Berkeley City Council
July 11, 2023

Staff Shortages: City Services Constrained by Staff Retention Challenges and Delayed Hiring 38 Most of the departments we interviewed have some method of conducting exit interviews with departing employees, though exit interviews are sometimes sporadic depending on the size of the department and their available resources. The Public Works department additionally collects yearly internal satisfaction data.

However, there is no organized citywide effort to collect satisfaction data and compare trends.

Collecting satisfaction data can help organizations understand employee experiences and take steps to reduce internal dissatisfaction, thus improving retention. For example, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management conducts an annual survey on employee engagement—the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey—in order to report on trends in employee satisfaction.

Surveys or interview data can identify the most common causes of dissatisfaction, thus allowing the City to develop a targeted approach to improving retention.

The City lacked a robust data-informed approach to meet its diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility workforce goals.

The City recognizes the importance of maintaining a diverse workforce, however, it has not reported sufficient data in recent years to track progress towards its goals and identify opportunities for improvement.

Promoting diversity in the government workforce is important for a number of reasons, including retention.

Fostering a diverse and inclusive workplace can help organizations reduce turnover, increase employee retention across demographic groups and improve morale. Regular assessment of employee satisfaction could help the City uncover diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility (DEIA) concerns that impact retention. As noted in the previous section, the City does not regularly collect data on employee satisfaction, including employees’ perceptions of DEIA in the workplace. Some employees raised concerns about DEIA in their open- ended survey responses, which suggests that it is an important factor in employee satisfaction.13 A regular citywide survey of employees would allow the City to target common DEIA concerns among employees or prioritize interventions to address those concerns. The U.S. Office of Personnel Management has demonstrated how to do this by recently adding DEIA questions to its Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey, along with a DEIA score based on survey responses.

13 These concerns echoed some of the issues brought forth by ɩɧ current and former employees who filed complaints with the Berkeley Branch of the NAACP and were interviewed by Mason Tillman Associates in ɩɧɨɫ. Mason Tillman Associates noted the following dominant themes which emerged from their analysis: absence of transparency in the hiring and promotion process; failure to hold supervisors, managers and directors accountable for their actions; and inconsistent application of rules and regulations in the hiring and promotion process.

Employee engagement refers to
the sense of purpose and
commitment employees feel toward
their employer and its mission.

Employee satisfaction is a
measure of how satisfied
employees are with different
aspects of their work including their
job, organization, pay, and others.

Staff Shortages: City Services Constrained by Staff Retention Challenges and Delayed Hiring 39 One of the City’s strategic plan goals is to attract and retain a talented and diverse City government workforce.

According to the proposed budget for fiscal years ɩɧɩɪ and ɩɧɩɫ, one of HR’s performance measures is to ensure that City demographics reach parity with Alameda County demographics and identify and address racial and ethnic disparities in the City workforce. In the past, the City’s Equal Employment Office has provided the Personnel Board with Year End Workforce reports which analyze demographic trends across indicators like hires, promotions, and leadership roles compared to the U.S. Census American Community Survey (ACS) data for Alameda County. However, the reports have not been produced since fiscal year ɩɧɩɧ. According to HR, the department plans to produce these reports again and is exploring the feasibility of automating these reports.

A full demographic analysis of the city workforce was outside the scope of this audit. However, we identified some retention trends in the Year End Workforce reports that merit closer attention. For example, in fiscal year ɩɧɩɧ, Hispanic or Latino employees made up ɨɰ percent of all employees, ɰ percent of supervisors and managers, and there were no Hispanic or Latino employees in deputy director or director roles. This is based on the most recent report available; there may have been demographic changes since the fiscal year ɩɧɩɧ report.

While comparing the demographic breakdown of Berkeley’s workforce to the Alameda County ACS sheds light on where Berkeley stands compared to one relevant labor market, it is also important to monitor workforce trends across all levels of the City employee population (i.e. staff, managers, and supervisors) to gain a better sense of representation within the organization. The City’s performance measure on employee diversity does not report on all levels of employment. However, looking at the data in this way could highlight potential barriers, for example, pipelines into manager- or director-level roles.

Recommendations
To improve internal data systems, we recommend Human Resources:

5.1 Clean up personnel data in ERMA to ensure all employee data is accurate.

5.2 Develop standardized procedures for entering and managing personnel data in ERMA.

5.3 Produce reports that can be used to inform retention and hiring efforts, which may include data on vacancies, recruitments, turnover, or other useful data. Human Resources should also report to City Council on staff vacancies by department and how long those positions have been vacant.

5.4 Consistently conduct exit surveys or interviews and share results with departments.

Staff Shortages: City Services Constrained by Staff Retention Challenges and Delayed Hiring 40 To better manage retention efforts, we recommend City Council:

5.5 Determine the appropriate city department or other body to regularly collect data on employee satisfaction. Data collection should include employees’ perceptions about diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility in the workplace. The department should consider publishing the data and comparing it to previous years to help inform retention efforts.

To improve reporting on diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility, we recommend the City Manager’s Office and Human Resources:

5.6 Resume data collection and production of Year End Workforce Reports on demographic workforce trends at least annually. Consider expanding Human Resources’ performance measure reported in the budget book to capture diversity at all levels of city employment.

Staff Shortages: City Services Constrained by Staff Retention Challenges and Delayed Hiring 41 Recommendations and Management Response
We provided a draft of this report to city management and HR for review and comment. City management agreed with our findings, conclusions, and recommendations. We generally expect the City to implement audit recommendations within two years of report issuance. Some of the following recommendations may be implemented immediately, or require a longer timeframe to implement depending on available resources. We believe these recommendations are a worthwhile investment for the City.

1.1 To better manage retention, we recommend the City Manager’s Office establish citywide retention goals and report to City Council on progress towards those goals biennially.

Implementation Date: 1 year
Corrective Action Plan: Upon stabilizing the City’s hiring crisis, Human Resources will establish staffing goals (e.g., hiring over attrition) and metrics by which to measure them (e.g., reductions in vacancy rates).

1.2 To better manage retention, we recommend the City Manager’s Office conduct a staffing analysis based on critical needs to identify the number and type of full-time equivalent positions needed for successful city operations and services. The City may consider conducting this analysis one department at a time based on available resources.

Implementation Date: 2+ years
Corrective Action Plan: A staffing analysis of the recommended scale – involving operational departments, Human Resources, and the Budget team – is beyond the capacity of the City’s current staff. In order to be implemented, the recommendation would need funding and external resources (i.e., the involvement of a consulting firm) or a drastic reduction of current priorities.

2.1 To ensure job duties align with job descriptions, we recommend the City Manager’s Office review the highest priority city job descriptions to ensure they accurately reflect job duties.

Implementation Date: 2 years
Corrective Action Plan: Human Resources has already embarked on this endeavor, working with departments and the Personnel Board to revise key
classification specs as vacancies occur. Revisions, however, are time- consuming, since they involve researching changes to the job class, drafting new language, negotiating the edits with labor groups, conducting a compensation study and submitting the change proposals to the Personnel Board for review and approval and then to council for adoption. Given that HR has limited staff and a slew of other deliverables, the revision process will necessarily move forward in priority order over the course of two years, unless resources are invested for outside contractors to assist with the workload.

Staff Shortages: City Services Constrained by Staff Retention Challenges and Delayed Hiring 42 2.2 To alleviate workloads associated with Council referrals, we recommend City Council consider staff capacity when introducing new legislation, and limit or prioritize new legislation during periods of short staffing.

Implementation Date: 1 year
Corrective Action Plan: Staff currently articulate in staff reports and communications to the City Council regarding staff capacity to implement new legislation. In addition, the City Manager presented in December 2022 to the City Council regarding the staffing crisis the City is currently facing.

Opportunities to enhance communications of this nature can be explored with the City Council.

2.3 To alleviate workloads associated with Council referrals, we recommend the City Manager’s Office report on the status of approved projects to City Council, including information about delays caused by staff vacancies.

Implementation Date: 1 year
Corrective Action Plan: Staff currently articulate in staff reports and communications to the City Council regarding staff capacity to implement new legislation. In addition, the City Manager presented in December 2022 to the City Council regarding the staffing crisis the City is currently facing.

Opportunities to enhance communications of this nature can be explored with the City Council.

2.4 To improve employee satisfaction, we recommend the City Manager’s Office improve pathways for promotion in the City through a citywide succession plan, which may include cross-training for positions.

Implementation Date: 2 years
Corrective Action Plan: Human Resources will plan for promotional pathways through succession planning and cross-training while being mindful of inherent restrictions imposed on this effort by the relatively modest size of the City’s workforce, particularly in smaller City departments/divisions.

2.5 To improve employee satisfaction, we recommend the City Manager’s Office direct departments to ensure that all employees receive an annual performance evaluation.

Implementation Date: 18 months
Corrective Action Plan: Human Resources will reconfigure the employee evaluation process with the mindset that performance assessment and feedback should be continuous, constructive, and growth-minded, rather than limited to 12-month intervals.

Staff Shortages: City Services Constrained by Staff Retention Challenges and Delayed Hiring 43 2.6 To improve employee satisfaction, we recommend Human Resources implement a comprehensive training program that ensures staff at all levels receive the training they need to fulfill their job duties and develop their job skills as needed. Consider increasing the training budget and redesigning the training curriculum to best address the needs of a post-pandemic workforce, improving training for supervisors and managers, ensuring that experts conduct trainings, and allowing employees to request specific trainings.

Implementation Date: 18 months
Corrective Action Plan: Human Resources has already initiated a re-imagining of the workforce training curriculum, with specific focus on supervisory, non-supervisory, and safety-sensitive positions. This effort includes a redesign of the Leadership Development Program and the new Skilled Workers Academy to maximize efficiency and effectiveness.

Many current employees have gone through this program already.

2.7 To improve transparency, we recommend Human Resources ensure that all city employees complete mandatory trainings in accordance with the state law. Report data on mandated trainings to Council annually.

Implementation Date: 1 year
Corrective Action Plan: Human Resources has already identified compliance with mandatory trainings as a top priority for the 2023 calendar year. Departments are asked to meet compliance milestones throughout the year, reaching 100% by December 31.

2.8 To improve transparency, we recommend the City Manager’s Office update City Council on the recruitment status of hard-to-fill positions during the biennial budget process, as well as steps taken to fill these positions.

Implementation Date: 18 months
Corrective Action Plan: Human Resources has already instituted a system of prioritizing departments’ most critical hiring needs. Once vacancy rates are stabilized, HR will highlight remaining hard-to-fill positions during every biennial budget process, along with articulating the measures implemented to recruit for them.

Staff Shortages: City Services Constrained by Staff Retention Challenges and Delayed Hiring 44 2.9 To improve transparency, we recommend the City Manager’s Office identify positions that are hard- to-recruit and retain and consider reassessing pay for those positions.

Implementation Date: 18 months
Corrective Action Plan: The City is already piloting a hiring pay incentive for certain positions in the Police Department but is mindful that reassessing pay for hard-to-recruit positions involves a complex set of considerations, including internal alignment (affecting supervisory or related classifications), internal equity, and labor negotiations.

2.10 To improve communication channels in the City, we recommend the City Manager’s Office assess employees’ needs regarding communication from the City Manager’s Office and design a communication strategy that addresses those needs.

Implementation Date: 1 year
Corrective Action Plan: This effort is currently underway as part of the Employer of Choice initiative. The Communications Division is currently meeting regularly with departments to assess communication needs.

Additionally, a quarterly Employer of Choice newsletter goes out to all employees, in addition to the already-existing Berkeley Matters publication available to all employees. The City Manager's Office will continue to explore ways to enhance employee communications as envisioned by the Employer of Choice initiative.

3.1 To improve hiring procedures, we recommend the City Manager’s Office assess the level of staff and resources needed to meet the City’s recruitment and hiring needs. Prioritize filling these positions when vacancies in this area fall below a level that would jeopardize the City’s ability to hire quickly.

Implementation Date: 6 months
Corrective Action Plan: Recommendations to increase staffing within the Human Resources Department were made by the Municipal Resource Group (MRG) as part of its Employer of Choice roadmap, and the City Council has already allocated three additional positions for HR, two of which have been filled; requests for another three positions are pending.

3.2 To improve hiring procedures, we recommend the City Manager’s Office assess the approval process for hiring new employees and identify opportunities to reduce inefficiencies.

Implementation Date: 6 months
Corrective Action Plan: Human Resources has already re-ordered the sequence in which hiring approvals are processed but will seek out further opportunities to enhance efficiencies.

Staff Shortages: City Services Constrained by Staff Retention Challenges and Delayed Hiring 45 3.3 To improve hiring procedures, we recommend Human Resources develop and execute a plan to modernize recruitment and hiring using social media and community engagement.

Implementation Date: 1 year
Corrective Action Plan: Human Resources has already commenced these efforts pursuant to the Employer of Choice initiative. With funding allocated by Council, the department is in the process of issuing a Request for Proposal to engage a marketing firm that will provide a full suite of recruitment services on digital platforms and social media in order to broaden outreach to high-caliber candidates of diverse backgrounds.

3.4 To improve hiring procedures, we recommend Human Resources communicate standard procedures and trainings for NEOGOV and the City’s hiring process to all department heads and hiring managers.

Implementation Date: 6 months
Corrective Action Plan: Human Resources has already designed trainings on the use of NEOGOV for maximized efficiency in the hiring process, including the scheduling of interviews and the issuance of e-offers and e- reference checks. HR has conducted this training for the hiring managers of the largest departments, including Public Works, Planning, and Health, Housing & Community Services (HHCS), and will roll it to out all remaining departments before the end of the calendar year.

3.5 To improve hiring procedures, we recommend Human Resources improve the employee onboarding process so employees have the tools and information they need to do their jobs.

Implementation Date: 6 months
Corrective Action Plan: Human Resources has already automated the onboarding process so that new employees can submit pre-employment paperwork, make benefits selections, and review City policies electronically. Within the next six months, HR will develop and implement a broader “Welcome to Berkeley” onboarding initiative designed to ease new employees into their jobs and provide them with all necessary tools for success.

Staff Shortages: City Services Constrained by Staff Retention Challenges and Delayed Hiring 46 4.1 To improve the telework policy, we recommend the City Manager’s Office identify ways of reducing unused space in city buildings to save on overhead costs. This initiative may require additional resources beyond city staff.

Implementation Date: 2+ years
Corrective Action Plan: In order to be implemented citywide, this recommendation would need significant funding and external resources allocated. Currently, the City is making incremental progress on exploring more efficient use of space on a department-by-department basis.

4.2 To improve the telework policy, we recommend the City Manager’s Office expand the citywide telework policy to include elements that align with best practices. This can include eligibility, employee accountability, equipment requests, telework training, and justifications for denying employee requests to telework.

Implementation Date: 6 months
Corrective Action Plan: Efforts are already underway in this regard, as the consulting firm Municipal Resource Group (MRG) is preparing a Hybrid Workplace Best Practice Guide as a supplement to its Employer of Choice roadmap.

5.1 To improve internal data systems, we recommend Human Resources clean up personnel data in ERMA to ensure all employee data is accurate.

Implementation Date: 6 months
Corrective Action Plan: Human Resources has already completed the bulk of this work but will continually review and refine data in order to ensure maximum accuracy.

5.2 To improve internal data systems, we recommend Human Resources develop standardized procedures for entering and managing personnel data in ERMA.

Implementation Date: 6 months
Corrective Action Plan: Human Resources has already implemented methods of standardizing data input and management, and will continue to refine them while navigating limitations with the ERMA system itself.

Staff Shortages: City Services Constrained by Staff Retention Challenges and Delayed Hiring 47 5.3 To improve internal data systems, we recommend Human Resources produce reports that can be used to inform retention and hiring efforts, which may include data on vacancies, recruitments, turnover, or other useful data. Human Resources should also report to City Council on staff vacancies by department and how long those positions have been vacant.

Implementation Date: 6 months
Corrective Action Plan: Human Resources has already undertaken this effort by engaging a data consultant to design reports and dashboards in ERMA and in NEOGOV; however, limitations in those systems (particularly ERMA) pose impediments to this effort. Departments do provide their vacancy rates when they complete department presentations during budget and finance development each year.

5.4 To improve internal data systems, we recommend Human Resources consistently conduct exit surveys or interviews and share results with departments.

Implementation Date: 2 years
Corrective Action Plan: Human Resources currently sends out exit surveys but lacks capacity for robust follow through, analysis, and subsequent dialogue with departments. Meaningful implementation of this recommendation would require a modest investment in staffing (e.g., a dedicated part- time HR intern).

5.5 To better manage retention efforts, we recommend City Council determine the appropriate city department or other body to regularly collect data on employee satisfaction. The department should consider publishing the data and comparing it to previous years to help inform retention efforts.

Data collection should include employees’ perceptions about diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility in the workplace.

Implementation Date: 2 years
Corrective Action Plan: The Special Projects team working on the Employer of Choice initiative will collaborate with the to-be-hired DEI officer to implement a methodology to collect and report back on employees' perceptions about diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility in the workplace. This will be additional to the work being done to address the items presented in the Employer of Choice roadmap produced by MRG.

Staff Shortages: City Services Constrained by Staff Retention Challenges and Delayed Hiring 48 5.6 To improve reporting on diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility, we recommend the City Manager’s Office and Human Resources resume producing Year End Workforce Reports on demographic workforce trends at least annually. Consider expanding Human Resources’ performance measure reported in the budget book to capture diversity at all levels of city employment.

Implementation Date: 1 year
Corrective Action Plan: Human Resources will resume reporting on demographic trends and diversity levels as part of its data analytics efforts referenced in Recommendation No. 5.3.

Staff Shortages: City Services Constrained by Staff Retention Challenges and Delayed Hiring 49 Methodology and Statement of Compliance
We audited the City’s approach to staff retention, including reviewing relevant Human Resources (HR) department’s operations for fiscal years ɩɧɨɯ through ɩɧɩɩ. We performed a risk assessment of HR’s practices and procedures to identify potential internal control weaknesses, including fraud risks, within the context of our audit objectives. This included a review of selected policies and procedures, as well as interviews with subject matter experts, HR staff, department directors, and current and former employees.

To gain an understanding of HR’s operations and internal controls and to achieve our audit objectives, we reviewed the following:
 Survey responses from a satisfaction survey we designed and sent to current employees,  Survey responses from an exit survey we designed and sent to former employees who voluntarily resigned or retired,
 Survey responses from an exit survey that the HR department sent,  Internal staffing data from the City’s current employee information system ERMA (January ɩɧɩɨ – June ɩɧɩɩ) and FUND$ (July ɩɧɨɯ – December ɩɧɩɧ),
 NEOGOV data on the City’s new hires and promotions,
 Previous audit findings and recommendations regarding understaffing and vacancies,  City of Berkeley HR policies and procedures,
 National media on public sector hiring and retention issues,  Professional literature and best practices for hiring and retaining employees, including telework,  Staffing data and telework policies from local jurisdictions to compare to Berkeley, and  Other audits in comparison cities related to employee retention.

We also conducted interviews with:
 HR staff members, including the former Interim HR Director, and the current HR Director,  Current and former city employees,
 Union representatives from City of Berkeley bargaining groups,  City department directors,
 City leadership including the City Manager and City Councilmembers,  A climate policy consultant, and
 The Chair of the Personnel Board.

Staff Shortages: City Services Constrained by Staff Retention Challenges and Delayed Hiring 50 We analyzed:
 Satisfaction and exit survey responses,
 Vacancy rate data from department directors,
 Resignation and retirement data from FUND$ and ERMA,
 NEOGOV data on the City’s new hires and promotions,
 Commuter carbon emissions data, and
 Year End Workforce Reports from fiscal years ɩɧɨɯ-ɩɧɩɧ, i.e. reports produced by the City showing demographic trends in the City’s workforce.

We included quotes from current employees, former employees, and department directors. To protect confidentiality, we did not include any identifiable information. Further, each quote featured in this report was only edited for clarity, length, or grammar.

Data Reliability
There are inherent limitations in using survey data to gauge employee satisfaction. However, even with those limitations, providing an anonymous survey was the most effective and efficient way to hear from a large number of current and former employees who could respond freely. During our audit, we kept the following in mind: ɨ) Many factors can impact a respondent’s frame of mind when completing the survey, which could influence their responses either positively or negatively; ɩ) People who are dissatisfied are more apt to reply to the survey and ongoing changes within the City would impact perceptions day to day; ɪ) Unless the survey achieves a ɨɧɧ percent response rate, some opinions may not be reflected in the quantitative analysis of responses; and ɫ) Despite our extensive preparation, respondents could have interpreted questions differently than we intended. Because the overall goal was to set a baseline of the morale at a point in time, we determined that the above factors would not create a significant risk to the accuracy of our audit findings, conclusions, and recommendations. The number of responses for both surveys was a strong indicator that the results were reliable, and the responses agreed with comments made during interviews, including discussions with employees, supervisors, and management.

We assessed the reliability of ERMA, FUND$, and NEOGOV data by reviewing it for completeness, appropriateness, and consistency. We determined that ERMA data is reliable for the audit’s purpose, with some caveats. ERMA data was reliable for pulling employee reports including resignation, retirement, hire, and service dates after January ɨst, ɩɧɩɨ. We determined the reliability of ERMA data by interviewing data owners and performing logic testing on the data. We could not confirm the accuracy of the vacancy rate or turnover data and therefore could not use it for analysis or use past employee data to analyze retention trends.

Staff Shortages: City Services Constrained by Staff Retention Challenges and Delayed Hiring 51 We also assessed the reliability of employee payroll data in the FUND$ system and determined it is sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our analysis. We assessed reliability by reviewing two prior data reliability assessments from previous audits, as both audits used FUND$ as a data source and found it to be reliable.

We additionally determined that NEOGOV data are sufficiently reliable for the audit’s purpose. We determined data reliability by interviewing knowledgeable data owners, reviewing data manuals, and performing logic testing on the data. We noted a limitation in the data: there are nine new hires and five promotions whose start date was before their requisition create date. According to HR, these are employees who were hired before being entered into NEOGOV. Therefore, their requisition was created after their start date. These limitations did not significantly impact our analysis.

Independence
Payroll Audit is a Division of the City Auditor’s Office. The Payroll Audit Division performs citywide payroll functions and is a module leader for the payroll/personnel module used to record payroll costs. HR and department payroll clerks are responsible for entering employee data and collecting relevant documentation.

Payroll Audit is not responsible for verifying the employee’s time or the use of budget codes by the department.

Further, Payroll Audit limits its review of sufficient documentation for the reported time or transaction; HR and department payroll clerks are responsible for making adjustments to ensure the accuracy of the information in the system.

To reduce the threat to our independence, we limited our work to exclude areas overseen by our office. We also selected data from closed payroll periods that was in read only status.

We relied on previous consultations with representatives from the U.S. Government Accountability Office to assess the safeguards we put in place. Based on this, we determined that the safeguards mentioned above reduced the identified threats to our independence to an acceptable level to proceed with the audit.

Statement of Compliance
We conducted this performance audit in accordance with Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards.

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Staff Shortages: City Services Constrained by Staff Retention Challenges and Delayed Hiring 52 Appendix I. Satisfaction Survey Responses
To measure employee satisfaction levels, we surveyed current employees between August 30 and September 18, 2022. We received 771 total responses out of 2094 active employees, including part-time and temporary staff, with a response rate of 37 percent. We measured most responses on a scale from “agree”, “somewhat agree”, “neutral”, “somewhat disagree” to “disagree”. When displaying results, we combined the “agree” and “somewhat agree” responses, along with the “disagree” and “somewhat disagree” responses for simplicity.

Certain questions were only accessible based on the respondent’s previous answers, for example, only supervisors could access questions about their supervising experience. To ensure employee confidentiality, the information in this report does not include individually identifiable information from the survey responses.

Responses are displayed below.

Staff Shortages: City Services Constrained by Staff Retention Challenges and Delayed Hiring 53

Staff Shortages: City Services Constrained by Staff Retention Challenges and Delayed Hiring 54

Staff Shortages: City Services Constrained by Staff Retention Challenges and Delayed Hiring 55 Appendix II. Exit Survey Responses
We asked employees who left the City to respond to an exit survey. We sent the exit survey to former employees who voluntarily left the City—indicated by a termination reason marked as resignation, retirement, medical separation or disability retirement in ERMA—between fiscal years ɩɧɨɯ and ɩɧɩɩ. Respondents could fill out the online survey using SurveyMonkey, or they could fill out the paper survey that we mailed to their address.

We received a total of ɨɫɩ responses out of ɫɰɬ former employees who received the survey. We decided to conduct our own exit survey because the City received only ɪɯ responses to its exit survey between October ɩɧɨɯ and June ɩɧɩɩ.

What were your reasons for leaving the City of Berkeley?

Note: We asked survey respondents to provide their five primary reasons for leaving the City out of the options above. This figure shows the percent of respondents who listed each reason as one of their primary reasons for leaving.

Source: ɩɧɩɩ exit survey

46.5%

36.6%

35.9%

35.2%

27.5%

27.5%

23.2%

19.0%

17.6%

14.8%

14.1%

11.3%

10.6%

9.2%

7.7%

6.3%

6.3%

4.2%

0.7%
Organizational culture problems
Poor work environment
Retirement
Poor relationship with supervisor
New job opportunity
Inadequate promotional opportunities
Unmanageable workload
Other
Personal or family
Health reasons
Salary reasons
Poor relationship with co-workers
Workplace safety
Relocation
Commute reasons
Lack of telework
Poor relationship with subordinates
Benefits reasons
Instability (layoffs, cuts)
Percent of Respondents

Staff Shortages: City Services Constrained by Staff Retention Challenges and Delayed Hiring 56 How would you rate your experience working for the City?

Note: Figure is an average of all responses. Respondents were asked to rate their experience from worst (ɨ) to best (ɬ).

Source: ɩɧɩɩ exit survey

What did you like best about working for the City?
Source: 2022 exit survey

Did you receive an exit survey upon leaving the City?

Source: 2022 exit survey

75%15%10%
Yes Unsure No

16.3%

14.9%

14.5%

14.4%

11.6%

8.4%

6.8%

3.7%

3.5%

3.0%

1.6%

1.4%
The public service aspect
The benefits
Your co-workers
Your job
The salary
Your department
Your supervisor
Your subordinates
Your training on the job
The organization
Telework opportunities
Management
Percent of Responses

Staff Shortages: City Services Constrained by Staff Retention Challenges and Delayed Hiring 57 Appendix III. Satisfaction Survey Respondents by
Department
We asked City of Berkeley employees to respond to a job satisfaction survey. In order to determine how well the responses represented the opinions of employees in different departments, we compared survey response data to citywide data. Employees from every department responded to the survey.

Figure ɨɫ. Full-Time Employees Who Responded to Satisfaction Survey by Department Compared to Citywide Data
Note: This figure reflects satisfaction survey respondents who indicated they were a full-time employee; some respondents skipped this question and therefore may not be captured in this graphic. Citywide data captures all full-time employees as of September ɰ, ɩɧɩɩ.

Source: ɩɧɩɩ satisfaction survey and ERMA

Mission Statement
Promoting transparency and accountability in Berkeley government.

Audit Team
Caitlin Palmer, Senior Auditor
Erin Mullin, Senior Auditor
Kendle Kuechle, Auditor I
Pauline Miller, Auditor I

City Auditor
Jenny Wong

Office of the City Auditor
Phone: (510) 981-6750
Email: [email protected]
Website: https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/city-audits

Copies of our audit reports are available at
https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/city-audits/city-auditor-reports

Cover photographs provided by City of Berkeley and Freepik

Office of the City Manager
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager

ACTION CALENDAR
July 11, 2023
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Lisa Warhuus, Director, Health, Housing, and Community Services Subject: Referral Response: Affordable Housing Preference Policy for Rental Housing Created Through the Below Market Rate and Housing Trust Fund Programs

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution to create an Affordable Housing Preference Policy applicable to new residential housing units created via the Below Market-Rate (BMR) and the Housing Trust Fund (HTF) programs consistent with Fair Housing law and government funder approvals, and direct the City Manager to adopt guidelines to administer the Housing Preference Policy.

SUMMARY
Housing preferences are a policy tool to prioritize applicants for affordable housing rental leases. The proposed Affordable Housing Preference Policy (HPP) establishes seven preferences designed to assist people who were displaced from Berkeley or are facing displacement in Berkeley to receive priority for new affordable housing units. Staff is requesting Council adopt a resolution to require these preferences be applied to new affordable housing units.

On February 21, 2023, City Council held a Work Session to receive information on the HPP, the community engagement and leadership efforts to craft the policy, and discuss policy development. Staff conducted analysis of the Work Session discussion and consulted with community partners to craft the policy recommendations.

The HPP is designed to achieve the following goals and outcomes:
● Support individuals who have previously been displaced from Berkeley and desire to return;
● Support individuals who are currently experiencing housing insecurity in Berkeley; and

Referral Response: Affordable Housing Preference Policy for Rental Housing ACTION CALENDAR Created Through the Below Market Rate and Housing Trust Fund Programs July 11, 2023

● Acknowledge and address historical racial injustices, particularly for the Black community, who have been disproportionately impacted by exclusionary housing policies.

The HPP is intended to apply to units created by the City’s Below Market Rate (BMR) and Housing Trust Fund (HTF) programs. Opportunities for implementation of the policy will be shaped by staffing levels, Fair Housing law, and approvals by other government funding sponsors for HTF projects.

The HPP proposal is a product of work undertaken by the Department of Health, Housing, and Community Services (HHCS) in partnership with community-based organizations, and reflects City Council’s Work Session discussion of the preliminary policy proposal. In 2019, in response to Council referrals and ongoing community advocacy for a preference policy, HHCS and the Department of Planning applied for a Partnership for the Bay’s Future (PBF) Challenge Grant. The Challenge Grant, which commenced in March 2020, allowed HHCS to support community partners Healthy Black Families (HBF) and East Bay Community Law Center (EBCLC) to engage in a community-driven process to make recommendations for an HPP. The Housing Advisory Commission (HAC) supported the community proposal.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The proposed HPP will require new staff time for training/education, leasing certification, contract management, data collection and evaluation, and other ongoing implementation responsibilities. HHCS’ Housing and Community Services Division (HHCS/HCS) estimates needing 0.3 FTE Community Service Specialist I (CSSI), 0.3 FTE Community Development Project Coordinator (CDPC) and 0.1 FTE Senior Community Development Project Coordinator to fulfill these duties. This represents an estimated annual staffing budget of $136,299. The HHCS/HCS staffing study and corresponding staffing requests for FY24 include the FTEs needed to implement the Housing Preference Policy.

The staffing plan is predicated on approval of the new positions in HCS requested as part of the staffing study, which includes 2 FTE’s funded from the General Fund/Measure U1 as well as 4 FTE’s funded with special funds. Amendments to the proposed plan may affect the implementation of this proposal.

It will be critical to conduct outreach to ensure that potential affordable housing applicants are aware of the Housing Preference Policy. Staff recommend conducting an RFP to fund a community-based organization to conduct outreach in Berkeley, and outside of Berkeley to reach those already displaced from the community. It will be important to have consistent outreach and education through the development of the two BART sites. Staff estimate that outreach costs will be between $35,000 to $50,000.

Staff will work on a more detailed outreach proposal for Council’s consideration if the

Referral Response: Affordable Housing Preference Policy for Rental Housing ACTION CALENDAR Created Through the Below Market Rate and Housing Trust Fund Programs July 11, 2023

policy is adopted.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The proposed HPP is the result of extensive community engagement and leadership by the City’s community partners, HBF and EBCLC, through a PBF Challenge Grant. This process is reflective of policy design driven by a collaborative, community-led process from outreach design to policy development. The proposal reflects collective work of Staff, City Council Work Session discussion, HBF, EBCLC, and a Community Leaders Group to draft a policy reflective of the Berkeley community’s values and priorities. This work was centered on supporting Berkeley’s African American community, which has been most impacted by displacement in Berkeley.

Table 1. Preferences and Details
Preference Points Preference Details
Displacement due to BART
construction (First
priority)
Descendant of someone who was displaced due to
construction of BART in the 1960s and 1970s in
Berkeley.

Displaced due to foreclosure 1 Displaced due to foreclosure in Berkeley since 2005.

Displaced due to eviction 1 Displaced in Berkeley due to no-fault or non- payment eviction within the past seven years.

Families with children 1 Household with at least one child aged 17 or under.

Homeless OR at-risk of
homelessness 1
Homeless and not eligible for Permanent
Supportive Housing OR At-Risk of Homelessness
with current/former address in Berkeley.

Ties to redlined areas 1 Residential ties to Berkeley’s redlined areas – current or former address of applicant.

Ties to redlined areas –
historical 1
Residential ties to Berkeley’s redlined areas –
applicant is a direct descendant of someone who
lived in redlined areas.

City Council Work Session
The City Council held a Work Session on the Housing Preference Policy on February 21, 2023. Staff and the City’s community partner, Healthy Black Families, presented to Council about the policy proposal and goals, the community engagement that shaped recommendations, and implementation. The Council used the Work Session to discuss the preliminary HPP proposal. This discussion was critical for Staff to focus the scope of

Referral Response: Affordable Housing Preference Policy for Rental Housing ACTION CALENDAR Created Through the Below Market Rate and Housing Trust Fund Programs July 11, 2023

the policy, inform implementation planning, and consider how to best target preferences to meet policy goals.

City Council’s discussion included the importance of ensuring families originally displaced by construction of Berkeley BART stations in the 1960s and 1970s are able to return to the city, the impact of the foreclosure crisis and redlining on Black families, the loss of generational wealth for Black families due to displacement, and the potential of limiting the number of overall preferences to have more impact from priority preferences (such as displacement). A detailed overview of the Work Session discussion and analysis, and resulting modifications to the policy proposal, is included as Attachment 2.

Changes Based on Work Session
Following the Work Session, Staff met with community partner HBF to discuss potential changes to community recommendations. HBF expressed concern that adding additional preferences may dilute the policy’s ability to achieve its core policy goals.

Community engagement identified responding to historic injustice and displacement, which has significantly impacted Berkeley’s Black community, as the central preference policy priorities.

Key changes were made to preferences based on the Work Session discussion:
 Narrowing the eviction preference to no-fault or non-payment eviction.  Narrowing the homeless/risk of homelessness preference to homeless and not eligible for Permanent Supportive Housing OR At-Risk of Homelessness with current/former address in Berkeley.

Evictions: Council discussion suggested that not all evictions should be prioritized through a preference category. Staff analyzed narrowing this preference to no-fault evictions only. Data shows that nearly 90% of evictions in Berkeley are due to non- payment. The inability to pay up to seven years ago may impact an applicant’s ability to secure affordable housing. There would also be racial equity implications of excluding non-payment evictions; the areas that are decreasing most in Black household population have seen dramatic rent increases, and Black household income is lower than that of other racial groups. There is likely displacement of Black households due to non-payment-related evictions. In order to narrow the preference and still achieve policy goals, Staff recommends narrowing the eviction preference to no-fault and non-payment evictions.

Homelessness: Council discussion suggested narrowing this preference to ensure homeless people are receiving housing with adequate support in order to remain housed. Homeless Services staff identified ways the Coordinated Entry System can be utilized for targeting of appropriate housing policies and resources. Narrowing this preference to homeless and not eligible for Permanent Supportive Housing OR At-Risk

Referral Response: Affordable Housing Preference Policy for Rental Housing ACTION CALENDAR Created Through the Below Market Rate and Housing Trust Fund Programs July 11, 2023

of Homelessness with current/former address in Berkeley, will help ensure that those who need Permanent Supportive Housing continue to be served via the appropriate channels, and homeless individuals who do not require that level of support can still be prioritized in the preference policy.

Table 2: Summary of Preferences Recommended by HAC & Community Engagement, Revised Based on Council Work Session Discussion & Post-Work Session Analysis
Proposed
Preference
Category
Preference Eligibility –
February 2023 Proposal
Preference Eligibility –
July 2023 Proposal
Displacement due to
BART construction
(first priority)
Descendant of someone who
was displaced due to
construction of BART the 1960s
and 1970s in Berkeley.

No Change.

Displaced due to
foreclosure
Displaced due to foreclosure in
Berkeley since 2005.

No Change.

Displaced due to
eviction
Displaced in Berkeley due to
eviction within the past seven
years.

Displaced in Berkeley due to no-
fault or non-payment eviction
within the past seven years.

Families with
children
Household with at least one child
aged 17 or under.

No Change.

Homeless OR at-risk
of homelessness
Homeless OR At-Risk of
Homelessness with
current/former address in
Berkeley.

Homeless and not eligible for
Permanent Supportive Housing
OR At-Risk of Homelessness with
current/former address in Berkeley.

Ties to redlined
areas
Residential ties to Berkeley’s
redlined areas – current or former
address of applicant.

No Change.

Ties to redlined
areas – historical
Residential ties to Berkeley’s
redlined areas – applicant is a
direct descendant of someone
who lived in redlined areas.

No Change.

A detailed overview of the Work Session discussion and post-Work Session analysis, and resulting modifications to the policy proposal, is included as Attachment 2.

Implementation
The HPP will establish points that prioritize a portion of units in affordable housing application lotteries. Fair Housing law allows for only a portion of units to receive preferences to mitigate potential discrimination. BMR and HTF applications will be processed through the Alameda County Housing Portal (“Housing Portal”), an online application for affordable housing units across Alameda County. The Housing Portal will

Referral Response: Affordable Housing Preference Policy for Rental Housing ACTION CALENDAR Created Through the Below Market Rate and Housing Trust Fund Programs July 11, 2023

incorporate the City’s preferences into the uniform application. An applicant may select as many preferences as they believe they qualify for to receive a priority.

The lottery will sort the applications based on the number of total preference points per application. For the portion of units that preferences are being applied to, property managers will first conduct a lottery amongst descendants of people displaced due to BART construction. Property managers will then conduct lotteries based on the total number of other preferences for which applicants qualify, until all eligible units are filled.

Selected applicants will be required to submit documentation to verify their qualification for each selected preference. Staff will work with property managers to verify documentation and approve leases in a timely manner.

Staff will be tasked with several responsibilities to ensure efficiency and compliance, including:
 Training/education for property managers and prospective applicants;  Certifying preferences for applicants selected by lottery;  Contract management;
 Data collection and evaluation; and
 Securing required HTF County, State, and Federal Funder approvals.

Fair Housing Analysis
Fair Housing law requires disparate impact analysis (DIA) for some preferences before a preference policy can be implemented on HTF projects. DIA assesses whether specific racial groups or other protected classes would be inadvertently disproportionately impacted by the HPP. County, State, and Federal funding agencies that contribute funding to HTF projects require this analysis to permit use of the HPP on specific projects. Staff will need the discretion to adjust the application of preferences in order to ensure no disparate impact and secure the necessary funding approvals for HTF projects.

This analysis also determines what percentage of units can receive preferences without creating disparate impacts on protected classes under state and federal law. Staff’s intent is for the policy to be applied to the maximum percentage of units permitted by disparate impact analysis. Research from other cities shows this analysis will limit the share of affordable housing units the policy can apply to; it will not be able to be applied to 100% of units in a development.

Staff issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for Fair Housing analysis of the proposed preferences in August 2022. Staff received Council authorization on February 28, 2023 to execute a contract with the selected bidder, Street Level Advisors. At the time of writing this report in May 2023, work with Street Level Advisors on the Fair Housing

Referral Response: Affordable Housing Preference Policy for Rental Housing ACTION CALENDAR Created Through the Below Market Rate and Housing Trust Fund Programs July 11, 2023

analysis has commenced, with a final report anticipated by December 2023. The Fair Housing analysis report will help determine how each preference can be applied to the maximum percentage of units permitted by disparate impact analysis, and will help secure approval for use of preferences from funding agencies.

Disparate Impact Analysis is not required for BMR units as they are not reliant on outside government funders. Staff recommend implementing the policy on new BMR units upon adoption of administrative guidelines, while the Fair Housing analysis required for HTF projects is simultaneously completed and/or awaiting approval from funding agencies.

Outreach and Monitoring
Meeting the HPP’s policy goals requires outreach to ensure public awareness of the policy, and monitoring outcomes to ensure the policy is effectively implemented.

Outreach is important for this policy since it seeks to reach a population already displaced from Berkeley. These individuals may be harder to reach through typical outreach channels that focus on promoting awareness within Berkeley. In order to meet this challenge, Staff will conduct an RFP to fund a community-based organization to lead outreach in Berkeley and outside of Berkeley to reach those already displaced from the community.

It will be important to have consistent outreach and education through the development of affordable housing at North Berkeley and Ashby BART stations. Preferences for these projects were outlined in the Joint Vision & Priorities (JVP) for Transit-Oriented Development for Ashby and North Berkeley BART Stations and the City should build its outreach to ensure the policy is operating effectively when these projects are available to lease. The JVP states that affordable housing at each station should provide a preference for residents of Berkeley who are facing displacement, or who have been displaced from Berkeley in the past due to economic or discriminatory reasons. Staff interviewed other jurisdictions with preference policies about their outreach strategies.

As the HPP is implemented on new developments, staff will monitor the policy to understand how it is working and who is being served by it. This will involve collecting and processing demographic data of affordable housing applicants and new residents, and summarizing information on how preferences are being used. Staff will provide an annual report to Council documenting the policy’s impact and request any policy amendments to better serve the anti-displacement goals.

Housing Advisory Commission Vote
The Housing Advisory Commission (HAC) supported adopting a Housing Preference Policy at the October 6, 2022 meeting with the following vote:

Referral Response: Affordable Housing Preference Policy for Rental Housing ACTION CALENDAR Created Through the Below Market Rate and Housing Trust Fund Programs July 11, 2023

Action: M/S/C (Simon-Weisberg/Mendonca) to recommend City Council take the following actions:
 Adopt a policy to establish the following preferences for new affordable housing created via the City’s Housing Trust Fund and Below Market Rate programs:
o Displacement due to eminent domain for North Berkeley and Ashby BART construction
o Displaced in Berkeley due to foreclosure since 2005
o Families with children
o Homeless or at risk of homelessness
o Ties to redlined areas
o Ties to redlined areas – historical
o Displaced in Berkeley due to eviction within the past seven years;  Structure the preferences to provide applicants that qualify for the “Displacement due to eminent domain for North Berkeley and Ashby BART construction” a first priority and all remaining preferences equally weighted; and  Share the research that informed these recommendations with the City’s reparations consultant.

Vote: Ayes: Ching, Johnson, Lee-Egan, Mendonca, Sanidad, and Simon-Weisberg.

Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: Calavita (excused), Fain (unexcused), Rodriguez (unexcused), and Potter (excused).

The HAC supported all six preferences staff identified via the community engagement process, and added a preference for those displaced by eviction, due to challenges renters may face finding new housing with an eviction that stays on their record for seven years, as well as the racial disparities of evictions. Community engagement leaders and the HAC agreed that a preference for displacement due to BART construction should have a first priority above other preferences.

Council Referrals
This report responds to two referrals: “Neighborhood Preference in Affordable Housing to reduce the impact of displacement and Ellis Act evictions,” which originally appeared on the agenda of the April 5, 2016 meeting and was sponsored by Councilmembers Droste, Moore, Capitelli, and Maio; and “Refer to the Planning Commission and Housing Advisory Commission to Research and Recommend Policies to Prevent Displacement and Gentrification of Berkeley Residents of Color and African Americans,” which originally appeared on the agenda of the April 30, 2019 Council meeting and was sponsored by Councilmembers Davila and Bartlett.

The HPP is a Strategic Plan Priority Project, advancing the City’s goal to create affordable housing and housing support services for Berkeley’s most vulnerable community members. The HPP will apply to units created by the BMR and HTF programs.

Referral Response: Affordable Housing Preference Policy for Rental Housing ACTION CALENDAR Created Through the Below Market Rate and Housing Trust Fund Programs July 11, 2023

BACKGROUND
Multiple community-based organizations in Berkeley have called for a Housing Preference Policy to address gentrification and displacement in Berkeley, particularly from the African American community in South Berkeley. In 2016, Council made a referral to develop Neighborhood Preference in Affordable Housing to reduce the impact of displacement. The Adeline Corridor Specific Plan prioritized the development of a local preference policy for affordable housing, specifically mentioning preference policy on potential future affordable units at the Ashby BART station. In 2019, the City Council made a referral to create policies to develop a “right to return” for Berkeley’s displaced residents, “especially People of Color, including the African American communities who have been displaced.”
In 2020, with the support of the Mayor and Councilmembers Bartlett and Harrison, the City began the PBF Challenge Grant with a focus on developing a Housing Preference Policy rooted in community engagement and research. The City and BART Joint Vision & Priorities also included a Housing Preference Policy for future housing at Ashby and North Berkeley BART stations.

As part of the PBF Challenge Grant, the City of Berkeley worked with community partners Healthy Black Families and the East Bay Community Law Center to engage in a community-driven process to design the HPP. Community input was solicited through outreach and engagement strategies including:
 Community surveys: A targeted displacement-focused survey led by HBF, and a city-wide survey focused on a Housing Preference Policy hosted on Berkeley Considers (results and analysis of the survey are included as Attachment 3);  Outreach led by Healthy Black Families;
 A “Community Leaders Group” comprised of representatives from local community-based organizations and community groups led by HBF and EBCLC.

Participants were selected by the lead community groups.

The discussions around a Housing Preference Policy revolved around addressing specific challenges facing Berkeley’s most impacted residents:
 Significant displacement within and from Berkeley has already occurred. The number of people experiencing homelessness in Berkeley steadily grew at an average rate of 10% every two years between 2006 and 2019. The most common response to the question of why homeless people chose to sleep in Berkeley was that they grew up in Berkeley. Black people are disproportionately represented in Berkeley’s homeless population; since 2006, 65% of homeless service users in Berkeley are Black while Black people comprise less than 8% of the overall population. Between 1990 to 2018, Berkeley lost 49% of its Black population while other racial groups all grew slightly.

Referral Response: Affordable Housing Preference Policy for Rental Housing ACTION CALENDAR Created Through the Below Market Rate and Housing Trust Fund Programs July 11, 2023

 There is ongoing housing insecurity and displacement pressure in Berkeley.

Approximately 49% of low-income renters in Berkeley spend more than half their income on rent.
 There is historical harm to communities of color in Berkeley. Redlining facilitated patterns of disinvestment that continue to enable gentrification. Approximately 83% of today's gentrifying areas in the East Bay were rated as "hazardous" (red) or "definitely declining" (yellow) by the government agency that introduced redlining. These policies limited homeownership and housing stability in these Berkeley neighborhoods, which were predominantly populated by people of color. In the 1960s, BART bought blocks of homes in order to build Ashby and North Berkeley BART stations, in some cases invoking eminent domain; those who lost their homes due to BART construction lost their opportunities for intergenerational wealth-building.

In September 2022, the State of California adopted SB 649. This legislation established a State policy that lower-income individuals residing in neighborhoods and communities experiencing significant displacement need access to housing that is affordable and assists in avoiding displacement. The legislation recognizes a local tenant preference adopted pursuant to the bill’s provisions is subject to the duty of public agencies to affirmatively further fair housing. This bill should aid the approval of Berkeley’s preferences by the State’s Department of Housing and Community Development.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Displacement can lead to commutes into Berkeley as displaced people continue to return to their community of origin for school, work, faith institutions, healthcare, and/or social networks. An HPP can help reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with these longer commutes by reducing or reversing displacement of those with ties to Berkeley.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Anti-displacement initiatives are a key priority for the City of Berkeley and an ongoing call from local community members. Berkeley currently has 21 anti-displacement policies in place (14 of which are noted as best practices by UC Berkeley’s Urban Displacement Project) yet still faces significant displacement of low-income residents and people of color, in particular the City’s African American/Black population.

Table 3 outlines the rationale and potential benefits of each preference and how it can strengthen the City’s anti-displacement efforts.

Table 3. Preferences and Rationale/Potential Benefits

Referral Response: Affordable Housing Preference Policy for Rental Housing ACTION CALENDAR Created Through the Below Market Rate and Housing Trust Fund Programs July 11, 2023

Proposed
Preferences
Details Rationale & Potential Benefits
Displacement due
to BART
construction (first
priority)
Descendant of someone
who was displaced due to
construction of BART in
the 1960s and 1970s in
Berkeley.

Supports those who lost their homes due to
BART construction and forewent
intergenerational wealth-building
opportunities as a result. Acknowledges this
harm and provides an opportunity to return
to the community with stable housing.

Displaced due to
foreclosure
Displaced due to
foreclosure in Berkeley
since 2005.

Supports displaced residents to return to
Berkeley and acknowledges lack of support
during the foreclosure crisis. The foreclosure
crisis disproportionately impacted
communities of color.

Displaced due to
eviction
Displaced in Berkeley due
to no-fault or non-
payment eviction within
the past seven years.

Supports renters facing challenges finding
new housing due to an eviction, which stays
on a record for seven years. Evictions
disproportionately impact Black women.

Eviction court cases move quickly, and
renters are at a significant disadvantage
when they do not have legal representation.

Families with
children
Household with at least
one child aged 17 or
under.

Increases community cohesion, since
families are being displaced from social
networks and school districts, often to lower
resource places. Research and community
knowledge indicate that children are most
impacted by displacement, with impacts on
education, child care, and peer networks.

Homeless OR at-
risk of
homelessness
Homeless and not eligible
for Permanent Supportive
Housing OR At-Risk of
Homelessness with
current/former address in
Berkeley.

Supports housing insecure Berkeley
residents become stably housed in their
community. Berkeley’s homeless population
is disproportionately people of color.

Ties to redlined
areas
Residential ties to
Berkeley’s redlined areas
– current or former
address of applicant.

Acknowledges historic racialized injustices
that contributed to the displacement crisis,
supports displaced residents to return to
Berkeley, and supports those in
neighborhoods facing gentrification-related
displacement pressures to become stably
housed.

Ties to redlined
areas – historical
Residential ties to
Berkeley’s redlined areas
– applicant is a direct
descendant of someone
who lived in redlined
areas.

See above.

Referral Response: Affordable Housing Preference Policy for Rental Housing ACTION CALENDAR Created Through the Below Market Rate and Housing Trust Fund Programs July 11, 2023

The City of Berkeley is also making historic investments in affordable housing, including the $135M Measure O bond dedicated to affordable housing, of which $53M is dedicated to affordable housing at Ashby and North Berkeley BART stations. Measure O has led to a faster pace of affordable housing development, and there are over 1,000 units in the HTF pipeline. The HPP represents an opportunity to ensure new affordable housing in Berkeley can help address displacement in a more targeted way, as well as to partially address historical injustices.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
Policy alternatives considered have been detailed above. Council could choose to further modify the policy or opt not to adopt a policy. Staff are not recommending these options, particularly adding more preferences, for a variety of reasons outlined in the report. Community partners expressed concern that adding additional preferences may dilute the policy’s ability to achieve its core policy goals. Community engagement identified responding to historic injustice and displacement, which has significantly impacted Berkeley’s Black community, as the central preference policy priorities.

Adding additional preferences to the policy would also impact staffing costs and lease approvals, as more time will be required to process and verify additional preferences.

Research from other jurisdictions show that applicants may indicate qualifying for more preferences than they can verify documentation for, which also requires additional time for processing leases. Additionally, the more preferences that are included, the less weight each individual preference will hold.

CONTACT PERSON
Anna Cash, Community Development Project Coordinator, Health, Housing, and Community Services, (510) 981-5403
Mike Uberti, Senior Community Development Project Coordinator, Health, Housing, and Community Services, (510) 981-5114
Attachments:
1: Resolution
Exhibit A: Housing Preference Policy
2: Council Work Session Overview
3: Housing Preference Policy Survey Results
4: Research Overview of Preference Policies in Other Jurisdictions 5: Referral Report from April 5, 2016
6: Referral Report from April 30, 2019

RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.

ADOPTING A HOUSING PREFERENCE POLICY FOR AFFORDABLE UNITS

DEVELOPED WITH CITY SUBSIDY AND THROUGH THE BELOW MARKET RATE

PROGRAM
WHEREAS, in the 1960s and 1970s, Bay Area Rapid Transit (“BART”) bought blocks of homes, in some cases invoking eminent domain, in order to build BART stations in Berkeley, displacing residents of South Berkeley and North Berkeley in the process.

Those who lost their homes due to BART construction forewent intergenerational wealth- building; and
WHEREAS, redlining created large areas of concentrated communities of color into which subprime loans were channeled. From mid-2007 to mid-2008, there were more than 350 foreclosures in Berkeley; foreclosures in Berkeley were concentrated in South and West Berkeley. The City of Berkeley did not have a foreclosure assistance program. In the 2022 Point-in-Time Count, eviction/foreclosure/rent increase was the second most common cause of homelessness; and
WHEREAS, community input indicates that Berkeley families are being displaced from their social networks and school districts, often to lower-resourced areas. Research and community knowledge indicate that children are most impacted by displacement, via impacts to education, child care, and peer networks; and WHEREAS, evictions remain part of an individual’s rental history for seven years, impacting their ability to secure safe and affordable housing. Given the shortage of affordable housing in Berkeley, an eviction from a housing unit may represent displacement from one’s community. In the 2022 Point-in-Time Count, eviction/foreclosure/rent increase was the second most common cause of homelessness; and
WHEREAS, 49% of low-income renters in Berkeley are severely rent-burdened, spending more than half their income on rent. The number of people experiencing homelessness in Berkeley has steadily grown at an average rate of 10% every two years between 2006 and 2019. Black people are disproportionately represented in Berkeley’s homeless population; since 2006, 65% of homeless service users in Berkeley are Black, when Black people comprise less than 8% of the overall population; and WHEREAS, redlining has led to patterns of disinvestment that continue to enable gentrification. Approximately 83% of today's gentrifying areas in the East Bay were rated as "hazardous" (red) or "definitely declining" (yellow) by the government-sponsored corporation that introduced redlining. These policies have limited homeownership and housing stability in these Berkeley neighborhoods, which were predominantly populated by people of color; and

WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley (“City”) provides funding to support affordable housing development in the City through its Housing Trust Fund program; and WHEREAS, the City creates affordable housing via the City's Inclusionary Housing Requirements (Berkeley Municipal Code Section 23.328), requiring new market-rate residential developments to include Below Market Rate affordable housing units; and WHEREAS, from February 2020 to February 2022, the City participated in the Partnership for the Bay’s Future Challenge Grant to develop a Housing Preference Policy informed by community engagement led by local community partners Healthy Black Families and East Bay Community Law Center; and
WHEREAS, on June 2, 2022, the City of Berkeley and BART adopted the City and BART Joint Vision and Priorities (JVP) for Transit-Oriented Development at the Ashby and North Berkeley BART Stations that included a shared priority for displacement prevention that states that “affordable housing should provide a preference for residents of Berkeley who are facing displacement, or who have been displaced from Berkeley in the past due to economic or discriminatory reasons”; and
WHEREAS, California Senate Bill (SB) 649 was adopted by the State of California in September 2022 to establish that it is the State’s policy that lower-income individuals residing in neighborhoods and communities experiencing significant displacement, as specified, need access to housing that is affordable and assists in avoiding displacement, and that a local tenant preference adopted pursuant to the bill’s provisions is subject to the duty of public agencies to affirmatively further fair housing.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Berkeley finds and declares the following:

1. Adopts a Housing Preference Policy, as set forth in Exhibit A to this Resolution and incorporated by this reference, that applies to new affordable housing units created by the City’s Housing Trust Fund and Below Market Rate programs;

2. Directs the City Manager to adopt guidelines to administer the Housing Preference Policy and take any other action with respect to the policy consistent with this resolution and its purpose;

3. Establishes that this Housing Preference Policy shall be applied only to the extent allowed by Fair Housing law and other government agency funding sources; and

4. Establishes that the Housing Preference Policy shall take effect January 1, 2024.

Exhibits
A: Housing Preference Policy

Exhibit A. Housing Preference Policy
Preference Points Preference Details
Displacement due to BART
construction (First
priority)
Descendant of someone who was displaced due to
construction of BART in the 1960s and 1970s in
Berkeley.

Displaced due to foreclosure 1 Displaced due to foreclosure in Berkeley since 2005.

Displaced due to eviction 1 Displaced in Berkeley due to no-fault or non- payment eviction within the past seven years.

Families with children 1 Household with at least one child aged 17 or under.

Homeless OR at-risk of
homelessness 1
Homeless and not eligible for Permanent
Supportive Housing OR At-Risk of Homelessness
with current/former address in Berkeley.

Ties to redlined areas 1 Residential ties to Berkeley’s redlined areas – current or former address of applicant.

Ties to redlined areas –
historical 1
Residential ties to Berkeley’s redlined areas –
applicant is a direct descendant of someone who
lived in redlined areas.

Attachment 2: Council Work Session Overview
City Council held a Work Session on the Housing Preference Policy on February 21, 2023. Council discussion included:
• The importance of ensuring families displaced by the construction of Berkeley BART stations are able to return to the city;
• The impact of the foreclosure crisis and redlining on Black families; • The loss of generational wealth for Black families due to displacement; and • The potential of limiting the number of overall preferences to have more impact from priority preferences (such as displacement).

The tables below summarize:
• Changes made to the Housing Preference Policy proposal reflecting Cou ncil’s
Work Session discussion (Table 1)
• Work Session discussion of the proposed Housing Preference Policy and post- Work Session analysis (Table 2)
Table 1: Summary of Preferences Recommended by HAC & Community Engagement, Revised Based on Council Work Session Discussion & Analysis Proposed
Preference
Category
Preference Eligibility –
February 2023 Proposal
Preference Eligibility –
July 2023 Proposal
Displacement due to
BART construction
(first priority)
Descendant of someone who
was displaced due to
construction of BART in the
1960s and 1970s Berkeley.

No Change.

Displaced due to
foreclosure
Displaced due to foreclosure in
Berkeley since 2005.

No Change.

Displaced due to
eviction
Displaced in Berkeley due to
eviction within the past seven
years.

Displaced in Berkeley due to no-
fault or non-payment eviction
within the past seven years.

Families with
children
Household with at least one child
aged 17 or under.

No Change.

Homeless OR at-risk
of homelessness
Homeless OR At-Risk of
Homelessness with
current/former address in
Berkeley.

Homeless and not eligible for
Permanent Supportive Housing
OR At-Risk of Homelessness with
current/former address in Berkeley.

Ties to redlined
areas
Residential ties to Berkeley’s
redlined areas – current or former
address of applicant.

No Change.

Ties to redlined
areas – historical
Residential ties to Berkeley’s
redlined areas – applicant is a
direct descendant of someone
who lived in redlined areas.

No Change.

Attachment 2

Changes Based on Work Session
Following the Work Session, Staff met with community partner HBF to discuss potential changes to community recommendations. HBF expressed concern that adding additional preferences may dilute the policy’s ability to achieve its core policy goals.

Community engagement identified responding to historic injustice and displacement, which has significantly impacted Berkeley’s Black community, as the central preference policy priorities
.

Key changes were made to preferences based on the Work Session discussion:
• Narrowing the eviction preference to no-fault or non-payment eviction. • Narrowing the homeless/risk of homelessness preference to homeless and not eligible for Permanent Supportive Housing OR At-Risk of Homelessness with current/former address in Berkeley.

Evictions: Council discussion suggested that not all evictions should be prioritized through a preference category. Staff analyzed narrowing this preference to no-fault evictions only. Data shows that nearly 90% of evictions in Berkeley are due to non- payment. Ability to pay up to seven years ago may impact an applicant’s ability to secure affordable housing. There would also be racial equity implications to excluding non-payment evictions; the areas that are decreasing most in Black household population have seen dramatic rent increases, and Black household income is lower than that of other racial groups. There is likely displacement of Black households due to non-payment-related evictions. In order to narrow the preference and still achieve policy goals, Staff recommend narrowing the eviction preference to no-fault and non-payment evictions.

Homelessness: Council discussion suggested narrowing this preference to ensure homeless people are receiving housing with adequate support in order to remain housed. Homeless Services staff identified ways the Coordinated Entry System can be utilized for targeting of appropriate housing policies and resources. Narrowing this preference to homeless and not eligible for Permanent Supportive Housing OR At-Risk of Homelessness with current/former address in Berkeley, will help ensure that those who need Permanent Supportive Housing continue to be served via the appropriate channels, and homeless individuals who do not require that level of support can still be prioritized in the preference policy.

Attachment 2

Table 2: Summary of Work Session Discussion of Proposed Housing Preference Policy and Post-Work Session Analysis
Proposed
Preference
Category
Work Session
Discussion
Post-Work Session Analysis
Displacement due
to BART
construction in the
1960s and 1970s
(first priority)
Councilmembers
expressed support.

Input to explore
displacement due to
eminent domain (ED) in
other South Berkeley
sites.

Additional community outreach would be
necessary to determine additional
appropriate ED sites. The BART
construction-related displacement
preference will be complex to implement,
requiring the creation of a database. Staff
recommend starting with BART, and learning
from implementation. Council could make
future amendments to include other sites.

Displaced due to
foreclosure
Councilmembers
expressed support. No
modifications were
discussed.

N/A
Displaced due to
eviction
Some Councilmembers
suggested this preference
should be narrowed to no-
fault evictions only.

Analysis suggests that narrowing this
preference to no-fault evictions would
undermine policy goals, as nearly 90% of
evictions in Berkeley are due to non-
payment. Ability to pay up to seven years
ago may impact an applicant’s ability to
secure affordable housing. There would also
be racial equity implications to excluding
non-payment evictions; the areas that are
decreasing most in Black household
population have seen dramatic rent
increases, and Black household income is
lower than that of other racial groups. There
is likely displacement of Black households
due to non-payment-related evictions. Staff
recommend narrowing the preference to no-
fault evictions plus non-payment evictions.

Families with
children
Councilmembers
expressed support. No
modifications were
discussed.

N/A
Homeless OR at-
risk of
homelessness
Some Councilmembers
suggested narrowing this
preference to ensure
homeless people are
receiving housing with
adequate support.

Homeless Services staff identified ways the
Coordinated Entry System can be utilized for
targeting of appropriate housing policies and
resources. Staff recommend narrowing this
preference to at-risk of homelessness, and
those who are homeless but not eligible for
Permanent Supportive Housing.

Attachment 2

Proposed
Preference
Category
Work Session
Discussion
Post-Work Session Analysis
Ties to redlined
areas / historical
ties to redlined
areas
Councilmembers
expressed support.

Some Councilmembers
suggested weighting this
preference based on ties
to area before wave of
mass displacement.

Tying this preference to a certain
year/overall demographics would exclude
those who have been able to stay in the
area, and undermine goals of proactively
preventing displacement.

Staff recommend maintaining the preference
as-is: 1 point for current applicant ties to
redlined areas, and additional point for
parent/grandparent ties to redlined areas.

This gives priority to those with long-term
ties to the area, while also addressing
proactive anti-displacement for those who
are struggling to stay housed in gentrifying
areas.

Attachment 2

Attachment 3. Preference Policy Survey Results
Two surveys were conducted as part of the outreach process to inform the Housing Preference Policy: a City survey on Berkeley Considers, and a community survey designed and implemented by Healthy Black Families. Healthy Black Families also supported on targeted outreach to the Black community of the Berkeley Considers survey. It is possible there is overlap in the respondents to the two surveys.

Healthy Black Families Survey
There were 93 responses to the Healthy Black Families survey.

Healthy Black Families Survey - D
emographics
• Race: 70% of respondents self-identified as Black, Black African, or Black Hispanic/Latinx; 18% identified as white, 3% as Latinx, 3% as other, 3% as Native American/Alaskan, and 2% as Asian/Indian/Pacific Islander. • Housing tenure: 65% identified as renters, 25% as homeowners, 4% as living with family, 4% as other, and 2% as homeless.

Healthy Black Families Survey - R
esponses
• In the Healthy Black Families survey, respondents wrote in their suggestions for Preferences, and these were consolidated into themes at the analysis stage.

There was not a limit on how many Preferences each respondent could indicate. • Preferences - Overall Respondents: 77 respondents responded to the question, “What experiences or criteria do you think should be used to prioritize affordable housing applications in Berkeley?” The most common overarching categories were displaced residents, including displaced residents (24), displaced Black residents (10), displaced people of color (POC) residents (2) - followed by financial need (26), race - Black (11), POC (9) - and then other categories:
families with children (19), family history/ties to Berkeley (13), social need (such as facing domestic violence) (10), unhoused Berkeley residents (9), at risk of displacement (8), elderly/disabled (8), works in Berkeley (6), housed Berkeley residents (2).

Attachment 3

Healthy Black Families Survey – Preference Responses

Berkeley Considers Survey
There were 549 responses to the Berkeley Considers survey.

Berkeley Considers Survey - Demographics
• Race: 67% of respondents self-identified as white, 7% as African American/Black, 3% as Hispanic/Latinx, 3% as mixed race, 3% as Asian/Pacific- Islander, 1% other, and 15% preferred not to answer the race question. • Housing tenure: 59% of respondents identified as homeowners, 31% as renters, 1% as unhoused, 4% living with family and friends and 5% other. • Income: 41% of respondents reported an annual household income of above $100,000, 9% reported $80,000 to $100,000, 7% reported $65,000 to $80,000, 12% reported $40,000 to $65,000, 10% reported $20,000 to $40,000, 7% reported less than $20,000, and 13% did not answer.

Berkeley Considers Survey - Responses
• Respondents were able to indicate their top three choices amongst a selection of potential Preferences. The numbers below reflect total selections across those who ranked Preferences first, second, or third choice.
• Preferences - Overall Respondents: In order of most common responses, the top Preferences were: unhoused Berkeley residents (344), housed Berkeley residents (220), those displaced by government action (218), those with ties to redlined areas (208), those displaced by no-fault evictions (181), those who work in Berkeley (134), those who lost their home to foreclosure/tax forfeiture (62), 0 10
20 30
40 Top Preference Choices (Consolidated),
HBF Preference Question Respondents (n=77)
Attachment 3

those displaced due to code enforcement (51), those living in proximity to a new affordable housing (45), other (44).
• Preferences - Low-Income Respondents: Isolating the responses of low-income survey respondents (those who would be income-eligible for new affordable housing), the top three responses were the same as for the overall respondents:
unhoused Berkeley residents, housed Berkeley residents, and those displaced by government action. Responses were: unhoused Berkeley residents (144), housed Berkeley residents (88), those displaced by government action (86), those displaced by no-fault eviction (80), those with ties to redlined areas (74), those who work in Berkeley (46) those displaced by foreclosure/tax forfeiture (27), those displaced by code enforcement (23), those living in proximity to the new affordable housing (20).
• Preferences - African American Respondents: Looking at the responses of African Americans, the group that has suffered most disproportionately from displacement pressures in Berkeley, “ties with redlined areas” rises to the #2 selection. Responses were: unhoused Berkeley residents (29), those with ties to redlined areas (21), housed Berkeley residents (15), those displaced by government action (12), those who work in Berkeley (8), those displaced by no- fault eviction (7), those displaced by foreclosure/tax forfeiture (4), those living in proximity to the new affordable housing (4), those displaced by code enforcement (3).

Berkeley Considers Survey – P
reference Responses
0 50 100 1 50 200 250 300 350 400
Other
Neighborhood proximity
Code enforcement relocation
Foreclosure/Tax Forfeiture
Work in Berkeley
No-fault eviction
Redlined area resident/ties
Displaced by gov't action
Berkeley resident (housed)
Unhoused Berkeley resident
Top 3 Preference Choices,
Berkeley Considers Survey Respondents (n=549)
First Choice Second Choice Third Choice
Attachment 3

Attachment 4. Research Overview of Preference Policies in Other Jurisdictions Se
veral US cities implemented Preference Policies to prioritize applications for affordable housing projects based on different criteria. Some of these policies prioritize those who live or work in the city or near the specific affordable housing development.

Others focus on displacement from the city (through adverse governmental action, no- fault evictions, and/or natural disasters) and ties to neighborhoods with histories of discrimination. These policies can be applied to BMR units and/ or HTF units depending on the context.1
California Cities:

East Palo Alto
The City of East Palo Alto adopted a Local Preference Policy in 2020 for living in East Palo Alto (with a durational requirement of three months that applies to inclusionary housing units only), working in East Palo Alto, and for involuntary displacement (natural disaster, code enforcement, domestic violence, and rent increases above 10%).2 Oakland
The City of Oak
land implemented different versions of preference policies over time, but the current version is codified in a 2016 ordinance. Preferences apply to nonprofit affordable housing and include categories for current and former residents displaced by City of Oakland/Oakland Redevelopment Agency’s projects, Oakland’s code enforcement, or a no-fault eviction; residents who currently live in the same Council District as, or one mile from, the property; and applicants who currently live or work in Oakland.
3 Redwood City
Redwood City adopted a Live/Work Preference policy as part of an amendment to its Affordable Housing Ordinance in 2021.
4 This policy allows income-eligible
households that live, formerly lived, work, or have been offered work in the city to receive a preference when affordable housing becomes available. The policy is supported by a Live/Work Policy Analysis.
5 1 See “Draft Adeline Corridor Specific Plan”, page 93, for more information on how preference policies operate in other cities:
https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Planning_and_Development/Level_3_- _Land_Use_Division/AdelineCorridor_DraftPlan_1.pdf.
2 See
http://eastpaloalto.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?Frame=&MeetingID=1070&MediaPosition=&I D=1174&CssClass=.
3 See https://oakland.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2685178&GUID=BC70BA9D -D54C-405F- AD33-A194C31A6346.
4 See http://www.redwoodcity.org/AffordableHousingOrdinance. 5 See
https://meetings.redwoodcity.org/AgendaOnline/Documents/ViewDocument/ATTACHMENT%20D%20%E 2%80%93%20LIVE-
WORK%20POLICY%20ANALYSIS%20BY%20SEIFEL%20CONSULTING.pdf?meetingId=2250&docume ntType=Agenda&itemId=5223&publishId=9209&isSection=false.

Attachment 4

San Francisco
The City of San Francisco has adopted Preferences via multiple ordinances over time, with the most recent ordinance adopted in 2019. Preference categories include a Certificate of Preference (for former San Francisco residents displaced in the 1960s and 1970s, during the SF Redevelopment Agency’s federally-funded urban renewal program); a Displaced Tenant Housing Preference Program (DTHP) for tenants evicted by Ellis Act or owner move-in, and for tenants whose apartment was extensively damaged by fire; a Neighborhood Resident Housing Preference (NRHP) for San Francisco residents who currently live in the same Supervisor district as, or half-mile from, the property being applied to; and a live-work preference for those who already live in San Francisco, or work at least 75% of working hours in San Francisco. 6 There
are also some project-specific Preferences.7

San Jose
In 2020, the San Jose City Council directed staff to establish a Neighborhood Tenant Preference for renters seeking affordable housing who live in certain areas of the city that are undergoing or at-risk of displacement. Staff has been working since 2017 on this effort. The City is currently working on gaining HCD approval for its Preferences and also worked with allies to propose the now-adopted state legislation SB 649 to clarify the use of state funding on projects in jurisdictions with preference policies.

Santa Monica
The City of Santa Monica implemented Preferences for inclusionary and nonprofit programs since the programs began in 1998. Preferences include: current or former residents displaced by no-fault evictions, natural disasters, reduction in housing voucher assistance, or government action; and applicants who currently live or work in Santa Monica. The preference for displaced people ranks above the live/work preference in a tiered system. Santa Monica is currently piloting an additional preference for those displaced by specific urban renewal projects.
8 National:

Austin, Texas
In 2018, the City of Austin adopted Right to Stay and Right to Return policies for families affected by gentrification in certain Austin neighborhoods.9 Preference points included: having generational ties to a neighborhood or having been displaced from it (by rising rent and property taxes as well as by natural disasters and eminent domain), having a disability, and family size fitting available units.

6 See https://sfmohcd.org/sites/default/files/Preferences%20Manual%20-%20%203.31.2017.pdf and https://sfmohcd.org/lottery-preference-programs.
7 In one project, where HUD did not approve of use of the neighborhood proximity preference, San Francisco implemented an “anti-displacement housing preference,” where residents of neighborhoods at risk of or undergoing displacement would receive a preference point. See https://www.kqed.org/news/11582750/part-of-s-f-housing-complex-reserved-for-seniors-at-risk-of- displacement.
8 See https://www.santamonica.gov/programs/below-market-housing-for-historically-displaced- households.
9 https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/austin-residents-have-right-to-return-in-new-development-for-the-first-time Attachment 4

Eligible neighborhoods were determined by a University of Texas study. Residents will have to prove they or an immediate family member lived in these areas as far back as 2000.
10 This program is not codified in an ordinance and the Preferences are being implemented through development agreements on specific developments.

Cambridge, Massachusetts
The City of Cambridge implemented Preferences for its inclusionary housing program since the program began in 1998. Preference categories include: current Cambridge resident (4 points), household with at least one child under 18 (1 point), household with at least one child under 6 (1 point), household with any of the following emergency needs (1 point): no-fault eviction, homeless, overcrowded housing, 50% or greater rent burden, outstanding code violations, and applicants who work in Cambridge (considered after all residents are considered, also given points for having children or an emergency need).
11 New York, New York
New York City implemented Preferences in the 1980s that apply to all City-funded affordable housing developments, applying to 50% of units. The policy establishes preference for residents living near the specific affordable housing development.

Portland, Oregon
Portland’s Preference Policy was created as part of the North/Northeast (N/NE) Neighborhood Housing Plan in 2015, and applies to 40% of units in all city-funded projects in this historically African American neighborhood, including homeownership units. The policy gives preference to residents that have been harmed by City of Portland action through urban renewal practices within the Interstate Corridor Urban Renewal Area (ICURA).

The Preferences include: current or former residents of N/NE Portland, those with generational ties to N/NE Portland, those who have had property in N/NE Portland seized by the City. Applicants use interactive maps to locate where their address falls in the ICURA maps.
12 As of December 2019, five years into the Policy, 33 households became homebuyers as part of the program; 28 of these households were African American and two were Latinx. Of renter households who accessed affordable housing through the Preference Policy, survey respondents have lived in the neighborhood an average of 32 years, with 65% of respondents having lived in the neighborhood their entire life.
13 10 https://www.kut.org/austin/2019-11-08/people-with-ties-to-a-gentrifying-neighborhood-to-get-a-better- shot-at-affordable-housing
11 See https://www.cambridgema.gov/CDD/housing/forapplicants/rentalapplicantpool. 12 See https://www.portland.gov/phb/nnehousing/preference-policy. 13 See https://www.portland.gov/sites/default/files/2020/nne_neighborhoodhousingstrategy2015- 20_0.pdf.

Attachment 4

Seattle, Washington
The City of Seattle implemented an opt-in preference policy in 2019 that affordable housing developers can choose to use for buildings in high displacement risk neighborhoods.14 The preference policy is not to apply to more than 50% of units in a development, and recommended preference categories include: for communities affected by historic and/or current displacement pressures, applicant is a current resident; for projects in neighborhoods currently facing high risk of displacement, applicant, family member, or ancestor (i.e. great-grandparent) is a former resident; for projects in neighborhoods that have historically been affected by high displacement, applicant has community ties or utilizes community services in the neighborhood. For homeownership, if more than one eligible and qualified household has expressed interest in a specific home, community preference could be used to determine who is offered the opportunity.
15 14 See https://www.seattle.gov/housing/programs-and-initiatives/community-preference for highlighted census tracts.
15 See
https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/Housing/Programs%20and%20Initiatives/Community%2 0Preference/Community%20Preference%20Guideline.pdf.

Attachment 4

Attachment 5

Attachment 5

/
Cheryl Davila
Councilmember District 2
Meeting Date:

Item Number:

REVISED

AGENDA MATERIAL
April 30, 2019
22 RECEIVED AT
COUNCIL MEETING OF:

APR 3 0 2019

OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK

CITY OF BERKELEY
Item Description: Refer to the Planning Comm'ission and Housing Advisory Commission to Research and Recommend Policies to Prevent Displacement and Gentrification of Berkeley Residents of Color and African Americans
Submitted by: Councilmember Cheryl Davila and Ben Bartlett Revised language.
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.XXXX TDD: 510.981.6903 Fax: 510.981.XXXX E-Mail: [email protected]
Attachment 6

',,
Cheryl Davila
Councilmember
District 2 CONSENT CALENDAR
April 30, 2019
To:

From:

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Councilmembers Cheryl Davila and Ben Bartlett
Subject: Refer to the Planning Commission and Housing Advisory Commission to Research and Recommend Policies to Prevent pisplacement and Gentrification of Berkeley Residents of Color and African Americans

RECOMMENDATION
Refer to the Planning Commission and Housing Advisory Commission to research and recommend policies to prevent displacement and gentrification of Berkeley residents of color. Recommended policies should include real solutions. The Commission should do the following:
• Develop a poiicy to address the erosion of People of Color (POC), including the African American sector of our Berkeley society.
• Develop rules and regulations to halt the loss of People of Color including the African American communities.
• Develop a "right to return" for Berkeleyankelefs, especially People of Color, including the African American communities who have been displaced by these economic and social developments, andespecially those who continue to be employed in our City, even after having to relocate beyond our boundaries.
• Solicit expert and lived experience testimonies regarding displacement and gentrification.
• Recommend alternatives to prevent displacement and gentrification of our valued Berkeley residentcitizens of color and African Americans.

CURRENT SITUATION
Minority groups are being pushed out of the neighborhoods in which they live. According to a study from the California Housing Partnership, between 2000 and 2015 the number of low-income households of color in the nine Bay Area counties dropped by 28%. This was matched in time by a 30% increase in rent rates. At the same time, there was no change in the proportion of white households. In Berkeley, from a high of 23.5% in 1970, Attachment 6

the Black population has been more than cut in half. According to the United States Census Bureau, it is now less than 10% of the total composition of the city.

Experts agree that the rising costs of housing in the Bay Area, primarily due to the rising fortunes of Silicon Valley, have priced man/ of the older residents out of the city. This is especially true of those or their family members who don't own homes.

In short, displacement has had a large negative effect on long-term black residents of Berkeley, both as a community and as a fate suffered by individual persons and families at the hands of rent increases by landlords.

BACKGROUND
Berkeley's neighborhoods were historically segregated based upon custom, as well as; contracts. Prior to 1948, so-called restrictive covenants by neighborhood groups blocked African American's and People of Color's access to "white communities". After the Supreme Court ruling Shelley vs. Kraemer, redlining or placing color codes on city maps to indicate where minorities could and could not live became the scheme to enforce housing discrimination. The result of this discrimination was that almost all Asian and Black Berkeleyans had to live south of Dwight Way and west of Martin Luther King Jr. Way (aka Grove Street) according to Charles Wollenberg, author of Berkeley: A City in History. Under these discriminatory conditions, "redlining" excluded Asian and Black Berkeleyans from most other parts of the City, thousands of Black families moved to South Berkeley during and after WWII.

According to Redlining: The history of Berkeley's Segregated Neighborhoods, by Jesse Barber, Berkeleyside.com, September 20, 2018, which stated, "They (Black residents after WWII) were cordoned off, not allowed to move to the north or to the east, so they built their own lives right there where they could find housing. Opening shops, stores, cobblers, food, etc. they prospered." The thriving Lorin Station business community in what is now called the "Adeline Corridor" developed organically to serve the needs of the growing South Berkeley African-American and Japanese citizenry. Fast forward to the 2000s: Minorities were being pushed out of the very neighborhoods in which they had been formerly compelled to live. According to a study from the California Housing Partnership, between 2000 and 2015 the number of poor households of color in the nine Bay Area counties dropped by 28%. This was matched in time by a 30% increase in rent rates. At the same time, there was no change in the proportion of white households.

In Berkeley, from a high of 23.5% in 1970, the African American population has decreased, significantly. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, it is now less than 10% of the total composition of the City, approximately 7%, currently.

Experts agree that the rising costs of housing in the Bay Area, primarily due to the rising fortunes of Silicon Valley, have priced many of the older residents out of our City. This is especially true of those or their family members who don't own homes.

Attachment 6

. ,/
i; '- , ,lb
In short, displacement has had a large negative effect on long-term African American and POC residents of Berkeley, both as a community and as a fate suffered by individual persons and families at the hands of rent increases by the unscrupulous.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
Our community will be made whole again by having a diverse community filled with people of color including African Americans who will no longer be displaced. Possible reduction in Green House Gas (GHG's) since commute times may be eliminated or reduced.

REVIEW OF EXISTING PLANS, PROGRAMS, POLICIES, AND LAWS
There are currently few, if any, protections against the effects of gentrification; this, in conjunction with uncontrollably rising housing costs, makes it probable that Berkeley's declining Black population will continue to decrease. Therefore, the creation of this workshop will be the first steps towards creating legislation and policies to decrease or stop gentrification.

ACTIONS/ ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
There are very few alternatives that the City can consider, as creating legislation with the guidance of experts on gentrification and displacement may be the best action to combat such issues.

OUTREACH OVERVIEW AND RESULTS
This legislation is designed to enable the Berkeley City Planning Commission and Housing Advisory Commission to create a workshop in which it will partner with multiple experts towards finding solutions for the causes and effects of gentrification and displacement.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
As the cost ofhousing and rent continue to rise in the Bay Area and Berkeley especially, low-income populations are struggling greatly to remain in their homes and many have already been displaced. A large proportion of this displaced population are from the black community. This recommendation will serve to protect those who are most vulnerable to the detrimental effects of development and rising housing costs as well as find a more equitable path of development.

IMPLEMENTATION, ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT
The workshop will be created and facilitated by the Berkeley City Planning and Housing Advisory Commissions and will work alongside experts and advisors on displacement and gentrification.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Staff time will be necessary to implement this workshop. The anticipated date for such a workshop is June 2019.

CONTACTS:

Cheryl Davila, Councilmember District 2
Ben Bartlett, Councilmember District 3
510.981.7120
510.981.7130
Attachment 6

Office of the City Manager
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager

CONSENT CALENDAR
July 11, 2023
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Liam Garland, Public Works Director
Subject: Adoption - Civic Center Phase II - Design Concept

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution approving Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept Plan, and declaring Council’s intention to support the preferred design concept and necessary future studies and projects articulated in the plan.

SUMMARY
This item presents City Council with the culmination of the work to build on the adopted Civic Center Vision and Implementation Plan for Berkeley’s Civic Center area, which includes the following:
 Veterans Memorial Building;
 Maudelle Shirek Building (“Old City Hall”); and
 Martin Luther King Jr. Civic Center Park (“Civic Center Park”).

The Vision for Berkeley’s Civic Center is: Civic Center will be the heart of Berkeley’s community. Civic Center will be the prime space for civic life, culture, and the arts. It will reflect the city’s diverse identities, celebrating its history, and contributing to shaping its future. A place of shared resources and a platform for free expression accessible to all, Civic Center aims to manifest the city’s values, advance social justice, and demonstrate the power of true public space.

The City’s Veterans Memorial Building, Maudelle Shirek Building, and Civic Center Park are important cultural resources, not only due to their age, but also their architectural significance, central location, and history as the center of City government. Adopting a shared Vision for Civic Center was an important Phase 1 accomplishment. Phase II of the Civic Center project sought to sharpen the vision-aligned consensus design concept for Civic Center and set a course for the next steps of implementation. Phase I (Vision) of the project commenced in summer 2019 and was funded through Phase 1 of the Measure T1 infrastructure bond designated to repair, renovate, replace, or reconstruct the City’s infrastructure, facilities, and buildings. Phase II (Design Concept) of the Civic Center project was funded via a General Fund budget referral approved in the City Council’s adoption of the FY 2022 Budget. Staff work on Phase II began in September

Adoption - Civic Center Phase II – Design Concept CONSENT CALENDAR July 11, 2023

of 2022. The 156-page final report entitled Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept Report (May 2023) is presented as Exhibit A in Attachment 1. The accompanying resolution adopting Berkeley’s Civic Center Vision Aligned Design Concept sets a clear direction for the Civic Center’s next act.

The Public Works Department and Office of Economic Development (OED) worked with a consultant team led by Siegel & Strain Architects. The consultant team spent the fall of 2022 and winter/early spring of 2023 conducting a public workshop about Civic Center, holding focus group interviews, hosting site tour(s), facilitating two “youth focused” workshops, and an in-depth session with Berkeley’s art and culture organizations, attending approximately eight briefings with the Community for a Cultural Civic Center (CCCC) group, and engaging with five city commissions and the project’s technical advisory group composed of city staff in a wide variety of departments. In March of 2023, the team presented a draft design concept for Civic Center to Berkeley’s City Council for feedback.1
The consultant team continued to work throughout the spring of 2023 to deliver a refined conceptual design, update cost estimates, provide an in-depth set of funding strategies, and develop a robust implementation plan or “next steps” for further study.

This report presents the final report from the consultant team (Attachment 1) which includes a design concept for Berkeley’s Civic Center, a summary of the community engagement conducted through May of 2023 and the resulting design drivers, next steps including future studies needed to accommodate a design with a daylit creek, and an appendix with the updated cost estimate for this once-in-a-generation project.

Design Concept – Recommendations
Integrating the input received through the engagement efforts, additional study on the changing context of the Civic Center, and the programmatic requirements heard from current and potential users, the Civic Center design concept proposes the following:
• Maudelle Shirek Building - seat of Berkeley’s democracy with flexible meeting spaces and supportive and vision-aligned city services and educational uses. • Veterans Memorial Building – a Community Arts Center, run by the City, with performance venues, teaching and exhibit space, accessible by all in the community.
• Civic Center Park & Surrounding Streets - a safe nature-based urban oasis for all of Berkeley, supporting community use throughout the day and strolling, relaxing, having lunch, visiting, and attending an impromptu gathering or organized event on evenings or weekends.

The preferred design concept, visualized on pages 70-71 of the Plan is detailed in Section 5: Design Concept (Attachment 1).
1 Berkeley City Council Agenda Worksession, Civic Center Phase II - Design Concept, Item #2 March 21, 2023.

Adoption - Civic Center Phase II – Design Concept CONSENT CALENDAR July 11, 2023

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The exact fiscal impacts of the finalized design concept plan for Civic Center are to be determined. Preliminary construction cost estimates to achieve the design concepts discussed in the final report range from $103,753,000 to $131,587,000. These estimates assume additions and improvements that support the desired uses for the buildings, associated required seismic upgrades, and other park and street improvements.2

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Project Timeline
Phase II of the Civic Center project began in September 2022 and will be completed by June of 2023:
❑ Phase II Funding Authorized by Council June 29, 2021
❑ Project Commencement Sept. 1, 2022
❑ Public and City Engagement: Design Approach
o Technical Advisory Committee Sept. 29, 2022
o “Super” Subcommittee Meeting of the Public Works/Transportation, Landmarks, Parks and Civic Arts Commissions Sept. 29, 2022 o 25+ Small Focus Group Interviews Sept. ‘22 – Feb. ‘23 o Monthly meetings with Community for a Cultural Civic Center (CCCC) Sept. ‘22 – Feb. ‘23
o Workshop #1: Open House (Berkeley Public Library) Nov. 16, 2022 o Online Community Survey: Berkeley Civic Center Vision Project Nov. ‘22 – Jan. ’23
o Art Organizations Survey: Berkeley Arts Space Needs Assessment Jan. ’23 – Feb. ‘23
❑ Public and City Engagement: Draft Design Concept
o Technical Advisory Committee Meeting #2 Feb. 9, 2023
o Commission Engagement - Super Subcommittee Meeting #2 Feb. 9, 2023
o Workshop #2: Youth Focus at Berkeley High Feb. 15, 2023 o Workshop #3: Education Focus at Berkeley City College Feb. 15, 2023 2 Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept, Attachment 1, Sections 5.3, 5.4. The design concept recommends a Building Performance Objective for New Buildings Plus (BPON+) seismic upgrade scheme for the Veterans Memorial Building (Attachment 1, Section 5.4). A combined Damage Control Plus (DC+) / Immediate Occupancy (IO) scheme, abbreviated as “DC+/IO” is recommended for the Maudelle Shirek building (Attachment 1, Section 5.3).

Adoption - Civic Center Phase II – Design Concept CONSENT CALENDAR July 11, 2023

o Veterans Memorial Building Arts Space Focus Group Meeting Feb. 24, 2023
❑ Council Work Session - Emerging Preferred Design Concept March 21, 2023 ❑ Monthly meeting with CCCC group April 25, 2023
❑ Four Arts Organization Meetings April - May 2023
❑ Super Sub Committee of the Commissions Briefing May 16, 2023 ❑ Council Adoption (anticipated) - Design Concept June 27, 2023 Summary of Meetings and Outreach
The consultant team, led by Sigel & Strain Architects and supported by staff from PW, OED, and other City departments, kicked off this phase with a series of public meetings in September 2022. The public outreach effort is described in more detail in Attachment 1, Section 2.

Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). The TAC is composed of City of Berkeley staff from a variety of departments, and its purpose is to provide subject matter expertise and feedback throughout the process. TAC members represent a cross-section of knowledgeable participants with an interest and stake in the Civic Center. The TAC met for the first time prior to releasing the Vision Plan project RFQ in late 2018, and has since gathered formally in this project phase twice with the consultant team: at the Phase II project kick off meeting in September 2022, and to review the draft consensus design concept in February 2023. In addition to formal meetings, ad hoc consultations with individual TAC members (e.g., the City’s special events coordinator, real estate manager, City Clerk, Public Safety, and PW Facilities Maintenance) have made essential contributions to the project.

Super Subcommittee of City Commissions. To efficiently engage with City Commissions that have an interest in this project, a “super” subcommittee meeting structure was established. Three City of Berkeley Commissions—the Public Works, Parks Recreation and Waterfront, and the Landmarks Preservation Commissions— already had established ad-hoc subcommittees to address projects funded by Measure T1 bond improvements, and the Civic Arts Commission established an ad-hoc standing subcommittee for the Civic Center visioning process. During Phase II of the Civic Center project, the super sub-committee structure continued. This larger group of subcommittees met twice in publicly noticed meetings on Zoom in the webinar format, first to kick off the project and discuss design approaches in September of 2022 and to review and comment on the draft design concept in February 2023. The Super Subcommittee of the Commissions, and representatives of a fifth commission, the Commission on Disability, had an in-person briefing in May 2023 to go over the final design concept report and discuss engagement of their “home” commissions prior to the final report publication in June of 2023. See https://berkeleyca.gov/your- government/our-work/capital-projects/civic-center-vision-plan-project for a complete list of materials presented at the Super Subcommittee meetings during Phase II.

Adoption - Civic Center Phase II – Design Concept CONSENT CALENDAR July 11, 2023

Site Tours. City staff members have received many requests to tour the two buildings.

During this project phase, the consultant team has toured the buildings with PW, and the park with the City’s urban forester and arborist. Members of CCCC, TAC, Super Subcommittee of the commissions, and arts organizations have also toured the buildings to help envision programmatic uses. Several site tours were also conducted in the Vision phase of this planning effort (2019-2020).

Focus Groups and Interviews. From September 2022 through February 2023, staff and the consultant team conducted 25+ one-on-one or small group interviews with Civic Center stakeholders, including the current Civic Center tenants, several City Council Members (and/or their staff) and the Mayor’s office, representatives from the Berkeley Unified School District including the principal of Berkeley High School, planners of annual community events that occur in Civic Center, arts organizations, business associations, local media outlets, ecological and riparian experts, city staff, and local community groups including the CCCC. See Attachment 1, Section 2.2 for a complete list of interviewees.

Open House, Workshops & Survey. On November 16, 2022, staff and the consultant team hosted an in-person Open House Workshop at the Berkeley Public Library.

Approximately 40 community members attended the session, which was designed to generate thoughts about the underlying purposes and functions of our Civic Center, and to inform the project’s Preferred Design Concept development. The consultant team organized the session into stations, with opportunities for discussion in small groups and written feedback on postcards at each station. This was supplemented with an Online Survey that asked the same questions of respondents as the in-person workshop did. The online survey recorded 694 responses, far exceeding the stated survey goal of 400 responses. Highlights of the survey responses are summarized in Attachment 1, Section 2.2. On February 15, 2023, staff and the consultant team hosted two Youth-Focused Workshops, one at Berkeley High School and one at Berkeley City College. Staff led students through a series of activities where participants were asked to identify what they liked and disliked about the draft design concept for Civic Center and asked participants to complete comment cards about their opinions related to the park and street design approach. Highlights and key takeaways of the youth focused workshops are summarized in Attachment 1, Section 2.2.

Arts Organizations. A tailored workshop, the Veterans Memorial Building Arts Space Focus Group Meeting, was hosted by the City of Berkeley’s Civic Arts team on February 24, 2023 and included a detailed tour of the Veterans Building and dedicated focused discussions by artistic discipline. The goal of the meeting was to identify priority space needs for the Community Arts Center and to get input on the development of a spatial program to help determine if the Veterans Memorial Building has sufficient spaces to serve the programmatic needs of the community. This workshop was not open to the general public, but instead sought to elicit targeted feedback from individuals that are representative of Berkeley’s diverse arts community. Sixteen arts professionals from the disciplines of theater, dance, music, visual arts, and literary arts participated in the focus

Adoption - Civic Center Phase II – Design Concept CONSENT CALENDAR July 11, 2023

group meeting with the aim to have representation from various areas of Berkeley, racial and ethnic diversity, and a wide range of arts disciplines and organization sizes.

Feedback gathered from this workshop is summarized in Attachment 1, Section 2.2.

City Council Worksession. The consultant team, in consultation with staff, developed an emerging preferred design concept, and draft concept design report that was presented to the Berkeley City Council members and the general public for feedback at a Berkeley City Council Worksession on March 21, 2023. The final report (Attachment 1) incorporates feedback received at the March 2023 Council Worksession and hews closely to the draft concept design presented in March 2023. The construction cost estimates and the Implementation chapters (Sections 6 and 7) are the areas of the report with the most updates since March 21, 2023.

Civic Center Design Concept
The outreach effort during this phase of the project (2022-23) affirmed the Vision Statement adopted in 2020. With the adopted Civic Center Vision serving as the north star for this project, four points on a compass emerged to further guide the design concept:
 Community – an inclusive and caring community;
 The Arts – expressive artistic and cultural events;
 Governance – good governance demonstrated through progressive policies;  Education – powerful educational activities tied directly to history and nature.

Integrating the input received through outreach efforts, and the programmatic requirements heard from current and future users of the Civic Center, the project proposes the following current and potential future uses for each project element:

Maudelle Shirek Building will be the seat of Berkeley’s democracy with flexible meeting spaces and supportive and vision-aligned city services and educational uses, accessible by all in the community. As the historic seat of government in Berkeley, this project proposes returning city functions back to the Maudelle Shirek Building. In the public engagement efforts, Hearing & Meeting Rooms, Council Chambers, and flexible spaces for public-facing city services all scored high as priority uses for the building.

Adding these functions to the heart of Berkeley’s Civic Center will bring residents to the area throughout the day and into the evenings, to attend meetings, speak at hearings, and organize with their community.

Public outreach also showed strong support for vision-aligned organizations finding a home in the Maudelle Shirek Building, including the Berkeley Historical Society & Museum and Berkeley Community Media. In order to support these functions, a number of improvements to the building will be required, including accessible improvements to the main entry and throughout, upgraded mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems, improved fire and egress systems, seismic retrofit, and an addition to provide space for the uses. For further discussion of the proposed uses, improvements, and management structure for the Maudelle Shirek building see Attachment 1, Sections 5.3 and 7.1.

Adoption - Civic Center Phase II – Design Concept CONSENT CALENDAR July 11, 2023

Veterans Memorial Building will be a community Arts Center, run by the city, with performance venues, teaching and exhibit space, accessible by all in the community.

This project identifies the building as a future Community Arts Center for the City of Berkeley, a use broadly supported by the public, Civic Arts Program, and the Community for a Cultural Civic Center. In a survey and workshop with local arts organizations who expressed interest in using the building, they identified exhibition and performance space as priorities, which aligns with the perception of need discovered in the public engagement process. Further, arts survey respondents identified a need for flexible multi-disciplinary spaces that are available to rent by the larger community, rather than controlled by a single anchor tenant.

The arts functions will require improvement to the Veterans Memorial building including accessible improvements throughout, upgraded mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems, improved fire and egress systems, seismic retrofit, and possibly additions to the sides of the main stage, and at the rooftop. For further discussion of the approach to this building, see Attachment 1, Sections 5.4 and 7.1.

Civic Center Park & Surrounding Streets will become a safe nature-based urban oasis for all of Berkeley. The park design will support community use throughout the day, evening and weekend for strolling, relaxing, sharing or having a meal, visiting, and attending an impromptu gathering or organized event.

Park Uses & Improvements
The design concept for MLK Jr. Civic Center Park builds from the existing condition of the park, and layers in new design elements and programs that support the desired everyday vibrancy of the park. It simplifies the path layout and reclaims underutilized space to fit new activity areas where possible. The proposed design preserves and builds upon the existing structure of the park, including the mature tree canopy, the central green open space, and the planned Turtle Island Monument terrace.

Recommended improvements include simplified and widened path systems, native and biodiverse planting areas, a multi-use plaza with skate-able elements, a multi-age playground, an arts and market plaza to support the Farmers Market, expanded seating opportunities, and food and beverage vendors. For further discussion of the proposed park improvements, see Attachment 1, Section 5.2.

Creek Daylighting Considerations
Throughout the public engagement process in Phase II, the project team heard a consistent desire from some members of the community to “daylight” or bring Strawberry Creek to the surface area of Civic Center Park, and consistent concerns from others about cost, maintenance, and safety of a daylight creek. An alternate design concept layout (Attachment 1, Section 5.2, pages 104-107) illustrates a partial-flow daylighting scenario. The placement of the creek along Center Street aligns with the current location of the culvert under the park, and minimizes disruption to the overall

Adoption - Civic Center Phase II – Design Concept CONSENT CALENDAR July 11, 2023

park layout and monuments. However, it does have a number of impacts that need to be considered more carefully through additional study:
 Center Street – The daylit creek reduces the width of Center Street to 26’ travel path, allowing for emergency vehicle access. Parking and other vehicular traffic flow is removed. A parking & traffic study should be completed to understand the impact of closing Center Street to public traffic, and design solutions will need to be developed for providing delivery/drop-off to the buildings along Center Street.

The Farmers Market also may need to be relocated to a new site with sufficient width for the market.
 Hydrology – The partial flow scenario is based on the 1999 Creek Study by Wolf Mason Associates. This report notes that the culvert is likely 18’ under the surface of the park, sloping down to the west. A full restoration of the creek would require 150’ in width and was determined infeasible. A partial flow scenario would require that the existing culvert remain, and that water is diverted through a flow control structure somewhere upstream of the park and downstream from the BART station to bring water closer to the surface. The exact width, depth, and design of a partial flow creek would need to be developed through a detailed hydrological study and will likely call for an engineered solution.  Maintenance – any creek feature would involve new maintenance requirements, flooding mitigation considerations, and associated costs.

Parking and Circulation
In addition to the pedestrian pathway changes within the park, the concept design proposes changes to parking and circulation at both Center Street and Martin Luther King Jr Way.
 Center Street – aligned with the City’s goal of a Green Center Street, the design proposes making this a pedestrian priority shared street, with a flush, curb-less transition from street to sidewalk, along with adding additional street trees and bioswales for stormwater management. A curve has been introduced in the road to create a more gracious entry plaza for the Veterans Memorial Building. The proposal shows 16 parallel parking spaces, in place of the 59 paid parking spaces currently on Center Street. These parking spaces generated $156,860 in calendar year 2022 (at a rate of $3.50/hour). There are also currently reserved parking spaces on this block – five for judges at the Alameda County Courthouse, one loading spot for the City mail truck, and four accessible “blue curb” spaces. The remaining 16 parallel spaces articulated in the plan could serve as reserved parking, or a small number of paid parking spaces could be maintained.
 Martin Luther King Jr Way – the primary concern at this road is pedestrian safety crossing between the park and the Maudelle Shirek Building. Currently, the edge of the curb between Allston and Center does not align with the curb on the blocks

Adoption - Civic Center Phase II – Design Concept CONSENT CALENDAR July 11, 2023

to the north or the south – the road widens along the park’s edge. The concept design proposes reclaiming the portion of the road currently used as parallel parking to re-align the curbs in this area, and to create pedestrian bulb-outs at the street crossings. While the traffic lanes are not impacted, eight parking spaces would be removed. Another consideration for a future design phase will be raised pedestrian crosswalk or tables at Center and Allston.

In a next phase of work, a full traffic study should be implemented for this area to understand the impacts of the proposed improvements on traffic flow, circulation delays, intersection capacity, parking, and emergency response times.

Project Costs
The following high-level construction cost range estimations (Table 1) have been developed by staff and the consulting team (TBD Consultants working with Siegel & Strain) based on the design concept as presented in Attachment 1, Section 5. The total construction costs from TBD Consultants are very similar to the draft report presented at the March 21, 2023 Council Worksession. Additional cost information has been provided; including the construction costs of photovoltaic panels at both buildings and an addition at the Veterans Memorial building. In addition, a discussion on Operations & Maintenance Costs, a 10% construction contingency and 20% City costs have been added to the report (Section 6.1).

Other Costs
With an approved design concept, this project can move into its next phase of additional recommended studies, environmental reviews, and initiating specific design projects.

This work, to get to the “shovel ready” stage is estimated to cost approximately $15 million dollars and take 2-3 years to complete (Attachment 1, Sections 0.2 and 7.2).

Table 1: High-Level Construction Cost Estimate Range

SUMMARY PROJECT COSTS SITE AREA
(Total
Square
Foot, or SF)
$/SF

MIDRANGE
MID-
RANGE
($ in
Millions)
LOW
(-10%)
$ in
Millions
HIGH
(+10%)
$ in
Millions
Maudelle Shirek Building
(Assumes 27,000 Gross Square Feet (GSF)
Existing + 15,500 GSF Addition, DC+/IO
seismic retrofit, upgraded building
envelope & systems)
43,000 $1,323 $56.9 $51.2 $62.6
Veterans Memorial Building
(Assumes 28,000 GSF Existing + 5,950 GSF
addition, BPON+ seismic retrofit, upgraded
building envelope & systems)
33,950 $987 $33.5 $26.3 $36.9

Adoption - Civic Center Phase II – Design Concept CONSENT CALENDAR July 11, 2023

MLK Jr Civic Center Park & Streets
(4.6 acres including park & streets with
improved paths/paving,
planting/irrigation, trees/tree protection,
utilities, furnishings, lighting, public
restroom improvements)
223,000 $82 $18.3 $16.47 $20.13
SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $1,413 $108.7 $93.97 $119.63 CONTINGENCY Cost (Construction) 10% $141 $10.87 $9.783 $11.957 CONSTRUCTION COST (with contingency) $1,554 $119.570 $103.753 $131.587

SUMMARY PROJECT COSTS,
continued

SITE AREA
(Total
Square
Foot, or SF)
$/SF

MIDRANGE
MID-
RANGE
($ in
Millions)
LOW
(-10%)
$ in Millions
HIGH (+10%)
$ in Millions
CITY COSTS (including permitting,
inspections, design fees, technical reports,
consultants, Construction Management
and Project Management)
20% $311 $23.914 $21.523 $26.305
TOTAL PROJECT COST Including
contingency (10%) and city costs (20%)
$1,865 $143.484 $125.276 $157.892
Project Funding Plan
A variety of funding sources could contribute to the City’s approach to funding. The first approach would involve many different sources of funding all leading to one large project, phased in over the course of years. If full project funding isn’t secured quickly, an opportunistic approach might be available. Instead, City staff would identify discrete project components that could be built without the entire project moving forward. When successful in gaining grants of other funding for these components, work could proceed.

This approach would likely take more time and involve more project cost overall, given fewer opportunities for efficiencies of scale. See Attachment 1, Section 7.2 for a detailed discussion of funding strategies. In any case, the Civic Center project will be significantly more attractive for funding with an adopted conceptual design. Strong plans need funding, and funding is attracted to strong plans.

Next Steps
The next steps for project implementation are outlined below and described in greater detail in Attachment 1, Section 7.3. They include:
 Identify, fund and realize early activation projects.  Initiate efforts for next phase of work including further studies and specific designs.
 Develop funding and phasing plans for each of the project components.

BACKGROUND
Originally conceived at the turn of the 20th Century, the Civic Center was planned and molded by City Beautiful Movement principles, and anchored by the 1909 construction of Berkeley’s second City Hall (now known as the Maudelle Shirek Building at 2134 Martin Luther King Jr Way). The plan transformed the City’s center into a cohesive group of civic buildings surrounding a central park by the 1940s. Today the Civic Center

Adoption - Civic Center Phase II – Design Concept CONSENT CALENDAR July 11, 2023

comprises portions of the area surrounding Martin Luther King Jr. Civic Center Park including the Maudelle Shirek Building ‘Old City Hall’ (1909) and the Veterans Memorial Building (1928) which flank the Park on the west and north sides. The larger Berkeley Civic Center District (codified by the Civic Center Overlay Zone, 2014) itself was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1998. In addition, many of the buildings in the Civic Center District, including the Maudelle Shirek Building, the Veterans Memorial Building, and the Park itself, have been individually recognized as City Landmarks.

Since the 1940s seismic building codes have evolved, requiring different thresholds of required maintenance and upkeep depending on use, and presently the historic buildings show signs of deferred maintenance.

Seismic Safety and Analysis
The Maudelle Shirek Building and the Veterans Memorial Building were evaluated in 2002 for seismic safety. The assessment included rough cost estimates for retrofitting the structures. In 2019, the 2002 figures were updated for consideration of current building code. In 2022, City Council received further information on both the buildings’ seismic analysis and costing, and the buildings’ leak study. The seismic analysis from Tipping Engineering and the costing from Public Works Department have contributed to the development the high-level cost estimates presented in Table 1 above. Public Works’ leak study identified $1.48 million in necessary repairs for the Maudelle Shirek Building and $1.9 million in repairs for the Veterans Building. These repairs primarily involve roof replacements and spot repairs to better prevent water intrusion.

Based on the adopted Vision Plan, and the proposed design concept and building program, the following building seismic retrofit levels are recommended:

Veterans Memorial Building is a three story, heavy concrete perimeter wall building with wood framed floors and roof that is seismically deficient and could pose life safety hazards to building occupants. For the design concept, the City’s Public Works Department recommends a seismic upgrade for the Veterans Memorial Building to the level of Building Performance Objective for New Buildings Plus (BPON+). At this level of seismic retrofit, the building would be reoccupied several months to a year after a major seismic event.

Maudelle Shirek Building is a three story, non-ductile concrete building that is seismically deficient and could pose life safety hazards to building occupants, as the building could collapse or partially collapse in a major earthquake proximate to the site.

For the proposed design concept, the City’s Public Works Department recommends a seismic upgrade for the Maudelle Shirek Building to the level of Damage Control Plus (DC+) at the historic structure and the new addition be built to the Immediate Occupancy (IO) level. At the DC+ level of seismic retrofit, the Maudelle Shirek Building would be occupiable weeks to months after a major seismic event. The addition, built at the IO level, could be re-opened days after a major seismic event.

Adoption - Civic Center Phase II – Design Concept CONSENT CALENDAR July 11, 2023

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
Successful initiatives that repurpose existing buildings and civic space for subsequent generations’ fruitful use promotes beneficial environmental, civic, and economic sustainability. In addition, future action to renovate the existing buildings and park will incorporate specific sustainable measures into the design concept. These will include but are not limited to: electrifying buildings, installing solar systems, incorporating native/pollinator friendly plantings, deploying best practices in bioswales & stormwater management, permeable paving, and the protection of mature tree canopy.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The preferred design concept for the adaptive reuse of both buildings and the Park articulates how the Veterans Memorial Building, the Maudelle Shirek Building, and Civic Center Park can be used going forward. The accompanying research includes cost estimates and potential revenue strategies to support renovation and ongoing operations for programs in Civic Center. By adopting the Civic Center Design Concept the City Council sets a clear direction for subsequent phases of this keystone project.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None.

CONTACT PERSON
Liam Garland, Public Works Director, (510) 981-6303
Eleanor Hollander, Economic Development Manager, (510) 981-7536 Elmar Kapfer, Supervising Civil Engineer, Public Works, (510) 981-6435 Attachments:
1: Resolution Adopting Berkeley’s Vision Aligned Civic Center Design Concept Exhibit A: Final Report: Berkeley Civic Center Design Concept, May 2023.

Adoption - Civic Center Phase II – Design Concept CONSENT CALENDAR July 11, 2023

RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.

APPROVING BERKELEY’S VISION-ALIGNED CIVIC CENTER DESIGN CONCEPT WHEREAS, in September 2020, the Berkeley City Council adopted a Vision for Berkeley’s Civic Center to, “be the heart of Berkeley’s community. Civic Center will be the prime space for civic life, culture, and the arts. It will reflect the city’s diverse identities, celebrating its history, and contributing to shaping its future. A place of shared resources and a platform for free expression accessible to all, Civic Center aims to manifest the city’s values, advance social justice, and demonstrate the power of true public space.” ; and
WHEREAS, the development of the Civic Center Vision Plan (2019-2020) was underwritten by the T1 Bond Funding for Infrastructure and Facilities, to repair, renovate, replace, or reconstruct the City’s aging infrastructure and facilities, including the Veterans Memorial Building, the Maudelle Shirek Building, and Civic Center Park, to help determine a direction for future capital improvements to restore and secure these facilities to maximize their community benefit; and
WHEREAS, in August of 2022, the city engaged a qualified project consultant team underwritten by general fund dollars to assist in the completion of Phase II of the project and the development of a consensus design concept aligned with the adopted vision for Civic Center; and
WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley’s project team has conducted an inclusive and transparent community process, engaged meaningfully with stakeholders, and provided a compelling and shared design concept for the Civic Center area that supports current and future community needs while respecting and celebrating the area’s rich past and historically significant structures; and
WHEREAS, Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept Plan determines a direction for future capital improvements to restore and secure these facilities, park, and surrounding area to maximize their community benefit; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Council approves and adopts Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept (Exhibit A) and declares its intent to support the vision and design concept articulated in the plan.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager is hereby authorized to further the implementation of the design concept as it embodies, reflects, and advances Berkeley’s ambitious vision for its Civic Center.

Exhibits:

A: Final Report: Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept, May 25, 2023

Berkeley’s
May 25, 2023
Civic
Center
+ +
Design Concept
Report
+

A Vision for
Berkeley’s
Civic Center
Siegel & Strain Architects

DRAFT FINAL REPORT
May 2023
1 Civic Center will be the heart of
Berkeley’s community. Civic Center
will be the prime space for civic life,
culture, and the arts. It will reflect the
city’s diverse identities, celebrating
its history, and contributing to shaping
its future. A place of shared resources
and a platform for free expression
accessible to all, Civic Center aims to
manifest the city’s values, advance
social justice, and demonstrate
the power of true public space.
1 Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept

Siegel & Strain Architects
Section
Siegel & Strain Architects
6201 Doyle Street Suite B
Emeryville, CA 94608
www.siegelstr
ain.com
[email protected]
T +1 (510) 547 8092
City of Berkeley Steering Team
Eleanor Hollander, Office of Economic Development
Liam Garland, Public Works Department
Elmar Kapfer, Public W
orks Department
Uriel Gonzalez, Public Works Department
Jen Lovvorn, Civic Arts Program
Siegel & Strain Architects
Susi Marzuola
Amanda Knowles
Lindsey Moder
Colin Searles
Ege Y
ener
Gehl
Ghigo DiTommaso
Mayra Madriz
Derek Magee
Equity Community Builder
s
Suzanne Brown
Joseph Mutter
TBD Cost Consultants
Andy Beyer
Asia Kan

3 Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept
Contents

1. Existing Conditions

1.1 Base Maps

1.2 Site Assessments

2. Community Engagement

2.1 Engagement Plan

2.2 Engagement Summary

2.3 Key Design Driv
ers

3. Vision

3.1 Vision Statement

4. Design Considerations

4.1 Opportunities

4.2 Programs & Uses

5. Design Concept

5.1 Preferred Design Concept

5.2 MLK Jr Civic Center Park
and Surrounding Street
s

5.3 Maudelle Shirek Building

5.4 Veterans Memorial Building

6. Cost Summary

6.1 Preliminary Cost Ranges

7. Implementation

7.1 Organizational
Management Structure

7.2 Funding Strat
egies

7.3 Recommended Next Steps
Appendix
A. Design Concept ROM Cost Plan,
TBD Consultants
11 12
14 25
26 28
42 53
54 57
58 60
69 70
73 109
127
139
140
143
144
150
152

Siegel & Strain Architects
Executive Summary
Executive Summary

0.1 Design Concept Phase
The Berkeley Civic Center is a place in Downtown Berkeley of great community and historic significance. The 6-acre project area, set within the Berkeley Civic Center Historic District and comprised of Martin Luther King Jr. Civic Center Park, the Maudelle Shirek Building, and the Veterans Memorial Building, is located at a physical crossroads between downtown Berkeley and residential neighborhoods amid well-established educational, cultural and civic institutions. The Berkeley Civic Center is also at a crossroads in time, awaiting a re- invigoration for use by its community as an updated civic space that embodies the values the community lives by.

This design concept effort is a continuation of the work completed in 2019/20 on the Berkeley Civic Center Vision and Implementation Plan. The purpose of this work is to document a design concept that reflects a synthesis of the shared aspirations captured in the vision statement and illustrates design ideas borne out of ongoing engagement with the Berkeley community. As with the previous Berkeley Civic Center effort, members of the community turned up in high numbers to work collaboratively for a common purpose, and the resulting design concept reflects their shared vision.

Berkeley Civic Center
On September 22, 2020, Berkeley City Council adopted
the Vision Statement articulated in the 2020 Vision &
Implementation Plan R
eport for the Berkeley Civic Center
project. This vision statement remains the north star for the project.

On June 1, 2021 and related to City Center District
Visioning Resolution No. 69,579-N.S., the Berkeley City Council allocated funding and directed City Staff to
provide additional public process, planning and design to develop a preferred design concept based on input from
the community, City Commissions, and City Council.

The project’s Steering Team, comprised of Berkeley City Staff from Public Works, Office of Economic Development, and Civic Arts, and design consultants began work on the 2022/23 Berkeley Civic Center Design Concept effort in
September 2022.
→ Timeline

5 Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept
The key components of the project team’s
effort for this phase are research, community
engagement and devel
opment of a high-level
design concept.

The design team began this current effort
by researching policies and improvements
implemented since the conclusion of the
2019/20 Vision and Implementation Plan.

Working collaboratively with the project’s
Steering Team and with input from the
Community for a Cultural Civic Center
(CCCC), the design team developed an
approach to community engagement with the
goal of collecting input to inform a preferred
design concept for the Martin Luther King
Jr. Civic Center Park, the Maudelle Shirek
Building and the Veterans Memorial Building.

The engagement effort was organized into
two major efforts:
• General Public Engagement, including
an open house, workshops and an online
survey
• Focused Engagement, including
meetings and work sessions with
specific organizations and entities who
are currently active in the Berkeley
Civic Center and/or whose missions
and interests align with and support the
adopted Vision Statement.
→ Methodology
Based on the engagement effort, which
included input from over 700 individuals and
36 separate entities and or
ganizations, the
design team developed key design drivers
that informed the emerging preferred design
concept. The design concept was reviewed
by the CCCC, Commissioners on the Super
Sub-Committee, City of Berkeley staff
representatives, students from Berkeley
High School and Berkeley City College,
and was presented to City Council and the
general public at a Work Session on March
21, 2023. Comments from these groups were
integrated in the preferred design concept
described in the pages that follow.

Siegel & Strain Architects
Executive Summary
The outreach effort uncovered the following
key design drivers that advance the vision
stat
ement, capture the unique identity and
spirit of the Berkeley community, and inform
the design concepts illustrated in the plan:

1. The Civic Center park and buildings
should be a place to gather as a
community.

2. MLK Jr Civic Center Park should be
natural in character, preserving mature
trees and enhancing native biodiversity.

3. The Park and open space should offer a
safe, clean, and comfortable place to be
outdoors with others.

4. Many are passionate about daylighting
Strawberry Creek while others raised
concerns.

5. Center Street should be better integrated
into the Park and open space experience.

6. The Maudelle Shirek Building should
be the seat of Berkeley’s democracy
with meeting and public-serving spaces
supporting civic participation in City
government.

7. These civic uses in Maudelle Shirek
Building should be paired with vision-
aligned services and educational
functions.

8. The Veterans Memorial Building should
be a Community Arts Center for creative
expression and accessible to all.

9. The Community Arts Center should be
activated all day every day, hosting arts
organizations and practitioners across all
disciplines, delivering performances and
programming for the community.

Integrating the input received through the
engagement efforts, additional study on the
changing context of the Civic Center, and
the programmatic requirements heard from
current and potential users, the Civic Center
project proposes the following:
• Maudelle Shirek Building
Seat of Berkeley’s democracy with
flexible meeting spaces and supportive
and vision-aligned city services and
educational uses.
• Veterans Memorial Building
A Community Arts Center, run by the
City, with performance venues, teaching
and exhibit space, ac
cessible by all in the
community.
• Civic Center Park & Surrounding Streets
A safe nature-based urban oasis for all
of Berkeley, supporting community use
throughout the day
, evening and weekend
for strolling, relaxing, having lunch,
visiting, and attending an impromptu
gathering or organized event.
→ Key Design Drivers → Design Concept

7 Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept
The project team proposed the following next steps for project implementation, outlined below and described in greater detail in Section 7 of this report. • Identify, fund and realize early activation projects. • Initiate efforts for next phase of work including further studies and specific designs. • Develop funding and phasing plans for each of the project components. → Recommended Next Steps
View to fountain terrace and sequoia from large green

Siegel & Strain Architects
Overall Project Schedule
Overall Project Schedule

0.2 Vision and
Implementation
Plan
Refine & Adopt
Consensus
Design Concept
2019 - 2020 2022-20232020-2022
Volunteer Effort;
Studies;
Council direction
Funding
Outcomes
T1 Bond
Vision &
Implementation
Plan Adopted
Sept 2020
Public Works Fund
CCCC established;
Studies undertaken;
Council direction for
preferred design concept
General Fund
Consensus design concept
and next steps

9 Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept
2027 >>>
Permitting,
Bidding &
Construction
2024-2027
Research, Schematic
Design & Approvals,
Funding Plan,
Design Development,
Construction Docs

1 Siegel & Strain Architects
Existing Conditions

DRAFT FINAL REPORT
May 2023
Existing
Conditions

1.1 Base Maps

1.2 Site Assessments
11 Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept

Siegel & Strain Architects
Existing Conditions - Base Maps
Base Maps

1.1 As part of the 2019-2020 Vision and
Implementation Plan, the consultant
design team dev
eloped base maps from
historical plans and aerial imagery of the
Martin Luther King Jr. Civic Center Park,
the Maudelle Shirek Building, and the
Veterans Memorial Building in the Civic
Center. The design team has continued
to use these as base drawings for the
current Berkeley Civic Center design
concept effort.

Verification of current conditions of the
buildings, park and streets are required
prior to specific design efforts. See
Section 7.2 for a more complete list
of recommended existing conditions
documentation.

Additional site assessment is offered
herein as diagrams to inform the design
concept.

13 Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept
Existing Civic Center Site Plan

Siegel & Strain Architects
Existing Conditions - Site Assessment
Site Assessments

1.2 Project Area Map
The project is located in the downtown
area of Berkeley, one block west of the
Bay Area R
apid Transit (BART) station,
and two blocks west of the UC Berkeley
campus. Directly south of the site sits the
main campus of Berkeley High School. To
the west, the urban fabric shifts to single
family residential scale development.

As a part of this phase of work, additional
site assessments were developed on the
following topics:
• Policy Context
• Circulation Context
• Input since 2020
• Civic Center Park Tree Map
Civic Center Park Peace Wall
Curved Path and Bench at Civic Center Park

15 Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept
Maudelle
Shirek
Building
(1909)
Veterans
Memorial
Building
(1928)
N
Project Area Map

Siegel & Strain Architects
Existing Conditions - Site Assessment
Policy Context
A number of City Policies affect the
Berkeley Civic Center study area,
including recent Council-adopt
ed
initiatives listed to the right. These have
implications for proposed improvements
at the buildings, park and the streets.

Most notably, the project is a part
of the Civic Center Zoning Overlay
District, established in 2014 and which
encompasses a number of historic
structures in the area. All proposed uses
should fall within the allowable permitted
uses listed to the right.

Vision 2050
Equity, Public Health & Safety,
Strong Local Economy,
Resiliency & Sust
ainability
(May 2020)
Existing Buildings
Electrification Strategy
(November 2021)
Native Species Policy
Native, Drought-Resistant,
Pollinator-Friendly
(April 2022)
Permitted Uses
Civic Center Zoning Overlay
District
(2014)
• Libraries & Museums
• Parks & Playgrounds
• Public Safety & Emergency
Services
• Government Agencies /
Institutions & Judicial Courts
• Public Schools / Educational
Facilities
• Non-Profit Organizations
• Live Performance Theatre
• Public Market
Vision 2050
Equity, Public Health & Safety, Strong Local
Economy, Resiliency & Sustainability (May 2020)
Existing Buildings Electrification
Strategy
(November 2021)
Native Species Policy
Native, Drought-Resistant, Pollinator-Friendly
(April 2022)
Civic Center Overlay Permitted Uses
Civic Center Zoning Overlay District (2014)
● Libraries
● Judicial Courts
● Museums
● Parks & Playgrounds
● Public Safety & Emergency Services
● Government Agencies & Institutions
● Public Schools / Educational Facilities
● Non-Profit Organizations
● Live Performance Theatre
● Public Market
Vision 2050
Equity, Public Health & Safety, Strong Local
Economy, Resiliency & Sustainability (May 2020)
Existing Buildings Electrification
Strategy
(November 2021)
Native Species Policy
Native, Drought-Resistant, Pollinator-Friendly
(April 2022)
Civic Center Overlay Permitted Uses
Civic Center Zoning Overlay District (2014)
● Libraries
● Judicial Courts
● Museums
● Parks & Playgrounds
● Public Safety & Emergency Services
● Government Agencies & Institutions
● Public Schools / Educational Facilities
● Non-Profit Organizations
● Live Performance Theatre
● Public Market
Vision 2050
Equity, Public Health & Safety, Strong Local
Economy, Resiliency & Sustainability (May 2020)
Existing Buildings Electrification
Strategy
(November 2021)
Native Species Policy
Native, Drought-Resistant, Pollinator-Friendly
(April 2022)
Civic Center Overlay Permitted Uses
Civic Center Zoning Overlay District (2014)
● Libraries
● Judicial Courts
● Museums
● Parks & Playgrounds
● Public Safety & Emergency Services
● Government Agencies & Institutions
● Public Schools / Educational Facilities
● Non-Profit Organizations
● Live Performance Theatre
● Public Market
Vision 2050
Equity, Public Health & Safety, Strong Local
Economy, Resiliency & Sustainability (May 2020)
Existing Buildings Electrification
Strategy
(November 2021)
Native Species Policy
Native, Drought-Resistant, Pollinator-Friendly
(April 2022)
Civic Center Overlay Permitted Uses
Civic Center Zoning Overlay District (2014)
● Libraries
● Judicial Courts
● Museums
● Parks & Playgrounds
● Public Safety & Emergency Services
● Government Agencies & Institutions
● Public Schools / Educational Facilities
● Non-Profit Organizations
● Live Performance Theatre
● Public Market
Fountain at Civic Center Park

17 Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept
N
Policy Context Map

Siegel & Strain Architects
Existing Conditions - Site Assessment
Circulation Context
A number of improvements have been
completed in the Civic Center area since
concl
usion of the 2020 Vision Phase.

Implementation of Milvia Bicycle Boulevard
improvements changed traffic circulation
west of Shattuck Avenue and the City’s
new Center Street Garage increased
parking capacity in the downtown area.

Improved pedestrian safety is an
identified priority for the area and will
require changes to the streets. Proposed
changes to MLK Jr Way, Allston Way and
Center Street need to consider existing
circulation, traffic and parking patterns.

Legend

1. Addison Bicycle Boulevard
(Bicycle Plan 2017)

2. Milvia Bicycle Boulevard
(Completed May 2022)

3. Center Street Greenway & Center Street
Plaza
(Streets and Open Space Improvement
Plan 2012-23)

4. Center Street Parking Garage and BART
Bike Parking
720 vehicle spaces; 20 EV charging
spaces; 350 bicycle spaces

5. Allston Way Civic Street
(Streets and Open Spac
e Improvement
Plan 2012-23)

6. Pedestrian Signal Improvements
(Pedestrian Master Plan 2019-20)

7. Crosswalk Bulbouts
(Pedestrian Master Plan 2019-20)

8. Berkeley High School Loading
(Completed May 2022)

9. Harold Way
(Pedestrian Only)
AC Transit Bus Route
BHS Drop-off Approach Routes
One-Way tr
affic
View at MLK Jr . Way & Allston Way
Intersection looking North

19 Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept
NN
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 Circulation Context Map

Siegel & Strain Architects
Existing Conditions - Site Assessment
1 1
2 3
5 4
7a
7a
7b
7c
7d
5 6
Input Since 2020
Since the adoption of the Berkeley Civic Center Vision
Statement in 2020, the City and active community
mem
bers, primarily associated with the Community
for a Cultural Civic Center (CCCC), provided additional input on the Vision & Implementation Plan, including:

1. Seismic Retrofit Study
Exploration of alternate seismic approaches by Tipping
Structural Engineers

2. Turtle Island Monument
Design Development & Funding

3. Meeting Hall / Council Chambers
Preference for Maudelle Shirek Building location

4. More Planting, Less Paving
Preference for integration of native species and biodiversity, preservation of existing mature tree canopy, and inclusion of a large green open spac
e

5. Park Performance Venues
Study of Park performance venues by ELS Architecture &
Urban Design

6. 2180 Milvia Parking Lot Removal
Integration of Park uses into the parking lot west of
2180 Milvia

7. Identified for additional study:
a. Allston Way & Center Street closure
b. Dorothy Day House & Options Recovery relocation
c. Inclusion of historic interpretive panels
d. Daylighting of Strawberry Creek & culverts

21 Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept
1 1
2 3
5 4
7a
7a
7b
7c
7d
5 6
Site Plan indicating areas of Additional Study

Siegel & Strain Architects
Existing Conditions - Site Assessment
Tree Condition Map
Dan Gallanger, City of Berkeley Urban
Forester, and Thomas Dodge, City of
Berk
eley Forestry Technician, walked
the Civic Center area with the design
team. Gallanger and Dodge identified
the high value trees and gave the team
an oral overview of the trees’ health.

In addition to discussing tree protection
strategies for the high value trees, the group
identified the need for an updated tree
survey, a tree protection plan, and a tree
succession plan to support a healthy tree
canopy ecosystem in the park into the future.

Sequoia (center) east of Turtle Island Monument

23 Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept
Tree Site Plan

2 Siegel & Strain Architects
Community Engagement

DRAFT FINAL REPORT
May 2023
Community
Engagement

2.1 Engagement Plan

2.2 Engagement Summary

2.3 Key Design Drivers
25 Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept

Siegel & Strain Architects
Community Engagement - Engagement and Outreach Plan
Engagement Plan

2.1 The primary task of this phase is to create a
preferred design concept for the Civic Center
bas
ed on community, Commission, and Council
input. The design team combined engagement
with the general public and targeted outreach
efforts to groups with specialized knowledge
or interests in the project, including:

General Public Engagement
> Open House - Nov 16, 2022
> Online Survey - Dec 2022 - Jan 2023
Youth Engagement
> In-person Work Sessions - Feb 15, 2023
Focused Engagement
> Online & In-person Meetings
Sep
t 2022 - May 2023
Arts Organization Engagement
> Online Survey - Jan - Feb 2023
> Focus Group Tour & Meeting - Feb 24, 2023
Docu
mentation of these efforts includes
detailed meeting notes, and summaries of
survey data and open-ended responses. The
design team synthesized the input into key
design drivers to guide the design concept.

Open House Nov 16, 2022
Veterans Memorial Building Art
Organization Focus Group Tour

27 Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept
Civic Center Design Concept | Open House | Wednesday, November 16, 2022 City of Berkeley Civic Center Design Concept | Open House | Wednesday, November 16, 2022 City of Berkeley “Everyday place”
Card #1 - Front
Card #2 - Front
Maudelle Shirek Building
Veterans Memorial Building
Question:

What kinds of art programs do you think the
community needs most at a new Arts Center in the
Veterans Memorial Building?
(Pick up to four)
Visual Arts Exhibition
Dance Performance
Theater Performance
Visual Arts Class Spaces
Co-working Arts
Administration Space
Makerspace
Music Performance
Film Screenings
Dance Class Spaces
Question:

Which proposed uses are you most excited about
for the Maudelle Shirek Building?
(Pick up to four)
Berkeley Media
Berkeley Historical Society/Museum
City offices
City Council
Policy Center/ Think Tank
Care & Shelter
City and Elected
Official Offices City Services
Other: _____________
Berkeley Historical
Society & Museum
Vision-Aligned
Educational Institute for
Public Service
Hearing & Meeting
Rooms
Berkeley Community
Media
Music Class Spaces
Theater Class Spaces
Council Chambers Other:
______________________
Digital Arts Class Spaces
Other:
__________________________
Civic Center Design Concept
| Open House | Wednesday, November 16, 2022
City of Berkeley
Civic Center Design Concept
| Open House | Wednesday, November 16, 2022
City of Berkeley
“Everyday place”
Card #1 - Front
Card #2 - Front
Maudelle Shirek Building
Veterans Memorial Building
Question:

What kinds of art programs do you think the
community needs most at a new Arts Center in the
Veterans Memorial Building?
(Pick up to four)
Visual Arts Exhibition
Dance Performance
Theater Performance
Visual Arts Class Spaces Co-working Arts
Administration Space
Makerspace
Music Performance
Film Screenings
Dance Class Spaces
Question:

Which proposed uses are you most excited about
for the Maudelle Shirek Building?
(Pick up to four)
Berkeley Media
Berkeley Historical Society/Museum
City offices
City Council
Policy Center/ Think Tank
Care & Shelter
City and Elected
Official Offices
City Services
Other: _____________
Berkeley Historical
Society & Museum
Vision-Aligned
Educational Institute for
Public Service
Hearing & Meeting
Rooms
Berkeley Community
Media
Music Class Spaces
Theater Class Spaces
Council Chambers
Other:
______________________
Digital Arts Class Spaces
Other:
__________________________
Civic Center Design Concept | Open House | Wednesday, November 16, 2022 City of Berkeley Civic Center Design Concept | Open House | Wednesday, November 16, 2022 City of Berkeley Card #5 - Back
Card #6 - Back
STATION #3
STATION #4
Question:

What improvements would make you proud of your city and bring you to the Park? (Pick up to six)
Question:

How do you feel about the following design approaches to improve pedestrian safety and calm traffic around Civic Center?
A. Changing paths around and within the park?
B. Slowing traffic on MLK with a street diet?
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree No Opinion Agree Strongly
Agree
MLK Jr. Civic Center Park
Age:
⭘⭘ 5-14
⭘⭘ 15-24
⭘⭘ 25-64
⭘⭘ 65+
Relation to Place:
⭘⭘ Live near Civic
Center
⭘⭘ Regularly come to
Civic Center area
⭘⭘ Use Berkeley Parks
⭘⭘ Other:

O
O Upgraded lawn and terrace for large events and recreational use O Additional small performance venue to host smaller events O Expansion of the park into (and in place of) the parking lot O New seating, tables and furnishings to expand use of the park O Enhanced biodiversity and protected mature trees
O A daylighted creek
O Improved paths and path network
O Expanded and upgraded play areas for all ages
O Food and beverage options in the park
O Art installations, permanent or seasonal
O Improved lighting
O Other:

Slower and Safer Streets
C. Reducing or eliminating parking on Center?
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree No Opinion Agree Strongly
Agree
Age:
⭘⭘ 5-14
⭘⭘ 15-24
⭘⭘ 25-64
⭘⭘ 65+
Relation to Place: ⭘⭘ Live near the Civic Center
⭘⭘ Regularly come to the Civic Center area
⭘⭘ Other: __________________________
D. Revising paving treatment of Center?
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree No Opinion Agree Strongly
Agree
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree No Opinion Agree Strongly
Agree
D. Revising paving treatment of Center?
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree No Opinion Agree Strongly
Agree
Civic Center Design Concept | Open House | Wednesday, November 16, 2022 City of Berkeley
Civic Center Design Concept | Open House | Wednesday, November 16, 2022 City of Berkeley
Card #5 - Front
Card #6 - Front
Question:

In your view, what park character would best
advance the vision for
Civic Center?
(Divide the pie chart between
the three options)
Traditional
Playful
Natural
Example Responses:

Question:

In your view, what street character would best
advance the vision for
Civic Center?
(Divide the pie chart between the
three options)
Slower and Safer
Streets
MLK Jr. Civic
Center Park
“The park
should be
traditional
and formal ”
“A balance of
old, new &
natural”
“Mostly
Natural”
Playful
Natural
Trad.

Playful
Natural
Trad.

Traditional
Traditional
Playful
Natural
Example Responses:
“The streets
should look
like a typical
street.”
“A balance of
old, new &
natural”
“Mostly
Natural”
Playful
Natural
Trad.

Playful
Natural
Trad.

Traditional
Engagement
Cards &
Boards

Siegel & Strain Architects

• Participants gave input on four
topics: MLK Jr Civic Center
Park, Surrounding Streets,
Maudelle Shirek, and Veterans
Memorial Buildings
• Participants provided written
feedback on more than 200
postcards
• Held at Berkeley Main Library
Public Open House on Nov 16, 2022
Online Survey Dec 9, 2022 to Jan 6, 2023
654
Online Survey
Respondents
Dec 2022 to
Jan 2023
General Public Engagement
To complement the public outreach
effort of the 2020 Vision &
Imp
lementation Plan, the design
team developed a presentation and
survey to reintroduce the Civic Center
project to the public, and to gather
feedback on design approaches to
the buildings, park and streets.

The presentation and survey were
shared in two forms - in person and
online - to maximize the response
rate. Almost 700 responses were
gathered, providing the design team
wit
h feedback in the form of multiple-
choice and open-ended responses.

Engagement Summary

2.2 Community Engagement - Engagement Summary

29 Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept

DRAFT FINAL REPORT
May 2023
40 Participants
at Open
House
Nov 2022
200+
Written
Comments on
Postcards
Nov 2022
Photos of Open House - Nov 16, 2022

Siegel & Strain Architects

What is your relationship to MLK Jr. Civic Center Park? Amounts are shown as a percentage of total respondents, respondents were allowed to choose more than one answer.

General Public
Engagement Results
Participants in the outreach effort
were asked to provide information
abo
ut themselves, including
age, district they lived in, and
relationship to Civic Center area.

The results indicated that less than 6%
of paricipants where between the ages
of 15 and 24. With Berkeley High School
and Berkeley City College in the adjacent
blocks, students in this age range are
important users of the Civic Center.

To address this missing age group,
additional engagement events were held
at Berkeley High School and at Berkeley
Community College on February 15, 2023.
32 additional youth participants were
shown preliminary design concepts and
ask
ed similar questions to the Open House
participants about the parks and streets.

Students were also given the opportunity to
provide open-ended feedback on the design
- what they liked, what they would change.

In most cases, their responses aligned
with the commentary heard during
the Open House and Online Survey
- with some notable differences.

Highlights from their responses are
noted throughout the Engagement
Results on the following pages.

Community Engagement - Engagement Summary

31 Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept

DRAFT FINAL REPORT
May 2023
How old are you?
What City Council district do you live in?
Amounts are shown as a percentage of 692 total respondents.

Amounts are shown as a percentage of 697 total respondents. 68 + 32 Youth Outreach
Participants

Siegel & Strain Architects

Martin Luther King Jr Civic Center Park
What character would you like to see in the park?
Amounts are shown as a percentage of 692 total respondents.

What uses would you like to see in prioritized in the park? Amounts are shown as a percentage of 683 total respondents.

Playful
Traditional
Natural
Youth response aligns
with survey response
(50% natural, 27%
traditional, 23% pla
yful)
Youth ranked biodiversity
highly (78%), did not rank
creek highly (22%)
Youth ranked active uses
highly - Upgraded lawn (70%),
Food and Beverage (61%)
Community EngagementCommunity Engagement - Engagement Summary

33 Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept

DRAFT FINAL REPORT
May 2023

Anything else you want to share with us
about MLK Jr. Civic Center Park?
Online Survey: 290 write-in responses
What, in your opinion, should the park be designed for? Online Survey: 453 write-in responses
Write-In Response Emerging Themes
“Right now it feels very
uninviting because of
the homeless people and
drug use.”
“For all Berkeleyans to use on a
daily basis, especially kids, students
and elderly people who need places
to gather and play.”
“The park and streets all around it
are a perfect opportunity to restore
native plants and biodiversity and
daylight Strawberry Creek, and
bring nature back to the city.”
“More usable play space will
draw more families and cut
down on illegal activities”
“Permanent clean and safe
restrooms, please!”
1 2
4 3
5 There are significant safety concerns about
the presence of the unhoused population.
1 There’s a desire for a mix of programs and
spaces to invite a range of people to use the
park.
2 People want to bring more nature to the park
by promoting biodiversity and daylighting
Strawberry Creek.
3 People want to see spaces for families & kids. 4
People want clean, safe, and well-maintained
restrooms.
5 Youth also noted current
safety concerns at park.

Siegel & Strain Architects

Surrounding Streets
What character would you like to see
in the surrounding streets?
Amounts are shown as a percentage of 665 total respondents.

How do you feel about the following design approaches to improve pedestrian safety and calm traffic around the park? Amounts are shown as a percentage of 647 total respondents.

Playful
Traditional
Natural
Youth is more supportive
of MLK changes (57%
agree/str
ongly agree)
Youth is less interested
in changes to Center
St (39% agree/strongly
agree with removing
parking, 42% agree/
strongly agree with
changes paving)
Youth response aligns
with survey response
(48% natural, 30%
traditional, 22% playful)
Community Engagement - Engagement Summary

35 Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept

DRAFT FINAL REPORT
May 2023
Anything else you want to share with us about
the streets around MLK Jr. Civic Center Park?
Online Survey: 274 write-in responses
Write-In Response Emerging Themes
“MLK is loud and dangerous!
Prioritize pedestrians over
cars, please!”
“MLK is still the main cross-
downtown thoroughfare and is
meant for cars. It's important to
keep pedestrians safe, but cars
should have priority.”
“Redirect traffic with some kind of a
way to more easily drop off at BHS
while allowing for full force
pedestrian passage at most times
of the day.”
“Walking and biking priority. Make
it safe and easy to incentivize
walking and biking and decrease
car use as much as possible in our
city centers.”
“There is currently such a
shortage of parking that it
keeps people away--so don't
decrease parking.”
1 2
3 4
There are divergent opinions on traffic
mitigation on MLK, however, the majority of
comments are not in favor of a road diet.
1 People want to see pedestrians and cyclists
prioritized on Center Street and Allston Street.
2 People want to ensure dropoff and pickup
needs are met around Berkeley High School.
3 There are concerns about parking being
removed.
4 Youth noted concerns
related to dropoff and
parking near BHS

Siegel & Strain Architects

Building Uses
Which proposed use are you most excited
about for the Maudelle Shirek Building?
Amounts are shown as a percentage of 564 total respondents. “Active use of meeting
rooms for organizing
events and activism,
attending City Council
meetings and public
meetings. ”
“Having a go to location to
vote on election day and
all related Berkeley city
services.”
“Perhaps some sort of
partnership with UC to bring
new energy and researchers
to the building?”
“With the co-location of the
Historical Society, Vision Institute,
and Community Media, the
community will have better access
to these resources.”
BHS students noted
interest in internship
opportunities (BCM,
Public Policy Institut
e)
Community Engagement - Engagement Summary

37 Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept

DRAFT FINAL REPORT
May 2023
What types of programs do you think the
community needs most at a new Arts Center
in the Veterans Memorial Building?
Amounts are shown as a percentage of 546 total respondents. “I think it needs to appear more
open, accessible, inviting and
welcoming…signage and a well -
designed entrance foyer.”
“Love the idea of a true
dance/music/arts center
integrated into a revitalized &
restored park.”
‘There’s a shortage of arts
class spaces, and I think this
would be a great thing for the
community.”
‘Film screenings and music
performances!”
BCC students noted
interest in using the
space for art clas
ses,
performances

Siegel & Strain Architects

Civic Arts
City Clerk
Elected Officials
Fire Department
Parks, Recreation and Waterfront
Police Department
Public Works Department
Real Estate
Special Events
Transportation
Urban Forester
Berkeley City College
Berkeley Community Media
Berkeley Commissioners
Berkeley Historical Society & Museum
Berkeley Unified School District
Community for a Cultural Civic Center (CCCC)
Creek Daylighting Advocates
Ecology Center
Potential Educational Partners
Skate XP
Focused Engagement
In addition to the general public, and with
input from the project’s City Steering
Tea
m, the design team identified City
departments, park users, neighbors, and
affiliated organizations who could provide
detailed input on the design concept.

The design team shared drawings,
diagrams, photographs, and precedent
ima
ges of the park and buildings at
these meetings and asked specific
questions aimed at gathering insights
from those most familiar with the
area and its current condition.

The groups ranged from current tenants
like the Berkeley Historical Society &
Museum and The Ecology Center to
discuss specific space needs, to the
Parks, Recreation and Waterfront
Department staff to discuss park
maintenance budgets, approaches, and
possible community involvement.

The design team met with representatives
from some of these groups, such
as BUSD and the CCCC, multiple
times to solicit specific feedback.

City of Berkeley Staff &
Departments
Neig
hbors, Users &
Affilated Organizations
Community Engagement - Engagement Summary

39 Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept

DRAFT FINAL REPORT
May 2023
15 Farmers
Market
2000 vtrs/wk
60 Vendors
Berkeley
Historical
Society &
Museum
Special
Events
16+ / year
pre-pandemic
Berkeley
Community
Media
60 City Broadcasts
/ year
Council,
Commissions,
Committee
Meetings
350+ / year
Berkeley Civic Center User Groups

Siegel & Strain Architects

Arts Organization Engagement
As part of this effort and with assistance
from the design team, the Civic Arts
Div
ision of Economic Development devised
and released a survey to the recipients
of City Civic Arts grants in January 2023.

A focus group work session was held in
February 2023 to discuss transforming the
Veterans Memorial Building into a Berkeley
Community Arts Center.
79 Arts Organizations and Cultural
Producers responded to questions related
to their current space use, space needs,
and d
esire to be located in the Civic Center
area through the online survey.
16 participants from a wide-range of
organization sizes, representing the
dis
ciplines of theater, dance, music, visual
arts, and literary arts, attended the focus
group to identify priority space needs
in th
e Veterans Memorial Building for a
Community Arts Center and to give input
on the development of a spatial program.

Strong interest and demonstrated need
for a Community Arts Center
Survey responses demonstrate that
Berkeley-based arts organizations have
a need fo
r spaces for performances,
classes, workshops, exhibitions and other
public programs:
43% Respondents do not have a facility
for their public programming. They
oper
ate out of a home office or an
administrative office and rent venues
as needed for public programming.
66% Respondents rent space for
their programming. This includes
org
anizations that do not have a facility,
and those that have a facility but need
additional space on an occasional
basis.
46% Respondents produce public
programs for smaller audience sizes
(25
0 people or less) indicating a good
fit for the various public spaces in the
Veterans Memorial Building.

Veterans Memorial Building’s downtown, central location near the arts district and transit is very appealing to arts groups.

Community Engagement - Engagement Summary

41 Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept

DRAFT FINAL REPORT
May 2023
Arts Survey Respondents
22 Dance
Orgs
30 Arts
Education
Orgs
33 Music
Orgs
27 Theater
Orgs
27 Visual
Arts
Orgs
Arts organizations are interested in multiple types of public program space in a renovated Veterans Memorial Building:

Arts Organizations
Public

Siegel & Strain Architects

2.3 Key Design Drivers
The design team received feedback during
the outreach and engagement events in
a number of forms - written responses
to directed and open-ended survey
questions, verbal feedback, and additional
feedback sent via email to the Civic
Center email address. The outcome of
the engagement effort was integrated into
9 key design drivers to guide the design
concept.

Ove
rall, the community’s responses
during this phase reinforced the 2020
Vision Statement:
• Civic Center will be the heart of
Berkeley’s community.
• Civic Center will be the prime space
for civic life, culture, and the arts.
• It will reflect the city’s diverse
identities, celebrating its history and
contributing to shaping its future.
• It is a place of shared resources and a
platform for free expression accessible
to all.
• The Civic Center aims to manifest the
city’s values, advance social justice,
and demonstrate the power of true
public space.

Community Engagement - Key Design Drivers

43 Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept

DRAFT FINAL REPORT
May 2023
1 The Civic Center Park and buildings
should be a place to gather as a
community.

Informal and formal
gatherings of people
of all ages. A safe
place to be in
community
together.”
“
300 +
Written
comments
related to
community
gathering
Parks should bring
people together
Relaxing at performances,
listening to music
Inviting public space for
gathering & enjoyment

Siegel & Strain Architects

2 MLK Jr Civic Center Park should be natural
in character, preserving mature trees
and enhancing native biodiversity.

As our city is becoming
increasingly developed,
the park should present
a peaceful, calming, safe
space where people can
be in nature.”
“
Playful
Traditional
Natural
61%
of respondents
prioritized
biodiversity
and protecting
mature trees
Return nature in
the urban setting
The park should be a place
for relaxing with nature
Amplify nature and art
because that’s what
Berkeley is basically about.

Community Engagement - Key Design Drivers

45 Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept

DRAFT FINAL REPORT
May 2023
MLK Jr Civic Center Park should be natural
in character, preserving mature trees
and enhancing native biodiversity.
3 The Park and open space should
offer a safe, clean, and comfortable
place to be outdoors with others.
44%
of respondents
prioritized
improved
lighting
48%
of respondents
prioritized art
installations
55%
of respondents
prioritized new
seating, tables
and furnishing
The focus should be
in day-to-day use
with events being an
important secondary
use. Keep the park
safe and accessible.
“
Sitting & relaxing
Playing &
recreating
Strolling/Walking

Siegel & Strain Architects

4 Many are passionate about
daylighting Strawberry Creek
while others raised concerns.

Daylighting Strawberry
Creek and restoring
native vegetation can be
a wonderful anchor to
this vision.”
“
51%
of respondents
prioritized
daylighting
Strawberry
Creek
“
Costs of
daylighting need
to be weighed
against other park
improvements.

A perfect opportunity to
restore native plants and
biodiversity, and to
daylight Strawberry
Creek
Too expensive /
infeasible, hard to
maintain.

Community Engagement - Key Design Drivers

47 Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept

DRAFT FINAL REPORT
May 2023
5 Center Street should be better
integrated into the Park and open
space experience.
53%
of respondents
support natural
character for
streets around
park
51%
of respondents
agreed with
revising paving
treatment on
Center St.

Center St used for more
active uses, like the Saturday
Farmer’s Market.

Siegel & Strain Architects

58%
of respondents
support
community
hearing & mtg
rooms at MSB
51%
of respondents
support Council
Chambers at
MSB
A one stop shop for
the general public.
6The Maudelle Shirek Building should be the
seat of Berkeley’s democracy, with meeting
and public-serving spaces supporting civic
participation in City government.

Promote access and use by
all by making the building
as inviting, interactive, and
safe as possible.

Community Engagement - Key Design Drivers

49 Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept

DRAFT FINAL REPORT
May 2023
7The civic uses in the Maudelle Shirek
Building should be paired with vision-
aligned services and educational
functions.
70%
of respondents
support Berkeley
Historical Society
& Museum at
MSB
44%
of respondents
support Berkeley
Community
Media at MSB
...center for education,
inspiration, and action.

Celebrate Berkeley’s
activist history!
..a hub for BCM’s
important educational
and public service
work.

Siegel & Strain Architects

8 The Veterans Memorial Building should
be a Community Arts Center for creative
expression and accessible to all.

It would fantastic to
have a community,
municipal arts space in
downtown.
72%
of arts survey
respondents
showed high
interest in space
downtown
Community Engagement - Key Design Drivers

51 Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept

DRAFT FINAL REPORT
May 2023
9 The Community Arts Center should be
activated all day every day, hosting arts
organizations and practitioners across all
disciplines, delivering performances and
programming for the community.

Generate lots of activity in
the building day and night!
Proximity to BHS, BCC
supports partnerships
and youth engagement

Vision
Siegel & Strain Architects
3

53 Vision
Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept

DRAFT FINAL REPORT
May 2023
Vision

3.1 Vision Statement

Siegel & Strain Architects
Vision
Vision Statement for
Berkeley’s Civic Center
Reaffirmed in 2022-23 public engagement process.

3.1

55 Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept

DRAFT FINAL REPORT
May 2023
Vision
Civic Center will be the heart of
Berkeley’s community. Civic Center will
be the prime space for civic life, culture,
and the arts. It will reflect the city’s
diverse identities, celebrating its history
and contributing to shaping its future. A
place of shared resources and a platform
for free expression accessible to all,
the Civic Center aims to manifest the
city’s values, advance social justice, and
demonstrate the power of true public
space.

4 Siegel & Strain Architects
Design Considerations

Design
Considerations

4.1 Opportunities

4.2 Programs & Uses
57 Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept

DRAFT FINAL REPORT
May 2023
Design Considerations

Siegel & Strain Architects
Design Considerations - Opportunities
A Guiding Vision
With the adopted vision statement as the
north star for the project, four points on
a compass emer
ge from the engagement
efforts and design thinking which are
representative of Berkeley’s culture and
collective values:

Community
an inclusive and caring community
The Arts
expressive artistic and cultural
events and pieces
Governance
good governance demonstrated
through progr
essive policies
Education
powerful education tied directly to
history and nature
Opportunities

4.1 A Historic Asset
The Maudelle Shirek Building, Veterans
Memorial Building, and Civic Center
Park are c
ontributing structures to the
Berkeley Civic Center Historic District
which is recognized both locally and
nationally. Together they have served and
are serving the community as gathering
places, the seat of democracy, and
settings for art and artistic expressions.

They maintain much of their historic
fabric, and present to the City an
opportunity to reestablish the area as the
heart of Berkeley’s civic life.

A City Campus
This one block area of downtown contains
seven structures owned or operated by
the City of Berkele
y. Densifying city uses
in this area will further strengthen the city
campus and provide flexibility for future
growth and changing needs.

59 Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept

DRAFT FINAL REPORT
May 2023
Design Considerations - Opportunities
“It is a historical
architectural treasure
that needs our love and
funding!”
“It is beautiful and
should be invested in
now, to preserve what
we have and make it
publicly usable again.

Don't let it further
deteriorate.”
“It is beautiful,
and an asset to
the city.”
Maudelle Shirek Building Entry Veterans Memorial Building Ceiling

THE ARTS

GOVERNANCECOMMUNITY

EDUCATION

Siegel & Strain Architects
Design Considerations - Programs / Uses Matrix
Programs &
Uses

4.2 Parameters for Prioritizing
Uses
Through the public outreach effort, many
programs and uses were proposed and
discussed for the Civic Cent
er Park,
Maudelle Shirek Building, and Veterans
Memorial building. In order to prioritize
those uses in the available space, the
design team considered three additional
parameters:
• Vision Aligned - Strengthen community;
support civic life, culture and the arts;
reflect div
erse identities; celebrate
Berkeley’s history; and manifest the city’s
values.
• Use Aligned - Complement co-located
uses based on space type needs, access
and security requirement
s, and time of
use to activate the area 24/7.
• Funding - Draw on sources of outside
funding to bring investment to the
rest
oration and enhancement of this
historic district.

Primary
Use
Secondary
Use
Use to be
Confirmed
Natural with
native &
pollinator-
friendly
plants
Restrooms,
Food &
Beverage,
Restrooms
Farmers
Market
Neighborhood
Park w/
furnishings &
play areas
Performance
Space(s)
Turtle Island
Monument &
Terrace
Civic
Gathering
Space
Civic Center Park
Daylit
Creek

61 Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept

DRAFT FINAL REPORT
May 2023
Design Considerations - Programs / Uses Matrix
Berkeley
Community
Media
The Berkeley
Historical
Society &
Museum
Public-
Facing City
Offices
Hearing
Rooms
Maudelle Shirek
Building
Meeting
Rooms
Public Policy
Institute
Flexible
Work Space
Scene shop/
Storage
Classroom &
Meeting
Spaces
Practice &
Rehearsal
Spaces
Small
Performance
Spaces
Performing
Arts
Auditorium
Rooftop
Event Space
Veterans Memorial
Building
Expanded
Lobby

Siegel & Strain Architects
Design Considerations - Programs / Uses Matrix
Civic Center Park

PARK ELEMENTS NOTES
Civic Gathering Space
Large Green Utilized for civic events, festivals Turtle Island Monument Separate project under Civic Arts and Park, Recreation and Waterfront Department
Performance Spaces
Large Performance Venue Co-located with civic gathering Small Performance Venue(s) Identify multiple small performance spaces Neighborhood Park Functions
Seating for individuals and groups
Play Areas Multi-age, natural in character
Skate Spot Multi-use plaza w/ skatable elements
Natural Habitat
Native plants Pollinators and habitat builders
Historic/Mature Trees Protect existing tree canopy, develop tree succession plan
Food & Beverage
Leasable space for vendors For high school and city college students, Cafe seating people who live & work in area

Farmers Market
Stalls, Food Trucks, Fresh Produce, Center Street, expansion into park Prepared Food, Crafts
Daylit Creek Partial-flow most likely, needs further study

63 Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept

DRAFT FINAL REPORT
May 2023
Design Considerations - Programs / Uses Matrix
Entrance to fountain terrace from green
Existing Skate spot along MLK Jr Way
Large central green
Natural with
native &
pollinator-
friendly
plants
Restrooms,
Food &
Beverage,
Restrooms
Farmers
Market
Neighborhood
Park w/
furnishings &
play areas
Performance
Space(s)
Turtle Island
Monument &
Terrace
Civic
Gathering
Space
Civic Center Park
Daylit
Creek

Siegel & Strain Architects
Design Considerations - Programs / Uses Matrix

USE NOTES
Hearing Rooms - 9,600 SF
Large Multi-purpose meeting room/ Seats 200-300
Council Chambers
Conference Room Can be used for closed sessions
Historic Hearing Room Historic Council Chambers, seats 70 New Hearing Room Seats 120
Support Spaces
Meeting Rooms - 2,165 SF
Small Meeting Rooms Seat 10-20
Large Meeting Rooms Seat 20-30
Flexible Work Spaces - 3,375 SF
Reception Area/Service Counter
Private & Open offices
Conference Rooms
Print, Storage & Support
Break Room/Kitchenette
Berkeley Historical Society & Museum - 8,000 SF
Permanent & Temporary Exhibit
Offices, Research Room, Meeting Rooms
Exhibit Preparation R
oom
Archival Storage 3500 SF, may be located off-site Bookstore/Gift Shop
Berkeley Community Media - 5,500 SF
Broadcast, Podcast & Green Cove Studios
Offices, Editing Suites
Lounge/Classroom
Kit
chenette
Public Facing City Offices - SF Varies To be determined, dependent on department

Public Policy Institute - SF Varies To be determined, dependent Classrooms, Meeting Rooms on program development
Offices
Maudelle Shirek Building

65 Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept

DRAFT FINAL REPORT
May 2023
Berkeley
Community
Media
The Berkeley
Historical
Society &
Museum
Public-
Facing City
Offices
Hearing
Rooms
Maudelle Shirek
Building
Meeting
Rooms
Public Policy
Institute
Flexible
Work Space
Design Considerations - Programs / Uses Matrix
Historic Hearing Room Dias
Central Stair at Second Floor
Second Floor Office Space

Siegel & Strain Architects
Design Considerations - Programs / Uses Matrix

USE NOTES
Performance Space
Large Performance Auditorium 300-500 seats
Small Performance Rooms 100-120 seats
Backstage Expanded for access to basement
Multi-functional Spaces
Rehearsal Spaces Also function as small performance Lecture/Conference spaces Could utilize large auditorium Classrooms/Workshops
Exhibition Space
Visual Arts Exhibition Hall Climate controlled, gallery lighting Flexible Arts Exhibition Space In public halls, temporary exhibits Support Spaces
Offices
Bathrooms
Dressing Rooms
Storage
Stage/Scenery Shop
Event Space
Entry Porch
Lobby/Pre-function Space
Banquet Area
Commercial Kitchen
Rooftop Terrace To be determined
Veterans Memorial Building

67 Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept

DRAFT FINAL REPORT
May 2023
Scene shop/
Storage
Classroom &
Meeting
Spaces
Practice &
Rehearsal
Spaces
Small
Performance
Spaces
Performing
Arts
Auditorium
Rooftop
Event Space
Veterans Memorial
Building
Expanded
Lobby
Support
Spaces/
Storage
Classroom &
Meeting
Spaces
Practice &
Rehearsal
Spaces
Small
Performance
Spaces
Performing
Arts
Auditorium
Rooftop/
Basement
Event Space
Veterans Memorial
Building
Scene shop/
Makerspace
Veterans Memorial Building facade
Support
Spaces/
Storage
Classroom &
Meeting
Spaces
Practice &
Rehearsal
Spaces
Small
Performance
Spaces
Performing
Arts
Auditorium
Rooftop/
Basement
Event Space
Veterans Memorial
Building
Scene shop/
Makerspace
Large Auditorium
Support
Spaces/
Storage
Classroom &
Meeting
Spaces
Practice &
Rehearsal
Spaces
Small
Performance
Spaces
Performing
Arts
Auditorium
Rooftop/
Basement
Event Space
Veterans Memorial
Building
Scene shop/
Makerspace
Balcony ceiling

Siegel & Strain Architects
Design Concept
5

69 Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept

DRAFT FINAL REPORT
May 2023
Design Concept
Design
Concept

5.1 Preferred Design Concept

5.2 MLK Jr Civic Center Park & Surrounding Streets

5.3 Maudelle Shirek Building

5.4 Veterans Memorial Building

Siegel & Strain Architects
Design Concept - Emerging Preferred Design Concept Overview Preferred Design
Concept

5.1 Maudelle Shirek Building
Seat of Berkeley’s democracy with
flexible meeting spaces, and
supportive and vision-aligned city
services and educational uses.

Note: All drawings are illustrative and conceptual. Further landscape and architectural design is required in future specific design phases.

71 Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept

DRAFT FINAL REPORT
May 2023
Design Concept - Emerging Preferred Design Concept Overview Veterans Memorial Building
A Community Arts Center, run by the
City, with performance venues,
teaching and exhibit space, accessible
by all in the community.

Civic Center Park & Surrounding Streets
A safe nature-based urban oasis for all of Berkeley. The park design will support community use throughout the day, evening and weekend for strolling, relaxing, having lunch, visiting, and attending an impromptu gathering or organized event.

Siegel & Strain Architects
Design Concept - MLK Jr Civic Center Park & Surrounding Streets

73 Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept

DRAFT FINAL REPORT
May 2023

5.2 MLK Jr Civic
Center Park
& Surrounding
Streets

Siegel & Strain Architects
Design Goals

5.2 MLK Jr Civic Center Park and
Surrounding Streets
Civic Center Park has the potential to be
an urban oasis for residents and visitors
to Berkeley’s Downtown, and also provide
a central gathering place for civic life -
from outdoor performances to political
demonstrations.

The design concept for Civic Center Park
builds from the existing organization
of the park, and layers in new design
elements and programs that support the
desired everyday vibrancy of the Park. The
proposed design concept also simplifies
the layout and reclaims underutilized
space to accomodate new activity areas
where possible.

The design concept is based on six
key design goals to be achieved
through tar
geted reconfiguration and
refurbishment of the Park.

All of these goals point towards a future
for Civic Center Park that the public
is asking for:
a place of natural and
architectural beauty that provides both
calm retr
eat and invitation to participate
in public life, both through everyday
activities and special events.

Design Concept - MLK Jr Civic Center Park & Surrounding Streets

75 Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept

DRAFT FINAL REPORT
May 2023
Preserve and
build upon Civic
Center Park’s
strengths
Enhance natural
features, promote
biodiversity and
green design
Enhance the
potential of the
Park to host
weekly and
special events
Expand
invitations for a
variety of
everyday uses
Improve
pedestrian safety
and usability of
paths
Study feasibility
and tradeoffs of
daylighting
Strawberry Creek
1 3
5 4
2 6

Siegel & Strain Architects
Design Concept - MLK Jr Civic Center Park & Surrounding Streets Preserve and build
upon the strengths
of Civic Center
1 The design process for the Park and
surrounding streets began with a thorough
analysis of the e
xisting elements in the
Park to determine what needs to remain
and what should be improved. This
was also informed by insights into what
aspects of the Park w
ere performing well
and could be enhanced through public
realm upgrades.

This led to a design approach that
maintains the overall structure of
the park, and preserves existing
mature trees, important monuments
and memorials, and the main central
gathering spac
e - the lawn. Any
upgrades to the Park will also need to be
revie
wed by the Landmarks Preservation
Commission.

Note: All drawings are illustrative and conceptual, further landscape design will be required.

Mature Trees, MLK Jr Civic Center Park
Proposed Turtle
Island Monument
Existing mature
trees to remain
Central lawn –
gathering space

77 Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept

DRAFT FINAL REPORT
May 2023
Central Lawn, MLK Jr Civic Center Park
Peace Wall and site of future Turtle
Island Monument
Proposed Turtle
Island Monument
Existing mature
trees to remain
Central lawn –
gathering space
Site Plan with Existing Elements to Remain

Siegel & Strain Architects
Design Concept - MLK Jr Civic Center Park & Surrounding Streets Learning from feedback
on the 2020 Vision Plan
Key guidance from the feedback received
during the Vision Plan process was
applied to the updated design c
oncept:

Avoid introducing too much new
hardscaping and retain as much green
space and softscape as possible.

Avoid removing existing trees if
possible, especially mature trees that
help create the iconic canopy and
support biodiversity
Keep Allston Way open for vehicle
circulation as a key east-west
connection through Berkeley
During the 2019/2020 Vision and
Implementation Plan effort, multiple
alternative design concepts were
developed for the park and neighboring
buildings, shown on the opposite
page. These options varied in levels of
intervention and big moves that organized
the park.

While the overall vision statement
was supported and accepted, the
recommended design concept was not
adopted or instructed to move forward.

For this design concept effort, the design
team employed a lighter touch towards
the park, seeking a balance between
retaining the historic character and key
elements with park enhancements for
everyday vitality and user experience.

79 Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept

DRAFT FINAL REPORT
May 2023
Design Concept - MLK Jr Civic Center Park & Surrounding Streets A
B
C
Phase 1 design concept site plans2019/2020 Vision Plan Alternative Site Plans

Siegel & Strain Architects
Turtle Island Monument, MLK Jr Civic
Center Park (early concept rendering,
PGAdesign)
Design Concept - MLK Jr Civic Center Park & Surrounding Streets Monuments and
Memorials
The emerging design concept proposes
keeping the following monuments and
memorials in their current loc
ations:

Turtle Island Monument
A proposed indigenous monument
that will restore the center of the park
and reintroduc
e water to the fountain.

Peace Wall
Perimeter wall at fountain terrace,
with mosaic of individually decorated
tiles, rebuilt in 1988.

Exis
ting Flag Pole
One of the first elements of the park.

It was relocated to its current position
in 2006.

Strawberry Tree Memorial
Two trees and a plaque were place
to honor Irish students who died in a
nearby balcony c
ollapse.

Peace Marker
A small marker was placed here as
part of the Peace Pole Project, date
unknown.

Old City Hall Mark
ers
This area has a few ground marking
plaques. A proposed sculpture is also
to be inst
alled in this area.

A
B
C
D
E
F
F

81 Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept

DRAFT FINAL REPORT
May 2023
Design Concept - MLK Jr Civic Center Park & Surrounding Streets Peace Wall, MLK Jr Civic Center Park
Flag Pole, MLK Jr Civic Center Park
Site Plan with Monuments and Memorials
A
B
C
D
E

Siegel & Strain Architects
Design Concept - MLK Jr Civic Center Park & Surrounding Streets Improve pedestrian
safety and usability
of paths
2 In order to better connect the park to
its surrounding context and invite more
pedestrian activity, the design c
oncept
shows a number of treatments to
increase safety and enhance the
pedestrian experience.

Key elements of these treatments may
include:
> pedestrian bulb-outs at intersections on
MLK Jr Way,
> new crosswalks between Berkeley High
School and the Park at Allston Way
> a new flush-surface, shared street on
Center Street.

These proposals and other traffic c
alming
approaches, such as raised pedestrian
crosswalks or tables on MLK Jr Way at
Center and Allston, will be considered in an
area-wide traffic study recommended by
this report.

Another pivotal change is the realignment
of the park path network, elimination of
the secondary interior paths, and widening
of the perimet
er sidewalks to allow for a
more comfortable walking experience. Funnycross, Madrid Pedestrian bulb-outs
on MLK Jr Way

83 Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept

DRAFT FINAL REPORT
May 2023
Design Concept - MLK Jr Civic Center Park & Surrounding Streets Clematis Street, West Palm Beach
Pedestrian priority
shared street
HtO Park, Toronto
Inviting and wider
paths
Site Plan with Pedestrian Improvements
Reconfiguration of Center
Street as a shared space
Wider perimeter sidewalks
around the park
Simplified and
improved paths
New crosswalk
to Berkeley High
New crosswalk
to Berkeley High

Siegel & Strain Architects
Parallel network of narrow
perimeter paths
Small open spaces left
between path divisions
Design Concept - MLK Jr Civic Center Park & Surrounding Streets The existing path system is notably
defined by the narrow perimeter sidewalk
and redundant parall
el path running
nearby. While the original intent was to
encourage more people to walk within
the park, both sets of narrow paths end
up providing a substandard pedestrian
experience. Additionally, this layout carves
the park into a multitude of small spaces
that are harder to occupy and program.

Existing Path System
MLK Jr Civic Center Park, Present

85 Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept

DRAFT FINAL REPORT
May 2023
Design Concept - MLK Jr Civic Center Park & Surrounding Streets The proposed path network eliminates
redundant internal parallel paths while
widening both the perimeter sidewalk
and the remaining internal pathways.

This provides a better pedestrian
experience while creating larger program
areas between the paths. It also better
accommodates furnishings for pop-up
programming.

Proposed Path System
Wider sidewalks around the perimeter
of MLK Jr Civic Center Park
Consolidated program areas
between fewer paths
Remiseparken, Copenhagen

Siegel & Strain Architects
Existing Giant Sequioa and other mature
trees, Civic Center Park
Design Concept - MLK Jr Civic Center Park & Surrounding Streets Enhance natural
features, promote
biodiversity and
green design
3 During the 2022/23 Design Concept public
engagement process, participants were
very clear about
prioritizing nature in the
MLK Jr Civic Center Park.

The design concept inc
orporates this
commitment to nature in multiple ways,
including the retention of almost all
existing mature trees and a “Green”
Center Street that features stormwater
infrastructure and bioswales. Woven
throughout the park between pathways
and the more active open gr
een and
plaza areas are enhanced plantings that
introduce more pollinator-friendly, native,
and less water-intensive softscape to
the park, adding color and habitat while
protecting the roots of the trees they
surround from heavy f
oot-traffic and over-
watering.

New planting areas for native,
pollinator-friendly species

87 Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept

DRAFT FINAL REPORT
May 2023
Design Concept - MLK Jr Civic Center Park & Surrounding Streets California Native Plant Society
Pollinator-friendly,
native plantings
SW 12th Avenue, Portland, OR
Bioswales and
permeable paving
for stormwater runoff
Site Plan with improved plantings & green infrastructure New undergrowth planting
around mature trees
Expanded street
tree canopy
Green infrastructure
on Center Street
New planting areas for native,
pollinator-friendly species
Permeable paving material
in plaza areas

Siegel & Strain Architects
Design Concept - MLK Jr Civic Center Park & Surrounding Streets Landscape and Planting
Palette
While the mature tree canopy is an
irreplaceable asset for the Park that will
be retained in the design c
oncept, other
existing softscape and planting areas
leave room for improvement.

The design concept proposes a series of
planting areas that ring the main open
space, enhance the existing mature tree
root zones, and help create a strong
buffer along MLK Jr Way.

These planting areas will balance spaces
for nature with quiet spaces for people,
mixing a variety of species and programs
- from quiet seating under mature trees to
pollinator gardens to bioswales managing
stormwater.

Native, pollinator,
friendly species
Mix of groundcover
and gravel surface

89 Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept

DRAFT FINAL REPORT
May 2023
Design Concept - MLK Jr Civic Center Park & Surrounding Streets New undergrowth to
protect mature trees
Permeable
paving areas
Expanded street
tree canopy
Green infrastructure
for stormwater
management

Siegel & Strain Architects
Green infrastructure and bioswales for
stormwater management and greening
Flush, curbless transition
from street to sidewalk
New street trees
throughout
Realignment to create plaza space in
front of Veterans Memorial Building
Maintain 26’ clear for
emergency access
Maintain loading zones
and access drives
Provide 16 parallel public
parking spaces, including
blue curb accessible spaces
Design Concept - MLK Jr Civic Center Park & Surrounding Streets “Green” Center StreetB
Bell Street Park, Seattle Bell Street Park, Seattle
Bell Street Park, Seattle Bell Street Park, Seattle
A space for all modes of transportation that prioritizes pedestrians and landscaping, aligned with the City’s Streets and Open Space Improvement Plan. An area-wide traffic study including the redesigned Center Street is recommended by this report.

91 Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept

DRAFT FINAL REPORT
May 2023
Green infrastructure and bioswales for
stormwater management and greening
Flush, curbless transition
from street to sidewalk
New street trees
throughout
Realignment to create plaza space in
front of Veterans Memorial Building
Maintain 26’ clear for
emergency access
Maintain loading zones
and access drives
Provide 16 parallel public
parking spaces, including
blue curb accessible spaces
Design Concept - MLK Jr Civic Center Park & Surrounding Streets Occidental Ave, Seattle Woonerf, Odense

Siegel & Strain Architects
Design Concept - MLK Jr Civic Center Park & Surrounding Streets Expand invitations
for a variety of
everyday uses
4 While the existing park is well-activated
a few times a year for large events and
festiv
als, it lacks furnishings and sufficient
programs to enliven it on a daily basis.

Through upgrading existing park activity
areas like the skate spot and lawn, and
introducing new programs like food and
beverage and a multi-age play area, the
design concept expands the everyday
potential of the space.

Along with these key program areas,
upgrading and adding seating and lighting
will make the park a safer and more
inviting space.

Berggruen Museum, Berlin
Entry Plaza with
integrated public art

93 Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept

DRAFT FINAL REPORT
May 2023
Design Concept - MLK Jr Civic Center Park & Surrounding Streets Jubilee Gardens, London The Italian Gardens Cafe, London Jubilee Gardens, London The Italian Gardens Cafe, London Site Plan with improvements for everyday uses
A
B
Central Lawn
Food and beverage kiosks
with flex zone seating

Siegel & Strain Architects
Design Concept - MLK Jr Civic Center Park & Surrounding Streets A Skate Spot
A plaza area with skateable
features and furnishings mixed
with general seating and
plantings.

Youth Centre, Oberhausen, Germany
Skate Plaza, Torroella, Spain
Spaces to
watch and rest
Skateable ledges
and benches

95 Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept

DRAFT FINAL REPORT
May 2023
Design Concept - MLK Jr Civic Center Park & Surrounding Streets Skate Spot
B Playground
A natural play area for children
mixed with landscaping and
trees.

Tunnel Tops Park, San Francisco Osdorp Oever, Amsterdam Nature-based
play
Dynamic play
elements
Nature-inspired
play features
New benches to protect
tree root zones
Nature-inspired
play features
New benches to protect
tree root zones

Siegel & Strain Architects
Design Concept - MLK Jr Civic Center Park & Surrounding Streets Seating and Furnishings
One of the key components of the design
concept is the desire to expand invitations
for people t
o use and stay in the Park by
increasing the amount, variety, and quality
of furnishings available.

Fixed benches in activity areas, cafe
seating near new food and beverage
options, and possibly larger signature
seating fixtures will create space for a
variety of users - from farmer’s market
attendees to Berkeley High students
on their lunch break. Additionally, well-
designed benches can be placed under
mature trees to protect the roots while
providing a quiet place of repose.

Beyond seating, other key opportunities
to improve the level of comfort and
safety for park users include upgrading
lighting, signage, art installations,
and trash receptacles. Lighting is to
be carefully located and designed to
provide safe pathways and gathering
areas while reducing impact on adjacent
neighborhoods and complying with dark-
sky requirements.

Comfortable
microclimates
Play spaces for
all ages

97 Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept

DRAFT FINAL REPORT
May 2023
Design Concept - MLK Jr Civic Center Park & Surrounding Streets Inviting places
to rest
Natural play
spaces
Flexible seating
for events
Cafe seating
Well-lit
pathways

Siegel & Strain Architects
Design Concept - MLK Jr Civic Center Park & Surrounding Streets 5 Along with the everyday experience,
the Park also needs to accommodate
a variety of weekl
y and special events.

The design concept focuses on a
few key areas that are able to flex
between everyday activity and the
special gatherings that happen at
Civic Center, from outdoor music
performances t
o craft fairs.

There is also an opportunity to
rethink the relationship between the
farmer’s market and the Park, and
create a more integrated experience
between the two.

MFA Concerts in the Courtyard, Boston Grand Park, Los Angeles Seating for
everyday social
gatherings
La Placita, Mission, San Francisco
Flexible space for
markets and fairs
Central green for
events and
performances
Enhance the
potential of the park
to host weekly and
special events

99 Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept

DRAFT FINAL REPORT
May 2023
Design Concept - MLK Jr Civic Center Park & Surrounding Streets MFA Concerts in the Courtyard, Boston Grand Park, Los Angeles Seating for
everyday social
gatherings
La Placita, Mission, San Francisco
Flexible space for
markets and fairs
Central green for
events and
performances
MFA Concerts in the Courtyard, Boston Grand Park, Los Angeles Seating for
everyday social
gatherings
La Placita, Mission, San Francisco
Flexible space for
markets and fairs
Central green for
events and
performances
Site Plan with improvements for special events
E
D
C

Siegel & Strain Architects
Design Concept - MLK Jr Civic Center Park & Surrounding Streets Queens Park, Toronto Brunnsparken, Gothenburg
C
Expansive green for
everyday and
special events
Seating along
path edges
Performance area with
upgraded electrical hookups
Newly graded lawn to improve
drainage and seating configuration
New seating and space for pop-up
activation around perimeter paths
Central Lawn
A flexible, open green space
for daily recreation and public
gatherings.

Newly graded lawn to improve
drainage and seating configuration
Performance area with
carefully designed sound &
light infrastructure to minimize
impact on neighborhood
New seating and space for pop-up
activation around perimeter paths
C

101
Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept

DRAFT FINAL REPORT
May 2023
Space to allow the farmer’s
market to expand into the
park
Permeable
paving surface
D
Space to allow the farmer’s
market to open into the park
Permeable
paving surface
Design Concept - MLK Jr Civic Center Park & Surrounding Streets Central Lawn Arts and
Market
Plaza
A dignified
accessible entrance
to the Vet
erans
Memorial Building
that integrates
Center Street and
the park.

Bell Street Park, Seattle The Porch at 30th, Philadelphia Space for markets
and commerce
Performance
areas

Siegel & Strain Architects
Flex ZoneE
Lower Sproul Plaza, Berkeley Monash University, Melbourne Note: All drawings are illustrative and conceptual, further landscape design will be required.

Flexible cafe
seating
Accessible
garden ramps
Lincoln Center, New York Flower Market, Barcelona
Pop-up outdoor
market
A space for food, beverage, and
outdoor seating that can flexibly
accommodate events, performances,
deliveries, and support functions for
the park.

E.0 - Everyday Seating E.1 - Performance E.2 - Outdoor Market E.3 - Support / Delivery New open back stair and
entrance to 2180 Milvia
New food and beverage
kiosks at rear of building
Permeable, drivable paving treatment
to accommodate a variety of uses
Flex ZoneE
Lower Sproul Plaza, Berkeley Monash University, Melbourne Note: All drawings are illustrative and conceptual, further landscape design will be required.

Flexible cafe
seating
Accessible
garden ramps
Lincoln Center, New York Flower Market, Barcelona
Pop-up outdoor
market
A space for food, beverage, and
outdoor seating that can flexibly
accommodate events, performances,
deliveries, and support functions for
the park.

E.0 - Everyday Seating E.1 - Performance E.2 - Outdoor Market E.3 - Support / Delivery New open back stair and
entrance to 2180 Milvia
New food and beverage
kiosks at rear of building
Permeable, drivable paving treatment
to accommodate a variety of uses
Design Concept - MLK Jr Civic Center Park & Surrounding Streets Flex Zone
Replace existing parking lot
with a space for food, beverage,
and outdoor seating that can
fl
exibly accommodate events,
performances, deliveries, and
support functions for the park.

New open back stair and
entrance to 2180 Milvia
New food and beverage
kiosks at rear of building
Permeable, drivable paving treatment
to accommodate a variety of uses

103
Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept

DRAFT FINAL REPORT
May 2023
Flex ZoneE
Lower Sproul Plaza, Berkeley Monash University, Melbourne Note: All drawings are illustrative and conceptual, further landscape design will be required.

Flexible cafe
seating
Accessible
garden ramps
Lincoln Center, New York Flower Market, Barcelona
Pop-up outdoor
market
A space for food, beverage, and
outdoor seating that can flexibly
accommodate events, performances,
deliveries, and support functions for
the park.

E.0 - Everyday Seating E.1 - Performance E.2 - Outdoor Market E.3 - Support / Delivery New open back stair and
entrance to 2180 Milvia
New food and beverage
kiosks at rear of building
Permeable, drivable paving treatment
to accommodate a variety of uses
Flex ZoneE
Lower Sproul Plaza, Berkeley Monash University, Melbourne Note: All drawings are illustrative and conceptual, further landscape design will be required.

Flexible cafe
seating
Accessible
garden ramps
Lincoln Center, New York Flower Market, Barcelona
Pop-up outdoor
market
A space for food, beverage, and
outdoor seating that can flexibly
accommodate events, performances,
deliveries, and support functions for
the park.

E.0 - Everyday Seating E.1 - Performance E.2 - Outdoor Market E.3 - Support / Delivery New open back stair and
entrance to 2180 Milvia
New food and beverage
kiosks at rear of building
Permeable, drivable paving treatment
to accommodate a variety of uses
Design Concept - MLK Jr Civic Center Park & Surrounding Streets

Siegel & Strain Architects
Design Concept - MLK Jr Civic Center Park & Surrounding Streets Study feasibility
and tradeoffs
of daylighting
Strawberry Creek
6 While public engagement revealed a
consistent desire to daylight Strawberry
Creek, it also brought up c
oncerns of
feasibility, cost, maintenance, and spatial
constraints.

This alternate design concept illustrates
a partial-flow daylighting scenario that
minimizes disruption to the overall park
layout and k
ey monuments, while reducing
Center St to a minimum-required driving
lane for emergency and service access.

Deliveries and drop-off to the Veterans
Memorial Building would be impacted, and
need further study. The size of the Arts &
Market Plaza has been reduced to a bridge
spanning the daylit creek, and the farmer’s
market would need to be relocated to
another site. Extending the daylit creek
into the block west of Martin Luther King
Jr Way was also mentioned by some in the
community, and needs further study.

Rockridge-Temescal Greenbelt, Oakland Los Angeles State Historic Park, LA Strawberry Creek, Berkeley
50-65’ width, partial-flow
creekbed scenario
Minimum access lane for
emergency vehicles on Center
(26’clear between tree wells)

105
Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept

DRAFT FINAL REPORT
May 2023
Design Concept - MLK Jr Civic Center Park & Surrounding Streets Rockridge-Temescal Greenbelt, Oakland Los Angeles State Historic Park, LA Strawberry Creek, Berkeley Rockridge-Temescal Greenbelt, Oakland Los Angeles State Historic Park, LA Strawberry Creek, Berkeley
Site Plan with partial flow daylit Strawberry Creek
50-65’ width, partial-flow
creekbed scenario
Minimum access lane for
emergency vehicles on Center
(26’clear between tree wells)

Siegel & Strain Architects
Design Concept - MLK Jr Civic Center Park & Surrounding Streets Daylighting
Considerations
A 1999 Creek Study prepared by Wolf
Mason included investigation of various
daylighting scenarios f
or Strawberry
Creek in Downtown Berkeley, including
a partial flow scenario at MLK Jr Civic
Center Park. Key takeaways from the
report and its implications on the Park
are:

The existing culvert is estimated to
be roughly 18’ under the surface
of the park, sloping down to the
west. Because of this depth, a full
restoration of a natural creek bed
would require over 150’ of width,
which is considered infeasible.

Partial-flow scenarios require
retaining the existing culvert and
introducing a flow control structure
somewhere downstream of the BART
line, most likely near the northeast
corner of Civic Center Park.

Further study will be required to
ultimately determine feasibility for
daylighting the creek, including studies
of the creek hydrology, traffic impacts,
emergency access and public use.

Wolfe Mason Report Cover, 1999
Further community outreach is needed to
stakeholders such as the Ecology Center,
festival operators, Berkeley High School,
Berkeley City College, Civic Arts groups,
the YMCA Teen Center, and other nearby
property owners.

Once a specific project is identified,
additional studies will be needed to
determine impact and comply with the
CEQA process. A strategy for long-term
maintenance and management will need
to be proposed.

While this process continues,some park
upgrades may be completed outside of
the area of impact of the creek.

Wolfe Mason Report Cover, 1999

107
Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept

DRAFT FINAL REPORT
May 2023
The existing culvert passes through
the BART alignment along Shattuck
Avenue through a roughly 8’ diameter
culvert.

A flow control structure would be
required in this area for a partial-
flow daylighting scenario.

Design Concept - MLK Jr Civic Center Park & Surrounding Streets The existing culvert passes through
the BART alignment along Shattuck
through a roughly 8’ diameter culvert.

For partial-flow daylighting scenarios, a
flow control structure would need to be
added around this location.

Existing Strawberry Creek culvert location in Downtown Berkeley (based on Wolfe Mason Study From 1999)

Siegel & Strain Architects
Design Concept - Maudelle Shirek Building

109
Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept

DRAFT FINAL REPORT
May 2023
Design Concept - Maudelle Shirek Building

5.3 Maudelle
Shirek Building

Siegel & Strain Architects
Design Concept - Maudelle Shirek Building
Maudelle Shirek Building-
Seat of Berkeley’s Democracy

5.3 As the historic seat of government in
Berkeley, this project proposes returning
city functions back to the Maudelle Shir
ek
Building. Input from public engagement
scored Hearing & Meeting Rooms, Council
Chambers, and public-facing city services
as priority uses for the building.

Returning these functions to the heart of
Berkeley’s Civic Center will bring citizens
to the area throughout the day and into
the evening to attend meetings, hearings,
and gatherings.

In order to return the highest and best use
to this site, the Maudelle Shirek Building
required additions, modern amenities,
seismic upgrades, and other repairs.
“Active use of meeting rooms
for organizing events and
activism, attending City Council
meetings and public meetings. ”
“Its use should honor the
memory of Maudelle Shirek
with progressive social action,
women’s leadership, and racial
justice.”
Hearing & Meeting Rooms
Council Chambers
City Services
Hearing & Meeting Rooms
Council Chambers
City Services

111
Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept

DRAFT FINAL REPORT
May 2023
Design Concept - Maudelle Shirek Building
View to Maudelle Shirek Building from roof of Veterans Memorial Building

Siegel & Strain Architects
Design Concept - Maudelle Shirek Building
Additions & Improvements
Main Entry
The main entry to the Maudelle Shirek
Building is up an inaccessible flight of
stair
s. This plan proposes an improved
plaza and universally accessible ramps
leading up to the main entry on the
first floor. The ramps curve from the
two crossings at Martin Luther King Jr
Way towards the central entry terrace,
creating a gracious way for all to access
the building through the same main entry.

Rear Addition
The design concept includes an addition
at the rear of the building, creating
space for a modern and appr
opriately
sized multi-purpose gathering room
that can serve the community as a space
for large public events and City Council
meetings.

The addition replaces the ahistorical rear
additions, and is sited on the southern
portion of the Public Service Building’s
controlled parking lot.

A study of the police and fire departments
parking capacity and needs is required to
confirm that they can be met on this site
or nearby.

Existing Rear Addition
Conceptual Ramp Approach

113
Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept

DRAFT FINAL REPORT
May 2023
Design Concept - Maudelle Shirek Building
Addition at the Exploratorium, San Francisco
St. Johns Library, Winnipeg, Canada
East Bay Performing Arts Center , Richmond
Site Plan - Proposed Addition Location

Siegel & Strain Architects
Design Concept - Maudelle Shirek Building
Seismic Improvements:

Damage Control + to
Immediate Occupancy
Approach: The City’s Public Works
Department recommends a seismic
upgrade for the Maudell
e Shirek Building
to the level of Damage Control Plus
(DC+) at the historic structure and the
new addition be built to the Immediate
Occupancy [IO] level.

At the DC+ level of seismic retrofit,
the Maudelle Shirek Building would be
occupiable weeks to months after a major
seismic event. The addition, built at the
IO level, could be re-opened days after a
major seismic event.

Discussion: This combined DC+/IO
structure will provide flexibility for City
and public use of this asset now and
in the futur
e. After a major seismic
event, the combined structure is likely
to experience minimal damage. The IO
addition should be designed to operate
independently of the historic portion, so
it can reopen quickly after inspections
and minor repairs. The historic structure
may need to remain closed pending
further repairs, depending on the results
of the inspection. With this level of
improvement, the building can function
as an operations and service center in
the event of natural disasters or other
emergencies.

As part of the 2020 Vision Plan, the City
investigated an IO solution that featured
base isolators either at or below the
ground level of the Maudelle Shirek
Building. This approach represents a
significant cost and potential impacts on
usable space.

Tipping Structural Engineers developed
a concept for achieving DC+ to near
IO levels by addressing structural
deficiencies related to lateral and
shear strength through additions. This
scheme would also involve strenghtening
individual beams and columns in shear,
likely using fiber reinfoced polymer
sheets. Their study is documented in
a report on the Civic Center buildings
submitted to Council in August 2021.

Further refinement of this approach to
minimize impact on historic finishes
while optimizing performance and cost
considerations will be required as part of
the development of a specific design for
the historic building and addition.

115
Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept

DRAFT FINAL REPORT
May 2023
Design Concept - Maudelle Shirek Building
Seismic Improvement Locations
SECOND FLOOR (6,500 SF)
FIRST FLOOR (14,400 SF)

GROUND FLO
OR (16,350 SF)

Siegel & Strain Architects
Design Concept - Maudelle Shirek Building
Other Improvements
Beyond the additions, a specific design
will need to address other required
improv
ements. These include addressing
the mechanical, electrical, lighting and
plumbing systems to bring them into
compliance with current building code
and City policy. The City of Berkeley is
committed to converting buildings to
be all-electric, including this historic
structure. Relatedly, energy production
through solar panels on the roof of the
addition should be explored. A building
assessment report was completed in
2021 by Allana Buick and Bers to identify
needed improvements and repairs
to the building envelope (enclosure),
and their recommendations should be
integrated into a future project. All of this
work taken together results in a more
sustainable and resilient building.

Along with the improved entrance,
accessibility upgrades will be required
throughout including: adjusting door
widths and locations, clearing accessible
pathways, installing a modern elevator
core, and modifying elements to meet
accessible reach requirements.

Egress from the building does not comply
with modern fire codes. Proper exit
separations and paths will need to be
added, as will additional stair cores and
exits from the building for the increased
occupancy.

An existing attic space could be
upgraded to serve as storage space with
improvements to the vertical circulation.

This will require further study in a specific
design phase.

All of these changes will need to be
addressed while respecting the historic
nature of the building, and meeting
Secretary of the Interior standards for
historic preservation. As a part of that
effort, the beautiful historic finishes will
need repairs and restoration, and non-
historic elements will be replaced with
modern, healthy and resilient materials.

117
Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept

DRAFT FINAL REPORT
May 2023
Design Concept - Maudelle Shirek Building
Accessibility
System Upgrades Building Performance Finishes Egress/Safety Accessibility
System Upgrades Building Performance Finishes Egress/Safety “...it was a pain to get
to and move between
rooms and floors”
“...upgrade to LEED
standards, include solar
panels…advanced
MERV/HVAC….light filled
with natural materials.”
“...accessibility
through the front door
is important.”
Accessibility
System Upgrades Building Performance Finishes Egress/Safety

Siegel & Strain Architects
Design Concept - Maudelle Shirek Building
Space Use
Meeting & Hearing Rooms
Between Council, Commissions and
Boards, the City hosts over 350 public
meetings every y
ear. Currently City
Council meetings are held at the BUSD
board room on Addison Street, and
most other meetings are held in various
locations around Berkeley. Providing
new meeting spaces in Civic Center
will create a central building in the City
of Berkeley that is a symbol of citizen
involvement in governance.

Creation of a multi-purpose hearing
room or meeting space similar in size
to that of BUSD’s Board Room will
require an addition to the Maudelle
Shirek Building, best located on the
west side or behind the building.

As a two-story structure, this new
addition could house the large multi-
purpose hearing room with flexible
seating for over 200, plus an expanded
public lobby on the first floor. This level
could also contain multiple support
spaces for the hearing room - closed
session meeting rooms, AV support,
restrooms, storage, and more. Near
the entry, two small meeting rooms can
be used by City staff, commissions, and
the public.

The historic meeting room on the
second floor could be refurbished for
smaller meetings of around 70 people.

A proposed second small hearing room
on the north wing could hold over 100
occupants and the south wing could be
divided into two additional meeting rooms.
51%
of respondents
support returning
Council
Chambers
Uppsala Town Hall, Sweden
Historic Hearing Room, Maudelle Shirek Building

119
Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept

DRAFT FINAL REPORT
May 2023
SECOND FLOOR (6,500 SF)
FIRST FLOOR (14,400 SF)
GROUND FLOOR (16,350 SF)
Large Hearing Room (200-300 people)
Council Support Spaces
Small Meeting Rooms (10-20 people)
ATTIC (2,500 SF)
Small Hearing Rooms (70-120 people)
Large Meeting Rooms (20-30 people)
Mechanical
Vertical Circulation
Restrooms

Siegel & Strain Architects
Design Concept - Maudelle Shirek Building
Flexible Office/Meeting Space
The north and south wings on the first
(or main) floor of the historic Maudelle
Shirek Building off
er high-ceiling spaces.

During the engagement process the
public expressed support for uses such
as public-facing city services, offices,
and other interactive city functions in this
building as a way to bring foot-traffic to
the building throughout the day. These
first floor wing spaces are optimal for
these types of uses.

A detailed spatial programming effort
during a specific design phase is
necessary to determine the appropriate
uses, some ideas for consideration
include:
• City Customer Service Counter -
interface with City staff and get help
with City processes
• Building administration offices -
support spaces for running the daily
operations of the meeting spaces and
public services in the building.
• Public Policy Institute - partnership
with local educational institutions to
support the development of future
decision makers
“center for civic life…a
one stop shop for the
general public…. ”
Public Lobby at Devente City Hall, Netherlands
Leiden City Hall Lobby, Netherlands
“I’d like to see see more active
uses…perhaps some sort of
partnership with UC to bring
new energy and researchers to
the building?”

121
Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept

DRAFT FINAL REPORT
May 2023
Design Concept - Maudelle Shirek Building
SECOND FLOOR (6,500 SF)
FIRST FLOOR (14,400 SF)
GROUND FLOOR (16,350 SF)
Reception/Counter Areas
Offices
Confer enc
e/Meeting Rooms
Support Spaces
ATTIC (2,500 SF)

Siegel & Strain Architects
Design Concept- Maudelle Shirek Building
Berkeley Historical Society &
Museum
The Historical Society envisions a
museum that “engages visitors of all
ages in learning what has made Berkel
ey
‘Berkeley,’ and showcases the City as a
place where ideas emerge that influence
the rest of the country and the world.”
Providing a source of information and
inspiration for the current participants
in the City’s government is a strong use
of the space that aligns with the vision of
the Civic Center as the heart of civic life
in Berkeley. The public halls and lobbies
of the Maudelle Shirek Building could
host rotating exhibits that can be explored
either as a visitor or while waiting to
attend a public meeting or for a turn at
the customer service desk.

On the ground floor, a permanent exhibit,
research room, offices, and exhibit
preparation room are proposed. Archival
storage could be located either off-site, in
an improved attic, or on the ground floor
of the building, depending on other space
needs.

Controlling access between the exhibits
and more secure spaces of the building
could present a conflict, and would need
to be carefully managed. Sources for
funding a museum expansion should be
further studied.

African American Museum & Library, Oakland CA
Square Headquarters, San Francisco CA
70%
of respondents
support Berkeley
Historical Society
& Museum at
MSB

123
Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept

DRAFT FINAL REPORT
May 2023
Design Concept- Maudelle Shirek Building
SECOND FLOOR (6,500 SF)
FIRST FLOOR (14,400 SF)
GROUND FLOOR (16,350 SF)
Exhibit Prep Room
Offices
Research R
oom
Exhibition Space
(Alternate Archive location)
ATTIC (2,500 SF)
(Alternate Archive location)
Exhibition Spaces
Exhibition Spaces

Siegel & Strain Architects
Design Concept - Maudelle Shirek Building
Berkeley Community Media
BCM serves multiple functions related
to the city government. They broadcast
city meetings, including Council,
ZAB and Rent Stabilization meetings;
the
y work with governmental non-
profits and politicians; and they offer
support in developing Public Service
Announcements. Their internship
program teaches students media literacy
and production technology.

BCM’s space needs are substantial,
and many of them are single-use. They
currently operate mostly through funding
from the City and grants. Their mission
and function are well aligned with
returning public meeting spaces to the
building, and with the larger vision of the
Civic Center.

BCM’s space needs include a
broadcast studio which can double
as a press conference room which
is a complementary use to Council
Chambers with similar controlled access
requirements. BCM also needs smaller
studio spaces, editing suites, offices,
lounge and kitchenette.

David Brower Center, Berkeley CA
Marwen Classroom, Chicago IL
44%
of respondents
support
Berkeley
Community
Media at MSB

125
Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept

DRAFT FINAL REPORT
May 2023
Design Concept - Maudelle Shirek Building
SECOND FLOOR (6,500 SF)
FIRST FLOOR (14,400 SF)
GROUND FLOOR (16,350 SF)
Broadcast Studio
ATTIC (2,500 SF)
Offices
Editing Suite
Small Studios
Lounge/Kitchenette

Siegel & Strain Architects
Design Concept - Veterans Memorial Building

127
Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept

DRAFT FINAL REPORT
May 2023
Design Concept - Veterans Memorial Building

5.4 Veterans
Memorial Building

Siegel & Strain Architects
Deisgn Concept - Veteran Memorials Building
Veterans Memorial Building-
Community Arts Center

5.4 The public, Berkeley’s arts community,
Civic Arts Commission, and the Civic
Arts Progr
am broadly support the use
of the Veterans Memorial Building as
a Community Arts Center. To ensure
that the building is a shared resource
and platform for creative expression
accessible to all, the Community Arts
Center would be owned and operated
by the City of Berkeley for the benefit
of our community. Community need
demonstrates that the Veterans Memorial
Building could be active throughout the
day, every day of the week, presenting
and hosting all types of arts organizations
and artists across all disciplines including
music, theater, dance, visual arts, literary
arts, and more.

New art functions may require additions,
particularly related to the stage. Further
study with arts organizations, Civic
Arts staff, related commissions and the
interested public is required to determine
the detailed space needs and the best
way to meet them. In a survey with local
arts organizations who expressed interest
in using the building, many expressed
interest in utilizing all the spaces that the
VMB has to offer for public programming.

These takeaways align with the perception
of need in the general public survey
responses.

Veterans Memorial Building is very
desirable as an arts center:
• Downtown, central location near arts
district and transit is very appealing to
arts groups.
• Multi-unit residential buildings are
located nearby; VMB is accessible by
walking.
• Historic structure with tall ceilings and
natural light. Architectural features
worth preserving.
• Unique flexible spaces and smaller
performance spaces for 100–200
audience members.
• Adjacent to park, where outdoor
performances could be located
• Relationship to nearby educational
facilities – BHS and BCC.

129
Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept

DRAFT FINAL REPORT
May 2023
Deisgn Concept - Veteran Memorials Building
42%
of arts survey
respondents
support
exhibition space
45%
of public survey
respondents
prioritized arts
exhibition
49%
of arts survey
respondents
support a
concert hall
48%
of public survey
respondents
prioritized music
performance
47%
of arts survey
respondents
support a large
auditorium
37%
of public survey
respondents
prioritized
theater
performance
42%
of arts survey
respondents
support
exhibition space
45%
of public survey
respondents
prioritized arts
exhibition
49%
of arts survey
respondents
support a
concert hall
48%
of public survey
respondents
prioritized music
performance
47%
of arts survey
respondents
support a large
auditorium
37%
of public survey
respondents
prioritized
theater
performance
Existing Conditions
42%
of arts survey
respondents
support
exhibition space
45%
of public survey
respondents
prioritized arts
exhibition
49%
of arts survey
respondents
support a
concert hall
48%
of public survey
respondents
prioritized music
performance
47%
of arts survey
respondents
support a large
auditorium
37%
of public survey
respondents
prioritized
theater
performance

Siegel & Strain Architects
Deisgn Concept - Veteran Memorials Building
Seismic Improvements:

Building Performance
Objective for New Buildings
Plus
Approach: The City’s Public Works
Department recommends a seismic
upgrade for the V
eterans Memorial
Building to the level of Building
Performance Objective for New Buildings
Plus (BPON+).

At this level of seismic retrofit, the
building would be reoccupied several
months to a year after a major seismic
event.

Discussion: Improving the building to
the level of BPON+ will provide a low
risk of injury in a major seismic event.

Aft
er such an event, there may be some
localized structural damage that would
require repairs prior to re-opening.

This level of improvement is above code
required minimums, providing addditional
protection to the historic asset.

As part of the 2020 Vision Plan, the City
investigated two approaches - Building
Performance Objective for Existing
Buildings (BPOE), and Immediate
Occupancy (IO). The IO approach
represented significant cost, and the
BPOE approach is a step lower than what
is expected of new buildings designed to
current code.

A second seismic report was submitted
to City Council by Tipping Structural
Engineers in August 2021, proposing a
Building Performance Objective for New
Building (BPON+) retrofit that addresses
a lack of lateral strength and deficient
strength at the roof-wall and floor-wall
connections. This scheme strengthens
the existing diaphragms, improves floor-
to-wall and wall-to-roof connections, and
reinforces select areas with shotcrete or
carbon fiber.

During a specific design phase for the
building, further study would be done to
locate seismic improvments, including
considering exterior fin buttresses at
the rear, with the goal of minimizing
the impact on historic finishes while
optimizing performance and cost.

Additions & Improvements

131
Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept

DRAFT FINAL REPORT
May 2023
Deisgn Concept - Veteran Memorials Building
Seismic Improvement Locations
BASEMENT (10,300 SF)
FIRST FLOOR (11,300 SF)
SECOND FLOOR (6,400 SF)
ROOFTOP (4,000 SF)

Siegel & Strain Architects
Deisgn Concept - Veteran Memorials Building
Additions
The results of arts organization
engagement showed a real need for
additional space on either side of the
st
age in the large auditorium. Proposed
uses include a loading dock, additional
backstage and greenroom spaces, a new
vertical access core to the basement
level, and storage for scenery. The design
concept shows a possible configuration
accommodating these uses. A specific
design phase will need to refine the
proposed additions, and confirm if
any other spaces are needed, such as
additional class or practice rooms.

Other Improvements
A specific design will need to address
other required improvements. These
include new mechanical, el
ectrical,
lighting and plumbing systems to bring
them into compliance with current
building code and City policy. The City
of Berkeley is committed to converting
buildings to all-electric, including this
historic structure. Relatedly, energy
production through solar panels on the
roof should be explored. A building
assessment report was completed in
2021 by Allana Buick and Bers to identify
needed improvements and repairs to the
building envelope (enclosure), and their
recommendations should be integrated
into a future project. All of this work taken
together will result in a more sustainable
and resilient building.

Accessibility upgrades will be required
throughout the building, including a new
and more gracious accessible entry ramp
sequence, a modern elevator core, and
adjustment of doors and other elements
to meet accessible clearance and reach
requirements.

Egress from the building does not comply
with modern fire codes, in particular
from the basement level, and should be
addressed during the specific design
phase to provide proper exiting paths once
space uses are confirmed. Additional exits
from areas determined to have assembly
uses will need to be provided, with access
to the public right of way or an area of
refuge.

All of these changes will need to be
addressed while respecting the historic
nature of the building, and meeting
Secretary of the Interior standards for
historic preservation. As a part of that
effort, the historic finishes will need
repairs and restoration, and non-historic
elements will be replaced with modern,
healthy and resilient materials.

133
Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept

DRAFT FINAL REPORT
May 2023
Deisgn Concept - Veteran Memorials Building
Accessibility Finishes Egress/Safety
Building Performance
System Upgrades
“Please make sure
gender-neutral
bathrooms are
included.”
“it needs to appear
more open, accessible,
inviting and
welcoming”
“...refurbish front doors
and restrooms so visitors
have a more pleasant
experience.”

Siegel & Strain Architects
Design Concept - Veteran Memorials Building
Space Use
Program Spaces
Arts Survey participants and the public
all noted a need for for multi-disciplinary
spaces availabl
e to rent by the larger
community.

During the focus group session,
participants more specifically described
a need for flexible, multi-use spaces that
can support all types of performances,
exhibitions, classes, screenings, studios,
conferences, panel discussions, and
readings.

The layout of the large auditorium should
be carefully considered to maintain
flexibility. Ideas discussed include
lowering the stage, creating additions
to the east and west for more backstage
space, and deployable risers to allow for
many performance configurations.

Some of the smaller lodge rooms on the
first floor might have specific functions - a
municipal gallery on the west side and a
classroom that supports visual arts with
storage and sinks on the east side. Others
can remain flexible open spaces.

Shawl-Anderson Dance Company
View to stage at Veterans Memorial Building
44%
of arts survey
respondents
support
rehearsal space
30%
of arts survey
respondents
support class
or workshop
spaces
Discussions with the Veterans group
during the Vision Phase showed that they
were also int
erested in rentable spaces
for classes or meetings of their own.

135
Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept

DRAFT FINAL REPORT
May 2023
Design Concept - Veteran Memorials Building
BASEMENT (10,300 SF)
FIRST FLOOR (11,300 SF)
SECOND FLOOR (6,400 SF)
ROOFTOP (4,000 SF)
Artist studio,
artist-in-residence
programs
Small performance
spaces in east and
west lodge rooms
Mechanical/Crawl Space
Auditorium
Gallery/ Visual Arts Rooms
Stage/ Backstage
Dressing Rooms
Learning Lab/ Artist Workspace
Small Performance/ Practice
Balcony Seating
Expand stage wings to east
and west, creating larger
backstage, access to
basement and loading dock

Siegel & Strain Architects
Design Concept - Veteran Memorials Building
Support Spaces
Transforming the Veterans Memorial
Building into a successful arts center will
require signific
ant and high-quality space
dedicated to support functions.

One major support function mentioned
by the participants in the focus group
was the ability to host donor events in a
large downtown space. During the 2020
Vision Plan, a rooftop event space was
suggested, and is shown in this design
concept, to be further studied during the
specific design phase.

Spaces between the east and west
wings on the first and second floor
can accommodate offices, restrooms,
storage, and other support spaces
required for hosting classes, events, and
performances in the venue.

The large open area on the basement
level could be repurposed for any number
of back-of-house functions including a
stage shop and additional backstage and
practice spaces for groups renting the large
auditorium.

Back-of-house types of uses include:
• Dressing/Changing rooms
• Offices
• Rehearsals
• Storage for productions and facility
• Storage for City’s public art collection
Studio Gang Island in the Sky, Chicago IL

137
Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept

DRAFT FINAL REPORT
May 2023
Design Concept - Veteran Memorials Building
BASEMENT (10,300 SF)
FIRST FLOOR (11,300 SF)
SECOND FLOOR (6,400 SF)
ROOFTOP (4,000 SF)
Storage
Dressing Rooms
Stage/Scenery Shop
R
estrooms
Lower Lobby
Commercial Kitchen
Box Office/Administration
Restrooms
Loading Dock
Main Lobby
Storage Space
Restrooms
Event Space
Rooftop Terrace
Rooftop event space
for banquets and
community gatherings
Box office with
increased
transparency to street
and entry porch

Siegel & Strain Architects
Cost Summary
6

139
Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept

DRAFT FINAL REPORT
May 2023
Cost Summary
Cost
Summary

6.1 Preliminary Cost Ranges

Siegel & Strain Architects
Cost Summary - Preliminary Cost Ranges
Preliminary Cost Ranges

6.1 Construction Costs
Preliminary construction cost ranges provided in this report are based on the March 2023 Draft Berkeley Civic Center Design Concept Report, the 2021 Civic Center Buildings Study by Tipping Structural Engineer
s, and guidance from the City of Berkeley
Public Works Department. See Appendix A for a full list of exclusions.

Low (x $1,000) High (x $1,000)
Maudelle Shirek Building - 27,500 GSF Existing + 15,000 GSF Addition $ 51,200 $ 62,600 Seismic Retrofit - Damage Control+ to near Immediate Occupancy $ 13,400 $ 16,400 Envelope & Systems (Electrification, Accessibility, upgrades, finishes) $ 15,500 $ 18,900 Two-story addition on West side $ 19,000 $ 23,200 PVs at new addition, panels & infrastructure $ 600 $ 800 Site Improvement & Utilities $ 2,700 $ 3,300 Veterans Memorial Building - 28,000 GSF Existing + 5,950 GSF Addition $ 26,300 $ 36,900 Seismic Retrofit - Building Performance Objective for New Buildings $ 6,300 $ 7,700 Envelope & Systems (Electrification, Accessibility, upgrades, finishes) $ 15,800 $ 19,400 New Addition at Stage $ 2,900 $ 3,500 Roof Terrace (in high range only) (excluded) $ 4,600 PVs at new addition, panels & infrastructure $ 500 $ 700 Site Improvement & Utilities $ 800 $ 1,000 Martin Luther King Jr. Civic Center Park & Streets $ 16,470 $ 20,130 Paths/paving, planting/irrigation, new trees/tree protection, utilities $ 14,670 $ 17,930 Site Improvements to 2180 Milvia entry, VMB entry, restrooms $ 1,800 $ 2,200 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS $ 93,970 $119,630 + Construction Contingency (10%) $ 9,783 $ 11,957 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS $103,753 $131,587

141
Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept

DRAFT FINAL REPORT
May 2023
Cost Summary - Preliminary Cost Ranges
Other City Costs
Leading up to and during construction, the City will incur costs related to technical studies, existing conditions, design, planning approvals, permitting and management, to name a fe
w. These costs will be further refined in future efforts as more is defined about review process, design requirements and parameters, funding and financing, and timeline.

Low (x $1,000) High (x $1,000)
Other City Costs (estimated at 20% of construction costs) $ 21,523 $ 26,305 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS + OTHER CITY COSTS $125,276 $157,892 Operations & Maintenance Costs
Utilizing the 2023 annual Operations & Maintenance budget from the 1947 Center Street building, a $/SF annual cost was determined for O&M at the common and occupied spaces in city-o
wned buildings. That was applied to the areas of the Maudelle Shirek and Veterans Memorial Building to arrive at the following annual Operations & Maintenance budgets:

Maudelle Shirek Building $1,234,389
Occupied Space - $1,167,936
Common Space - $ 66,453

Veterans Memorial Building $1,069,860
Occupied Space - $1,012,900
Common Space - $ 56,690

Siegel & Strain Architects
Implementation
7

7.1 Organizational Management Structure

7.2 Funding Strategies

7.3 Recommended Next Steps
143
Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept

DRAFT FINAL REPORT
May 2023
Implementation
Implementation

Siegel & Strain Architects
Implementation - Organizational Management Structure
Organization
Management Structures

7.1 Maudelle Shirek Building -
The Seat of Berkeley’s
Democracy
With the primary uses being city and
public meeting rooms, control of the
Maudelle Shirek Buil
ding should remain
with the City. This will ensure that the
meeting spaces are available to all
citizens of Berkeley, aligning with the
Vision Statement’s ideal of a place of
shared resources and platform for free
expres
sion for all.

As with other buildings in the Civic
Center, the Maudelle Shirek Building will
be managed through the Public Work
s
Department. Tenants, whether they be
City Departments or outside non-profit
entities, will enter into lease agreements
for space within the building, and pay
into the Building Maintenance Fund.

The Public Works Department utilizes
those funds to provide baseline services
including building maintenance, electrical
and communications systems, and
janitorial services.

Tenant improvements to the spaces,
including interior wall alterations,
furniture, equipment, and interior finish
improvements, are the responsibility of
the tenant Department or non-profit.

That includes design, permitting, and
management of contractors, installers,
deliveries, or other third-parties
involved in the improvements. Proposed
improvements are reviewed and approved
by the Public Works department prior to
execution.

To proceed into a specific design phase,
the City should create memorandums
of understanding with the selected
departments and vision-aligned non-
profits. How space is allocated in the final
design will be impacted by both the space
needs and available funding of the future
tenants, and will need to be finalized
before lease agreements are signed.

145
Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept

DRAFT FINAL REPORT
May 2023
Implementation - Organizational Management Structure
Geldrop-Mierlo Town Hall, Netherlands Existing Conditions at Maudelle Shirek Baltmannsweiler Council Chambers , Germany

Siegel & Strain Architects
Implementation - Organizational Management Structure
Veterans Memorial Building -
Municipal Arts Center
A shared resource and platform for
creative expression accessible to all.

The community-serving Municipal Arts
Center will be the artistic destination
in the heart of Berkele
y serving as a
shared resource and platform for creative
expression for people of all ages across
all disciplines including music, theater,
dance, visual arts, literary arts, and
more. The Center will be accessible to all
Berkeley residents and the regional Bay
Area community.

The project team recommends a City-
owned and operated model for the
Veterans Memorial Building.

The design team and Civic Arts staff
explored two approaches to the
management of the Veterans Memorial
Building: a City-run arts space or an
anchor tenant-run arts space. Civic Arts
staff and the project team held outreach
meetings with several local privately-
run and municipal-run cultural and arts
centers to understand their operating
models. This included discussions with
operators and/or developers from the
Palo Alto Art Center (PAAC), Walnut
Creek’s Lesher Center for the Arts (LCA),
Oakland’s Kaiser Convention Center,
Livermore Valley Performing Arts Center,
and San Francisco’s Yerba Buena Center
for the Arts (YBCA).

The key finding from this initial research
was that operating an art center as a
City-run facility ensures that it remains
accessible to the entire community while
also ensuring that building uses and
programming aligns with City values.

The Civic Arts staff and design team
also met with lease management staff
in the Parks, Recreation and Waterfront
and Public Works departments to
discuss successful models and lessons
learned from other City-owned and
operated facilities and programs.

From these conversations, the project
“A public arts space
open to all artists.”
“...a space for
community arts of all
kinds - and for all age
groups”
“..bring in revenue to
maintain the
building.”

147
Berkeley’s Civic Center Design Concept

DRAFT FINAL REPORT
May 2023
Implementation - Organizational Management Structure
Livermore Valley Performing Arts Center
team has researched how others have
operated and maintained spaces that
are acc
essible to the community for
use while also generating revenue to
support operations. The research includes
revenue-generating programs and
offerings, required level of staffing and
management, selection of programs &
performances, and operating budgets.

Value Proposition/Offerings
Taking into consideration the public
support for an open and acc
essible arts
center for the Berkeley community,
the Vision Statement, and the desire
to maximize the activation of the Civic
Center, the Arts Center will offer
performances in the evenings and on
weekends, classes for adults and students
during the day, and afterschool and
weekend programs for adults, teens and
children, and provide space resources to
local arts organizations and artists.

The Arts Center may also include a roof
top café, as well as numerous potential
rental spaces including auditorium
rentals for performances and rehearsals,
galleries and large rooms for lectures,
panels and exhibitions, as well as other
event space for rent.

The Arts Center will attract, engage,
and retain paying presenters, audiences
and other local and regional visitors to
participate in a unique cultural synergy
expressive of Berkeley’s values and spirit.

Importantly, the Arts Center will provide
a much needed venue for local arts
organizations who currently rent event,
exhibition, performance and rehearsal
space in other Bay Area cities because
local facilities are not available.

Siegel & Strain Architects
Implementation - Organizational Management Structure
Revenue Model
The revenue model is a multi-prong
approach. One revenue stream could be
generated fr
om space rentals for arts
presentations by local arts organizations
and arts programming, such as classes.

Revenue could be generated as a
share of ticket sales for performances.

Rental revenue can also be earned
for community gatherings and events,
particularly the rooftop event space. The
second revenue stream is generated
through fundraising by the nonprofit
public benefit corporation whose mission
is to support the Arts Center’s mission
and to act as the fundraising arm & fiscal
agent.

Operating Structure
We envision that the Veterans Memorial
Building will be managed by the City’s
Civic Arts progr
am in partnership
with the Public Works Department.

Management of arts-specific facilities
requires knowledge of the programmatic
needs of the various arts disciplines.

Rental agreements for space within the
building would ensure that funds are
paid into the Building Maintenance Fund
to be utilized by Civic Arts to maintain
arts related equipment and by Public
Works Department s to provide baseline
services including building maintenance,
electrical and communications systems,
and janitorial services. In addition, a
nonprofit public benefit corporation will
be formed whose mission is to support
the Arts Center’s mission and to function
as the fundraising arm & fiscal agent.

This public-private partnership will be
essential to support strategic planning,
programming, education & community
engagement, and funding of the Center.

This to-be-formed organization will
support costs related to fundraising,
marketing, furniture/fixtures/equipment,
event production, security, and auxiliary
staffing.

Civic Arts staff will continue to hold
additional outreach meetings with local
examples of municipal-run cultural and
arts centers to refine the operating model.

The long-term management and staffing
of Veterans Memorial Building and its
associated programs will be defined
through further study.