The Future of Balboa Park

8/9/2019 The Future of Balboa Park

1/35

The Future of Balboa Park:

Funding, Management

and Governance

A report from the Balboa Park Committee

Submitted to the Mayor & City Council of San Diego

Adopted by the Balboa Park Committee, December 18, 2008


2/35

Acknowledgements

Balboa Park Committee1. Vicki Granowitz Chairperson, North Park Planning Committee Representative

2. Mike McDowell Vice-Chairperson3. Jenni er Ayala Center City Advisory Committee Representative4. Laurie Burgett Greater Golden Hill Planning Committee Representative5. Jeri Dilno Member-at-Large6. Dr. Michael Hager Large Institution Representative7. Dr. Andrew Kahng Balboa Park/Morley Field Recreation Council Representative8. David Kinney Small/Medium Institution Representative9. Michael L. Singleton Uptown Planners Representative10. Donald Steele Member-at-Large

San Diego Foundation : Bob Kelly, President and CEOLegler Benbough Foundation: Peter Ellsworth, President

Parker Foundation : William E. Beemer, President

City o San Diego Mayor Jerry SandersDistrict Three Councilmember Toni Atkins

Park and Recreation Department Stacey LoMedico, Director

Kathleen Hasenauer, Deputy DirectorBruce Martinez, District Manager

Susan Lowery-Mendoza, District Manager

Balboa Park Central, Balboa Park Marketing, Pam Crooks, Phil Rath,

Je rey Tom, Vanessa Nieves, Marisa Aurora Quiroz, Don LiddellGeneral Services/Communications Division, City TV 24.Document layout and photographs courtesy o Michael Singleton.


3/35

Table of ContentsSection Page #

Acknowledgements ....................................................................................Inside Cover

1 . Executive Summary .....................................................................................Page 4

2. Introduction and Process .............................................................................Page 5

3. Question 1 Response: Can the City o San Diego nancially supportBalboa Park today and into the uture? ..........................................................Page 8

4. Question 2 Response: Even i it can, should the City provide allthe unding or Balboa Park? ........................................................................Page 11

5. Question 3 Response: I the City wishes to expand management andgovernance o Balboa Park, what are the alternatives to do so? ...................Page 15

6. Next Steps: Recommendations or setting up a Second Phase process ....Page 26

7. Bibliography ...............................................................................................Page 28

8. Appendices .......................................................................................... On CD-Roma. Agendasb. Notes

c. Minutesd. Study overviewe. Frequently asked questions

. Web addressesg. Meeting announcements and press releases


4/35

Page 4 o 35

December 18, 2008The Future of Balboa Park

SECTION

1Executive

Summary

Executive SummaryIn January 2008, the Balboa Park Committee (BPC) was tasked by the City o San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders and Third District Councilmember ToniAtkins with examining the uture o Balboa Park. The task included answering the

ollowing questions: (1) What is the Citys ability to provide the necessary nancialsupport or Balboa Park in the uture? (2) Even i the City can tackle the challengeon its own, should it? (3) Should management and governance be expanded and,

i so, how?

As a result o its deliberations, the BPC recommends that theCity o San Diego urther study, and consider orma-

tion o , a new public beneft non-proft entity to assist theCity with governance, und-raising and management o Bal-

boa Park through a contractual agreement with the City.

The BPC also recommends that the Mayor and City Council support a secondphase o this e ort, by creating a working group or Balboa Park Task Force to urther re ne the BPC recommendations. This second phase should lead to thecreation o a new public bene t entity, delineate responsibilities and obligationsassigned to the City and to the new entity, and broaden public participation in thediscussion and decision-making process.

These conclusions are based on nine months o public hearings and investigationon the ollowing three questions posed by the study, The Soul o San Diego: Keep-ing Balboa Park Magnifcent in its Second Century. The questions and responses bythe BPC are summarized below:

Can the City o San Diego fnancially support Balboa Park today andinto the uture? The City has the potential to provide the necessary nancialsupport, but, rom a nancial and management perspective, the City has never

made it a high enough priority to ully commit to the unding needed. As competi-tion increases or limited public nancial resources, a look at the past portends thatthe City will not be able to provide the resources necessary to ul ll Balboa Parksmanagement and operational needs, to address maintenance, repairs and replace-ment requirements, or to implement already approved capital improvementprojects.

Even i the City can, should it do so? The City o San Diego should not actalone in nancing and operating Balboa Park, but must build on existing partner-ships, identi y new partnerships, increase private donations, create new sources o revenue, and provide a process to ensure that donations or projects and servicesmatch priorities.

I the City wishes to expand management and governance o BalboaPark, what are the alternatives to do so? Fund-raising, management andgovernance should be expanded through the creation o a new, public bene t non-pro t entity that will work in a contractually de ned public/private partnership,

ollowing steps that have worked success ully or similar large urban parks studied,augmented by a process that is unique to San Diego and Balboa Park.

Section #1


5/35

Page 5 o 35


SECTION

2Introduction

and

Process

Introduction and ProcessIn early 2006, a local oundation with a long history o charitable giving toinstitutions in Balboa Park began to look at possible options or more success ullyoperating and unding our Citys beloved Park. The Legler Benbough Foundationwas concerned about the challenges the Park was acing in light o San Diegosincreasing nancial di culties due to pension under unding, among other politicaland nancial realities. The Foundation commissioned the Center or City ParkExcellence o the Trust or Public Land to produce a concise study o managementand und-raising models involving public/private partnerships in ve other majorU.S. cities with large urban parks.

This report, titled Keeping Balboa Park Magnifcent in its Second Century, complet-ed in August 2006, generated considerable interest and discussion in the City andled to a much larger act-gathering study to examine current capital and de erredmaintenance needs in Balboa Park, to learn who the users are and what theirimpressions are o Balboa Park, and to better understand current management andplanning issues.

Two other oundations with long ties to Balboa Park, The San Diego Foundation

and the Parker Foundation, joined the Legler Benbough to und the more compre-hensive e ort. The Center or City Park Excellence, once again retained to producethe report on Balboa Park, was asked to address possible governance alternativesand unding options or the uture. Their report entitled The Soul o San Diego:

Keeping Balboa Park Magnifcent in its Second Century, raised and attempted toanswer three important questions, without making speci c recommendations onwhere the City o San Diego should go rom here:

1. Who uses Balboa Park and what do they do there?2. Is there a demonstrable need or capital repairs and improvements in

Balboa Park, and i so, what is the magnitude o the need?3. What are the issues with Park governance?

Supporting research and documentation was provided by The Keston Institute orPublic Finance and In rastructure Policy at the University o Southern Cali ornia,and by the Morey Group, a market research and consulting rm specializing in sta-tistical analysis or the cultural attraction industry. A complete copy o The Soulo San Diego, including the supporting documentation is included and re erred tothroughout this report.

The results o the larger study are startling. A ew key points: Balboa Park is amongthe most heavily used city parks in the U.S. Only 24% o persons interviewed inthe Park live in the City o San Diego, and o those, the largest percentage wereHispanic. O non-city residents, 75% stated that the Park was the primary or one o

several reasons or visiting San Diego. Nearly 69% came to the Park because o amuseum, a theater or the Zoo. Although not a complete list, capital and in rastructure project needs totaling aminimum o $238 million were identi ed. Concerning governance, the Park andRecreation Department manages 400 other properties in addition to Balboa Parkand has evolved a particularly opaque budgetary and accounting system whencompared with other urban park and recreation departments around the country.

Section #2


6/35

Page 6 o 35

The Future of Balboa Park December 18, 2008

Signi cant ndings cited in the report include:there is no o cial body with the ocus on Balboa Park and the authority to help

the Park be success ul...

...serious doubts exist regarding the current Park management structure and thesemust be addressed i there is any hope o engaging the citizenry and the donorcommunity

these actors (too little unding and too little clarity about leadership andauthority) represent a powder keg...

At the same time, San Diegans do not perceive problems with the Park because itis so intrinsically beauti ul: a walk through (the Park) still inspires enjoyment orthe vast majority o visitors. In act, 95% o telephone survey respondents ratedtheir satis action with the Park as excellent or good.

In addressing the three original questions, the Center or City Park Excellenceposed three additional important questions, partially answered them, and recom-mended an extended period o time or public review and consideration:

1. Can the City o San Diego solve these problems on its own?2. Even i the City can tackle the challenge on its own, should it?3. I the unding and management o Balboa Park were broadened, what are

the alternatives?

When Mayor Jerry Sanders was presented with the results o the study in January2008, he and Councilmember Toni Atkins (whose Council District Three includesBalboa Park) assigned the task o exploring the nance, management and gover-nance issues raised in the Soul o San Diego , to the BPC. Thus began a lengthypublic review process, ensuring that the general public, and all Park stakeholders,would have plenty o opportunity to participate.

The BPC is a citizens advisory group with members appointed by the Mayor andcon rmed by the City Council. Representatives include members o adjacentneighborhood planning groups (North Park, Uptown, Golden Hill and Downtown),the Balboa Park cultural institutions, the Balboa Park / Morley Field RecreationCouncil and members-at-large. The BPC serves year-round in an advisory capacityto the San Diego Park and Recreation Board, Mayor and City Council on policyissues relating to the acquisition, development, maintenance and operation o Bal-boa Park. All meetings are open to the public and include time or public comment. Beginning with the rst public meeting to consider the study on March 8, 2008,and or nine months a terwards, the BPC has been gathering in ormation rom thecommunity, interviewing experts in various elds o governance, and acquiring

details about the City o San Diego budget and nances, particularly as they applyto Balboa Park. A ter months o deliberations on the uture nancing and governance o BalboaPark, this, the nal report o the BPC, includes a complete list o sources consulted,background in ormation, observations and answers to the three questions listedabove and recommendations to the Mayor and City Council or next steps.

Section #2


7/35

Page 7 o 35


These next steps will not be easy, but readers can take heart rom our past. Whenthe original parkland that is now Balboa Park was dedicated, the population wasunder 3,500, yet the town leaders created an enduring legacya park that was,and still is, larger than Central Park in New York.

When planning or the 1915 Exposition, the population o San Diego was under35,000. That exposition introduced the beloved Spanish Colonial architecture tothe Central Mesa, provided the rst animals or our zoo, and brought millions o visitors to San Diego, beginning the expansion that continues today.

In the middle o the Great Depression, in July 1934, San Diegos civic leadersdecided to hold a second exposition in Balboa Park, which would add almost all o the buildings now located around Pan American Plaza, the International Cottages,the Old Globe Theatre and Spanish Village. That air opened less than ten monthslater, in early May o 1935. Even in times o economic upheaval and duress,monumental things have been accomplished when San Diegans put their heartsand minds to the task.


8/35

Page 8 o 35


SECTION

3Question #1:

Can the City

of San DiegoFinancially

Support

Balboa Park

Today and

Into the

Future?

Section #3

I. IntroductionThe BPC had access to only a ew resources or the generation and gathering o data beyond public documents and presentations. It has gathered a signi cantnumber o documents and sources o additional in ormation or its use, but thein ormation is incomplete. The BPC believes City sta have shown due diligencein their e orts to support the BPC and that the available in ormation is su cient toanswer the above question.

II. ObservationsA. De erred maintenance, as identi ed in The Soul o San Diego is only a

partial list o un unded requirements. Expenses and projects identi ed in thestudy include some cost estimates, but, due to its incomplete scope, are nottrue representations o the real un unded costs or the Park. This is not aproblem limited to Balboa Park. Forest Park in St. Louis aced a similar problem;one o the rst priorities or its non-pro t partner organization, Forest ParkForever, was to hire a rm to ascertain the true un unded costs.

B. The 2008-09 City budgets were balanced only a ter cuts to City services,including major budget reductions or the Park and Recreation Department.

C. Future operating budgets are projected to su er as a result o local, state andederal budget constraints. Reductions in sales tax, property tax and transientoccupancy taxes required mid-year cuts to the Fiscal Year 2009 budget, andwill no doubt negatively a ect the Fiscal Year 2010 budget. The ve-year

nancial outlook indicates little improvement in the City budget through 2014. 2

D. Balboa Park competes annually with other City park acilities, as well as undingneeds and priorities demanded by the public and set by the Mayor and the CityCouncil.

E. The current budgetary challenges signi cantly hinder any meaning ul progresstoward reducing the backlog o de erred maintenance and delayed capitalimprovement projects in the Park.

F. Should the scal budget trends continue, reductions in the Park and RecreationDepartment budget should be expected in the uture.

G. There is no identi able City wind all o new, uture revenue and no evidenceo the civic or political will to increase taxes to support the Park to a greaterextent in the uture. Some o the sources o revenue currently used or the Parkthat are likely to remain static or decline, include:1. Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT)2. Sales Tax3. Bonds4. Assessments o City o San Diego property owners and businesses

H. Potential new sources o revenue include:1. Increased allocations to Park & Recreation Department rom the Gen-

eral Fund2. Parking ees3. Increased user ees4. Charging or Park uses that do not currently have a use ee5. Attendance ees6. Increasing special event ees and allocating them or Balboa Park7. Full-cost recovery, including cumulative impacts rom special events

and other user ees


9/35

Page 9 o 35


Section #3

8. Developer Impact Fees collected or Park development (includingequivalences allowed under the San Diego General Plan)

9. Redevelopment unds rom Center City Development Corporation orPark projects

10. Disbursement o unds or Balboa Park rom the recent passage o Proposition C, as it relates to City Charter Section 55.2

11. Support rom San Diego County property taxes (given that 45% o Park visitors are San Diego County residents, it is reasonable to suggestsupport rom those residents) 3, 4

I. The City generally cannot leverage e ciencies that could reduce operationalcosts. However, increasing sta productivity and e ciency, and eliminatingredundancies are possible ways to decrease costs or the Park.

J. Funding needs include:1. Operations (sta ng or administration and programs)2. Maintenance (recurring costs or landscaping and building mainte-

nance)3. Repair and replacements (replacing or repairing existing in rastructure

or acilities)4. Upgrades (making existing acilities better or bringing them into compli-

ance with current standards and codes)5. Expansions and improvements (creating new Park areas, acilities or

other improvements to increase the user/visitor capacity o the Park)

III. FindingsA. On the basis o available in ormation, the true amount o un unded require-

ments is higher than the costs represented in the Soul o San Diego.

B. Sta e ciencies cannot be increased su ciently to signi cantly meet theParks short-term or long-term budgetary needs.

C. Competition or urther General Fund allocations is intense. Continued reduc-tions in state and ederal unding through the City are likely. Accordingly,budgetary short alls will likely continue to plague the Park.

D. The Park might bene t rom being run with business e ciency principles. Bestpractices rom other large urban parks could be applied to the Park and mayresult in some e ciency improvements. But pro t motives related to businesspractices should never be allowed to overshadow the general public bene t o this public resource.

IV. Direct Response to Question 1Can the City o San Diego provide the necessary fnancial support or Balboa

Park in the uture?

No, the City cannot provide the necessary unding or Balboa Park today, and isnot likely to be able to do so in the uture. New sources o revenue and a sharingo public and private responsibilities will be required to provide the necessarysupport or Balboa Park in the uture.

As a $3 billion corporation, the City o San Diego has the potential or providingthe necessary nancial support or Balboa Park. The City, acting alone i it wished,has always had the authority to ully und and manage Balboa Park. But rom a

nancial and management perspective, the City has never made Balboa Park ahigh enough priority to ully commit to the unding needed in the Park.


10/35

Page 10 o 35


Section #3

As the competition or nite public nancial resources becomes more intense inthe uture, a look at the past portends that the City will not be able to provide theresources necessary to ul ll its management and operational mandate, to addressmaintenance, repairs and replacement requirements and to implement approvedcapital improvement projects or Balboa Park.

The City does not currently act alone with regard to nancing Balboa Park, nor isit likely to do so in the uture. So, while Question 1 is somewhat fawed, since it

implies support rom only the Citys resources, it can still be answered with a No.

V. Recommended ActionsA. As we move towards implementation o new policies regarding the uture

unding and governance o Balboa Park, a top priority should be urtherresearch into several topic areas:1. Actual costs o management, operation and maintenance2. Projection o uture costs o management, operation and maintenance3. Actual revenues and unding sources4. Projection o uture revenues and unding sources5. The true condition o Park acilities6. Total cost o de erred maintenance7. Total cost o bringing acilities and areas up to current standards and codes8. Total cost o increasing the capacity o the Park and expanding acilities

through capital improvement projects

B. At the recent kicko o the Balboa Park 2015 Centennial Celebration, partici-pants talked about the need or a wow actor that a world-class park shouldhave. Put another way, participants were saying that Balboa Park needs toexceed expectations, rather than just meet a baseline condition. There ore:

1. Future research and vision-setting needs to answer the question:Should Balboa Park be restored only to a healthy baseline, or shouldthere be a higher vision?

2. I there is a higher expectation, what might that include, and what willbe the cost to attain and sustain it?

VI. Supporting DocumentationAll the documents listed in the Bibliography: Table o Contents, DocumentsReviewed by the Balboa Park Committee, sections cited below, were used inanswering Question 1:

Section II. Financial Misc.Section III. Financial TOTSection IV. City o San Diego Budget Documents

VII. End NotesSoul o San Diego: Keeping Balboa Park Magnifcent in the Second Century ,

January 20081. Appendix 2: Examples o Capital and Maintenance Needs2. City o San Diego 2010-2014 Five-Year Financial Outlook4. Summary o Studies, 65. Appendix 1: Figure 9, Origin o Visitors, 43

3. City o San Diego General Plan 2008: Recreation Element-Park Stan-dards, RE-17 to E-19

6. Central Park Conservancy, Best Practices, November 2004


11/35

Page 11 o 35


SECTION

4Question #2:

Even if the

City of SanDiego can

Financially

Support

Balboa Park

Alone, Should

it do so?

I. IntroductionThe ollowing discussion ocuses on the current nancial support structure o Balboa Park and o ers suggestions or potential revenue sources.

Balboa Park exists today as the result o over 140 years o cooperative partnershipsbetween the City, the general public and the business community. Important ac-complishments, events and acilities were the result o citizen initiatives undertakenin partnership with the City. These initiatives resulted in two world expositions, a

world-class zoo, and the largest urban-cultural park in the United States. There arenumerous recreational acilities, playgrounds, landscaped parkland and vast areas o natural open space that are all a legacy o public and corporate volunteerism.

While the City o San Diego has assumed and discharged its role as the managero Balboa Park, the City has never acted alone in building, operating, supporting,preserving or enhancing Balboa Park and its acilities. Over its history, a myriado individuals and organizations rom the private sector, as well as governmentalbodies other than the City o San Diego, have contributed millions o dollars andmillions o volunteer hours to support Balboa Park.

II. ObservationsThe City o San Diego does not currently operate Balboa Park on its own. Numer-ous organizations and institutions provide unding, programming and operationalsupport. Although the City currently provides the majority o the unding or theoperation and maintenance o Balboa Park, it does receive support rom othersources.

A. The City maintains contractual agreements with many Balboa Park culturalinstitutions and other non-pro t organizations. The relationship between mostcultural or recreational institutions in the Park and the City o San Diego issymbiotic. These organizations are able to lease a acility or little or no rent,while the City receives the bene t o having the kinds o cultural, educational,science and recreational institutions that would be expected in a major city.Most o these non-pro t entities provide services ar beyond what is required intheir leases with the City. Typical programs and/or services these organizationsand institutions provide:1. Research programs2. Balboa Park Visitor Center3. Balboa Park Web site4. Balboa Park e-newsletter5. Security services6. Free education programs or schools7. Exhibits, lectures, per ormances and other educational programs or

the general public8. Maintenance o acilities within leaseholds9. Improvements to areas adjacent to leaseholds10. Additions or improvements made to many o these City-owned acilities

with the help o private unds11. Stewardship o the cultural and natural heritage o our City and region12. Installation o green technologies

Section #4


12/35

Page 12 o 35


I the City had to und these additional programs, the cost to operate the Park wouldbe signi cantly higher than it is now. For instance, the combined annual operatingbudgets o the institutional members o the Balboa Park Cultural Partnership (BPCP)total approximately $300 million. And in the last ten years, the members o BPCPhave invested approximately $190 million in capital improvements in the Park.These are costs the City does not bear. A complete analysis o the total economicand scal bene ts the Balboa Park institutions provide to the City has never beendone, so the ull value o the institutions is not known.

B. Recreation organizations and activities provide unding, services and program-ming support or recreational activities in Balboa Park. For example, the BalboaPark / Morley Field Recreation Council, a volunteer organization, provides

unds or the maintenance o some o the Parks recreational acilities. Theseunds tend to be limited to playing elds, swimming pool, tennis courts, and

gymnasiums. However, this unding is insu cient to meet the aggregatenancial operating and maintenance needs o sports and recreation acilities in

the Park.

C. Sport and recreation user ees do not cover the true cost o the activity. Wheth-er these activities should be subject to ull-cost recovery including cumulative

impacts, requires urther discussion and analysis.D. Horticultural organizations provide unding and volunteer hours caring or

Park gardens that would otherwise be the responsibility o Park maintenancepersonnel.

E. Philanthropic support includes unding or capital projects and programs, in-kind donations, and volunteer activity by individuals as well as organizations.

F. Philanthropic organizations and individuals determine the projects they wantto und. Projects are o ten unded in a piecemeal way and may not matchPark-wide priorities or the needs o the general public. Donations to the Parkby these organizations or individuals are typically project-speci c and cannotbe used to und operations or maintenance.

G. Private corporations o ten provide volunteers, and in-kind and nancialdonations. For example, SDG&E underwrote the replacement o lights on theCabrillo Bridge, and it is contributing expertise and unding to make City-owned buildings in the Park more energy e cient.

H. San Diego County, the State o Cali ornia and the Federal Government currentlyprovide only indirect support or Balboa Park. The Soul o San Diego dem-onstrates that County residents are major and regular users o Balboa Park.These residents represent 48% o Park users, visiting an average o 5.8 timesper year. 1, 2 However, the County has contributed only modestly to the nancial

support o Balboa Park. Apparently, discussions with the County have nottaken place, even though it is the most obvious entity with signi cant potentialor assistance with unding and management.

I. The State o Cali ornia could provide bond proceeds or grants or legislativelycreate a Park and Recreation District. Todays nancial crisis makes thisunlikely, but urther study is warranted once the States nancial situation hasimproved.

Section #4


13/35

Page 13 o 35


J. Potential sources o revenue or volunteer support that warrant urther analysisinclude:

1. Park concessions should be analyzed to determine whether they o er theright mix and locations to satis y visitor needs and optimize revenues. 3

2. User ees or special events in the Park should be analyzed or possibleincreases.

3. When a or-pro t entity holds a special event in the Park and makesa donation to a non-pro t entity, that entity should be a Balboa Park-dedicated organization.

4. All institutions with leaseholds, as well as other non-pro t organizationsnow operating within the Park, are a potential source o revenue or Park-wide improvements. All equitable approaches to revenue enhancement

rom these sources should be exploredso long as the unds generatedare applied directly to Balboa Park needs.

K. Dozens o Friends o Canyons groups have been ormed around San Diegoin the last ten years to assist the City and County in maintaining the regionsurban canyons. A Balboa Park Canyon Friends organization has yet to becreated. Such a group could augment Park and Recreation sta by contributingmany volunteer hours or restoration and enhancement o natural resources inthe Park. 4

L. Some parts o the Park are underutilized or vacant. It is unclear whether this isa management, nancial or political problem.

III. FindingsA. Although the organizations and institutions mentioned above provide some

unds and are a rich source o cultural and recreational programming, theycannot ully meet the Parks programming and in rastructure needs.

B. Passive, or unstructured, use o Balboa Park has been undervalued, and,since there is no obvious lobbying group to protect this resource, the push toincrease revenues will place what is le t o open recreational areas at risk.

C. Balboa Park is a regional asset and seeking nancial support rom the Countyo San Diego seems an obvious option to pursue. A Joint Powers Agreementbetween the City and County o San Diego may not be easible at this time dueto nancial and political impediments. However, the County Board o Supervi-sors participation in unding and managing the Park is strongly encouraged.The County should be welcomed into any urther discussions as to the uture o Balboa Park in terms o both unding and management.

D. E orts should be made to nd a way to simpli y, make more e cient, andoptimize und-raising e orts or the Park (see Question 3, Section II D).

E. The search or increased unding or Balboa Park should not overshadow themandate to provide ree and open parklands. A process must be put intoplace to protect and enhance this precious resource and make sure that thePark always remains a park. 5

Section #4


14/35

Page 14 o 35


IV. Direct Response to Question 2 Even i the City o San Diego can fnancially support Balboa Park alone, should it do so?

A. The City o San Diego should not act alone in nancing and operating BalboaPark.

B. As stated in the Balboa Park Land Use, Parking and Circulation Study The

Parks challenge today is balance: balancing all o the many acets that areBalboa Park, and merging them into the unique place that has served the Cityo San Diego or over a century. 6

C. In addition, there must be a balance between current critical nancial needsand the need to maintain what the public loves about Balboa Park. It is clearthat what makes the Park complex and challenging is also what makes itmagical.

V. Recommended ActionsA. The City should build on its current and numerous partnerships to: 7, 8

1. Build trust with existing partners.2. Identi y new partnerships.3. Increase private donations.4. Create new sources o revenue.5. Ensure donations or projects and services match the priorities o the

Park.6. Provide better planning or Balboa Park, taking into consideration the needs

o the adjacent neighborhoods and the region. This should include a discus-sion o the limits to growth or the Park.

B. An analysis should be conducted to determine whether current Park area usesare still relevant, and i not, whether they can be changed to bene t the Park asa whole. These changes could provide enhanced opportunities or use by thepublic and new sources o revenue.

VI. End NotesSoul o San Diego, Keeping Balboa Park Magnifcent in the Second Century , January2008, Appendix 1

1. Summary o Studies, 672. Figure 9, Origin o Visitors, 43

Balboa Park Land Use, Circulation and Parking Study: Implementation Strategies,November 4, 2004

3. L15, enhance ood service and other concession services6. Introduction, 87. Principle Six: Distribute Costs and Bene ts Fairly, 238. Implementation Strategies, 96-100

4. San Diego Civic Solutions, Canyonlands: The Creation o a San DiegoRegional Canyonlands Park: A White Paper, March 15, 2006

5. Balboa Park Master Plan, 7

Section #4


15/35

Page 15 o 35


SECTION

5Question #3:

If the City

Wishes toExpand

Management &

Governance

of Balboa

Park, What

are the Alter-

natives for

it to do so?

I. IntroductionThe Park and Recreation Department does an admirable job o managing BalboaPark, especially considering the deep cuts made by the City o San Diego in recentyears that have lead to diminished resources and ever-expanding responsibilities.However, a ter examining issues relating to Balboa Park revealed during thesepublic hearings, as well as considering the strengths o other urban parks that havebeen studied, the BPC has concluded there are a number o areas which could beoptimized and improved in the Parks administration.

II. ObservationsA. City Organization

1. There is no dedicated management oversight or Balboa Park.a. The Deputy Director or Developed Regional Parks, in addition to

Balboa Park management, has responsibility or numerous other sitesand, there ore, is not solely dedicated to Balboa Park. The duties o the position include large, complex areas such as Mission Bay Park andPresidio Hill, as well as citywide park maintenance. 1

b. With this level o responsibility, it is di cult or Park sta to concentrateon anything other than immediate needs and unding issues. This

orces sta into a reactive mode without time or proactive planningand execution o projects.

c. While the Park and Recreation Department has the primary oversightor the Park, several other City departments are also tasked with a

variety o responsibilities and unctions in the Park.2. There is no library o critical Park documents that are easily accessible to

the public, nor is there a comprehensive list o critical Park documentsanywhere within the City. A library o these documents would, at aminimum, include land use documents, planning reports, leases andspecial event applications.

3. Park planning and project processing, approval and monitoring needimprovement and streamlining:a. Park planning is spread over two departments: the Park and Recreation

Department and City Planning and Community Investment Depart-ment. There is no single source o contact.

b. Four di erent departments monitor or review projects within BalboaPark. This includes the departments mentioned above, along with Engi-neering and Capital Projects and Development Services.

c. The planning and approval process is unclear, undocumented andnot posted on the Citys Web site, unlike the Development ServicesDepartment, whose general processes or projects are well de ned. Itis rustrating or the public, leaseholders and organizations to obtainreliable in ormation on how the process works.

d. There is currently no process or the updating o Park-related land usedocuments, despite the act the Master Plan or the Park calls or updat-ing them on a ve-year cycle 2. There are elements in the existing plansthat are clearly outdated or no longer appropriate, with no prospect orbeing reviewed.

e. Policies and processes need to be de ned that determines the limits tobuilding expansion (vertically and horizontally) in the Park.

Section #5


16/35

Page 16 o 35


. No policy or process exists to protect our green spaces and urban orestresource. A no net loss policy that protects tree canopy, passive nativehabitats, active open space areas and public realm areas should bepursued. As an example, Forest Park in St. Louis has a de ned commit-ment that i greenbelt is removed rom the Park, it must be replacedsomewhere else with in the Park.

4. Success ul project implementation and management should be a de ned,driving orce or the projects that are still viable and identi ed in adopted landuse documents.

5. Sta commitment to implementation o an identi ed project is some-times lacking, possibly because there is a lack o sta and unds. Becauseno one is willing or able to play the role o project champion, projectsremain unrealized or end up heavily modi ed, come in over budget, orare only partially completed.

6. Because no one person or group is identi ed to work the problem, thecurrent process relies on nding sta to reactively x the problem.

B. Decision-Making Process1. Decisions a ecting Balboa Park are o ten infuenced by larger political

orces in the City, or by whatever is currently politically correct. Politicalinterests concerned with maintaining the status quo o ten stife creativethinking and discourage and constrain boldness and innovation.a. A speci c Park-centric ocus is needed or routine and long-term

management decision-making.b. There is not adequate commitment to the historic preservation o the

Park, or anyone with the clout to say no to proposed new projectsthat do not meet the Secretary o Interior Standards or Historic Places,Structures and Districts. 3

c. No one has the time or the political immunity to review and createexpectations o attendance and activities or existing institutions.

2. The general public has little or no voice in decision-making or day-to-dayPark and Recreation activities.

3. Park leases are inconsistent in ways that are con using and inequitable.Further, these leases are managed by the City o San Diegos Real EstateAssets Department with little input rom the public or Balboa Park admin-istration. The lack o routine and on-going communication between thesta o Park and Recreation and Real Estate Assets, while improved overthe last two years, still causes problems or the institutions and other Parktenants as well as Park sta .

Section #5


17/35

Page 17 o 35


4. Speci c policies and processes are in need o development, review andenhancement, taking into account the unique nature o Balboa Park.Some o the missing management policies include:a. A clear public art policy and a process that enables artists to propose

and display their work in a timely way to interact with the public orleverage current Park-related events.

b. A naming rights policy speci c and clear to donors that balances theneed or undraising and recognition with the public ownership o thePark.

c. A strategy or process to optimize concessions in the Park. An analysisshould be done as this could increase Park revenues and enhance thePark visitor experience. 4

d. A green strategy or the Park. While there is some work being done,it is not well organized, which limits the vast opportunities or participa-tion.

e. A sa ety plan and policies or the Park. When a project is identi ed,there is o ten no ollow-up on its implementation.

5. Institutions are a critical part o the Park organization structure. Care ulconsideration should be given to the needs o current and uture institu-

tions. Important institutional issues include:a. Relationships between Park management and the existing institutionsshould continue to be enhanced and improved with a constant, opendialogue.

b. When making decisions on new or modi ed leases, current publictrends, interests and needs should be considered.

6. Relationships between Park management and communities adjacent tothe Park, while improved over the last ew years, could still be enhanced. 5a. More analysis o community needs and interaction with the Park is

needed and could bene t both.b. There is no connection between the Park and community-based volunteer

groups, such as the Friends o Canyons organization, which could bene tthe Park.

c. The relationship between Park management and Balboa Naval Hospital,while cordial, could be improved, potentially leading to bene ts orboth.

C. Operations1. In an attempt to have the Park look and unction well, the City sta

has done such a good job o hiding the true condition o the Park thatthe public does not think there are any signi cant problems. This hasunintended consequences. Due to dedicated Park sta s passion, the exactcondition and needs o the Park are not obvious or easily understood. The

general public, our political representatives and decision makers need tobe educated on the short alls and needs o the Park.2. At this time, a comprehensive report o the condition o the Park does

not exist. An annual Needs Assessment update o the condition o the Park should be per ormed. This is done in other major urban parksaround the country. The assessment should address not only operations,management and maintenance costs as well as repair, protection andreplacement costs, but also preservation, enhancement and expansionrelated to the implementation o adopted Park plans.

Section #5


18/35

Page 18 o 35


3. An Annual Operations Action Plan should also be presented and madeavailable to the public. The plan should include reasonable goals andprojects that can be unded and completed during that year.

4. An annual Project Status Plan that shows the current status o allprojects called or in adopted plans and studies should also be prepared.

5. No ormal Balboa Park volunteer program exists or the public areas o the Park.a. A Volunteer Coordination Plan should be created and actively

managed.b. Volunteer utilization should be e ectively increased to the advantage

o the Park.c. Potential volunteers require supervision, assignment o job duties,

evaluation and management oversight.6. Due to limited sta resources parking and tra c cannot be adequately

managed. Although the Balboa Park Land Use, Circulation and ParkingStudy, recommends hiring a Transportation O cer to identi y andimplement programs that will mitigate problems in these areas, thisposition has never been unded. 6

7. Balboa Park does not do an adequate job o providing in ormation and

services to visitors who do not speak English. The Soul o San Diego, documents the signi cant number o visitors to the Park who pre erredto take a survey in Spanish. 7

8. Balboa Park is not receiving suitable attention in some speci c areasthat would be expected, or practiced in other Great Parks.a. There is no cohesive group ocusing on the planning, unding and

implementation o public art.b. There is no organized process to create and recruit special events or

the general public that are ree, and do not bene t any one issue ororganization.

9. Development, both physical and cultural, tends to be in a limited areawithin the Park while other areas continue to be used or inappropriateactivities or not used at all.

10. The City o San Diegos Balboa Park Web site is underdeveloped (lackingbasic and updated in ormation; unlike comparable City Planning andCommunity Investment sites) and there ore underutilized.

11. While Park and Recreation sta is very active in managing the land-scape assets in the Park, there could be urther optimization, organiza-tion and management o the horticultural resources in the Park.

12. Urban re orestation plan and implementation programs are neededsince the Park tree canopy, diversity and health o the urban orest havebeen in a state o decline or many years.

13. Horticultural resources should be considered part o the historic re-

sources o the Park and integral components o the historic landscape inthe Central Mesa Area.14. As the population around the Park increases, the need or open space

will become increasingly valuable as it provides breathing room to ourpaved and urbanized environment and assists in the ltering o urbanwater runo , which is also increasing. 8

15. Accurate Park attendance and acility usage gures are not kept, and abetter monitoring program o Park use is needed. 9 Tra c counts, parkingcounts, Park visitor attendance and revenues should all be tracked on anongoing basis. This is important to understand user and park in rastructureneeds and is considered a best practice or major urban parks.

Section #5


19/35

Page 19 o 35


16. Due to a consistent lack o adequate sta ng levels, managementoversight o applicants using the Park or special events and otheruses is a cause or concern. The lack o ollow-through to ensure thatapplicant actually complied with the requirements o their contractualarrangements is troubling and could result in long-term damage toPark assets without anyone being accountable. This unction should behandled by a dedicated contract administrator, a position which is notcurrently unded.

17. There is likely duplication among the various City departments thatprovide services to the Park. Without more detailed analysis, this sup-position cannot be substantiated or disproved.

D. Finance1. The Park is understa ed and trends are or more cutbacks, at least in

the short run.2. There is no nancial plan or long-term Park sustainability; there ore,

the Park is subject to the economic variability that the City also en-dures. This lack o a nancial plan also precludes grand planning or

uture projects and development, shi ting the attention to immediateneeds and maintenance.

3. Giving by private entities to the Park is o ten not optimized and the useo unds is not transparent.a. A perception that dollars given to the City end up in the General Fund

rather than spent on the Park discourages private donations.b. There is a misconception that a donor cannot earmark a donation or

a speci c project or process.c. It is believed that donors will give to the Park i they are assured their

money is being spent or the intended purpose -- as many currentlydo with donations to Park institutions. There is no belie this will betrue when giving money to the City.

d. It is a common problem among non-pro t organizations or dona-

tions to be earmarked only or speci c projects, leaving little undingor operations.i. Presently Balboa Park also receives little or no public unding in this

category.ii. With a credible education and outreach program to the public, donors

may be willing to contribute to a Balboa Park Fund as long as theyhave iron-clad assurances that their donations would be used solely tosupport Balboa Park.

e. The City has no public process/overview or reporting on how undsdonated to Balboa Park are used. This lack o transparency hindersindividual donors and philanthropic organizations who want to besure their unds are wisely spent.

. There is a history o some philanthropic organizations in the Park tak-ing singular credit or what was accomplished rom multiple undingsources, both public and private.

g. Park sta is not charged with assuring that proper acknowledgmentbe provided to all contributors, including the City itsel . The City may,

or example, have donated actual dollars or approved a bond issuanceand incurred the resulting costs associated with the indebtedness.It is important that proper credit be attributed or several reasons,including:

Section #5


20/35

Page 20 o 35


i. The impression this creates in the publics mind is that BalboaPark already receives large amounts o private unds, which iscertainly not the case. In act, most o the donations reported inthe media are almost always made to the institutions located inthe Park, but not to the Park itsel .

ii. Most City departments require that the City receive credit onall public documents when they contribute dollars or providein- kind donations o materials and sta . It is not clear whetherthis happens in Balboa Park due to a lack o policy direction or o manpower to assume this duty. It is also possible that City sta and high-level decision makers ear alienating some donors.

iii. The private sector is not solicited in any meaning ul or consistentmanner or additional unds to support the Park.

iv. The unintended consequence is that donors and the general publicthink there is no need to implement a program that would bringsigni cant unds to the Park.

4. There is currently no clear process or making donations directly to thePark.

5. There is duplication o e ort by non-pro t organizations in the Park.

6. Long-term consistency provided by dedicated and accountable sta ,trained to work with donors, would optimize and increase undinglevels or the Park.a. While every donor is important, this is critical or very large donors.b. Hiring a Resource Development O cer was recommended in the

Balboa Park Land Use, Circulation and Parking Study to per orm thisunction, but to date the position has not been unded. 6 This individ-

ual will ideally have a background and success ul experience workingwith donors, including individual, corporate, and private trusts, as wellas the media.

7. There is no annual statement o how much private unding comes tothe Park.

8. Currently project-based donations are handled on a case-by-case basis.No ormal management structure or process exists to administer andprovide oversight to philanthropic organizations providing unding andservices or public areas o the Park.a. The process or choosing projects, especially major projects, regard-

less o the unding source, could be urther optimized.b. Identi ying candidate projects has improved in the last year with

Park and Recreation sta creating a priority list or some projects.While this is a step in the right direction, there is a need to re ne andexpand the process.

9. There is no annual analysis or implementation o ull cost recovery or

special events in Balboa Park, and criteria currently used do not includecost o cumulative impacts.

Section #5


21/35

Page 21 o 35


III. Other Management ModelsA. Model Defnitions and Implications or Balboa Park

1. Joint Powers Agreementa. A Joint Powers agreement is an agreement between or among two

or more independent public entities, that consent to per orm certainunctions and/or take certain actions to reach one or more agreed

upon goals. No power or authority is given up by any o the contract-

ing parties, nor is any additional governing authority set up under thistype o agreement.b. The needs o Balboa Park cannot be met with this management

model since it does not raise unds or per orm management unctions.2. Joint Powers Authority (JPA)

a. A Joint Powers Authority is a legal entity ormed by agreement between or amongtwo or more public entities that creates an independent governing authority withspeci ied powers to per orm certain unctions to achieve speci ic goals.

b. This is not a priority or the Board Supervisors at this time, and wouldrequire a substantial monetary commitment or consideration o a JPA

or the Park. Supervisor Roberts has said he will remain open to thisconcept, i money becomes available and other more pressing issues,like the regional re agency, are resolved.

3. Park and Recreation District by Legislationa. A Park and Recreation District is an independent entity with its

own governing board, which is created by an act o the Cali orniaState legislature designating a de ned geographic open space or parkand recreation area. The legislation usually brings state unding withenactment.

b. One state legislator has expressed interest in sponsoring legislationto create a Park and Recreation District i that is the direction theCity pursues. However, given the current budget constraints at thestate level, it is unlikely that any state unding would come with thecreation o the District.

4. Park and Recreation District by Vote o A ected Property Ownersa. A Park and Recreation District by vote o a ected property owners

is an independent entity with its own appointed or elected directors.Its unding a special property tax surcharge would require theapproval o a majority o a ected property owners, which is o tendi cult to achieve. 10, 11

b. No political will currently exists to persuade a ected property ownersto create a new District until the City resolves its nancial challenges.

5. Public/Private Partnershipa. A Public/Private Partnership is a contractual agreement between a

public agency ( ederal, state or local) and a private-sector entity that is

dra ted to insure that speci c public concerns are addressed and thatrestrictions are placed on the private partner to be sure that the publicinterest is served and protected. 12

b. This model is currently being used in Balboa Park. Numerous con-tracts already exist between the City and institutions and organiza-tions to manage, program and operate City-owned structures andlands. This model has been used success ully in the Park or over hal a century. 13

c. Private non-pro t entities are not bound by the Brown Act. However,provisions can and should be included in contracts between the par-ties related to the Park that they will abide by the Brown Act.

Section #5


22/35

Page 22 o 35


d. This model is easiest to change over time; parties involved are notunduly constrained by external legal requirements. A contract can beeasily modi ed to respond to changing needs or requirements in astraight orward manner.

(Redevelopment as a governance model was never under consideration,but there was a request to look at the Great Park in Irvine, CA, which is aredevelopment area.)

B. Findings1. Regardless o the model chosen, the City needs to encourage the public

to take more ownership o the care and unding o the Park as in othercities. The citizens o San Diego have tended to let the City handle it.As a consequence, the public is unaware o the condition o the Park, oro how the Park is unded, managed and governed.

2. Most appointees to the governing boards o JPAs and Park and Recre-ation Districts are legislators or appointed by speci ed de ned legisla-tors. For example, the Governor o Cali ornia makes appointments tothe Board o the San Diego River Conservancy (Park and RecreationDistrict). Very ew members o the general public have a voice on theseBoards. This can lead to a limited understanding o the needs o thepublic resources and the public.

3. JPAs and Park and Recreation Districts, in addition to their governingboards, need to have separate Citizens Advisory Committees, and/or

undraising entities.4. All governance models except the Public/Private Partnership would

lock management o the Park into whatever is written into the organi-zational ounding documents, legislation or ballot language. To changethem would require going back to the public process that created themin the rst place.

5. I the City works with a public bene t non-pro t entity via a contractual

agreement, policies and practices can be changed or modi ed airlyeasily in comparison to other models. There is much more operationalfexibility with this kind o arrangement. 14

6. The experiences o other great urban parks studied shows undraisingwent up signi cantly, o ten in addition to other undraising e orts byindividual institutions in those parks.

7. The three oundations which unded The Soul o San Diego , all believethe undraising potential is here in San Diego and the region, and thatthe unding o the institutions and the Park itsel are not mutuallyexclusive. 15

8. Since all JPAs and Park and Recreation Districts require a Citizen ActionCommittee and/or a 501(c)(3), and are airly onerous to create, it seemsbest to start with the least complicated and most fexible option.

9. Starting with the creation o a City/Public/Business/CommunityPartnership, does not in any way preclude creating a JPA or Park andRecreation District at a later time.

10. As stated by the Keston Institute in The Soul o San Diego, withoutresolving the underlying management and governance issues identi edin Balboa Park, any attempt to raise unds will ail 16

Section #5


23/35

Page 23 o 35


IV. Direct Response to Question 3. I the City wishes to expand management and governance o Balboa Park, what are the alternatives to do so?

A. The City should retain ultimate authority over the Park, including Park policiesand land-use decisions. Further, the City should assure the public that BalboaPark will remain a public park in perpetuity and that privatization will never be

allowed.B. The City o San Diego should provide Maintenance o E ort unding, at a

minimum, that is equal to its highest historical level o unding adjusted orinfation. 17

C. The current und-raising capabilities, management and governance structuresor Balboa Park are inadequate.

D. Fundraising, management and governance should be expanded through thecreation o a new, public bene t non-pro t entity. There are many options

or creating and implementing such an entity. The BPC makes the ollowingrecommendations:

1. The new entity should start with the addition o management unctionsthat do not exist within the current management structure o BalboaPark.

2. Prior to changing management or governance, existing Park and Recre-ation and other City unctions in the Park must be urther clari ed.

3. A contractually-de ned agreement should speci y the partnership rolesand restrictions between the City o San Diego and the new entity, toinsure the public interest is served and protected.

4. As the new organization expands and ocuses solely on the management,governance and undraising or Balboa Park, it should be supported and

protected rom undue political infuences.5. The new entity must respect the existing values that the public places on

established land use, historic and environmental Park resources. It shouldtake a leadership role in developing policy and a process that urther clari escommunity values, taking into account the unique nature o Balboa Park.This entity will value all donations, including, but not limited to, in-kind, timeand money.

6. The Board o Directors o the entity should not serve as representatives o any one constituency, but rather serve or the equitable, collective bene t o all o Balboa Park.

7. Regularly scheduled audits o the entity should be conducted no less thanonce a year. An Annual Report with nancial data along with the audit willbe made public. Legally required nancial reporting documents must bemade easily accessible to all interested parties.

8. This new entity should ollow steps that have worked success ully at similargreat urban parks studied, augmented by a process that is unique to SanDiego and Balboa Park.


24/35

Page 24 o 35


9. The Public/Private Partnership, which the BPC recommends, should growin response to community and Park needs--a process that has proven to besuccess ul in other major city parks. Success ul partnerships which werestudied, between cities, the public and the business community, all ollowedthis model success ully.a. Be ore adding other management responsibilities to the new entity,

assigning management unctions that do not currently exist within the

administrative structure o Balboa Park should be considered rst.b. I Balboa Park management is changed or expanded, additionalresponsibility should be assigned incrementally as success is dem-onstrated. By increasing responsibility in this way, i the new entity

ails, the impact on City sta would have relatively limited adverseconsequences.

c. Additional management responsibility should only be added as neededto carry out agreed-upon work plans or the Park, and in direct propor-tion to unds raised or the unctions.

10. The BPC recommends the ollowing initial tasks or the new entity:a. Authorize reports and studies, including:

i. A comprehensive conditions report or Balboa Park.ii. A reporting o actual unds coming into the Park or management,

operations and capital improvement projects.iii. A study to ascertain the real cost to manage and operate the Park.

b. Engage the public in a review, and, i necessary, an update to BalboaParks Land Use Documents. This would include a Precise Plan or theWest Mesa.

c. Create a nancing plan.d. Create a priority list o projects or the Park. This process would not

preclude donations or speci c projects not currently identi ed in this oruture priority lists.

e. Develop a Resource Management Program to manage undraising andvolunteers who want to donate their time to Park projects and activities. 6

V. Recommended ActionsIt was beyond the scope o work or the BPC to speci y particulars or the newentity. How the BPCs recommendations are to be executed should be the ocuso a second phase o study conducted by a specially-appointed Balboa Park TaskForce. Suggestions or ormation o this Task Force are set orth in the next sectiono this report. Issues that will need to be investigated urther by the Task Forceinclude, but are not limited to:

1. How to resolve the act that skill sets needed or undraising are di erentthan those required or management and governance.

2. Setting priorities is or initial and subsequent tasks.3. How to ensure that a cross section o the general public, representing

the diversity o the region, and Park stakeholders is included in the neworganization.


25/35

Page 25 o 35


VI. Supporting DocumentationAll the documents listed in the Bibliography: Table o Contents, DocumentsReviewed by the Balboa Park Committee, sections below, were used in answeringQuestion 3.

Section V Governance &/or Funding Models or Parks Outside San DiegoSection VI Parks in the San Diego Regions: Conservancies, Foundations,

Citizen Advisory Committees Joint Powers Authorities or JointPowers AgreementSection IX Organizational Structure

VII. End Notes

1. Organizational Structure #10, Park & Recreation Chart

Balboa Park Master Plan2. Plan Amendments, 113. Historic Preservation, 105. Neighboring Communities, 1116. Maintenance o E ort, 11

Balboa Park Land Use, Circulation and Parking4. L.15. Enhance ood services and other concessions services, 386. Resource Development O cer, 88

8. San Diego Civic Solutions, Canyonlands: The Creation o a San DiegoRegional Canyonlands Park, March 15, 2006

9. Harnik, Peter and Kimball, Amy I You Do not Count, Your Park WontCount, National Recreation and Park Association June 2005

The Soul o San Diego Keeping Balboa Park Magnifcent in its Second Century :7. Appendix 1 Morey Report on Balboa Park Usage In ormation10. Harnik, Peter Introduction Questions Raised 1611. Little, Richard et all, Appendix 3, The Keston Institute or Public

Finance and In rastructure Policy Options and Opportunities: Man-agement Paradigms or Balboa Park, December 2007

12. Public Private Partnership, 816. Conclusion, 1213. Balboa Park Cultural Partnership

a. Member Pro lesb. Current Balboa Park Leases: Recognized Cultural Contributions

15. Philanthropy & Balboa Park Speech by Peter Ellsworth, President,Legler Benbough Foundation to Balboa Park Committee MeetingAugust 21, 2008

14. BPC June 5, 2008 discussion with Dorothy Leonard and Craig Adams


26/35

Page 26 o 35


SECTION

6Next Steps:

Recommenda-

tions forSetting up a

Second Phase

Process

The Mayor and Council o the City o San Diego should support a second phase o study needed or changing the management and governance o Balboa Park. Thiswould then lead to the actual implementation phase.

The ollowing are recommendations or the Second Phase.1. Purpose: to urther re ne recommendations adopted by the BPC to create a

new public bene t non-pro t entity or und-raising, management and gover-nance o the Park, and to broaden public participation in the discussion anddecision-making process.

2. Open-transparent public process, which must:a. Follow the requirements o the Brown Act.b. Establish a coordinated public outreach and education program.c. Solicit and encourage broad public participation and comment.

3. Second Phase working-group membership: a Balboa Park Task Forcea. Task Force should be limited to a manageable number o members, -

more than 11 but less than 20. This recommendation is based on the sizeo typical City o San Diego advisory committees.

b. Task Force should consist o a cross-section o stakeholders rom insideand outside the Park.c. Task Force should include individuals with expertise in a variety o

subject areas speci c to the task.d. Task Force should include individuals outside the geographic areas

already represented by the Community Planning Committee memberscurrently on the Balboa Park Committee.

e. Among the areas o experience, representation or expertise, that shouldbe considered or appointment to the Task Force, are individuals with the

ollowing experience or basis or representation:

i. Balboa Park Committee current or prior member

ii. Balboa Park Cultural Partnership current or prior institutiontrustee or executive directoriii. Recreation or Recreation Council experienceiv. Fund-raising experiencev. Public land-use advocatevi. Public parkland advocatevii. Experience as current or prior Park lessee or user-group memberviii. Philanthropic experienceix. Experience creating and/or running a non-pro tx. Business or agency management experiencexi. Financial management experiencexii. Tourism management experience

xiii. Legal experiencexiv. Mayoral appointeexv. District Three Councilmember appointeexvi. Fourth District Board o Supervisor appointeexvii City Sta at a decision-making level (pre erably the Director o Park

and Recreation Department) should be a voting member

Section #6


27/35

Page 27 o 35


4. Sta support neededa. Since the rst phase o the Study was conducted by an existing commit-

tee, the need or sta assistance was minimal; this will not be true or thesecond phase.

b. This Task Force will be made up o people who have not worked together,and who will have a variety o backgrounds and experiences as theyrelate to Balboa Park and the City o San Diego. In order to success ullyconclude the second phase in a timely manner, the Task Force will need:i. A acilitatorii. A support person to sta the committee, take notes, keep the public

record and make sure the public is noticed and engaged.

5. A new page will need to be set up on the City o San Diego Web site toinclude, but not be limited to, the ollowing content:a. Agendasb. Minutesc. Documents reviewed by the Task Forced. Documents created by the Task Force

e. Pertinent documents rom the rst phase o study. Link(s) to Balboa Park Study Web page(s)g. Public education and outreach

6. It is highly recommended that be ore any changes are made to governanceand management, existing Park and Recreation Department and other City

unctions, processes and procedures used in Balboa Park, be urther clari ed.

Section #6


28/35

Page 28 o 35


SECTION

7Bibliography:

Documents

Reviewedby the

Balboa Park

Committee

Section #7

I. Foundation Funded Study Documents The Soul o San Diego: Keeping Balboa Park Magnifcent in its Second

Century , prepared by the Trust or Public Land Center or City ParkExcellence, January 2008.

Keeping Balboa Park Magni cent in its Second Century: A look atManagement, Fundraising and Private Partnership at Five Other MajorU.S. City Parks, prepared by the Trust or Public Land Center or CityPark Excellence, August 2006.

II. Financial Related Documents1. City o San Diego, FY05 Park and Recreation Department Revised Fee

Schedule, E ective July 1, 2004.2. City o San Diego, Balboa/Mission Bay Improvement Fund FY 09 Proposed Budget.3. City o San Diego, Mission Bay Improvements Fund FY 09 Proposed Budget.4. City o San Diego, Regional Park Improvement Fund FY 09 Proposed Budget.4.5. City o San Diego, Fund Amount Allocations to Balboa Park FY 07-09.6. City o San Diego, Environmental Growth Fund Report 07-073, April 24, 2007.7. Steele, Donald, Memorandum to City o San Diego Councilmember Jim

Mada er Regarding the Environmental Growth Fund: Revenue & BudgetIssues, January 30, 2002.

8. City o San Diego, LoMedico, Stacey, Director o Park and Recreation,Mission Bay Regional Park Fund, email to Vicki Granowitz, Chairperson,Balboa Park Committee August 28, 2008.

9. City o San Diego, Managers Report No 03-029: Re unding o 1993 LeaseRevenue Bonds (Old Town Trolley Extension) and 1993 Certi cate o Participation (Balboa Park and Mission Bay Park Improvements), Date IssuedFebruary 27, 2006, Council Docket March 3, 2003, www.sandiego.gov (accessed March 2008).

10. City o San Diego, Managers Report No. 03-180 to Mayor and City CouncilRe unding o the San Diego Open Space Park Facilities, District No. 1 GeneralObligation Bonds Re unding Series 1994, Report Issued September 10, 2003,

www.sandiego.gov (accessed March 2008).11. LoMedico, Stacey, Letter rom City o San Diego Park and Recreation Director

to Mr. Robert Lynch February 20, 2008 Regarding Tideland Report.12. City o San Diego FY 2007 Tidelands Report Summary Revenue and Expense

Report or Mission Bay and Costal Tidelands.13. Burgett, Laurie and Vicki Granowitz, Balboa Park Committee Determining

the Baseline or Balboa Park Statement o Work, 2007 Unpublished.14. San Diego Uni ed Port District, Agenda Item 18 Resolution Amending Board

o Port Commissioners (BPC) Policy 452, Permit Fees or the use o theDistricts Public Parks, Changing the Fees or Special Event Permits, February13, 2007, ww.porto sandiego.org (accessed February 2007).

15. City o San Diego, Grants and Gi ts Business Process Reengineering, www.sandiego.gov (accessed June 2008).

a. City Council Report No: 2008-075, June 4, 2008.b. Independent Budget Analyst Report No: 2008-62, June 5, 2008.

16. City o San Diego, Real Estate Assets Dept- Lease, Agreements, Permits,(Balboa Park Committee Meeting Handout Meeting July 24, 2008)Unpublished.

17. Ellsworth, Peter President Legler Benbough Foundation, Philanthropy &Balboa Park, (Address to Balboa Park Committee Meeting August 21, 2008)Unpublished.


29/35

Page 29 o 35


Section #7

III. Financial Transient Occupancy Tax Related Documents1. City o San Diego, Municipal Code Article 2: Administrative Code, Division 2:

The City Manager 22.0201-22-0229, 4-2003, www.sandiego.gov (accessedMarch 2008).

2. City o San Diego, Municipal Code, Article 5 Division 1: Transient OccupancyTax 35.0101-35.0138, 6-2000, www.sandiego.gov (accessed March 2008).

3. City o San Diego, Council Policy Transient Occupancy Tax Policy No. 100-03, E ective Date September 12, 2005, www.sandiego.gov (accessed March2008).

4. City o San Diego, Annual Fiscal Year 2002 Budget, Special PromotionalPrograms.

5. City o San Diego, Annual Fiscal Year 2003 Budget Special PromotionalPrograms.

6. City o San Diego, FY 04 and FY 05 City Budget Special Promotional AllocationComparison Chart, (Balboa Park Committee Meeting Handout Meeting May 1,2008) Unpublished.

7. City o San Diego, Independent Budget Analyst Report No: 2008-64 to theCouncil Budget Committee, Proposed Amendment to the Municipal CodeRegarding Allocation o TOT Revenue, June 12, 2008, www.sandiego.gov/iba/

reports/reports2008 (accessed June 2008).

IV. City o San Diego Budget Documents1. City o San Diego, Mayor Sanders Town Hall Meeting Schedule on the FY 2009

Budget, http://www.sandiego.gov/park-and-recreation/general-in o/budget.shtml (accessed April 2008).

2. City o San Diego, Mayor Sanders Town Hall Meeting Fact Sheet, The MayorsFY 09 City Budget: Sanders Delivers $3.2 Billion Budget or FY 09 ProtectingCare Services, Public Sa ety and Re orms, http://www.sandiego.gov/park-and-recreation/general-in o/budget.shtml (accessed May 2008).

3. City o San Diego, Mayor Sanders Set To Secure $103 Million In Funding ToAddress Back Log O De erred Maintenance Fact Sheet March 28, 2008, www.sandiego.gov (accessed March 2008).

4. City o San Diego, Mayors FY09 Budget Continues Re orms while proposingtrade-o s to maintain core services, April 8, 2008, www.sandiego.gov (accessed April 2008).

5. City o San Diego, Independent Budget Analyst Report 2008-44, Discussiono Park and Recreation and Library Budgets as Proposed in the Mayors FiscalYear 2009 Proposed Budget Date, Issued May 13, 2008, or City o San DiegoCouncil Budget Review Committee May 14, 2008, www.sandiego.gov/iba/reports/reports2008 (accessed May 2008).

6. City o San Diego, Independent Budget Analyst, Park and RecreationDepartment Review, April 2008 Pages 173-177 www.sandiego.gov/iba/reports/

reports2008 (accessed April 2008).(*Complete Proposed FY09 Park & Recreation Budget http://www.sandiego.gov/park-and-recreation/general-in o/budget.shtml (accessed April 2008).

7. LoMedico, Stacey City o San Diego Director o Park and Recreation, Park andRecreation Department FY 09 Proposed Budget, April 30, 2008, Power PointPresentation Unpublished.

8. City o San Diego, FY 2009 Proposed Budget Park and Recreation Department,(Park and Recreation Board Meeting Power Point Presentation April 17, 2008)Unpublished.


30/35

Page 30 o 35


Section #7

9. City o San Diego, FY 2009 Proposed Budget Park and Recreation Department,(Balboa Park Committee Meeting Power Point Presentation May 1, 2008)Unpublished.

10. City o San Diego, Penera, April Deputy Director Park and RecreationDepartment to Ted Medina Director Park and Recreation Department,Memorandum Balboa Park In rastructure Needs, April 6, 2006.

11. City o San Diego, Budget Workgroup Report on the Park and RecreationDepartment, April 2002.

12. City o San Diego, LoMedico, Stacey Director Park and Recreation Department,Memo: Final Position Reductions in the FY 09 Park & Recreation DepartmentBudget, June 26, 2008.

13. City o San Diego, Park and Recreation Developed Region Parks FY 07 BalboaPark Culture-Recreation, (Balboa Park Committee Meeting Handout September18, 2008).

14. City o San Diego, Park and Recreation Developed Region Parks FY 07 BalboaPark Maintenance, (Balboa Park Committee Meeting Handout September 18,2008).

15. City o San Diego, Park and Recreation Developed Region Parks FY 2008Balboa Park Culture-Recreation, (Balboa Park Committee Meeting Handout

September 18, 2008).16. City o San Diego, Park and Recreation Developed Region Parks FY 2008Balboa Park Maintenance, (Balboa Park Committee Meeting HandoutSeptember 18, 2008).

17. City o San Diego, Park and Recreation Developed Region Parks FY 09 BalboaPark Culture-Recreation, (Balboa Park Committee Meeting Handout September18, 2008).

18. City o San Diego, Park and Recreation Developed Region Parks FY 09 BalboaPark Maintenance, (Balboa Park Committee Meeting Handout September 18,2008).

19. City o San Diego, LoMedico, Stacey Park and Recreation Director FY 09Proposed Mid Year Reductions or Park and Recreation Department, November5, 2008.

20. City o San Diego, Lewis, Mary Chie Financial O cer and Jay Goldstone Chie Operating O cer, Report to City Council Budget and Finance Committee,Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Amendment Report, #2008-166 Revised, November12, 2008, www.sandiego.gov/city-clerk/o cialdocs/legaldocs/index (accessedNovember 2008).

21. Washburn, David, Tough Choices: Questions or Stacey LoMedico, November9,2008, ( www.voiceo sandiego.org) (accessed November 9, 2008).

22. City o San Diego, Sanders, Jerry Mayor and Jay Goldstone Chie OperatingO cer, City o San Diego 2010-2014 Five-Year Financial Outlook, www.sandiego.gov (accessed November 2008).


31/35

Page 31 o 35


Section #7

V. Governance and/or Funding Models or ParksOutside San Diego Related Document

1. Central Park Conservancya. Central Park Conservancy and City o New Yorks Park and Recreation,

Memorandum o Understanding March 31, 1993.b. Central Park Conservancy, Contract April 28, 2006.c. Central Park Conservancy Inc., Amended and Restated By-Laws June 1,

1997.d. Central Park Conservancy, Best Practices, November 2004.e. Central Park Conservancy, A Model or Public Private Partnerships,

March 2004.. Central Park Conservancy, Central Park Conservancy at a glance.

g. Central Park Conservancy, www.centralparknyc.org/aboutcpc/cpc-history/ataglance (accessed April 2008).

i. Conservancy At A Glanceii. Public/Private/Partnership

iii. Contract with New Your Cityiv. History o the Conservancyv. Capital Projects

vi. Career and Volunteer Opportunitiesh. Blonsky, Douglas, Saving the Park: A key to NYCs Revival. New YorkPost, November 3, 2007. www.centralparknyc.org (accessed April 2008).

i. Hewett, Heather, Central Park reshaped a citys mindset. The ChristianScience Monitor, May 29, 2003. www.csmonitor.com (accessed May2008).

j. Sherman, Gabriel, New York: the Summer Issue Who Owns CentralPark? How Frederick Law Olmsteds 843 acres o civilizing wildernessbecame a type-A battleground. New York, The Summer Issue, http://nymag.com/guides/summer/2008/47976 (accessed 2008).

2. New Yorkers For Parks, www.ny4p.org (accessed August 2008).a. Citizens Budget Commission, Making The Most o Our Parks, June

2007.b. Comparative Park Management Models, June, 25, 2002.

3. Forest Park Forever, In ormation Misc., www. orestpark orever.org (accessedApril 2008).

4. Forest Park Forever Inc, Articles o Incorporation, February 26, 1996.5. Forest Park Forever Inc, By-Laws As Amended Through June 15, 2002.6. Forest Park, City o St Lewis Department o Parks, Recreation & Forestry, www.

stLouis.missouri.org/citygov/parks (accessed May 2008).a. In ormation Fact Sheetb. Forest Park History o the Master Plan

7. Great Park Orange County, www.ocgp.org (accessed April 2008).

a. Bylaws o Orange County Great Park Corp, October 27, 2005.b. Orange County, Great Park Development Agreement 2004, 1-38.c. City o Irvine Announces Funding Plan or Orange County Great Park,

Press Release #203-10, January 28, 2003.8. Great Park Conservancy, www.orangecountygreatpark.org (accessed April

2008).a. The Parkb. Development Planc. What We Do


32/35

Page 32 o 35


Section #7

9. visit-Louisville.com, Louisville Water ront Park In ormation & Timeline, www.louisville-water ront-park.visit-louisville.com (accessed February 2008).

10. Piedmont Park Conservancy, www.piedmontpark.org/conservancy/mission (accessed September 2008).

a. In ormationb. Master Plan

11. Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy, www.pittsburghparks.org (accessed July 2008).a. Pittsburghs Regional Parks, Master Plan: A New Ethic o Stewardship,

Parts 1 & 2.b. Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy, The Voice, Spring 2008.

VI. Parks in the San Diego Region: Conservancies, Foundations, CitizenAdvisory Committees Joint Powers Authorities or Joint PowersAgreements Related Documents

1. Mission Trails Regional Parka. Mission Trails Regional Park Foundation, Master Agreement Recitals

with the City o San Diego, July 30, 1991, Document No. RR-278444-1. b. Mission Trails Regional Park Foundation, Agreement Recitals, July 30,

1991, Document No. RR-278444-2.2. Mission Trails Regional Park, www.mtrp.org (accessed March 2008).a. Mission Trials Regional Park, Overview Mission Trails Regional Park

Citizens Advisory Committee, Task Force and Foundation. b. Foundation Overviewc. Donor Opportunitiesd. Master Development Plan 1985, Section IV. Overall Master Plan:

Objectives.e. Dra t Master Development Plan 2008, Section I. History O The Park:

Origins o Mission Trails Regional Park.3. Otay Valley Regional Park, www.ovrp.org (accessed March 2008).

a. Joint Exercise o Powers Agreement, The Cities o Chula Vista and SanDiego or the Otay Valley Regional Park, July 5, 2006.

b. Policy Committee and Joint Sta Members.c. Citizens Advisory Committee Guidelines.

4. San Diego River Park Conservancy, www.sdrc.ca.gov (accessed April 2008).a. San Diego River Park Conservancy Act, Public Resources Code, Division

22.9. b. Governing Boardc. Who Are Wed. Five Year Strategic And In rastructure Plan 2006-2011, Adopted March

24, 2006.5. San Diego River Park Foundation, www.sandiegoriver.org (accessed April 2008).

a. History b. San Diego River Coalitionc. Conceptual Plan Abstract & Table o Contents, June 2002

i. Project Orientation: Vision, Goals, Issues6. San Dieguito River Park Joint Powers Authority www.sdrp.org (accessed March

2008).a. San Dieguito River Park Joint Powers Authority Agreement June 12,

1989. b. San Dieguito River Park Sta , Revenues, Expenditure,

Accomplishments 1989-2004.


33/35

Page 33 o 35


Section #7

7. San Dieguito River Valley Conservancy, www.sdrvc.org (accessed March 2008).a. 20 Years o Conservancy Results

b. Misc. Excerpts rom Web site.

VII. City o San Diego Policies www.sandiego.gov/city-clerk/o cialdocs/legisdocs/index (accessed June 2008).

1. CP 000-4 Code o Ethics 2002 Version

2. CP 000-13 Procedure or Mayor & Council Appointments3. CP 000-16 Open Meetings4. CP 000-21 Submission o Ballot Proposals5. CP 000-40 Marketing Partnership6. CP 100-02 City Receipt o Donations *Pulled currently being updated.7. CP 100-03 Transient Occupancy Tax8. CP 100-5 Fees Public Noti cation9. CP 100-06 Special Events (Parades)10. CP 200-13 Maintenance (City Owned) Public Facilities-Buildings11. CP 200-14 Park & Recreation Facility Landscape Design12. CP 200-15 Valet Parking and passenger loading zone policy13. CP 300-01 Utilization o Volunteers14. CP 600-13 Park Development Project Noti cation Process15. CP 700-03 Use o City-Owned Land by Youth Sports Organizations16. CP 700-04 Balboa Park Use & Occupancy17. CP 700-07 Park Development by Non-City Funds18. CP 700-12 Disposition o City Property to Nonpro t Organizations19. CP 700-13 Capital Improvements Program or Park & Recreation

Facilities20. CP 700-19 City Participation in Construction o Buildings or Cultural

Institutions21. CP 700-24 Balboa Park Architectural Standards22. CP 700-41 Use o the RFP Process or Lease o City-Owned Land23. CP 700-42 Recreation Councils 2005 Version

VIII. City o San Diego Municipal Codes & City Charter Sections1. Municipal Code, www.sandiego.gov/city-clerk/o cialdocs/legisdocs/muni

(accessed June 2008).a. Chapter 2: Government

i. Article 2, Division 2 Administrative Code: the City Managerii. Article 2, Division 40 Special Events

iii. Article 6, Division 0 Formation o Park and Recreation Board,Balboa Park and Mission Bay Park Committees

b. Chapter 6: Public Works and Property Public Improvement andAssessment Proceeding

i. Article 3, Division 03-04.1 Public Parks, Playground: Use o Playgrounds and Recreation Areasii. Article 3, Division 0 Utilization o the Environmental Growth

Fund2. City Charter, www.sandiego.gov/city-clerk/o cialdocs/legisdocs/charter

(accessed June 2008).a. Article V Executive and Administrative Sections

i. Section 42 Membership Selectionii. Section 43 Advisory Boards and Committees

iii. Section 55 Park and Recreation


34/35

Page 34 o 35


Section #7

b. Article VII Finance Sectionsi. Section 76.1: Special Taxes

ii. Section 77 Capital Outlay Fundiii. Section 77a Provisions or Zoological Exhibitsiv. Section 103.1a Environmental Growth Fund

c. City o San Diego, City Attorney John Witt, Proposed AmendmentSection 55, February 7, 1992, www.sandiego.gov/city-clerk/o cialdocs/legaldocs/index (accessed June 2008).

IX. Organizational Structure Related Documents1. Burgett, Laurie and Vicki Granowitz, Balboa Park Committee, Uno cial Balboa

Park Dra t Organization Chart and Index 2007, Unpublished.2. Balboa Park Trust, Balboa Park Trust Endowment Funds, (Balboa Park

Committee Meeting Handout July 2008).3. City o San Diego, www.sandiego.gov

a. All City Organization Chart (accessed May 2008).b. Land Use & Economic Development (accessed May 2007).c. City Planning and Community Investment Organization (accessed May

2007).

d. Public Works (accessed May 2007).e. Community and Legislative Services (accessed June 2007).. Business Operations/Administration (