified noise both from
Albert Park and from sporting events at Davidson Middle School. The argument that there would
be no change from the current situation seems misleading. Having a few large events per year such
as the MCAL game where they may announce batters and the score seems very different to me than
a commercial baseball experience. Playing music and all of the short recorded snippets of chants or
tunes to inspire cheers throughout the game are part of the fun for the fans but I think would have
significant impact on the neighbors who have to listen to them throughout the weekends of the
season.
4) Traffic. The residents of Picillic Valley correctly identified the problem that the Woodland
corridor is already congested with two schools within 1 block and 'industrial traffic often using that
route rather than the larger streets downtown. It is almost impossible to imagine a scenario where
increased traffic and moving cars into one parking lot off of Lindaro wouldn't cause increased
congestion to families trying to get home.
Thank you for your thoughtful attention to these concerns. I hope that you will insist on more
satisf�,ui-ig answers to these questions before moving forward with this proposal if you feel the
benefits outweigh the impact on the San Rafael community.
Thank you,
Tracey Hessel
San Rafael, CA 94901
7/25/2011
Page I of 4
Esther Beirne
From: Patti Brennan on behalf of Al Boro
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 11:06 AM
To: Esther Beirne
Subject: FW: Albert Park: 'Noise having huge negative impact on health' -
From: Alezz Laielen [
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2011 11:58 PIVI
To: Al Boro; Barbara Heller; Damon Connolly; Greg Brockbank; Marc Levine
Cc:
Stephanie Noble; Stephanie John D; Snyder; Amy
Turner; SOUTHERN NEIGHBORS; Gomez; Slijepcevich Borba; Newhouse
Subject: Albert Park: 'Noise having huge negative impact on health' -
Dear Mayor Boro and City Council Members,
I'm sorry you weren't able to read the article I e-mailed you entitled
Noise Pollution Takes Toll on Health and Happiness that appeared in
the Washington Post before the City Council convened on Monday night
to discuss the commercial marketing and development of Albert
Community Park by Centerfield Partners LLC.
In case it didn't make it into your folders the link is:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/arLicle/2007/o6/04/AR2007o6O4Ol4.'10.htmI
In this e-mail I am enclosing the article "Noise having a huge impact on
health" that references the study by the World Health Organization. On
behalf of the citizens you were elected to serve and for the sake of your
own health and well being I am asking that you become informed on
how noise pollution is harming one's health - even when one is not
aware of it. Approximately 3,000 San Rafael residents live within
hearing distance of Albert Park.
70 5001 1
Page 2 of 4
Health Advocate
'Noise having huge impact on health'
Noise creates stress which can lead to heart attacks
By Roger Highfield, Science Editor /Noise-
having-huge-impact-on-health.htmI
12:01 AM BST 23 Aug 2007
20 Comments
Noise may be the root cause of around three deaths in every hundred traditionally blamed on
heart disease according to a study that suggests many thousands of people in Britain may be
dying because of a lack of peace and quiet.
. Your say: is noise making you unwell?
. Audio: Roger Highfield on how sound can kill
. The Telegraph's Quiet Please campaign
More people than ever are now complaining about unwanted noise pollution - from rowdy
neighbours and loud traffic to late-night pubs and clubs.
Now ground -breaking research from the World Health Organisation has provided estimates of
the impact of noise on the European population, reports New Scientist today, revealing a
striking contribution of noise to premature deaths from accidents and disease.
Though preliminary, the WHO's findings suggest that long-term exposure to traffic noise may
account for three per cent of deaths from ischaemic heart disease in Europe - typically strokes
7/25/2011
Page 3 of 4
and heart attacks.
Given that 7 million people around Europe die each year from heart disease, that
would put the toll from exposure to noise at around 210,000 deaths. In England, heart
disease kills 110,000 people annually, so the deaths linked to noise could be around
3,300.
"The new data provide the link showing there are earlier deaths because of noise," the magazine
was told by Deepak Prasher, professor of audiology at University College London, and a
member of the coalition of European scientists who helped assemble and analyse the data, which
will be published before the end of this year.
"Until now, noise has been the Cinderella form of pollution and people haven't been aware that
it has an impact on their health," he says.
Noise is linked with heart attack and stroke because it creates chronic stress that keeps our
bodies in a state of constant alert. Research published last year by Gen-nany's Federal
Environmental Agency in Berlin shows that even when you are asleep, your ears, brain and
body continue to react to sounds, raising levels of stress hormones.
However, if these stress hormones are in constant circulation, they can cause long -ten -n
physiological changes that could be life-threatening. The end result can be anything from heart
failure and strokes to high blood pressure and immune problems. "All this is happening
imperceptibly, and this is the key," said Prof Prasher.
Dr Rokho Kim, of the WHO/EURO Centre for Environment and Health, Bonn, said: "There is
evidence that the sleep disturbance is associated with increased accidents in children, and
increased traffic accidents. Because the data is sparse, WHO did not pursue further to quantify
this impact."
However, he said that, compared with sleeping eight or more hours each night, sleeping 6 to 7
hours was associated with a 1.8 times higher risk for involvement in a sleep -related crash versus
a non -sleep -related crash, and sleeping fewer than five hours per night invoked a 4.5 times
higher risk.
Standardised tests and questionnaires in the classroom reveal a small - fraction of a percent - but
significant impact of noise on eduction.
"Chronic aircraft noise exposure impaired reading comprehension and recognition memory," Dr
Kim told The Daily Telegraph. "Among various effects on education, "reading test"
and "memory -recall test" are more significantly affected by aircraft noise."
Prof Trevor Cox, University of Salford, added: "Prof Bridget Shield, London South Bank
University did some research on this for the Department of Health.
"Her research showed a significant relationship between SAT scores and noise levels, and that
primary schools with external noise levels below the current guidelines failed to meet the
7/25/2011
Page 4 of 4
Government's maths and literacy targets.
"Professor Stephen Stansfeld in the RANCH project (Road Traffic and Aircraft Noise. exposure
and Children's Cognition and Health) showed that a 5dB increase in aircraft noise resulted in a 2
month delay in reading attainment."
The new WHO figures also suggest that two per cent of Europeans suffer severely disturbed
sleep because of noise pollution, and at least 15 per cent suffer severe annoyance. The
researchers calculate that chronic exposure to loud traffic noise causes three per cent of all cases
of tinnitus, in which sufferers hear constant noise.
While the WHO has yet to finalise what levels of chronic exposure cause problems, though the
threshold for cardiovascular problems, for example, is chronic night-time exposure of 50
decibels (dB) or above and a daytime exposure above 60dB.
Levels linked with annoyance are above 45dB and a disturbed sleep is above 40dB. The
threshold judged to have a harmful impact -on children's learning is 55 dB during night or day.
However, the fraction of people affected "increases with increasing levels of exposure but the
number in the population affected decreases," said Prof Prasher, so the overall impact on society
declines.
The findings have emerged over the past four years as members of the WHO's Working Group
on the Noise Environmental Burden of Disease project have sifted data from studies in countries
including Germany, Switzerland and the Netherlands, to agree preliminary estimates of the
impact of noise on the entire European population and separate its effects from those of traffic
pollution and other confounding factors.
The WHO's investigations have been triggered in part by a rapid increase in complaints about
noise pollution. Figures collected by the UK Office for National Statistics suggest that noise
complaints to local government offices have increased fivefold over the past 20 years.
The Noise Abatement Society claims that local authorities, which are responsible for enforcing
the regulations, are not getting the funds to do the job properly and The Daily Telegraph has
launched its "Quiet, Please" campaign in response to the rise in complaints.
By the end of this year, cities with populations exceeding 250,000 will be required by European
law to have produced digitised noise maps showing hotspots where traffic noise and volume are
greatest.
Prof Prasher and other members of the WHO working group hope that revealing the scale of the
health impact will help jolt more dismissive governments around the world into taking action to
regulate noise.
7050011
Esther Beirne
Page I of 2
From: Patti Brennan on behalf of Al Boro
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 11:10 AM
To: Esther Beirne
Subject: FW: Formsite email to Mayor Albert J. Boro 6234133
From: City Council
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2011 10:32 PM
To: Al Borc,
Subject: FW: Formsite email to Mayor Albert J. Boro 6234133
From: form—engine@fs 1 8.formsite.com[SMTP: FORM_EN GIN E@FS 18. FORMS ITE COM]
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2011 10:32:09 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Formsite email to Mayor Albert J. Boro, 6234133
Auto forwarded bya Rule
Council Contact Form
City dWft
ty o ban Rafael
City Council
Form
Contact rorm
Thank you for visiting the City of San Rafael website. This form is available to facilitate contacting
our Mayor and Councilmembers concerning topics of interest to the community. Please contact
the City Manager's office at 415-485-3070 for any additional assistance.
* First Name
Steven
* Last Name
Detwiler
Address 1
7/25/2011
Page 2 of 2
Address 2
City
Forest Knolls
State
CA
Zip Code
04933
Phone Number
* Email Address
Send email to (select one)
Mayor Albert J. Bono
* Please enter your qwembons/mmmmmmentsbelxm/
Dear Mayor Boru, My name is Steve Detwiler and I am a San Rafael High Grad and recently
graduated from Cal State University, Fresno. I am writing about the proposed Independent
Baseball team in San Rafael at Alberts Park. l highly suggest voting YES for this because i am
currently playing furan Independent team based out of New York. l have seen what great things a
Independent team can dofor a srneU town, like San Rafael. It brings the whole community
together, it gives a sense of Pride but most of all it will help give teens and young kids something
and someone to look up to in their own home town for a small price. Jobs will open for people
looking for a fun summer job, Downtown San Rafael will make money from all the people
attending the game and itjust has all around has great thing itcan dofor the city ofSan Rafael.
After playing two years of Independent Professional Baseball, last year in Las Cruces, New Mexico,
I have seen so much good it can do for the community and know for sure that this is something
that will take off and really be great thing that San Rafael needs.
7/25/20\l
---a- - ---
Esther
_-
Esther Beirne
From:
Nancy Mackie
Sent:
Monday, July 25, 2011 8:29 AM
To:
Esther Beirne
Subject: FW: Semi -Pro Baseball in SIR
From: Judi Williams [mailto:
Sent: Monday, July 25, 20118:09 AM
To: Al Boro; Greg Brockbank; Barbara Heller; Damon Connolly; Marc Levine; Nancy Mackie
Cc:
Subject: Semi -Pro Baseball in SR
Dear San Rafael Mayor and City Councilmen,
I live and have my business here in Gerstle Park for 5yrs, and I strongly object to the city's plan
of giving over our park to a commercial operation. To practically donate our park to an outside
interest, creating havoc in our quiet streets, is not in the city's best interest. And not why I live in
this area. I wonder where our local teams are going to have to go to play on Fridays, Saturdays
and Sundays. This park belongs to the people of the city and should not be turned into a
commercial zone for professional sports activities. Hosting a semi -pro team in a residential
neighborhood is untenable.
Gerstle Park is one of San Rafael's best neighborhoods. GP is known for being quiet, safe and
friendly. An influx of 1500 baseball fans, creating traffic jams, parking in front of our houses,
drinking beer and making loud noises late into the night up to 45 times a season would change
the character of our neighborhood in many negative ways: increased traffic, difficult parking,
noise, lawlessness due to drinking, not to mention the possible liabilities that we as tax payers
would be responsible for should the city be deemed responsible for some damage or harm caused
by players or attendees. All for what money?
Geographically, the park is at the bottom of a bowl -shaped valley. The sounds from that bottom
rise right up the sides of the hills around it and into our homes... hundreds of homes. I would
hope you would see that your job is to protect the quality of life of your residents instead of
catering to an out-of-town business concern.
Of great concern to me is, it seems to me that the normal due process for a major development
such as this has not been followed and I feel as though the needs and desires of your citizens
have been sidelined in favor of those of an outside concern whose negative impact on our
community will be immense.
Thank you,
Judi
7/25/2011
Judi Williams
Let's Face It
Wholistic Skin Care & Professional Coaching
Look Beautiful — Feel Great — Naturally
lets faceit-wholistieskincare. com
Dreams are Good ^ Realities are Better
letsfaceitcoaching.com
7/25/2011
Esther Beirne
Pagel of
From: Patti Brennan on behalf of Al Boro
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 9:04 AM
To: Esther Beirne
Subject: FW: Formsite email to Mayor Albert J. Boro 6235913
From: City Council
Sent: Monday, July 25, 20119:29 PM
To: Al Boro
Subject: FW: Formsite email to Mayor Albert 3. Boro 6235913
From: form—engine@fsl8.formsite.com[SMTP:FORM_ENGINE@FS18.FORMSITE.COM]
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 9:29:05 PIVI
To: City Council
Subject: Formsite email to Mayor Albert J. Boro 6235913
Auto forwarded by a Rule
Council Contact Form
City of San Rafael
City Council
A- - Form
Con tact rorm
Thank you for visiting the City of San Rafael website. This form is available to facilitate contacting
our Mayor and Councilmembers concerning topics of interest to the community. Please contact
the City Manager's office at 415-485-3070 for any additional assistance.
* First Name
Patricia
* Last Name
Leeds
7/26/2011
Page 2 of 2
Address
Address 2
City
San Rafael
State
Ca
Zip Code
94901
Phone Number
* Email Address
* Send email to (select one)
Mayor Albert ].Boro
* Please enter your questions/ comments below
Dear Mayor Boro, Please give careful consideration when making your decision concerning
Cenhedieid Partners LLC proposal fora baseball park atAlbert field. Although it may be a nostalgic
idea for many,it is not the right location. The only reason I can see that Centerfield Partners so
desperately wants this location is because they don't have to incur the expense of putting in lights
and San Rafael seems so willing to take on some of the extra expenses. The only winners in this
proposal are Cen0erfie|d Partners. They will bethe only ones making money. San Rafael certainly
won't benefit from it financially, and it won't help the downtown businesses. If the games start at
7pm, people will not go to dinner in downtown San Rafael, they'll most likely eat at home. The
Gerstle Park neighborhood is a small quiet place to live and most of the neighbors don't want the
noise and traffic here. The people who are interested inthe ball park do not live inGersde park.
The traffic is already bad at that time of the evening and the streets are narrow with cars parked
on both sides of the street. Parking will definitely become an issue. [enterOe|d's statement that
ONLY 6DOcars will attend is ludicrous atbest. We all know that people tend todrive by themselves
and definitely don't use public transportation. This isnot the right area for aminor league ball
park. Please vote nuonthis proposal. Thank you, Patricia Leeds 103 C Street San Rafael
7060.011
Page I of 2
Esther Beirne
From: William Carney [
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 9:45 PM
To: Esther Beirne
Cc: Carlene McCart
Subject: Baseball in Albert Park
July 27, 2011
San Rafael City Council
City Hall
1400 Fifth Street
San Rafael, CA 94901
Honorable Mayor and Council Members:
Sustainable San Rafael supports the advent of minor league baseball to Albert Park as a way of
activating downtown and vitalizing local business. We request that the Council also take this
opportunity to reduce dependence on cars and further the pedestrian, bicycle and transit friendly
policies of the City, as well as to model other green practices.
Specifically, we ask that you request the team owners to take the following steps, as conditions
for approving their utilization of Albert Park:
1. Include promotion of transit, cycling and walking as the preferred means of reaching the Park
in all promotional materials relating to baseball in San Rafael.
2. Offer ticket discounts for those arriving at games by these means.
3. Offer parking discounts for carpools.
4. Clearly identify the parking facilities to be used by game attendees, and discourage on -street
parking, in promotional materials.
5. Promote re -charging of electric vehicles during games, using the EV charging stations in the
A and C Street Garages.
6. Fund improvements of the Mahon pathway and related crosswalks for safe night-time use
between the Transit Center and Albert Park.
7. Promote use of the Mahon pathway to reach games, including way -finding signage and
diagrams.
8. Support a downtown feeder bus route to and from the new SMART station and Transit
7/28/2011
Page 2 of 2
Center, including Albert Park on game nights.
9. Implement Zero Waste measures, including participation in the Commercial Recycling and
Food Waste Composting programs being adopted this year.
10. Adhere to the City's green building and drought -tolerant landscaping standards.
11. Partner with other local businesses for concessions, supplies and services, as well as on joint
promotional materials and events.
12. Work towards becoming certified as a Marin Green Business.
In addition to reducing Greenhouse Gas pollution from cars and waste, we believe that measures
such as these will help address the parking and traffic issues that have concerned many
neighborhood residents. They also seem very much in keeping with the character that the team
is trying to create for its operations.
Sincerely,
William Carney
President
cc: Carlene McCart, Community Services Director
7/? 9/2011
Esther Beirne
From: Nancy Mackie
ent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 9:13 AM
0: Esther Beirne; Carlene McCart; Lisa Goldfien
Subject: FW: Baseball in Albert Park
Ether- another one for the packet
Carlene & Lisa - some contractual suggestions. Note he says exclusive which is not correct
-----Original Message -----
From: Matthew Leeds [
Barbara Heller; Marc Levine; Nancy Mackle
I'm writing to provide some perspectives regarding the potential agreement with
Centerfield Partners. I attended the public forum held on July 18th, and some of my
comments will reflect what was discussed there. I've also read the staff report and the
current draft agreement, and have some comments regarding those documents.
First, if we assume that commercial sports of a recurring nature are an appropriate use
for a community park, and I'm not convinced, then we need to ask, on what basis? This is
not a non-profit venture. The franchise fees alone are over $500,000. Nor is this a
community-based organization. It is a commercial venture, with profits in mind. One can
not assume it has the best interests of the community in mind, rather that it has the best
interests of its investors in mind; that's the nature of a for-profit enterprise.
So, assuming that commercializing the park is appropriate, I would ask why the city would
grant the exclusive right to commercial team usage of the park to a single enterprise? Why
would we not allow more than one commercial team the use of the park? Yet the agreement
nder consideration does exactly that, and for no commercial gain to the city. This seems
.t a minimum inappropriate, bad business for the city, and a lost opportunity.
Second, the agreement provides an insufficient framework for resolving conflicts between
the city and Centerfield Partners. This is not a simple single use permit as it binds the
city to a multi-year commitment. The only cure for breach is to void the agreement. This
seems an all or nothing option and is unlikely to be a satisfactory approach to motivating
adherence to the agreement. A stepped series of financial penalties would be a more
appropriate arrangement.
Third, no deadline is set for the COI. I'd suggest requiring it be filed with the city at
least 30 days prior to the start of any use of the park.
Fourth, the financial analysis by staff overlooks several items. One in particular is the
cost of trash removal for which the city is responsible. Given the projected attendance
for each game, I'd suspect that a trash pickup will be required after each game.
Additionally given the number of items that were discussed during the pubic forum that
will need 'monitoring', the city will incur costs for said monitoring.
Fifth, given the proposed traffic flows and game start times, it seems unlikely that local
merchants will see an increase in utilization by those attending the game. If attendees do
park in the proposed lot, their foot traffic will be directly to the park and not through
downtown.
I hope you'll consider the above points as you analyze the cost/benefit to the city of
entering into this agreement.
Matthew Leeds
1
Carlene McCart
From: Hugo & Cynthia Landecker [
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 5:54 PM
To: Carlene McCart
Cc: Adina; Brian & Laura Gannon; Mary Ann Nardo; Dotty LeMieux; Stephanie Noble; Samantha
Sargent; andrew bartleft
Subject: Baseball committee review
Attachments: Baceball document review 3.doc; ATT195771.txt
V1 O""M
Baceball document ATT195771.txt (68
review 3.doc... 13)
Carlene,
Attached is the Citizens for Albert Park Committee list of questions generated by
reviewing all the documents supplied for the July 18, 2011 City Council hearing on the
Centerfield proposal. Included in the review are the Agenda Report, Centerfield/Park and
Rec Agreement, Exhibits B, C, D, E, F, G part 1, G part 2, H, I, all the correspondence
received, public comments, several additional items in addition to comments, made at the
many meetings of the Citizens for Albert Park Committee.
I realize that the list is very lengthy, but the public is entitled to answers. We are
used to seeing these types of concerns addressed at the Commission/Staff level. It is
unfortunate that the Commission essentially "kicked the can down the road" to the City
Council who is now faced with a level of detail that they usually do not encounter.
I do want to remind you that the Committee is not against baseball. The
Committee has issue is with the lack of a proper review by the City and an issue with
transparency.
Thanks,
Hugo Landecker
Review of Agenda Report for Baseball at Albert Park (Report
made for July 18, 2011 City Council meeting)
Page 5 Are the existing bathrooms under the grandstands ADA compliant?
Is Centerfield installing some ADA compliant portables, or is the plan to
use the ADA compliant restrooms in the Rec Center?
Park and Rec to answer
Page 5 Commercial adult league could have fewer dates available. Based on
current ball field usage it appears difficult to schedule an additional 45+ events
and time for Centerfield practice without a sacrifice.
Park and Rec to answer about acceptability of this.
Page 6 Scope of use: Mentions agreement to use portable backstop.
Agreement does not exist.
Not included in Attachment E Agreement.
Park and Rec to resolve.
Page 6 Nothing prohibits baseball events and practice from being scheduled
during daycare center use.
Park and Rec to answer.
Page 7 Signage proposed.
Not in accordance with municipal code.
Need Park and Rec answer.
Page 7 States that a seasonal part time employee will be hired.
How much will this cost?
Page 9 & 10 Need for Conditional Use Permit, Requirement for an environmental
& Design Review Permit, applicability of CEQA.
There currently have been letters from Attorney Rossi and Attorney
LeMieux submitted that do not agree with the opinion of the City Attorney.
Refer to letters from Attorney LeMieux and Attorney Rossi.
City needs to resolve this difference.
Attachment E Agreement for Professional Baseball at Albert
Park
Paragraph B(2)f : Regarding scheduling restrictions on pro, semipro and
collegiate events.
Is this a reasonable restriction?
Park and Rec to answer.
Paragraph D(l): Regarding program promotion. States that the City is going to
be responsible for certain costs involved in promotion of events beyond use of
the City web site.
How much will this cost the City?
Paragraph D(2): Regarding signage. States that promotional signage may be
installed.
8.10.090K prohibits erecting signage.
Paragraph E(1): Regarding preparing and maintaining facility for play.
Will the City incur expenses beyond what they normally incur for this
proposal? What is the cost?
Park and Rec to evaluate.
Are there special requirements for pro -ball events that are not done
for the current level of play?
Park and Rec and Public Works to evaluate.
Paragraph E(2): Regarding utilities and garbage service. This is another
expense for the City. Included is the cost of electricity needed for Centerfield's
refrigeration and freezer.
How much will this cost the City?
Paragraph F(1): City to provide equipment. Does the list provided include
equipment that is already there, or is there equipment needed at additional cost
to the city?
Park and Rec to evaluate.
Paragraph F(3): Temporary restroom facilities.
Is the quantity of 10 portables adequate to support anticipated
attendance? How about need for ADA portables?
Public Works and Park and Rec to evaluate.
Paragraph F(4): Onsite seasonal storage. We are not sure what is in the
storage at this time.
Will there be additional cost to City to rearrange this storage?
What is cost?
19
Verify if it is the responsibility of the City or Centerfield for garbage
pickup. Is this an additional expense to City. What is cost?
Paragraph G: Add section. Centerfield shall make effort to use recyclables for
concessions and separate garbage for recycle.
Paragraph H(1) Fees. Centerfield should have a performance bond for making
improvements. Centerfield negotiates to have work done at City expense. Need
a system to allow City to review cost of work before Centerfield proceeds with
work.
Park and Rec to modify the Agreement.
Paragraph 5(A) Insurance. The public wants the insurance limit increased to
$3,000,000 minimum.
Change Agreement.
Item not included: Agreement should include requirement that lighting will not
exceed what is currently installed.
Park and Rec modify the agreement.
Item not included: How much of the park is Centerfield supposed to pick up trash
from after games are over?
Park and Rec to answer.
What types of signage will be provided for directing fans to the Corporate Center
parking? Will this signage meet the municipal code requirements?
Need Centerfield to answer.
9
Tailgate parties could occur anywhere other than at the Corporate Center. How
is this to be controlled, or can it be controlled?
Park and Rec to answer.
Partnership review: Centerfield Partners has an agreement with the City and not
the neighborhood. Any complaints need to be brought to the attention of the
City. The City should then take appropriate action.
Park and Rec to change.
Proposed signage: The proposed signage will not prevent patrons from using
parking for free in the residential area west of the Community Center. This area
is already parking congested. Ballpark parking could impact Safeway, 7/11,
other Corporate Center parking lots, bocce ball parking and Community Center
parking as this parking is free and accessible to the public.
Suggest that the cost of parking be included in all tickets and that
advertising mentions "safe and secure free parking".
There are evening meetings at the Corporate Center and currently the lot on the
east side of Lindaro fills and overflows to the proposed ballpark parking.
Centerfield/Park and Rec/Seagate/Albert Park Lofts need to resolve.
Currently there is an agreement with the Corporate Center to provide overflow
parking to the Albert Park Lofts. This will interfere with the proposed ballpark
parking.
Centerfield/Park and Rec/Seagate/Albert Park Lofts need to resolve.
Parking for the heavily used Albert Park tennis courts will have their parking
impacted.
Hopefully the impact will be minimal if admission includes parking for
free.
The parking agreement with the Corporate Center is crucial to Centerfield. If
there isn't an agreement with the Corporate Center then the City agreement with
Centerfield will have to be terminated.
Park and Rec/Centerfield needs to have this understanding in the
Agreement.
Determine if lighting is adequate on Anderson Drive and in the Corporate Center
parking lot to support pedestrian traffic.
Public Works to anomer.
Not sure if attendance will be cut off at 1500 or if more could attend. This could
have an affect on parking requirements.
Centerfield to answer.
Ball field parking will conflict with concurrent events at the Community Center
and/or downtown.
Park and Rec to resolve.
Possibility of ballpark equipment being placed semi -permanently in the
Community Center parking lot.
Not sure if this is a problem or not. Drawing provided is not
adequate to answer this concern. Centerfield to provide drawing
as required by Exhibit G Part 2.
Additional item: Proposal says that Corporate Center parking will be available
one hour before ballgame starts. Early arrivals who desire to use the downtown
will very likely park in the residential area.
Park and Rec /Public Works to resolve.
Additional item: What is the possibility of providing residents with vehicle parking
stickers and installing appropriate signage?
Public Works to address this.
Additional item: A parking study is required per 14.18.040.
Where is the study?
Public Works to respond.
Additional item: Is there a reason that the team/staff parking is located in the
existing Community Center parking lot.
Why not have them park at the Community Center rather than impact
Community Center parking?
Exhibit C Traffic
Traffic impacts are based on a maximum attendance of 1500 patrons. Is 1500
the maximum?
Centerfield to answer.
The San Rafael Traffic Division needs to verify all the claims made by the
applicant to assure a free flow of traffic.
Need assurance from Traffic Division.
5
Exhibit D Safety and Security Plan
Not listed as a safety item: Liability and safety issues for baseballs that go
outside of the limits of the field.
Because the "Baseball Rule" and the "Assumption of Risk" rules only
apply to fans inside the ballpark who are aware of the game and thereby
waive the right to seek damages in the event of injury, and because
professional baseball athletes can hit baseballs beyond current
boundaries of the field, it follows that this is a safety and liability concern.
Also, see comment regarding fences in Exhibit G, Part 1.
Centerfield/City Attorney/Park and Rec to answer.
Not listed safety item: The possible hazard and liability of baseballs causing
injury at the daycare center.
Is this currently a problem?
Could this be a Centerfield problem?
Not listed safety item: Signage placed on fences can increase wind loads on
fences resulting in damage and injury.
Answer needed: Not mentioned is the possibility of a means to prevent people
from watching the game for free from outside the ball field.
Maybe a restriction should be added to the agreement.
Centerfield to answer
The safety/security plan needs approval from Police Department.
Get Police Department approval.
Need to address the private patrol has in the neighborhood. Applicant stated that
they will patrol the neighborhood after game has ended.
Need to provide info to the neighborhood.
Additional safety item: Currently foul balls have been known to land as far as the
Albert Park Lofts also onto the Anderson Drive street and sidewalk.
Park and Rec to answer.
Centerfield to required to have $1 million liability policy.
Need to evaluate City risk for alcohol related incidents.
Raise the limit to $3 million.
Cel
The need for serving alcohol is questioned.
Need to provide justification.
Park and Rec to justify.
How about stopping alcohol sale at 10:00 PM or end of the 7th inning whichever
occurs first.
This should be doable.
Park and Rec to evaluate.
Alcohol plan should be subject to approval of the Police Department.
Get approval from Police Department.
Is alcohol sale allowed in public parks according to the municipal code?
Permission to allow alcohol sale has to be granted by Director of
Park and Rec.
Exhibit F Noise Management Plan
Don't allow music or the PA system to be used during practice.
Make change to Attachment E.
The stated noise "study" is woefully inadequate.
Need to consider how sound travels into the hillside areas and into
residential living areas that are well above street level.
Possibly hire a consultant to evaluate.
City needs to verify that noise levels off -site will not exceed those stated in the
Municipal Code.
Park and Rec to evaluate.
No music to be played between innings.
Park and Rec to make change to Attachment E.
After the game is over and post game announcements are completed the PA
system shall not be used.
Park and Rec to make change to Attachment E.
The existing PA system should be documented with db levels to prevent
modifications to the system or upgrading to a more powerful system.
7
City to evaluate, or possibly use consultant.
Possible noise impacts on the daycare center during day games and practice.
Park and Rec to answer.
Is there an increase in off site noise if the ball game attendance exceeds 1,500?
Pages 5 & 6 of Attorney Rossi's letter addresses the possibility of a noise
increase not being in compliance with the General Plan.
Park and Rec to answer.
Exhibit G Site Improvements Plan Part 1
The City needs to understand that the site improvements will be paid by rent
credit and thus the City is paying for improvements at a cost up to $10,000 per
year. This is contrary to Park and Rec statements.
Park and Rec to answer.
The list of improvements needs to be identified before signing off on the
agreement. There could be some high dollar items that the City would be
responsible for.
Evaluate list of improvements.
Backstop Screen: States that Centerfield is to provide the material and City will
do the work.
What is the cost to the City?
New dugout area fence: Not sure where this will be placed. Need adequate
drawing.
Centerfield to provide and understandable drawing.
New bleachers: Will they fit in the park without modifications to the bleachers
and/or park?
Need a proper evaluation and understandable drawing.
Fence relocation: There is no way to evaluate this without a proper drawing.
Centerfield to provide a proper drawing.
Outfield fence height extension: Nothing mentions how high the fence will be
raised.
It was mentioned at the City Council meeting that they would be
raised 6 feet. There was evidence submitted that this is not high enough.
3
Also, see same subject addressed in the Safety and Security section.
Park and Rec to address this.
Grandstand lighting: The text doesn't match the subject. Text addresses lighting
for new concession area. It isn't clear if the City pays for the new lighting or
Centerfield
Centerfield to provide drawing for new lighting.
Park and Rec to address.
Signs placed on fences: Municipal Code 8.10.090 prohibits signs.
Park and Rec to deny any signage on fences.
It is not clear if there will be ballpark associated equipment placed semi -
permanently in Community Center parking lot.
Centerfield to provide drawing.
There is a question regarding the adequate number of portable restrooms.
How about a place to wash hands?
City to make a determination on proper number and need for portable
ADA portables.
Need better drawing for location of portable toilets.
Centerfield to provide drawing.
Will any existing trees be impacted?
Centerfield to provide adequate drawing.
Site Improvement Plan part 2
Drawing provided does not show enough detail to understand exactly where
improvements are placed and the impacts on the existing conditions. Need
drawing that shows existing conditions and another that shows proposed
changes.
Will the improvements/semi-permanent items affect drainage?
Centerfield to provide.
City to find out the adequacy of the sewer system to support increased use of the
existing bathrooms.
Public Works department to address this.
Where will the debris boxes be placed. Need to know how many are required.
Public Works/Park and Rec to work address this.
Centerfield to provide proper drawing.
10i
The location of the portable restrooms will present a visual blight as seen from
Anderson Drive.
Park and Rec to answer.
Will the temporary fence impact other uses of the Rec Center and associated
parking?
Centerfield to provide legible drawing.
Park and Rec to, answer.
Review all the above comments in context of impacts to existing trees, open
areas, and grassy area, now public, but shown in the drawing as enclosed and
used by Centerfield.
Where is the drawing"
Centerfield and Park and Rec to answer.
Exhibit H Concessions
Where will the debris boxes be placed?
Centerfield to provide adequate drawing.
Encourage the use of local vendors to provide food service.
City to add this to Attachment E.
Develop a recycling plan for food and food related items.
Centerfield to provide.
Do the concessions require electrical power and water.
Who pays, what is cost.
Park and Rec to answer.
Exhibit I Community Benefits Plan
Does the proposal contribute to the economic vitality of the downtown as
claimed?
Majority of the studies do not support this and frequently existing
businesses suffer.
City to evaluate benefits to downtown.
It is proposed the have an array of food and beverage types available.
This will detract from downtown restaurants.
Attorney Rossi's letter (pages 6 & 7) questions the projected economic
projections of the proposal. Included in this letter are impacts on infrastructure
and insurance.
What are the costs?
Park and Rec to address this.
Other items:
Privatization of Albert Field has been mentioned many times in public comment.
The scope of this proposal is many times any such prior use of a public
park for profit in San Rafael.
Park and Rec to answer.
Compliance with the San Rafael General Plan 2020
Attorney Rossi argues that Park and Rec is not following the General Plan
in good faith by avoiding citizen involvement in the application process.
Park and Rec to address.
M
From: Steven Meyers [
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 20119:25 PM
To: Al Boro
Cc: Barbara Heller; Carlene McCart; Damon Connolly; Greg Brockbank; Marc Levine; Nancy
Mackle
Subject: I am a 22 -year resident of central San Rafael (and registered voter) and I strongly
support the proposal in front of you to bring Independent League professional baseball to Albert
Park.
Dear Mr. Mayor, City Council Members, City Manager, and Director of Community Services,
I really think this should happen. Briefly, I have a BS in Accounting and MBA from Wharton and
I am fiscally very conservative.
Trust me [a this makes sense for financial reasons above the obvious reasons that this will make
San Rafael an even better place to live.
Best,
Steve
Lifetime email address:
From: Cecilia Conroy [
Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2011 10:07 PM
To: Al Boro; Barbara Heller; Carlene McCart; Damon Connolly; Greg Brockbank; Marc
Levine; Nancy Mackle
Subject: Albert Park Baseball - YES
Dear Mr. Mayor, City Council Members, City Manager, and Director of Community Services,
I am a longtime San Rafael resident, homeowner, and voter. I strongly support the proposal to
bring pro baseball to Albert Park.
My family relocated here from the east coast when I was in high school (I graduated from San
Rafael High). Among the few things/places for teens to go when I was younger included the
Roller Rink on Francisco Boulevard, Raydines Ice Rink in Corte Madera, two Drive-in Movie
theatres, and 3 Bowling Alleys. Of course all of these venues have since closed (Country Club
Bowl remains open thankfully).
I was also saddened to learn recently that the Teen Center in San Rafael is closing. As a
community we do not have many healthy and attractive local choices for teens and families to
engage.
We now have a wonderful opportunity to bring minor league professional baseball to Albert
Park. I have attended the two Park and Recreation meetings, and the Council meeting on July
18. 1 am very impressed at the depth and detail of the proposal. The people with Centerfield
Partners seem to be very professional and the type of people we want running our local team.
Please do not pass on this opportunity to do something good for this community. Your vote to
approve this proposal will be a benefit to the residents of San Rafael by providing an attraction
for families. I have spoke to many friends and neighbors who are all eagerly looking forward to
enjoying minor league baseball in San Rafael.
As a volunteer mom for Little League and high school baseball games for many years I can attest
to another huge benefit. There are currently no snack shack facilities at Albert Park. As a result
we have had to bring all the food and supplies in and out of Albert Park for each and every game
if desired. This is a lot of work so for the last 3 years, we have only done this for a handful of
playoff games. The addition of permanent snack shack facilities will benefit the high schools and
community teams as well as the people attending these games.
These community and high school teams will also benefit from the other upgrades that will
occur at Albert Park which are part of this deal.
I urge you to vote yes for families!
I urge you to vote yes for baseball!
Cecilia Collins -Conroy
From: Esther Beime
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 11:42 AM
To: Greg Brockbank; 'Damon Connolly'; Barbara Heller; Marc Levine; Dana Melnichek
Cc: Carlene McCart; Rob Epstein
Subject: FW: Minor League Baseball Team in San Rafael
From: The Friends of The San Rafael Public Library [
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 11:41 AM
To: Distrib- City Clerk
Subject: Minor League Baseball Team in San Rafael
Both my husband and I are in favor of baseball coming to Albert Park.
We are both life long residents of Marin.
Judy & Gary
From: Damon Connolly [
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 20114:42 PM
To: Carlene McCart; Al Boro; Jim Schutz; Lisa Goldfien
Subject: Fwd: Albert Park
Ouch. I'm originally from Hayward.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Merit Toutjian
Date: Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 4:01 PM
Subject: Albert Park
To:damon.connoilvy�
Damon,
Bringing minor league baseball to Gerstle Park is a bad idea. It only hurts the residents of
Gerstle Park. It does nothing positive for us, only negative. It is your job to serve your
constituents, not yourselves for purposes of greed and profit. You will hurt our lives by
doing this. We will have more crime, less park, less parking, less peace, less quiet, etc. so
that YOU can have money.
Do you actually know why BART does not run to Marin? Because Marin County put a
stop to it when it originally was mapped out around the Bay Area, because we want a
nice lifestyle.
Minor league baseball teams are for armpit cities like Hayward, Brentwood, Oakley, or
even Santa Rosa. Is that what you want for San Rafael? Armpit status?
You will not be re-elected. You will not be remembered as a positive City Council
member. Instead, you will be known as the clown that brought hicks, criminals, and
public nuisance to San Rafael. People will despise you.
Your choice,
From:
Sent: Wednesday, 10, 2011 11:23 AM
To: Greg Brockbank; Damon Connolly; Marc Levine; Barbara Heller; Al Boro; Carlene McCart;
Nancy Mackie
Subject: Pro Baseball atAlbert Park
Dear San Rafael Council Members and Staff,
I have been following the discussions regarding Pro Baseball at Albert Park and have to say that
the idea of being able to go to a local game sounds great for my family (especially my
teenagers). Also, the idea that some of our local kids may get an opportunity to play here on
their path tothe big leagues ioeven better.
I understand that there will always be detractors for anything new that you as a council may have
come before you, but adding any kind of family/teenager event for our area is a definite plus. As
President of the Ross Valley School District a few years ago I worked with the community to get
buy-in for the new Red Hill Community Park in San Anae|mmo. VVod«|ng with the "dog" community
and neighbors could sometimes be rancorous, but now that the park has been established and is
being used by community schools and members, there is nothing but good will.
|hope that you will decide tugive the Pro team achance inour area. |understand the
importance of working with neighbors and alleviating their fears and concerns but hopefully a
compromise can bemade that will beaccepted byall.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Lo»~i�Lop /^*,
Chief Financial Officer
The Graphic Source
San Anae|mno&Fairfax
From: Eric Nakagawa [ on behalf of Eric Nakagawa
[
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 2:55 PM
To: Nancy Mackle; Carlene McCart
Subject: Professional Baseball at Albert Park
Madam Manager &
Madam Director
I wanted to send you a succinct message regarding my support for the Centerfield
Partner's proposal to bring professional baseball to San Rafael, namely Albert Park.
As a 22 -year resident of Central Marin, I am excited about the possibility of baseball in
Marin County. I also used to attend semi -pro baseball at Albert Park while I was attended
college in the East Bay (the 80's).
There are limited entertainment options in Marin, and baseball is a clean, wholesome,
"All-American" venue for fans of all ages. The ownership group also promises to provide
much needed upgrades to Albert Park. Both of my sons have played baseball in Albert
Park, it is a wonderful facility from a player's perspective. Players from visiting teams
(outside Marin) often enter the park wide-eyed and mouth agape at playing in such a
facility. The upgrades will only help return Albert Park's status as a "jewel" in San
Rafael
Today's youth also need quality outlets of activity. Marin has many, many youth (and
adult) baseball players AND FANS. A local source of quality baseball will help our local
youth baseball programs thrive - in turn youth baseball will help support local
professional baseball (a nice symbiotic relationship). Young players need someone they
can look up to, or aspire to be like. Major League players (MLB) are too far out of reach
for our young players, but independent baseball league play are only a few steps above
college play. I have coached youth baseball in Marin for 18 years, plus another 3 years of
high school baseball. I strongly feel that professional baseball will greatly support and
improve our local youth baseball programs.
In addition, the ownership group has a well -thought out plan for traffic, parking and
pre/post game business in San Rafael. I understand that the San Rafael Chamber of
Commerce is also in support of the ball park proposal
http.I'/Nv%vNv.mar i ij.c c arinnew lci i 5 1 In these trying economic times, San
Rafael businesses need all the help we can provide them in order for them to survive. We
also know that the City and County governments need all the revenue sources they can
legally obtain, to continue to provide the necessary services to the community, especially
in light of the ever -shrinking State resources.
I recall that some Albert Park neighbors were opposed to the construction of the Marin
Bocce Courts not so many years ago. I think these individuals have been proven wrong.
These courts have become an excellent social outlet for many Marin bocce players, many
(like myself) never played before being persuaded to "give it a try" by Rick and Dolly
Nave (and others). The Marin Bocce Federation tries to be a good neighbor as well -
keeps the noise down to a low roar, turns the lights out at a reasonable hour (for working
folks), and helps keep Albert Park clean. Marin Bocce is now known in many other
communities, not only for it's quality players, but also for it's excellent playing courts.
San Rafael is starting to generate some negative publicity regarding "blocking" baseball
from San Rafael, please don't allow the few (but very vocal) naysayers to selfishly block
this wonderful entertainment and economic opportunity.
Huffington Post - httv-,�l'www.liuffigg!p"ost.cqm'X1111' 1' 1; 1/marjn-pLfessional-
q_
baseball -team n 900448.htmi
NBC Bay Area -San-lkafael-Vote-on-
Basebaljjeam-DI�ed- I �2540163.html
Thank you for your consideration.
Best regards,
Eric Nakagawa
Corte Madera, CA
Eric L. Nakagawa
*-2)
Vol 1 11Lv 1 1 10: Ub h -8A
a 0 0 1 x'001
August 4, 2011
CONSERVATION
Carlene McCart, Director LEAGUE
Community Services Protecting Marin Since 1934
City of San Rafael
1400 Fifth Avenue
San Rafael, CA 94901
Subject: Proposal for Professional Baseball at Albert -PaEk. San Rafael. and CE -QA
Dear Ms. McCain
Karin Camservatkm League is aware that the City is considering a proposal by Cenbar&"
Partners (CP) to institute professional baseball at Albert Park MCL's Land Use
Committee has reviewed the various components of CP's proposal, City staff reports, and
the circumstances of the public meetings at which the proposal has been discussed and
public comment has been taken. We are aware that strong feelings exist both for and
against the proposal, MCL is not commenting on the merits of the proposal at this time.
MCL believes that the City's public process to date has been flawed by lack of
environmental review. In recommending approval of a Facility Use Permit that requires a
special agreement, the staff report has not addressed adequately the potential for
significant impacts on adjacent neighborhoods as well as the larger community. The terms
of the permit should be reconsidered in the light of full information before the City commits
to an agreement with CP.
1. The proposal is a "project" resulting from discretionary action, and therefore
might be subject to CEQA
We agree with the staff report in which the City Attorney states: "the granting of a permit
for the use of Albert Park Field and Stadium for up to 45 professional minor league
baseball games per year for three years, with installation of temporary seating for an
anticipated attendance of up to 1,500 spectators might be subject to CEQA," as defined in
Section 15378 (a) (3) of the CEQA Guidefinm MCL would like to add to this statement:
City Council action is required to authorize the contractual agreement with CP; this action
in itself is an exercise of discretionary power and therefore may be subject to review under
CEQA.
2. The project should not be exempted from environmental review under CEQA
Exemption Class 23: "Normal operations of existing facilities..."
The City Attorney concludes that the project,is exempt from CEQA under Exemption Class
SMA„ tral r rnir
:AX 4I:W4loS,U259 AM, tiv�.kjw,marinconservationleaaue.ora
A;IWL;',', 1G23 -A I Wf� AVL`11J('
San Rafae', CA 94 9C)' 410
VO/ I I,, L u I I I D . V r t- M 71
16001/001
F�
23. We disagree, MCL does agree that the use of Albert Park for professional baseball, as
proposed, is consistent with the historical uses of the facility for a variety of public and
private sports and social activities, as stated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15323. We -
question, however, that the commitment of up to 45 professional baseball games from late
May into September annually for three years and the expansion of facilities to
accommodate the predicted attendees constitute normal operation of this existing facility.
We think they do not. The proposed expansion of facilities for a three-year term of use
includes not only adding temporary bleachers for some 800 spectators, but fencing
adjacent grounds outside the confines of the ball park to accommodate sanitary facilities
and to expand spectator access area. The increased numbers of spectators for a four month
period annually will have impacts on the surrounding community and possibly on
downtown San Rafael. These are likely to exceed the "normal" impacts of sporadic events
and/or substantially smaller crowds that are cited in the staff report. (Examples of impacts
are discussed under Item 3, below.)
The City Attorney's argument for exempting the proposal from CEQA cites examples of
comparable events and/or numbers of spectators, such as Marin County Athletic League
playoff games, and Seals Collegiate Baseball Team games, which ended almost 10 years ago.
The MCAL events typically are limited to mid May, with other sporadic play-off games, on
rare occasions drawing up to 1,000 spectators, The Seals' games rarely drew as many as
300, in spite of expectations for higher numbers. Other events cited in the exemption
rationale, such as graduations or concerts, are occasional and draw substantially smaller
numbers than the 1,500 spectators anticipated in the CP proposal.
Although they conform to a pattern of consistency with historic and current uses, the
professional games proposed by CP depart from their operational patterns, with more
concentrated event periods and a substantially larger number of spectators than might be
considered "normal" when compared to past and current operations.
3. The City should prepare an Initial Study as required by CEQA to assess impacts
on the immediate neighborhood and surrounding community.
The staff report provides an account of current and past use of the park for sporadic events
drawing 1,000 or more spectators. It also states that the park was used regularly by the
Seals collegiate games up to 2002. The report does not acknowledge that the
neighborhood adjacent to the park has been in a state of transformation over the past few
years. As a consequence, an area that was once wholly industrial and commercial now
supports multi -family housing, San Rafael in fact encourages higher density housing in the
vicinity. Other neighborhoods have a long-standing relationship with the Albert Park, such
as Gerstle Park and Southern Heights. Although these neighborhoods have undoubtedly
endured occasional large events at the park, along with the routine smaller activities, they
can expect more pervasive impacts throughout the summer season with the scheduling of
45 league games.
A DV-LtJT-Ai bertField Pa r1(_MCL_M04,20 12
-ter . . f " , . I, I VO FMA
ZOO 11002
3
Former assumptions about neighborhood compatibility with the ballpark should be
reexamined, and, at the very least, impacts on the residential community acknowledged
and mitigated. Some impacts, such as traffic congestion, may also spill over into downtown
San Rafael such as on 2111J and 3rd streets and cross -streets as well. An Initial 'Study would
assess those impacts and determine if any reach a threshold of significance; a Mitigated
Negative Declaration would identify mitigation measures that can be formalized as
conditions of the City's agreement with CP. In large part, the management plans (e.g., Noise
Management Plan; Safety and Security Management Plan) submitted by CP can be utilized
as a basic menu of mitigation measures in the Neg. Dec.
Examples of likely impacts to be addressed in an IS/Neg, Dec. include the following:
Noise; The local community and uphill residential neighborhoods have not
experienced on a protracted basis the noise that may result from a cheering crowd
Of 1,500 spectators, or from regular PA system use. Strategies suggested in the
Noise Management Plan "to minimize the noise impacts" need to be detailed;
"adjustments as appropriate" must be set forth as specific conditions of the permit,
based on more than "agreement by CP owners".
Lightin ; According to the staff report, Albert Park Baseball Field has been equipped
with lights for nearly 60 years, "The proposed use will not increase the use of lights,
or increase the impact of lighting." The report also states: "the proposed use will
likely be less hours of illumination than current recreational softball league play
which utilizes the same lighting." These terms are vague, based on speculation, not
on a clear timeframe of use or on conditions for abatement (mitigation), e,g,,
predictable hours of operation at full illumination and at reduced illumination.
Again taking into account the views of residential receptors, both nearby and uphill,
the impacts of the proposed lighting should be more specifically assessed and a
mitigation program specified.
Traffic. The CP proposal, Appendix C, provides a brief assessment of traffic
generation, likely modal splits, arrival and departure times, and a very limited
analysis of impacts on freeways and city arterials. The timing of ball games will
generally avoid peak p,m, congestion, but on days of other events (summer
Thursday Farmers Market, for example), it is likely that congestion will occur unless
games are carefully scheduled to avoid such conflicts, The IS/Neg. Dec. needs to
provide a more thorough analysis of traffic impacts and spell out mitigation
measures,
JE—arking: Appendix B States that an agreement has been reached between CP and
Seagate Properties for game parking at the San Rafael Corporate Center. Given the
propensity of people to seek the closest possible parking to an event, parking will
likely spill over into surrounding streets. Some of the neighborhood is industrial
and may be less adversely affected than a residential neighborhood. Residential
Ar)V-I.UT-Alber'cf'ldldParl<.-MCL-08.04,2i3l3
Z002/002
4
neighborhoods like Gerstle Park may be affected, however. The total inventory of
available parking areas (not just the designated City parking lots) should be
examined in an Initial Study and means of limiting residential street parking
discussed as mitigation,
Solid Waste: The City has strong policies that seek to reduce waste generation, and
to reuse or recycle waste. Notwithstanding those policies, it can be anticipated that
crowds entering and exiting the ballpark will drop waste - on the street and parking
lots, and in nearby Mahon Creek (which already receives high levels of solid waste
under current conditions). City policies, and a specific management program
involving education, convenient receptacles, and clean-up as a responsibility of CP,
should be spelled out in the IS/Neg. Dec.
Sale of, AICOIIo((Safety and Securitt--. These issue areas do not fall readily under the
Initial Study Checklist of topics, but insofar as they have been raised by concerned
residents, they can be assessed under the rubric of "social and economic effects" and
linked to police and fire services. In any event, the management programs laid out
in the CP proposal should be formalized as mitigation measures (conditions) in an
IS/Neg. Dec.
In conclusion, if the City as a whole stands to benefit from hosting professional baseball
games throughout the summer, those more limited segments of the population that will be
affected directly and adversely should receive the City's assurance that their concerns are
heard, and that they are being addressed through a formal process of impact assessment,
mitigation and conditions. This could be managed in a timely manner by preparing an
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration. We request that you do this.
Sinc ly,
S an Stompe, g�
Pre 'dent
A DV_1,UTAbe rcF letcl Park_m CL08,04.2014
Michael A. Soldavini
20 Taylor Street
San Rafael, CA 94901
(SENT VIA EMAIL ATTACHMENT)
August 11, 2011
Re: Centerfield Partners LLC
Proposal to Bring Professional Baseball to Albert Park
Mr. Albert J. Boro, Mayor
City of San Rafael
1400 Fifth Avenue
San Rafael, CA 94901-1943
Dear Mayor Boro:
I was in attendance at both the August 4, 2011 and August 9, 2011 Community Meetings on the
captioned matter. I want to take this opportunity to express my personal appreciation to you and,
in particular to Mr, Brian Clark and Centerfield Partners ("CP"), for having come to the mutual
realization that a more formal vetting of Centerfield's proposal to bring professional baseball to
Albert Park is necessary in order to restore community trust in the approval process and move
assessment of the proposed project forward in a more credible fashion.
As you accurately acknowledged during Tuesday night's meeting, there is a great deal of distrust
among all of the community stakeholders who are involved in discussing this topic. At times,
this has even given way to contentious debate, simply because forgotten during the discussions is
the fact that the focus of the discussion should not be about who is pro -baseball or who is anti -
baseball; but instead, it should be about the City's ability to provide "appropriate"
accommodations for a potential team.
'The agreement to retain a neutral and objective third-party in order to proceed with an "Initial
Environmental Review", paid for by CP is, in my opinion, an excellent first step. However, the
next critical challenge before you and the Council appears to be the choice of consultant to
perform this Initial Review.
In view of what has transpired thus far, and in the hope of preventing any further erosion of
public sentiment toward this project, I respectfully urge you to please consider fbirning a
committee comprised of all concerned parties to evaluate and pick the consultant who will
perform the study, so as not to foster the perception of any possible impropriety.
Ms. McCart has publically stated that the choice of consultant will rest with the Park and
Recreation Commission who will make a recommendation to her and the Council. I can assure
you that this action will likely not be favorably received by the neighborhood residents., as the
Park and Recreation Commission and Ms. McCart are openly biased in favor of the. CP proposal.
This is evidenced by the fact that they have already endorsed the CP proposal to the Council and
recommended its approval absent any further study. Any recommendation for a particular
consultant that emanates from this body of individuals presents an obvious conflict of interest.
Likewise, to rely solely on a recommendation for a consultant from CP that might have industry
ties with CP, Mr. Brian Sobel, and others associated with the North American League would be
equally damaging and reinforce the perception of a "rigged" Initial Environmental Review,
especially if the Review were to find in favor of CP's original proposal. As such, I feel a
consultant who is neutral and chosen by committee is essential at this juncture.
For your edification, the members of the newly formed group, Communities for Albert Park, and
a great number of interested residents have all taken the time to become very familiar with the
history and formation of the North American Baseball League, Diamond Sports &
Entertainment, Inc., and the backgrounds of many of its prominent investors. We are all mindful
of what has transpired in Fullerton, CA with respect to the Fullerton Flyers and what is taking
place at the Amerige Park facilities. We are also keenly aware of CP's intentions in the Bay Area
and the promises that are being made to build a stadium in Dublin. As such, we expect a truthful
and open dialogue from this point forward on what CP hopes will take place in San Rafael over
the long-te
It presently appears that that CP intends to expand the League into communities by way of
renovating existing facilities and eventually build community stadiums if it proves economically
viable to do so. This economic model is being played out throughout the North American
Baseball League and throughout California in cities where there have been prior teams
associated with the Golden Baseball League (the Fullerton example cited above is an obvious
case-in-point).
If the long-term goal of CP is to eventually establish a North Bay team with its own local
stadium, then I propose that alternate sites to Albert Park be considered as part of any evaluation
to mitigate the environmental impacts that might be identified by the consultants conducting the
Initial Environmental Review, with strong consideration being given to the use of County
property located at McGinnis Park, as an optional venue.
In my opinion, this recommendation should sit well with Mr. Clark and his venture capitalists as
it provides them with exactly what they appear to be looking for long-term -- four teams and four
potential stadiums in four market segments with enough geographical distance between each of
them to possibly make it a successful economic enterprise. I can't help but feel that CP would be
hard pressed to argue against this suggestion if Mr. Clark truly wants to bring a benefit to the
communities where his teams are to be located.
In my opinion, those conducting the Initial Environmental Review should also solicit and
accommodate public comment during their evaluation, and also assess any potential depreciation
of property values in the Albert Park area and consequential loss of property tax revenue to the
City, should the CP proposal be adopted with Albert Park as its venue.
Respectfully submitted,
it c T -Ta-, ; I 'Tec, d av i n i
Cc: (Via Email)
Vice Mayor, Mr. Greg Brockbank
Council Member, Mr. Damon Connolly
Council Member, Ms.Barbara Heller
Council Member, Mr. Marc Levine
City Manager, Ms. Nancy Mackle
Director of Community Services, Ms. Carlene McCart
City Attorney, Mr. Robert Epstein
Mr. Brian Clark, CEO Centerfield Partners, LLC
Mr. Brian Sobel, Consultant, Centerfield Partners, LLC
Ms. Samantha Sargent, Communities for Albert Park
Ms. Dotty LeMieux, Esq., Communities for Albert Park
IN