Berkeley City Council
June 9, 2026

38 Policy 4.4
Promote the City’s
pu
blic art collection.
a. Showcase the existing
collection of public art
and identify public art
pieces that need target-
ed promotion.

Existing
Lead: Civic Arts staff
Support: Civic Arts
Commission, Berkeley
Historical Society
Long-term
b. Utilize social media
to promote the City’s
public art.

Not
Identified
Lead: Civic Arts staff
Support: Civic Arts
Commission, Visit Berkeley
Long-term
Policy 4.3
Implement the
recently
established Public
Art on Private
Development
O
rdinance and
program.
a. Develop tools and
implement outreach
activities to increase
awareness of the pro-
gram, and celebrate its
successes.

Existing
Lead: Civic Arts staff
Support: Civic Arts
Commission, Planning &
Development Department
Short-term
b. Implement a transpar-
ent and regular public
process (annually or
as-needed) for allocat-
ing in-lieu funds.

Existing
Lead: Civic Arts Commission
Support: Civic Arts Staff
Short-term
Policy 4.2
Allocate City funds
fo
r public art
citywide to ensure
equity and access.
a. Identify priority loca-
tions for public art in
communities with limit-
ed access to public art.

Existing
Lead: Civic Arts staff
Support: Civic Arts
Commission
Short-term
b. Develop program prac-
tices that will encour-
age participation by
Berkeley artists.

Existing
Lead: Civic Arts staff
Support: Civic Arts
Commission
Short-term
c. Dedicate 1.5 % of all
future public construc-
tion bonds and capital
projects to public art, in
compliance with exist-
ing City policy
Existing
Lead: Berkeley City Council
Support: City Manager’s Office
Short-term
Policy Statement Action Items Resour ces Proposed
Implementa tion Team Timeframe
e. Fundraise for new
public art throughout
the city.

Existing
Lead: Civic Arts staff
Support: Business
Improvement Districts, Civic
Arts Commission, City Council
Mid-term

39 Policy Statement Action Items Resour ces Proposed
Implementa tion Team Timeframe
Policy 5.1
In
crease the
capacity of Civic
Arts staff.
a. Identify resources to
increase staff capacity
to administer, publicize
and provide account-
ability for the increased
arts investments being
made in the city.

Not
Identified
Lead: Berkeley City Council
Support: Civic Arts Staff and
Civic Arts Commission
Mid-term
b. Dedicate 20% of all new
funding for the arts
towards administrative
needs for these pro-
grams.

Existing
Lead: Berkeley City Council
Support: Office of Economic
Development, Civic Arts
Commission
Short-term
c. Expand staff and data
systems capacity sup-
port and analyze the
Grants Program with
on-the-ground tech-
nical assistance, data
collection, and more
robust administrative
and logistical support.

Not
Identified
Lead: Civic Arts staff
Support: Civic Arts
Commission
Mid-term
Policy 5.2
Evaluate the reach
and impact of each
Civic Arts Program.
a. Establish perfor-
mance measures and
a systematic data
collection process.

Existing
Lead: Civic Arts staff
Support: Civic Arts
Commission, Berkeley Cultural
Trust
Mid-term
b. Conduct an annual
evaluation of progress
of implementation
of the Arts & Culture
Plan.

Existing
Lead: Civic Arts staff
Support: Office of Economic
Development, Civic Arts
Commission, Berkeley Cultural
Trust
Short-term
Policy 5.3
Use data to inform
policy and raise
public awareness
of the economic
benefit of the arts
sector.
a. Update the Economic
Impact Report every
5 years to regularly
evaluate the econom-
ic stimulus that the
arts industry provides
to Berkeley’s econo-
my.

Not
Identified
Lead: Civic Arts staff
Support: Office of Economic
Development
Mid-term
b. Educate deci-
sion-makers on the
art sector’s contri-
bution to Berkeley’s
economy.

Existing
Lead: Berkeley Cultural Trust,
Civic Arts Commission
Support: Civic Arts Staff
Short-term
GOAL 5: EXPAND THE CITY OF BERKELEY’S ORGANIZATIONAL CAPACITY TO BETTER

SERVE THE ARTS COMMUNITY

40 Policy Statement Action Items Resour ces Proposed
Implementa tion Team Timeframe
c. Create an annual arts
dashboard to educate
and engage busi-
ness owners and the
general public about
the benefits of having
a thriving local art
scene.

Existing
Lead: Civic Arts staff
Support: Civic Arts
Commission
Short-term
Policy 5.4
Promote
collaboration
among City
Departments to
better integrate
arts into the City’s
operations.
a. Coordinate commu-
nication about City
art programs across
departments.

Existing
Lead: Civic Arts staff Mid-term
b. Integrate culture and
the arts into Berke-
ley’s citywide eco-
nomic development
strategies.

Existing
Lead: Office of Economic
Development, Civic Arts staff
Mid-term

41 Robbin Henderson*
Dr. Shannon Jackson
Kevan Jenson*
Jennifer Lovvorn*
Elizabeth Ozol, Vice-Chair
Matthew Passmore
Julia Robertson*
John Slattery
Stuart Baker
Robin Bykofsky
John Caner
Maleik Carter
Sharon Dolan
Patrick Dooley
Jamila Dunn
Pete Gidlund
Tom Green
Araceli Hernandez
Stephanie Johnson
Aa
ron Jorgensen
Ellen Lake
Nancy Ng
Isaac Resendiz
Shakeea Smith
David Snippen
Sarah Williams
Andrea Wise
This Arts and Culture Plan Update was made possible through the generous financial support of the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and
the UC Berkeley Chancellor's Community
Partnership Fund.

CONSUL TANT TEAM
Joan Chaplick, MIG, Inc.

Gabrielle Guidetti, MIG, Inc.

Jamillah Jordan, MIG, Inc.

Te
d Russell, Ted Russell Consulting
Kim Anno, Chair
Dana Brooke Blecher
Lisa Bullwinkel
Aida Gamez
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the many arts leaders, artists, organizational partners, and community members who contributed so much of their valuable insight and energy to this planning process.

CIVIC ARTS COMMISSIONERS, 2016-2018 *former Commissioners not currently serving

CITY OF BERKELEY
Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Jordan Klein, Economic Development Manager
Mary Ann Merker, Civic Arts Coordinator (Retired)
Jennifer Lovvorn, Chief Cultural Affairs Officer
Chrystal O’Malley, Civic Arts Analyst
Jessica Moreno, Civic Arts Intern

POLICY WORKING GROUP PARTICIPANTS
Miriam Klein Stahl*
Hiroko Tamano
Terry Taplin*
Weston Teruya*

Office of the City Manager

INFORMATION CALENDAR
October 14, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Peter Radu, Assistant to the City Manager Subject: Changes to Special Events Permitting Fees and Requirements

SUMMARY
The City of Berkeley has long had a reputation for being a city that is a destination – for culture, for food, and for a vibrant street scene. The City’s Special Events Team is a critical component of the vibrancy, as it is responsible for reviewing, approving, permitting, and overseeing all gatherings and events of 50 or more people on City property (in City parks and on City streets). However, the number of permitted special events (185 in 2024, not including the City’s three weekly farmers’ markets) now surpasses pre-pandemic levels, with this trend driven by a 27% increase in street closures since before the pandemic. The Special Events Team consists of staff from multiple departments, none of whom work solely on special events and many of whom also work on priority issues like encampment operations.

The impact of this increase in the number of requested and ultimately permitted special events has placed great strain on key participating departments (mainly Neighborhood Services, Public Works, Fire, and Health, Housing, and Community Services). As a result, the Fire, Public Works and Health, Housing, and Community Services Departments have recently proposed or will soon propose a range of fee increases to better recover costs for the increased staff time spent on events. In addition, recent accelerating changes in Berkeley’s built environment, with growing numbers of taller buildings and a multitude of street construction and redesign projects, has required staff to newly examine the regulatory framework (i.e., applicable state and local codes; traffic control requirements) for special events in order to ensure uniformity and rigor in its application, so that public safety can be upheld while also ensuring a vibrant events calendar.

Because such changes are usually proposed by individual departments in isolation, considered by Council individually, and paid by customers individually, it can be hard to understand the holistic impact that the sum total of concurrent changes across multiple departments will have on organizers wishing to host special events in Berkeley. The purpose of this report is to compile the changes that will have the greatest impact on event organizers (from a time and budget perspective) into one document. These include:
 Fire Code compliance for use of tents, canopies and other membrane structures; use and storage of propane; fire watch requirements; minimum fire lane width requirements; and others.
 Proposed (forthcoming) Fire Inspector fees to recover Fire Inspector costs associated with event plan check and event staffing.
 Proposed (forthcoming) changes to Public Works street closure fees to better recover staff costs associated with street closures and to make Berkeley’s pricing more consistent with those of neighboring jurisdictions.  Forthcoming changes to traffic control plan (TCP) requirements to ensure that all events are held to the same standards for rigorous traffic control planning.  Forthcoming transition of costs for street closures (message board and traffic control device costs as well as Public Works staff time) to event organizers.
 Changes to Environmental Health food vendor fees for compact mobile food operations to comply with recent changes to State law.
 Proposed (forthcoming) changes to Environmental Health’s fee structure for food permits and amplified sound permits, again with the goal of recovering staff costs for reviewing, inspecting, and staffing special events.

Staff will delay implementation of any new fees and regulatory requirements not already in place but highlighted in this report until January 1, 2026, to minimize impacts on remaining 2025 events and help ensure 2026 event organizers can better work with the Special Events Team in planning ahead for fun, safe, and successful future events. For some planned events, it is too late to include the proposed special event fees, requirements, and equipment costs outlined in this report in the current (FY26) Civic Arts Grants cycle.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Overview of the Special Events Team
The Special Events Team, which is managed by the Special Events Coordinator (1 FTE Program Manager II) in the Neighborhood Services Division of the City Manager’s Office, consists of representatives from the Public Works Department, Fire Department, Health, Housing and Community Services Department, Police Department, and Parks, Recreation and Waterfront Department. The involvement of particular staff from each

department in the review and approval of any given event depends on the nature of the event itself. For example, low-impact events (like small block parties) usually create minimal impacts to City operations and require comparably little staff review for a permit to be issued. Conversely, high-impact events (those with higher anticipated turnout and requiring a traffic detour from a major street, collector street, or scenic route and/or requiring the rerouting of any public transportation buses or shuttles) can be complex and require the issuance of multiple permits. Consider the following two examples:

1. Small event. An example includes the closure of a single block of a residential street in which the applicants plan to close the street to through-traffic for a community gathering with carnival games. This event usually creates no major traffic impacts and can be reviewed and permitted with minimal review by participating departments.

2. Large event. An example includes an event in a major commercial corridor, showcasing live music on an event stage that offers a variety of food options from food trucks and canopied tents to several thousand anticipated attendees over two weekend days.

This event requires extensive review, permitting, and staffing from a number of City divisions, including:
 Environmental Health (for food and amplified sound permitting);  Public Works Transportation (for traffic control and street closure) and Zero Waste (for waste, compost, and recycling management and compliance);
 Fire (for compliance with medical and life safety requirements as well as Fire Code regulations); and
 Police (for public safety review and overtime staffing).

The Special Events Coordinator is responsible for coordinating and synchronizing the many staff involved in the plan check process, liaising with event organizers, ensuring plan compliance, coordinating with other affected agencies (such as AC Transit for bus re-routing), and more before issuing the final permit.

Increased Special Event Demand and the Impact on City Operations Over the past several years, the number of permitted events in the City has now surpassed pre-pandemic levels: not including the anomaly year of 2020, when many events were canceled due to pandemic lockdowns, the average number of events post- pandemic (2021-2024) increased 15% from before the pandemic (2018 – 2019).

Importantly, data suggest that the increase has been largely driven by an increase in popularity for street closure events: while the average number of post-pandemic (2021- 2024) park events increased 11% over pre-pandemic (2018-2019) averages, average street events increased significantly more (27%) over the same period.

Special Events Team staff believe that, in addition to Berkeley’s enduring regional reputation as a cultural destination, this increase in demand for outdoor events, and in particular street events, in Berkeley can be attributed to two other phenomena:

1. When the early days of the pandemic closed down indoor entertainment and gathering opportunities and business operations, many community members and event organizers sought outdoor spaces (in parks and on streets). This trend has not reversed.

2. The City of Berkeley is a relatively inexpensive destination for special events, and in particular street closure events. Filing fees for street events are significantly lower than nearby jurisdictions. The following table summarizes the fees for a high-impact event (i.e., a large event as described above) in Berkeley and surrounding cities:

Jurisdiction Fee
Alameda $750
Berkeley $250
Oakland $4,935
San Francisco $2,283
Similarly, the City’s Block Party Permit fee is significantly lower than neighboring cities:

Jurisdiction Fee
Berkeley $15
Oakland $81
San Francisco $278
The City Council last adjusted filing fees for street events on July 8, 2014 (Resolution No. 66,725-N.S. Establishing Permit Filing Fees for Street Events and Certified Farmers’ Markets, and Rescinding Resolution No. 66-662-N.S.).

Irrespective of the reasons behind this trend, however, the effect has had material impacts on City staffing and budgets. With the exception of the Special Events Coordinator, none of the staff on the multi-departmental Special Events Team are dedicated to working full-time on special events. These are the same City staff who (for example) engage in community policing, citywide fire inspections, street closures for construction projects, encampment clean-up and closure operations, restaurant inspections and vector management, and much more. An increasingly demanding special events calendar, for example, has significantly impacted the Homeless Response Team’s ability to schedule more citywide encampment clean-ups due to staff scheduling and equipment availability challenges.

Current and Impending Departmental Changes Affecting Special Events Because the Special Events Team consists of staff from multiple departments, each with their own mission and competing priorities, individual participating departments in the Special Events Team have proposed or are beginning to implement changes to fee structures and regulatory requirements, partly in an effort to address the increasingly unsustainable budgetary and staffing demands placed on their teams by City priorities, such as the Special Events calendar. However, because such changes are usually proposed by individual departments in isolation, considered by Council individually, and paid by customers individually, it can be hard to understand the holistic impact that the sum total of concurrent changes across multiple departments will have on organizers wishing to host special events in Berkeley. The purpose of this report is to communicate clearly to the City Council the anticipated impacts that recent or proposed changes in the Fire Department, Health, Housing, and Community Services Department, and Public Works Department is anticipated to have on the Special Events landscape. An overview of each department’s changes is summarized below.

Fire Department
California Fire Code Compliance
A number of recent changes to the California Fire Code (CFC), as well as a renewed focus within the Fire Department on equitable compliance with the CFC across all events, means that these standards will be more uniformly applied during the Special Events application review process. The Fire Prevention Division is in the process of creating approximately six documents for placement on the City website that detail specific requirements for vendors to help ensure alignment with the CFC. This will include diagrams as well as code sections for event applicants to reference.

Additionally, the Fire Department will offer a more comprehensive document with general fire safety information that applies to all special events that occur within the City. Content areas of particular focus, which will be detailed in the documents on the city website, include:
 Tent, Canopy and Temporary Structure Standards – these include standards for spacing, anchoring/bracing, and ingress/egress, as well as fire safety standards that require flame-resistant materials, availability of fire suppression devices, and govern the use of open flames within or near tents and other membrane structures.
 Fire Watch Guidelines – A fire watch is a temporary measure intended to ensure that a building or a space is surveilled by qualified individual(s) for the purpose of identifying and controlling fire hazards, detecting early signs of fire, and notifying the fire department in the event of a fire. This document includes the types of events/situations in which a fire watch would be mandated, the event organizer’s responsibilities and obligations, and requirements for watch personnel, patrols,

and record keeping. For outdoor special events, a fire watch protocol would typically be mandated if the Fire Marshal notes potentially hazardous conditions and would be at the Marshal’s discretion.
 Use and Storage of Propane – this includes requirements for propane container storage, positioning, security, and inspections prior to and during the event.

Uniform enforcement of these standards for special events will begin on January 1, 2026, aligning with the implementation of the 2025 updated CFC.

Additionally, Berkeley’s increasing density has placed renewed focus on existing CFC standards such as minimum acceptable widths for fire lanes (26’ where adjacent buildings exceed 30’ in height), as well as street closure layouts that do not in any way impede public safety vehicle access and critical mutual aid pathways. Unfortunately, this will have the effect of rendering some popular destinations for special events in the past – including Telegraph Avenue and stretches of Adeline Street in South Berkeley – unavailable for future street closures. Special Events staff are committed to working closely with all event applicants to ensure any impacted event proposal is offered an alternative that meets the needs of the event as best as possible. To this end, Special Events staff are excited about the possible creation of Entertainment Zones in select areas throughout the city, discussed in more detail later in this report.

Fees and Costs
The Fire Department currently charges special events organizers for staff overtime expenses when performing fire watch for special events (at a cost of approximately $100 per hour). The City Council adopted a new Fire Fee schedule on June 24, 2025 that adjusted existing fees for the first time in nine years. The new/increased fees that will impact certain special events include:
 Increased fee for using parking facilities, from $196 to $250 for fewer than 15 spaces and from $250 to $500 for 15 or more spaces.
 Large temporary membrane structures (larger than 400 sq ft) require a permit with a fee that increased from $392 to $500.
 Other fees at increased rates may apply in unique circumstances.

The Fire Department estimates that special events account for approximately 30% of a Fire Inspector’s total hours completing event plan checks, corrections, inspections, and event staffing. There is currently no cost recovery for staff time required to process a special event permit. Accordingly, the Fire Department plans to create a fee structure for consultation for special events, subject to Council approval. There are currently a small number of specific events occurring each year that require on-site Fire Inspectors to be present either during setup and/or layout or throughout the duration of the event.

Under a special events fee structure for Fire consultation, such complex events would incur higher fees, which would raise the cost of hosting such events.

Public Works Transportation Division
Street closures and block parties are an important part of the Special Events landscape in Berkeley. People who organize events on City streets are required to obtain a City- approved Special Event Permit or Block Party Permit and to pay a filing fee to the City.

Fees vary depending on the degree of the event’s impact on the city (for example, traffic impacts). All requests for street closures, except block parties, must submit a traffic control plan as part of the permitting process.

In Fiscal Year 2024, the Public Works Department alone spent almost $1.5 million to staff special events. But in FY24, the City only received approximately $31,798 from street closure and block party fees -- $29,158 in event filing fees from 151 low-impact and 82 high-impact events, and about $2,640 in fees from 176 block party permit applications. To help address this gap, Public Works is working on a revised fee structure, subject to Council approval, that will bring street closure fees – particularly those for complex, high-impact events – more in line with those of Berkeley’s neighboring cities and cover the costs incurred by the City for reviewing and processing applications and supporting events. The proposed changes to the fee structure are detailed below.

Permit Fees for Block Parties
Block parties are street events that occur on a single residential block only and are only eligible to be hosted by the people who live there. A business, nonprofit, or other entity wishing to close this same block for an event would not be eligible for a block party permit and would instead be considered a Tier 1 event. These purely residential events do not require a traffic control plan nor specialized equipment, as described below.

Public Works staff will recommend increasing the Block Party Permit fee from $15 to $60 per event to better recover the cost of administering the block party program. This includes staff time to review applications, work with residents to approve them, and administer the permits.

Permit Fees for Street Closures
Any street event that is not a block party is considered a street closure. The current fee structure for street closures, which makes little distinction between the complexity of street closures and their impacts on City staff and operations, is in the table below:

Filing Date Current Fee for Low
Impact Events
Current Fee for High
Impact Events
At least 60 weekdays before the
event
$128 $250

30-59 weekdays before the event $150 $350
20-29 weekdays before the event $175 $450
Fewer than 20 weekdays before
the event $200 N/A: Will not be
approved
The proposed, revised fee structure establishes tiered event fees based on event size, impact, and timing and establishes Transportation Support Service fees for special events to reduce the operational deficit and recover costs associated with special events:

Tier Proposed
Fee
Filing Deadline Definition
1 $205 21 days in advance
of event
No more than a one (1) block closure, no
transit detour, and minor cross-
departmental coordination
2 $540 30 days in advance
of event
No more than a one (1) block closure,
transit detour, or moderate cross-
departmental coordination
3 $805 60 days in advance
of event
Two (2) or more block closure, transit
detour, or major cross-departmental
coordination
4 $1,545 90 days in advance
of event
Multiple block closure of major arterial
streets, major cross-departmental
coordination, or consists of a marathon,
parade, active attendee participation, or
similar events
Each tier has different fees and submittal deadlines, as the amount of staff time required to review applications can vary substantially depending on the complexity of a particular event.

Transportation Support Service Fees
As authorized under Resolution No. 66,725-N.S., the City also proposes event fees for signage, traffic control or diversion, loss of parking meter revenue or other conditions specific to the designated location. On average, traffic control setup for special street events (not including block parties) requires two (2) Traffic Maintenance Workers I and two (2) Traffic Maintenance Workers II, each working at roughly $200 per hour for eight (8) hours. Based on this, it costs the City a minimum of $6,160 for Public Works Maintenance staff to work each special event. In the past, applicants have not been invoiced for Traffic Maintenance Support, but it is the City’s intention to begin invoicing

for these services as appropriate, starting January 1, 2026. This will help cover existing City expenses to support special events in Berkeley.

Safety Barricades, Cones, and Changeable Message Boards City staff work with event applicants to develop staffing, traffic control and other safety plans. Due to the growing and unbudgeted demands on city resources such activities impose, Public Works will implement the following changes effective January 1, 2026:
 Special barricades are used for all road closures, typically four barricades per block. Beginning January 1, 2026, if a special event is so large that it requires more barricades than the City is able to provide, event organizers can either purchase their own barricades that meet the City’s requirements or the City can bill the organizers for additional barricades (approximately $100 per barricade and $25 per traffic cone).
 Additionally, beginning January 1, 2026, staff will uniformly direct all special event organizers to outsource changeable message boards from third parties that provide traffic control services and to coordinate with Public Works’ Traffic Maintenance unit when such equipment is needed. Staff anticipate that typically, the event organizer will order and pay for the boards, and Traffic Maintenance staff pick up, deploy and return them. Most events require 2 – 4 message boards, totaling $720 - $1,440 per day. Large events will need more boards.

Moving forward, these changes—while necessary for the City to recover its costs—may mean event organizers must rent special equipment to support their activities or pay the City to cover its costs to do so.

Traffic Control Plans
For years, the City of Berkeley has accepted traffic control plans from event organizers that do not meet traffic engineering standards. Beginning January 1, 2026, engineered and stamped traffic control plans (TCPs) will be required at time of filing, similar to filing requirements for adjacent jurisdictions. In the Bay Area, the costs of such TCPs can range up to $5,000 depending on factors including the complexity of the street closure and duration of the event. While Public Works recognizes the cost burden that this places on some events’ budgets, failure to obtain an engineered TCP places the City at great liability – and its residents at risk – in the event of an emergency. The Special Events Team is committed to working with long-time event organizers to navigate this process, and TCPs may be reusable for multiple years if street conditions and event parameters do not change.

HHCS Environmental Health Division
The Environmental Health (EH) Division within HHCS is responsible for reviewing applications and issuing permits for event participants who wish to sell or provide prepared food and/or propose to have amplified sound (i.e., a musical stage).

Compact Mobile Food Operators
Passed in 2022, California SB 972 established a new type of retail food facility called a “compact mobile food operation” (CMFO) as a subcategory of mobile food facility that is nonmotorized and operates from a pushcart or stand, and exempted CMFOs from various provisions of the retail food code law, including certain sink requirements. This bill has affected Environmental Health’s Temporary / Special Events program in two ways:
 Environmental Health (EH) is now issuing “Known Vendor Letters” (KVLs), an exemption that allows booth operators to sell pre-packaged, Non-Potentially Hazardous Food (i.e. non-perishable food that does not require temperature control, under 25 sq. ft. with no open food sampling). Beginning with the Council’s passage of EH’s revised fee structure in 2024, EH charges a one-time fee of $44 to obtain this letter, plus $44 for any changes to the vendor’s list of food items. This is the lowest listed fee for Temporary Food Facilities (or more commonly known as “food booths”).
 In addition, in 2024 EH established the Compact Mobile Food Operation (CMFO) Annual Permit. This category is the newest category of a food facility, which is a limited-service operation as defined in the California Retail Food Code to include service from an individual, or from a pushcart, food stand, display table, pedal-driven cart, wagon, showcase, rack, or other non-motorized conveyance. CMFOs can now qualify for annual permits that allow them to vend in multiple locations similar to a Mobile Food Facility (MFF, or more commonly referred to as a food truck). For example, vendors that had operated at three of Berkeley’s farmers markets at $546/yr per permit, now qualify for just one permit at $704/yr. For operators, this means just two inspections per year vs. six inspections previously for a limited-risk operation. While this changes event planning and increases up-front costs, it reduces burden on both EH staff and food vendors as well.

Fees
Consistent with other Bay Area Temporary Food Facility programs, EH instituted a “late submittal fee” of $170, passed by Council in 2024. This fee is collected at application submittal with less than 14 days prior to an event with guarantee of permit approval.

The purpose of this fee is to:

1. Cover overtime often required with last-minute applications;

2. Discourage vendors who use last-minute tactics to try to get applications through without proper vetting and application review (which was a common practice prior to the new fee);

3. Discourage event coordinators from waiting until the last minute (often a day before the event) to invite additional vendors; and

4. Ensure fairness to vendors who submit their application on time, only to see vendors who “sneak” into an event with no ramifications.

EH has experienced an almost 70% increase in the number of temporary food permits over the last year (272 in 2024 vs. a projected number of approximately 400 by the end of 2025). In part to help recover the costs associated with this increased workload, in late 2025, EH plans to introduce a revised fee structure. The goal is to cover operating costs and reduce dependence on the City’s General Fund.

The proposed changes will increase the fees for food and amplified sound permits, which will more accurately reflect the true costs of providing these services, including reviewing, inspecting, and staffing special events. If approved by the City Council, these changes would increase the cost of certain special events in Berkeley.

More information will be shared with the public when the proposed fee revisions are presented to the City Council for consideration.

Civic Arts Grants
Some Berkeley-based festivals (which are considered special events) receive monetary support from the Civic Arts Grants Program (Community Festival category). Grants in this category are up to $7,000 per applicant and are awarded annually. Grant-funded events must be open to the entire public and have a free component. Festival Grant applications typically open in January and are due by March, with a grant activity period of July to the following June (a fiscal year cycle). The Civic Arts Grant Program (Festival category) requires organizers to submit an itemized budget as part of the application process. For some planned events, it is too late to include the proposed special event fees, requirements, and equipment costs, outlined in this report for events supported in the current (FY26) grant cycle.

Conclusion
Taken together, these changes are anticipated to result in nearly all events in Berkeley being more expensive and demanding to plan and host. In turn, and all things equal, it is also expected that the number of event requests on an annual basis will decrease given

this rise in cost. The Special Events Team is committed and works tirelessly to support the vibrancy of Berkeley’s street and park events scene and does not take this outcome lightly. Staff are committed to working with all event applicants, especially those of long- standing and beloved events in the community, to understand these requirements and evaluate all options for compliance. In addition, the City has the opportunity to streamline the permitting process for events by adopting one or more Entertainment Zones, discussed in more detail in the Possible Future Action section below.

POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
With the passage of California Senate Bill 969, which took effect January 1, 2025, the State of California, cities across the state now have the option of creating “entertainment zones,” where bars and restaurants can sell alcoholic beverages for people to drink on designated public streets and sidewalks. Cities wishing to implement entertainment zones (EZs) need to adopt an ordinance to regulate the time, place, and manner of the zones. Staff from the Special Events Team recently met with the Downtown Berkeley Association about the possibility of creating one or more EZs in the downtown and in other designated areas around the city and have heard interest expressed by other members of the community as well. EZs have been reported to stimulate economic activity and foot traffic for brick-and-mortar establishments in existing areas, and some cities (such as Sacramento and San Francisco) tie the activation of EZs to special events held in the EZ footprint.

On July 29, City Council voted to create the Berkeley Nightlife Council, with the goal of supporting nighttime economic activity, cultural programming, and community safety in city commercial districts. The creation of one or more EZs by Council ordinance is one potential future action of that process. City staff look forward to participating in these forthcoming discussions to shape an effective event-based entertainment zone model that benefits event organizers and festival producers.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
An increase in event fees may lead to a decrease in the annual number of event applications in Berkeley. The increase in event fees might also cover the true cost of staff time and materials spent on supporting special event programing annually.

However, by adopting an event-based entertainment zone model in Berkeley, Special Events staff believe that the creation of one or more EZs could also create efficiencies for event applicants. For example, when designating EZs in the City, City staff could create a “common application” for events, that might include a principal traffic control plan; pre-approved event layout template(s) that meet Fire Code standards; streamlined approvals for amplified sound; and priority access to existing City materials such as street closure barricades for event organizers that opt to host their event within the EZ.

While prospective event organizers would not be required to host events in a pre-

existing EZ, opting to host within an EZ would allow them to benefit from these existing templates, reducing costs and burden both for event planners and City staff alike.

BACKGROUND
On July 8, 2014, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 66,725-N.S., which is the most recent update to the Public Works Department’s filing fee structure for street events/street closures.

On May 21, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 69,891-N.S., which is the most recent update to the Environmental Health Division fee schedule.

On June 24, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 71,837-N.S., which is the most recent update to the Fire Department’s permit fees, inspection fees, and billing rates.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Special events and the traffic they create into and out of Berkeley, as well as the traffic impacts they create when certain streets are closed and traffic is redirected, creates carbon emissions, waste generation, and other impacts, but quantifying the effects of the fee and regulatory changes on these impacts is not possible at this time.

CONTACT PERSON
Peter Radu, Assistant to the City Manager, Neighborhood Services, (510) 981-7045

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: https://berkeleyca.gov/

INFORMATION CALENDAR
December 2, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Eleanor Hollander, Economic Development Manager Subject: Economic Impact Study: Berkeley's Creative Economy and Assessment of Pandemic Relief Investments

SUMMARY
This report transmits two economic analyses commissioned by the City of Berkeley and conducted by CVL Economics: (1) Berkeley Creative Economy Economic Impact Analysis, which examines the current state and contributions of Berkeley's arts sector, and (2) an Assessment of Berkeley Arts & Culture Pandemic Relief and Recovery Funding, which evaluates the City's investments in the cultural sector from 2020 to 2022 (Attachments 1 and 2).

The creative economy refers to industries whose primary purpose is cultural expression, artistic content, design, and creativity, such as visual and performing arts; architecture and design; entertainment and digital media; publishing and printing; communication design; arts education; and other creative fields. The City's $3 million pandemic relief investment during the years of 2020-2022 was essential, as organizations reported that these funds prevented closures and layoffs during the crisis, it is estimated that every dollar of pandemic relief funding distributed leveraged approximately $5.64 in sustained economic activity for arts and culture in Berkeley.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Supporting Berkeley's creative economy advances our Strategic Plan goals to foster a dynamic, sustainable, locally based economy, and champion and demonstrate social and racial equity. The City of Berkeley is home to over 150 active arts and culture nonprofits offering diverse theater, music, festivals, dance, visual arts, and more. These nonprofits vary significantly in size, educational offerings, and creative disciplines, and include nationally recognized theaters, music venues, galleries, dance studios, and maker spaces. The City of Berkeley is also home to a wide range of independent artists and artisans operating on smaller scales, producing fine arts and crafts. Berkeley has long recognized the importance of arts and culture to the economic health, vitality, and diversity of the local economy and commercial districts, as local arts and cultural organizations generate revenue, create jobs, and improve quality of life, which in turn generates business revenue and tourism.

Economic Impact Study of Berkeley's Creative Economy INFORMATION CALENDAR & Assessment of Pandemic Relief Investments December 2, 2025

From 2020 to 2024, Berkeley's cultural sector was severely impacted by the pandemic.

The creative economy, which grew 16% from 2014 to 2018 (outpacing San Francisco and Oakland), contracted sharply during the pandemic. In response to the pandemic, the City of Berkeley provided more than $3 million in relief and recovery grants for arts organizations, festivals, and artists. These funds helped prevent permanent venue closures, sustained creative practices, and ultimately helped Berkeley’s cultural sector weather the acute impacts of the pandemic. However, of the 88 arts organizations that received relief funding from the City of Berkeley between 2020 and 2022, 17 have since closed, including two major institutions with budgets over $3 million.

Despite these losses, the arts sector remains important to Berkeley's economic vitality and civic identity today. Berkeley's creative economy accounts for 7.6% of total city employment and when multiplier effects are included, is much higher than Oakland (4.2%), San Jose (2.5%), and the statewide average (4.8%). The sector's structure reflects both its social benefit orientation and economic vulnerability: about 30% of Berkeley's 650 creative economy businesses are nonprofits (compared to 11% across all industries), and nearly 70% of the creative workforce is self-employed or gig workers.

BACKGROUND
In December 2024, Council authorized a contract with CVL Economics in an amount not to exceed $119,300 for analysis of pandemic arts recovery investments and the economic impact of the arts in Berkeley (Resolution No. 71,612-N.S.). CVL Economics was selected through a competitive Request for Proposals process, and the contract was funded entirely with a portion of the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds that Council had designated for the arts in 2021.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic's economic impacts on the arts sector, the City of Berkeley made two substantial funding allocations totaling $3 million dollars:

1. Arts Continuity Grants (April 2020): The City allocated $1 million from the catastrophic reserve fund to create the Arts Continuity Grant Program, awarding emergency relief grants to arts organizations whose revenues were significantly impacted by the pandemic.

2. Berkeley Arts Recovery Grants (December 2021-February 2022): Council allocated $2 million in ARPA dollars to support Berkeley's arts sector recovery, with the Berkeley Arts Recovery Grant Program (BARG) distributing grants to organizations, festivals, and individual artists to help them sustainably recover from negative economic impacts of the pandemic.

Economic Impact Study Findings
In 2025, CVL Economics conducted a comprehensive economic impact analysis of Berkeley's creative economy, updating the 2017 Economic Impact Report that was developed in conjunction with the Arts and Culture Plan Update 2018-2027. The current

Economic Impact Study of Berkeley's Creative Economy INFORMATION CALENDAR & Assessment of Pandemic Relief Investments December 2, 2025

study examines the economic impact of Berkeley’s “creative economy” comprising eight creative subsectors: Visual & Performing Arts (56% of creative jobs), Architecture & Design (11%), Entertainment & Digital Media (10%), Publishing & Printing (7%), Communication Design (6%), Post-Secondary Arts Education (5%), Creative Goods & Decorative Arts (4%), and Fashion (2%).

Key findings include:
 Direct employment: Berkeley’s creative economy directly employs 8,186 workers, accounting for 7.3% of its total workforce of 111,640 jobs  Visitor spending: A sample of 37 Berkeley arts organizations attracting 1.4 million annual visitors generates an estimated $56 million in ancillary spending at local businesses ($30 million at food and drink establishments, $7.6 million at retail, $7.2 million on transportation, $3.5 million on lodging) The study also shows that Berkeley's creative economy declined year-over-year since 2020, despite pre-pandemic growth. Berkeley’s arts sector is especially vulnerable due to its high concentration of Visual & Performing Arts organizations and gig workers and hosting a larger share of nonprofits than other industries in Berkeley.

Pandemic Relief Assessment Findings
Between 2020 and 2022, the City of Berkeley awarded over $3 million in pandemic relief and recovery grants through five distinct programs: two rounds for organizations (Arts Continuity Grants 2020: $954,543 to 63 organizations; Berkeley Arts Recovery Grants (BARG) 2022: $1,532,345 to 74 organizations) and three rounds for artists (East Bay/Oakland Relief Fund 2020: $64,500 to 47 Berkeley artists; Berkeley Art Works Projects 2021: $182,339 to 32 artists; BARG for Artists 2022: $276,250 to 114 artists).

Key findings include:
 Critical funding: Nearly 90% of BARG and 83% of Arts Continuity Grant recipients rated Berkeley pandemic relief and recovery grants as either “very helpful” or “essential.”
 Critical timing: Arts Continuity Grants served as an immediate lifeline in April 2020, often arriving before federal, state, or county programs, helping organizations avoid layoffs (85%) and closures (84%) and BARG offered stabilization helping organizations with longer-term planning and adaptation with (48%) crediting the funds with helping them stabilize and make strategic changes.
 Equity outcomes: These grants not only addressed economic precarity, but also advanced racial and cultural equity by centering investments in artists and organizations that have been historically excluded from opportunities and are working with communities disproportionately impacted by the pandemic.

Economic Impact Study of Berkeley's Creative Economy INFORMATION CALENDAR & Assessment of Pandemic Relief Investments December 2, 2025

 Economic preservation: Every $1 of pandemic relief leveraged at least $5.64 in sustained arts and culture economic activity locally, helping safeguard local economic activity that otherwise would have been lost.

In 2025, surviving arts organizations in Berkeley continue to face challenges five years after the start of the pandemic. Median revenue is 9% below pre-pandemic levels and larger institutions report revenues that are 33% below 2019 benchmarks. Financial sustainability, rising costs, and competition for limited funding remain top concerns of Berkeley’s arts organizations. Of the 17 arts organizations that closed between 2020 and 2025, both small and large budget organizations were affected, indicating no segment was fully insulated from pandemic impacts. Currently, Berkeley's arts and culture sector faces higher costs and reduced audiences, with some nonprofits operating at a loss. Ongoing challenges include inflation, decreased subscription sales, and continued audience reluctance to return to venues due to COVID-19 concerns.

Additional City Support for Art
Beyond Civic Arts Grants, the City provides substantial investment in the arts through its Public Art Program, funded mainly through “Percent for Art” or Public Art ordinances that dedicate portions of capital project budgets and in-lieu fees from private developers to public art in Berkeley. Annual expenditures on public art projects funded in this manner have ranged from $276,656 to $923,475 per year over the past five years.

Because these allocations are tied to specific artworks and capital improvements rather than flexible operating support, they are not included in the return on investment analyses presented in Attachments 1 and 2 of this report.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
No environmental or climate impacts were identified in these studies.

POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
These analyses offer evidence to inform future policy decisions regarding but not limited to:
 Sustained investment: Recognizing the creative economy as essential economic sector requiring ongoing support, not just emergency intervention  Structural vulnerability mitigation: Addressing affordability challenges, gig workforce precarity, and declining audiences
 Program Allocations: Leveraging past demonstrated return on investment to inform resource allocation decisions in the future
The results of these studies will guide Berkeley's future investments and program design for artistic and cultural support in the years to come.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
This is an informational report with no immediate fiscal impact. Future policy actions based on these studies will likely require further detailed fiscal analysis.

Economic Impact Study of Berkeley's Creative Economy INFORMATION CALENDAR & Assessment of Pandemic Relief Investments December 2, 2025

CONTACT PERSON
Jennifer Lovvorn, Civic Arts Program, Office of Economic Development, 981-7533 Attachments:

1. Berkeley Creative Economy Economic Impact Analysis (CVL Economics, 2025)

2. Assessment of Berkeley Arts & Culture Pandemic Relief and Recovery Funding (CVL Economics, 2025)

Berkeley Creative Economy
Economic Impact Analysis
DECEMBER 2025

KEY FINDINGS 1
INTRODUCTION 5
Defining the Creative Economy
Economic Context: The National and State Picture of the Creative Economy CREATIVE ECONOMY LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS 10
Creative Economy Employment
Regional Comparisons
Comparison to the Overall Economy in Berkeley
CREATIVE ECONOMY ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 21
Baseline Impact
Regional Spillovers Across the East Bay
Fiscal Impact
RETURN ON INVESTMENT 31
FINAL CONSIDERATIONS 35
Pre-Pandemic Momentum Lost
Arts and Culture as Engines of Economic Vitality
APPENDIX 40
A.1: Creative Economy Industry Classification Codes
A.2: Berkeley Business Count Methodology
A.3: Creative Economy Employment Documentation
A.4: Economic Impact Methodology
A.5: Data Methodology Comparisons to 2017 Economic Impact Report

TABLE OF

CONTENTS

KEY

FINDINGS
The City of Berkeley’s creative economy
represents a vital economic force that
extends far beyond traditional notions of
arts and culture. The creative economy
consists of industries whose primary
purpose is to produce or enable cultural
expression, artistic content, design, and
other creative goods and services.

It spans across eight distinct subsectors: Visual & Performing Arts, Architecture & Design, Entertainment & Digital Media, Publishing & Printing, Communication Design, Post-Secondary Arts Education, Creative Goods & Decorative Arts, and Fashion. Despite facing significant pandemic-related challenges, these subsectors continue to generate substantial economic activity, support thousands of jobs, and contribute meaningfully to Berkeley’s fiscal health. This analysis examines how the sector has weathered the pandemic’s disruptions and quantifies its current economic contributions. The findings summarized below provide essential data for policymakers, arts organizations, and community stakeholders working to chart a sustainable path forward for the arts and culture sector in Berkeley. 1 BERKELEY CREATIVE ECONOMY

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

BUSINESS COUNTS

EMPLOYMENT TRENDS
There are 193 creative economy nonprofit organizations in the City of Berkeley. This share is notably high compared to the share of nonprofits across all industries (11%) in the city.

As of 2025, there are approximately 650 creative economy businesses in Berkeley (out of 12,800 total businesses), about 30% of which are nonprofit organizations.

Visual & Performing Arts is by far the largest subsector, accounting for more than half of all jobs (4,567 jobs, or

55.8% of the creative economy workforce). Other significant subsectors include Architecture & Design (908 jobs; 11 .1%), Entertainment & Digital Media (791 jobs; 9.7%), and Publishing & Printing (562 jobs; 6.9%). Communication Design (495 jobs; 6.0%), Post-Secondary Arts Education (377 jobs; 4.6%), Creative Goods & Decorative Arts (325 jobs; 4.0%), and Fashion (161 jobs; 2.0%), comprise smaller shares but are still notable.

While project-based creative work fosters innovation and independence, it also often comes with irregular income and limited protections. This pattern is most pronounced in the Visual & Performing Arts subsector, where 84% of jobs are self-employed or gig-based, while fields like Architecture & Design and Entertainment & Digital Media lean more on salaried roles with more dependable hours and predictable schedules.

After peaking with 9,850 creative economy jobs in 2018, Berkeley’s 2024 total of 8,186 jobs has fallen back to roughly its 2013 level of 8,160 jobs.

Between 2014 and 2018, Berkeley’s creative economy employment grew 16%, outpacing industry growth in San Francisco (12%), San Jose (10%), and Oakland (4%). That momentum, however, was abruptly cut short in early 2020.

While all Bay Area creative economies contracted with the onset of the pandemic, Berkeley’s downturn has proven far more persistent. San Francisco and San Jose have since regained some of their losses, but Berkeley’s creative economy employment has continued to decline through 2024.

In 2024, Berkeley’s creative economy directly employed 8,186 workers, accounting for 7.3% of its total workforce of 111,640 jobs.1
Nearly 70% of Berkeley’s 8,186 creative economy workers are self-employed or gig-based, underscoring the sector’s reliance on non-traditional work arrangements.

Berkeley’s creative economy employment surged in the years before the pandemic, but current employment levels remain 17% below the 2018 peak. Berkeley’s creative economy employment has declined year after year, while other neighboring cities have regained some ground.
1 Job count includes salaried (full- and part-time), self-employed, and gig workers. Within this, Berkeley’s salaried workforce accounted for 2,574 jobs in the creative economy and 68,126 jobs across the overall economy in 2024. 2 BERKELEY CREATIVE ECONOMY

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

The city’s overall economy sits about 3% above its 2019 employment level. By contrast, the city’s creative economy remains 13% below its pre-pandemic baseline.

Berkeley’s creative sector is heavily concentrated in Visual & Performing Arts (56%), reflecting a reliance on live, in-person activity and gig or contract work within a nonprofit-heavy structure. By contrast, San Francisco leans more toward Entertainment & Digital Media (38%), driven by streaming, software publishing, and broadcasting.

Berkeley’s 7.3% creative economy share of its total workforce is a higher concentration than in Oakland (4.2%), San Jose (2.5%), and California overall (4.8%), but trails San Francisco (7.6%).

Berkeley’s creative economy decline also sits in contrast to the city’s overall economy, which, on average, has mostly recovered from the pandemic.

This divergence reflects the unique composition of Berkeley’s creative economy, which comprises a relatively high concentration of Visual & Performing Arts employment, a sector that relies heavily on live, in-person activity, gig and contract work, and nonprofit structures—factors that made it more vulnerable to prolonged disruption.

Still, today, Berkeley maintains a greater share of creative economy employment relative to its total workforce than Oakland, San Jose, and California overall, and is only slightly below San Francisco.

THE ECONOMIC AND FISCAL IMPACT OF BERKELEY’S CREATIVE ECONOMY Even in a weakened state, Berkeley’s creative economy remains a critical driver of the City’s economic activity. Its impact ripples throughout the economy as arts organizations purchase goods and services, and workers spend their earning
s locally, sustaining activity across many industries (mult iplier effect). Some of this spending “leaks” beyond
city borders to suppliers and markets in other parts of the East Bay (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), where the total impact grows even larger (regional spillover effect). Together, these multiplier and spillover effects underscore the creative sector’s role as both a local driver and a regional economic force.

In other words, each creative job in Berkeley generated about $66,000 in labor income, and $125,000 in value added (contributions to Berkeley’s gross regional product) citywide.

An additional 5,605 jobs were supported by Berkeley’s creative economy in other parts of the East Bay beyond city limits. This represents the spillover effect of Berkeley’s creative economy—spending that originates in Berkeley but flows outward to suppliers, contractors, and consumer markets elsewhere in the region.

Berkeley’s creative economy is an essential part of the city’s economy.

In 2024, including multiplier effects in other industries, Berkeley’s creative economy generated a total impact of 8,437 jobs (7.6% of total jobs), $537.5 million in labor income (5.7% of total labor income), and $1.0 billion in contributions to city gross regional product (value added), or approximately 7.9% of the total citywide. 3 BERKELEY CREATIVE ECONOMY

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

In FY2024, the City of Berkeley awarded $698,782 to 97 Berkeley arts and culture organizations, festivals, and individuals. This support underpinned the operations of 86 organizations and festivals (collectively generating over $130 million in operating revenue), as well as 11 artists through arts works projects.

Overall, the City’s investments helped drive about 7.5% of the total economic activity ($1.8 billion) generated by Berkeley’s creative economy.

These 37 arts and culture organizations collectively attract about 1.4 million attendees annually, whose event-related spending extends well beyond tickets to these institutions—including nearly $30 million at nearby food and drink establishments, $7.6 million at retail stores, $7.2 million on local transportation, and $3.5 million on lodging.

In FY2024, Berkeley’s creative economy, including the impact of multiplier effects, contributed $4.6 million in property taxes, $2.9 million in sales taxes, and $3.2 million in various other taxes to the City.

In 2024, every $1 of Civic Arts Grant funding to Berkeley’s organizations, festivals, and individual artists catalyzed $197 in total economic activity across the city.

Based on data from 37 Berkeley arts and culture nonprofit organizations, visitors to these institutions generate approximately $56 million in additional local spending each year across other sectors of the city’s economy.

In 2024, Berkeley’s creative economy had a hand in generating $10.7 million in tax revenues, representing 3.9% of the City’s tax base.
4 BERKELEY CREATIVE ECONOMY

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

Berkeley’s creative economy is central to local prosperity, but it also stands at a critical juncture. While creative industries nationwide continue to demonstrate remarkable resilience and growth, Berkeley’s own arts and culture sector faces significant headwinds that threaten its role as both an economic driver and a cornerstone of the city’s cultural identity.

INTRODUCTION
The COVID-19 pandemic took a significant toll on Berkeley’s creative economy, and its recovery has diverged from the growth patterns that once positioned Berkeley as a regional creative economy leader. Understanding both the current contributions and the emerging challenges facing this sector is essential for arts administrators, policymakers, arts organizations, and community stakeholders working to chart a sustainable path forward. 5 BERKELEY CREATIVE ECONOMY

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

The creative economy refers to the industries whose primary purpose is to produce or enable cultural expression, artistic content, design, and other creative goods and services. The creative economy encompasses a wide range of industries that fall within eight subsectors where cultural expression, design, and creative innovation are central to economic value.

As defined in Figure 1, these subsectors are Visual & Performing Arts, Architecture & Design, Entertainment & Digital Media, Publishing & Printing, Communication Design, Post-Secondary Arts Education, Creative Goods & Decorative Arts, and Fashion.
2 DEFINING THE CREATIVE ECONOMY
FIGURE 1: CREATIVE ECONOMY SUBSECTORS
Source: CVL Economics.

SUBSECTOR DESCRIPTION
VIS
UAL & PERFORMING ARTS Entities engaged in services such as dance and theater companies, art dealers, museums, and activities involving independent artists, writers, and performers.

ARCHITECTURE & DESIGN Entities providing architectural, drafting, interior design, industrial design, and landscape design services.

ENTERTAINMENT & DIGITAL MEDIA Entities engaged in motion picture and video production, post-production services, sound recording studios, radio broadcasting, and digital streaming platforms.

PUBLISHING & PRINTING Entities producing commercial printing, book printing, and publishing of books, periodicals, newspapers, directories, and mailing lists.

COMMUNICATION DESIGN Entities engaged in graphic design, advertising agencies, photography studios, and commercial photography services.

POST-SECONDARY ARTS EDUCATION Entities providing arts instruction in dance, drama, music, and visual arts (excluding institutions that grant diplomas or degrees).

CREATIVE GOODS & DECORATIVE ARTS Entities producing ceramics, household furniture, rugs, decorative objects, toys, and games.

FASHION Entities engaged in textile and apparel manufacturing, jewelry and silverware production, and related fashion goods and services.
2 See Appendix A.1 for detailed list of industry classification codes. 6 BERKELEY CREATIVE ECONOMY

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

The creative economy has emerged as one of the most
dynamic and resilient sectors in the U.S. economy,
consistently demonstrating its capacity to drive growth and innovation. Far from being peripheral to economic
development, the creative industries have proven
themselves to be fundamental engines of prosperity,
generating substantial employment, income, and
economic output across communities nationwide—often
outpacing the broader economy.

In fact, nationwide growth of real value added (contribution to gross domestic product) generated by the Arts &
Culture sector
3 has consistently outperformed that of the
overall U.S. economy each year since 2019 (Figure 2). In 2019, the sector grew 4.3% compared to the year prior, well ahead of the 2.6% increase in total U.S. gross domestic product (GDP). Even at the onset of the pandemic in 2020, nationwide Arts & Culture value added declined by just

1.7%, less than the overall economy’s 2.2% contraction.

The rebound that followed was especially striking: in
2021, Arts & Culture surged by 11.2%, nearly double the growth rate of total GDP. Growth continued in subsequent years, expanding by 3.8% in 2022 and 6.6% in 2023, again outpacing the national economy.

ECONOMIC CONTEXT:

THE NATIONAL AND STATE PICTURE OF THE CREATIVE ECONOMY
3 “Arts & Culture” as defined by the U.S. Bureau Economic Analysis. 7 BERKELEY CREATIVE ECONOMY

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

While the national picture underscores the strength of the overall Arts & Culture sector, only some states are reaping the benefits—and California is not one. Many states posted strong gains in arts and cultural employment between
2022 and 2023 (Figure 3). North Carolina (+7.6%), Oregon (+7.3%), Florida (+5.5%), and New Mexico (+5.3%)
were among the top performers, with other states like
Arizona, Nevada, and Colorado showing decent growth.

Washington and New York experienced minimal, but still
positive growth in Arts & Culture employment.

California, by contrast, saw a 2.6% decline in Arts &
Culture employment. This relative decline is striking for a state often regarded as a global hub for creativity and culture, and it signals a growing disconnect between
California’s reputation and its current trajectory. Historically, the arts and creative industries have been central to
California’s rise as a global economic powerhouse—
anchored by industries like film, music, design, theatre, and digital media that helped define the state’s economic strength. Yet today, the very sector that once symbolized California’s competitive edge faces mounting challenges:
high costs of living and doing business, policy barriers, outmigration of talent, and increasing incentives (e.g., tax breaks) offered by other jurisdictions.

FIGURE 2: NATIONWIDE YEAR-OVER-YEAR PERCENT CHANGE IN ARTS & CULTURE CONTRIBUTION TO GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT (REAL VALUE ADDED) VS. TOTAL U.S. GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT (GDP) Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis Arts and Culture Satellite Account, CVL Economics. −2
%
0 %
2 %
4 %
6 %
8 %
10 %
−4
%
12 %
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023

4.3 %
−1.7
%

11.2 %

3.8 %

6.6 %

2.6 %
−2.2
%

6.1 %

2.5 %

2.9 %
Arts & Culture Value Added
Total GDP
YOY Percent Change
8 BERKELEY CREATIVE ECONOMY

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

FIGURE 3: PERCENT CHANGE IN ARTS & CULTURE EMPLOYMENT BY STATE | 2022–2023 Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.

This broader statewide decline provides an important backdrop for understanding Berkeley’s own creative economy. As California struggles with high costs, policy hurdles, and growing competition from other states, local communities are feeling these pressures acutely—and Berkeley is no exception.

CA
-2.6
AZ

5.1 NV

4.0 UT

4.6 OR

7.3 WA

0.6 ID
-3.3
MT

2.4 ND
-2.7
SD
-3.0
NE
-6.5
KS
-0.6
OK

4.9 TX
-2.0
LA
-5.3
AR

7.5 MO

1.2 IA

3.1 IL

0.6 IN

5.5 MI

5.1 OH
-2.3
KY
-2.2
TN

0.9 MS

1.5 AL

5.8 FL

5.5 GA
-5.0
SC

2.8 NC

7.6 VA

2.1 WV

1.1 PA

1.0 NY

0.7 ME
-6.3
DC -3.7
MD 2.7
DE 2.3
NJ -1.5
CT -5.2
RI -0.3
MA -0.1
NH -4.4
VT -3.8
MN
-2.6 WI
-5.4
WY
-4.5
CO

3.6 NM

5.3 AK
-4.0
HI
-6.6
Quintile Percent Changes
U.S. percentage change = 0.3%

4.9% to 7.6%

1.5% to 4.9%
-0.6% to 1.5%
-3.8% to -0.6%
-6.6% to -3.8%
9 BERKELEY CREATIVE ECONOMY

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

Berkeley’s creative economy is both
broad in scope and deeply embedded
in the city’s identity. As of September
2025, the City of Berkeley recorded 650
active business licenses in the creative
sector industries, accounting for about
5% of all active licenses (12,783) in the
city.
4 5 These counts include private and
nonprofit corporations, sole-ownerships,
partnerships, and cooperatives.

CREATIVE

ECONOMY

LANDSCAPE

ANALYSIS
The nonprofit sector plays a particularly prominent role in Berkeley’s creative economy compared to other industries. Analysis of Internal Revenue Service tax-exempt filings alongside local business license data shows that creative fields have a significantly higher share of nonprofit organizations than the citywide average across all industries (Figure 4). In total, nonprofits account for roughly 30% of Berkeley’s creative economy organizations, compared to 11% of all businesses citywide.
6 This structure has important implications: while it
reflects the strong civic and cultural mission of Berkeley’s creative sector, it also underscores the sector’s reliance on contributed income, philanthropy, and public funding.
4 City of Berkeley. Business Licenses. Accessed September 2025. https://data. cityofberkeley.info/Business/Business-Licenses/rwnf-bu3w/about_data. 5 See Appendix A.2 for further details on business count methodology. 6 See Appendix A.2 for further details on business count methodology. 10 BERKELEY CREATIVE ECONOMY

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

FIGURE 4: SHARE OF NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS IN BERKELEY’S CREATIVE ECONOMY VS. ALL INDUSTRIES | 2025 Source: City of Berkeley Active Business License Data, Internal Revenue Service, CVL Economics. 0 %
5 %
10 %
15 %
20 %
25 %
30 %
35 %
Creative Economy
All Industries
30 %
11 %
Nonprofit Share
In 2024, Berkeley’s creative economy employed 8, 186 jobs (Figure 5). Within the creative workforce, Visual & Performing Arts is by far the largest subsector, accounting for more than half of all jobs (55.8%). Other significant subsectors include Architecture & Design (11.1%), Entertainment & Digital Media (9.7%), and Publishing & Printing (6.9%). Smaller subsectors include Communication Design (6.0%), Post-Secondary Arts Education (4.6%), Creative Goods & Decorative Arts (4.0%), and Fashion (2.0%). T ogether, these fields form a dynamic ecosystem that extends well beyond traditional arts organizations—supporting innovation, attracting talent, and fueling the city’s broader economic vibrancy.

CREATIVE ECONOMY EMPLOYMENT
Forms of Employment
The composition of Berkeley’s creative workforce reflects not only the city’s sectoral diversity but also the different ways people participate in creative work. As Figure 5 shows, jobs in the creative economy are distributed across three primary categories: salaried (W-2 employees), self-employed workers, and gig-based roles, as defined below. • Salaried Employment (W-2): Full-time and part-time jobs on payroll who receive a W-2 form, including both those covered by unemployment insurance (UI) programs (captured in the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, or QCEW) and those not covered by UI programs (non-QCEW, such as certain small nonprofits, religious organizations, and others).

Examples:
a full-time museum administrator, or a part-time stage manager employed by a theater.

Total Businesses: 650
Total Nonprofits: 193
Total Businesses: 12,783
Total Nonprofits: 1,407
11 BERKELEY CREATIVE ECONOMY

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

FIGURE 5: CREATIVE ECONOMY SUBSECTOR EMPLOYMENT COUNT BY WORKER TYPE IN BERKELEY | 2024 Note: Employment counts reflect the number of unique jobs and not individuals. In that sense, one individual can hold multiple jobs and therefore be counted more than once. This dynamic is especially prevalent in the “Gig” work category, where organizational models in industries like Visual & Performing Arts rely heavily on short-term, project-based, or seasonal hiring, and artists and performers often piece together income through multiple jobs.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Lightcast, CVL Economics.

CREATIVE ECONOMY
SUBSECTOR SAL ARIED (W-2) SELF-EMPLOYED GIG TOTAL SHARE OF CREATIVE

ECONOMY TOTAL
Visual & Performing Arts 718 827 3,022 4,567 55.8%
Architecture & Design 534 138 236 908 11.1%
Entertainment & Digital Media 478 159 154 791 9.7%
Printing & Publishing 193 43 326 562 6.9%
Communication Design 105 101 289 495 6.0%
Post-Secondary Arts Education 174 74 130 377 4.6%
Creative Goods & Decorative Arts 283 26 16 325 4.0%
Fashion 89 23 49 161 2.0%
Total Creative Economy 2,574 1,391 4,222 8,186 -
• Self-Employed: Individuals who work for themselves and are not on a payroll. This category is measured using IRS tax filings and Bureau of Economic Analysis proprietorship data and includes sole proprietors, freelancers, and independent contractors who typically file Schedule C income.

Examples:
a freelance graphic designer running their own studio, or an independent architect who takes on client projects as their main source of income.
• Gig Employment: A separate measure drawing from additional IRS non-employer filings that fall outside the standard self-employment category. This often includes freelancers, independent contractors, and sole proprietors who take on multiple short-term or project-based jobs. This category captures more contingent or supplemental work activity, often part-time or secondary. Including gig work is essential to understanding Berkeley’s creative economy, where it represents a significant share of the arts and culture workforce.

Examples:
an artist selling work occasionally on Etsy while holding another job, or a musician performing in one-off gigs or short-term productions while holding another source of employment.

Each type of work carries its own opportunities and challenges, and together they form the backbone of Berkeley’s cultural and creative ecosystem. In Berkeley, this dynamic is particularly visible in the Visual & Performing Arts subsector, where over 84% of jobs are self-employed or gig-based. By contrast, fields like Architecture & Design or Entertainment & Digital Media lean more heavily on salaried employment, providing relatively greater stability. Sectors such as Publishing & Printing, Communication Design, and Post-Secondary Arts Education fall in between, with a mix of W-2, self-employed, and gig roles that together illustrate the hybrid nature of creative work. 12 BERKELEY CREATIVE ECONOMY

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

Unlike many other industries where traditional W-2 employment (salaried, with benefits) dominates, the creative economy is notable for its reliance on non-traditional work arrangements. Artists and creative workers are far more likely than the general workforce to be self-employed or gig-based (Figure 6). In Berkeley, nearly 70% of creative economy workers are self-employed or gig workers compared to 34% across the total economy. This reflects both the flexibility and precarity of the sector: while project-based and freelance work can create room for innovation and independence, it also often comes with irregular income, limited benefits, and less access to worker protections.

FIGURE 6: SHARE OF SELF-EMPLOYED AND GIG EMPLOYMENT FOR CREATIVE ECONOMY AND ALL INDUSTRIES IN BERKELEY | 2024
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Lightcast, CVL Economics. 0 %
10 %
20 %
30 %
40 %
50 %
60 %
70 %
80 %
Creative Economy
Total Economy
70 %
34 %
Share of Self-Employed and Gig Workers
Berkeley’s Creative Economy in the City’s Broader Economic Landscape Berkeley’s creative economy is a critical part of the city’s economic landscape, accounting for a significant share of total employment. While creative economy businesses accounted for 5% of all enterprises, they supported 7.3% of all employ
ment citywide in 2024—8,186 out of the 111,640 total jobs across industries (Figure 7).7 Creative economy employment today has been declining year over year since the pandemic, following a period of strong growth in the years prior. From 2010 to 2018, Berkeley’s creative sector expanded steadily, adding more than 2,300 jobs and peaking at nearly 9,850 positions (Figure 8). That momentum ended abruptly in 2020, when the pandemic caused steep job losses that erased much of the previous decade’s gains. While employment has stabilized somewhat in recent years, 2024 levels remain just over 8,100 jobs—roughly on par with 2013. 7 See Appendix A.3 for detailed documentation of employment counts. 13 BERKELEY CREATIVE ECONOMY

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

FIGURE 8: CREATIVE ECONOMY EMPLOYMENT IN BERKELEY | 2010–2024 FIGURE 7: COMPOSITION OF CREATIVE SECTOR WORKFORCE IN BERKELEY | 2024 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Lightcast, CVL Economics.

Note: Includes salaried, self-employed, and gig jobs in the creative economy and across all sectors. Employment counts reflect the number of unique jobs and not individuals. In that sense, one individual can hold multiple jobs and therefore be counted more than once.

Berkeley salaried (QCEW) jobs total 2,574 in the creative economy and 68,126 in the overall economy.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Lightcast, CVL Economics. 0 2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
7, 5 4 8
7 ,478
7, 7 8 2
8,159
8,512
8,946
8,906
9,317
9,848
9,161
8,678
8,376
8,412
8,224
8,186
Number of Jobs
Jobs in
All Sectors
111,640
Jobs in the
Creative Economy

7.3% 8,186
(4,567 jobs; 55.8%)
Visual & Performing Arts
Architecture & Interior Design
Entertainment & Digital Media
Printing & Publishing
Communication Design
Post-Secondary Arts Education
Creative Goods & Decorative Arts
Fashion
(908 jobs; 11.1%)
(791 jobs; 9.7%)
(562 jobs; 6.9%)
(495 jobs; 6.0%)
(377 jobs; 4.6%)
(325 jobs; 4.0%)
(161 jobs; 2.0%)
14 BERKELEY CREATIVE ECONOMY

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

When compared to neighboring
regions in the San Francisco Bay
Area and the state as a whole,
Berkeley’s creative economy stands
out. In 2024, it accounted for 7.3% of
the city’s total workforce—a larger
share than in Oakland, San Jose, and
California overall, though slightly
trailing San Francisco (Figure 9).

REGIONAL COMPARISONS
In the years leading up to the pandemic, Berkeley’s creative economy was outperforming even San Francisco’s sector in terms of job growth. Between 2014 and 2018, creative employment in Berkeley expanded 16%, outpacing industry growth in neighboring cities (Figure 10). Although all regional creative economies experienced steep declines with the onset of the pandemic in 2020, Berkeley’s recovery has especially lagged behind. San Francisco and San Jose have seen partial rebounds, regaining some of their lost ground, but Berkeley’s creative economy has remained flat or slightly negative through 2024. 15 BERKELEY CREATIVE ECONOMY

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

FIGURE 10: COMPARATIVE CREATIVE ECONOMY REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT GROWTH RATE | 2014–2024 FIGURE 9: CREATIVE ECONOMY EMPLOYMENT AS A SHARE OF TOTAL WORKFORCE BY REGION AND STATE | 2024 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Lightcast, CVL Economics.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Lightcast, CVL Economics. 2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
−5
%
0 %
5 %
10 %
15 %
−10
%
20 %
−4
%
−7
%
3 %
−1
%
Berkeley
Oakland
San Francisco
San Jose
Percent Change in Employment
0 %
2 %
4 %
6 %
8 %
Berkeley
Oakland
San Francisco
San Jose
California

7. 3
%

4.2 %

7. 6
%

2.5 %

4.8 % Creative Economy Share of Total Workforce
16 BERKELEY CREATIVE ECONOMY

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

The result is a sector that was once leading the region in growth but now sits well below its pre-pandemic
trajectory, underscoring the depth of the disruption and the ongoing challenges to full recovery.

One factor behind Berkeley’s slower recovery is the
composition of its creative economy relative to other
cities. More than half of Berkeley’s creative sector
jobs are concentrated in Visual & Performing Arts
(56%), making the city far more dependent on live,
in-person activity than its regional peers (Figure 11).

San Francisco, by contrast, has a much larger share in
Entertainment & Digital Media (38%), led by industries
such as media streaming, software publishing (e.g., video game development), and broadcasting. These segments
not only proved more resilient during shutdowns but in
many cases expanded as digital content consumption
surged. San Jose and Oakland fall between these two
poles, with stronger mixes across both the Performing Arts and Digital Media industries.

With a significant percentage of Performing Arts industry employment comes other struggles tied to the sector’s reliance on gig and contract work, as well as its nonprofit-heavy structure. In Berkeley, the estimated 70% of the creative workforce that is self-employed or gig-based is driven largely by the city’s Visual & Performing Arts sector, which alone accounts for 3,850 workers (827 self-employed and 3,022 gig-based). By comparison, only 31% of San Francisco’s creative workforce falls into these categories (Figure 12). Oakland and San Jose also have higher shares of self- employed and gig workers (60% and 50%, respectively), but are not as high as Berkeley’s.

FIGURE 11: REGIONAL CREATIVE ECONOMY COMPOSITION: VISUAL & PERFORMING ARTS VS. ENTERTAINMENT & DIGITAL MEDIA | 2024
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Lightcast, CVL Economics. 0 %
10 %
20 %
30 %
40 %
50 %
60 %
Berkeley
Oakland
San Francisco
San Jose
56 %
33 %
24 %
28 %
10 %
14 %
38 %
23 %
Visual & Performing Arts
Entertainment & Digital Media
Share of Creative Economy Employment
17 BERKELEY CREATIVE ECONOMY

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

At the same time, Performing Arts is among the industries with the highest share of nonprofit organizations. For instance, in Alameda County, over 25% of Performing Arts jobs are in nonprofits, compared to just 9.4% across all industries countywide (Figure 13). The county’s nonprofit share in the Performing Arts is also notably higher than the statewide average of 15.8%.

FIGURE 12: SHARE OF CREATIVE ECONOMY SELF-EMPLOYED AND GIG-BASED WORKFORCE BY CITY | 2024 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Lightcast, CVL Economics. 0 %
10 %
20 %
30 %
40 %
50 %
60 %
70 %
80 %
Berkeley
Oakland
San Francisco
San Jose
70 %
60 %
31 %
50 %
Share of Creative Economy Self-Employed and Gig-Based Workers FIGURE 13: SHARE OF NONPROFIT EMPLOYMENT IN BOTH COUNTY AND STATE: PERFORMING ARTS VS. ALL INDUSTRIES | 2024
*Includes employment in NAICS 711 (Performing Arts, Spectator Sports, and Related Industries).

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Nonprofit Establishment Employment and Wage Estimates, CVL Economics.

REGION SHARE OF PERFORMING ARTS
EMPL
OYMENT IN NONPROFITS*

SHARE OF TOTAL EMPLOYMENT (ALL

INDUSTRIES) IN NONPROFITS
Alameda County 25.1% 9.4%
California 15.8% 7.8%
18 BERKELEY CREATIVE ECONOMY

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

COMPARISON TO THE OVERALL ECONOMY IN BERKELEY
The picture becomes even more stark when comparing
Berkeley’s creative economy to the city’s overall
employment base (Figure 14). Before the pandemic, the
creative workforce grew faster than Berkeley’s overall
economy. Between 2014 and 2018, creative employment
surged nearly 15%, compared to about 11% growth in the
total workforce. This momentum underscored the sector’s potential as one of the city’s most dynamic economic
drivers, suggesting that, absent disruption, it might have continued to anchor local growth.

The pandemic, however, set the creative economy in
Berkeley on a very different trajectory than the overall local economy. While total employment in Berkeley dipped briefly in 2020, it has since resumed a steady upward
climb, reaching new highs by 2024. The creative workforce, as noted earlier, has remained stagnant or declined since 2020, and is currently registering at levels observed back in 2013, more than a decade ago. This divergence makes
clear that while Berkeley’s broader economy has expanded and rebounded, its creative economy, which relies on the Performing Arts industry, has been left behind—changing from a leading growth engine into a sector struggling to regain its footing.
19 BERKELEY CREATIVE ECONOMY

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

Berkeley’s heavy reliance on the Performing Arts—among the hardest-hit and slowest-recovering industries nationwide— has left its creative economy especially vulnerable. The sector’s dual reliance on gig and contract work, alongside its nonprofit-heavy structure, compounds this fragility by tethering organizational stability to fluctuating audience demand, shifting philanthropic priorities, and uncertain public funding. As a result, Berkeley’s creative economy remains more exposed to the ongoing challenges of rebuilding sustainable audiences than many of its regional peers.

Yet despite the sector’s slower recovery compared to the broader economy, Berkeley’s creative economy remains an essential economic engine. The following economic impact analysis highlights just how significant this activity is for Berkeley and the region—underscoring why the sector’s recovery is not simply a cultural priority, but an economic imperative.

FIGURE 14: CREATIVE ECONOMY EMPLOYMENT GROWTH RATE VS. GROWTH RATE FOR ALL SECTORS IN BERKELEY | 2014–2024
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Lightcast, CVL Economics. 2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
0 %
5 %
10 %
15 %
−5
%
20 %
13 %
−4
%
Total Economy
Creative Economy
Percent Change in Employment
20 BERKELEY CREATIVE ECONOMY

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

Entities in the creative economy are part of a
broader ecosystem, constantly interacting with
other businesses in other industries and consumers.

While it is directly composed of the eight defined
subsectors outlined earlier (see Figure 1), its reach
extends well beyond these boundaries.

CREATIVE ECONOMY

ECONOMIC IMPACT

ANALYSIS
Arts organizations and creative firms rely on a wide array of goods and services—purchasing materials, contracting with marketing agencies, and engaging professional services—thereby generating demand across many other industries. At the same time, the people who work in creative jobs—whether performers, designers, technicians, or administrators—spend their earnings on everyday needs like groceries, rent, and childcare. These purchases further help sustain local businesses across many different sectors. 21 BERKELEY CREATIVE ECONOMY

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

Economic impact analysis is a tool that helps us measure all of these effects—not just the direct output of an industry, but also the chain reaction it sets off across the broader economy, also known as the “multiplier effect.” To do this, we break the total impact into three parts: direct, indirect, and induced impacts, the latter two of which constitute the multiplier effect.⁸ Together, these layers show the total economic impact of the creative economy through its role in a much larger ecosystem.
• Direct effect includes the economic activity that happens within the creative economy sector itself—like sector employee wages, business revenue, and taxes paid.
• Indirect multiplier effect captures the activity supported by the creative economy sector’s suppliers. For example, a theater might rely on a local costume shop, which in turn buys fabric from a regional wholesaler. • Induced multiplier effect refers to the ripple effect of household spending. When creative economy sector employees or those in related businesses spend their paychecks locally, they help generate jobs and income in industries like food service, retail, and transportation.

To assess the contribution of arts and culture to the local and regional economy, several key indicators are analyzed:
• Employment impact: This refers to the total number of jobs supported by the creative economy—both directly (within arts organizations themselves) and indirectly (at supporting businesses), as well as jobs created through household spending by those workers (induced impact).
• Labor income impact: This captures the total wages, salaries, and benefits earned by workers across the direct, indirect, and induced layers of activity. It reflects how the sector supports livelihoods throughout the community. • Value added impact: This measures the creative economy’s direct contribution to Gross Regional Product (GRP) in Berkeley. Value added reflects the net new wealth created by the sector, including labor income (wages and salaries), taxes on production, and business profits.
• Fiscal impact: This measures the tax revenue generated by businesses and workers associated with the creative economy. Tax revenue is broken down by city, county, and state levels. 8 See Appendix A.4 for IMPLAN input-output methodology. 22 BERKELEY CREATIVE ECONOMY

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

BASELINE IMPACT
The baseline impact reflects the
economic impact that originates from
crea
tive economy activity within the
City of Berkeley’s boundaries. These
impacts are generated by Berkeley-
based entities and include the
employment, labor income, and value
added that flow directly from activity
located in the city.

In 2024, the 8,186 direct jobs in Berkeley’s creative economy supported an additional 251 jobs through multiplier effects (indirect and induced), for a total of 8,437 jobs supported citywide tied to the sector (Figure 15). Altogether, Berkeley’s creative economy generated $537.5 million in labor income (wages, salaries, and benefits) and contributed more than $1.0 billion to the city’s gross regional product (value added). Put another way, each creative job in Berkeley generated about $66,000 in labor income and $125,000 in value added (contributions to Berkeley’s gross regional product).

These impacts are significant in scale: Berkeley’s creative economy accounted for 7.6% of the city’s total employment, 5.7% of labor income, and 7.9% of value added across the city in 2024. This underscores the sector’s role not only as a major source of jobs and income but also as a key component of the city’s overall economic base.

FIGURE 15: CITYWIDE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF BERKELEY’S CREATIVE ECONOMY | 2024 Note: Totals may not be exact due to rounding. Includes impacts associated with private and non-profit entities in Berkeley’s creative economy.

Source: IMPLAN, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, CVL Economics.

EMPLOYMENT (JOBS) LABOR INCOME VA LUE ADDED
DIRECT EFFECT 8,186 $519.6 Million $979.7 Million
INDIRECT EFFECT 213 $15.3 Million $22.6 Million
INDUCED EFFECT 38 $2.5 Million $19.2 Million
TOTAL ECONOMIC IMPACT 8,437 $537.5 Million $1,021.4 Million SHARE OF BERKELEY TOTAL 7.6% 5.7% 7.9%
23 BERKELEY CREATIVE ECONOMY

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

REGIONAL SPILLOVERS ACROSS THE EAST BAY
While the city-level results capture the impacts that occur strictly within Berkeley, creative economy activity doesn’t stop at the city’s boundaries. Widening the lens to look at the East Bay (Alameda and Contra Costa counties) as a whole, the impact gr
ows because of “leakages, ” or spillovers—spending that originates in Berkeley but flows outward to suppliers, contractors, and consumer markets located elsewhere in the two-county region as a result of the multiplier effect.

As such, in addition to the 8,437 jobs supported by the creative economy in Berkeley (citywide total employment impact from Figure 15), the sector supported an additional:
• 3,784 indirect jobs by supply-chain spending in other parts of the East Bay. For example, a Berkeley theater company might contract with a fabrication shop in Oakland or Richmond, or a design studio in Berkeley might purchase printing services from a vendor in Hayward or Concord. These transactions represent spillovers out of the city that become economic activity elsewhere in the East Bay.
• 1,821 induced jobs in other parts of the East Bay when creative workers spend their earnings on household needs. A Berkeley-based musician’s paycheck might go towards childcare in Alameda or Albany, groceries in San Leandro or Orinda, or shopping in Oakland or Walnut Creek. Those everyday expenditures ripple outward, supporting additional jobs and income across the region.

This means an additional 5,605 jobs were supported by Berkeley’s creative economy in other parts of the East Bay (elsewhere in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties) (Figure 16).

FIGURE 16: SPILLOVER ECONOMIC IMPACT OF BERKELEY’S CREATIVE ECONOMY INTO OTHER PARTS OF THE EAST BAY | 2024
Note: As this analysis measures only creative economy activity originating within the City of Berkeley, direct effects occur only within Berkeley, as shown in Figure 15. Totals may not be exact due to rounding. Includes impacts associated with private and non-profit entities in Berkeley’s creative economy.

Source: IMPLAN, CVL Economics.

EMPLOYMENT (JOBS) LABOR INCOME VA LUE ADDED

DIRECT EFFECT - - -
INDIRECT EFFECT 3,784 $307.9 Million $426.4 Million
INDUCED EFFECT 1,821 $138.6 Million $254.7 Million
TOTAL ECONOMIC IMPACT 5,605 $420.8 Million $624.0 Million 24 BERKELEY CREATIVE ECONOMY

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

A DEEPER LOOK:

UNDERSTANDING THE MULTIPLIER EFFECT
The multiplier effect (indirect and induced impacts) captures how the impact of the creative economy extends beyond the organizations and workers directly involved in creative activity. Every creative job in Berkeley generates additional activity across a wide range of other industries, through business-to-business (supply-chain) transactions and household spending by industry workers. Because Berkeley is deeply interconnected with the surrounding East Bay economy, these multiplier effects also have a geographic dimension. While some of the secondary activity remains inside city boundaries, much of it naturally flows to nearby communities such as Oakland, Emeryville, Richmond, Albany, El Cerrito, and San Leandro where many vendors are located and workers live.

The multiplier effect of Berkeley’s creative economy is evident in the diverse range of industries supported through supply-chain linkages (indirect effects) and household spending (induced effects) (Figure 17). On the supply-chain side, the largest employment impacts occur in industries directly tied to arts and culture production. Promoters of performing arts (i.e., organizations that organize and manage live shows, concerts, theatres, or festivals) (805 jobs) and independent artists, writers, and performers (205 jobs) illustrate how creative activity sustains related fields within the broader arts ecosystem.
9 At the same time, significant spillovers occur in various professional and technical service industries: employment services (376 jobs), other real estate (261 jobs), custom computer programming (168 jobs), and management consulting (160 jobs) all benefit from the demands of creative organizations and firms. Even industries like warehousing and storage (64 jobs), couriers and messengers (108 jobs), and commercial sports (230 jobs) are strengthened through their connections to Berkeley’s creative sector.

On the household spending side, induced effects spread the benefits in a different way.

Creative workers spend their earnings on everyday needs that sustain jobs in restaurants (175 jobs across full- and limited-food service), family services (103 jobs), and healthcare (55 hospital jobs and 48 in physicians’ offices). Retail is also a major beneficiary, with creative economy earnings supporting employment in food and beverage stores (51 jobs), general merchandise stores (43 jobs), and other retail outlets. Additional gains are seen in education (37 jobs in other educational services), personal care services (42 jobs), and even auto repair and maintenance (32 jobs).
9 Industry titles are reported using IMPLAN’s sectoring scheme, which is mapped to the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
25 BERKELEY CREATIVE ECONOMY

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

A) Indirect Effect (Supply Chain)
B) Induced Effect (Household Spending)
FIGURE 17: RIPPLE EFFECT OF EAST BAY EMPLYOMENT SUPPORTED BY THE BERKELEY CREATIVE ECONOMY | 2024 Source: IMPLAN, CVL Economics.
0 200
400
600
800
Promoters of performing arts
Employment services
Other real estate
Commercial Sports Except Racing
Independent artists, writers, and performers
Custom computer programming services
Management consulting services
Management of companies and enterprises
Accounting, tax preparation, bookkeeping, and payroll services Couriers and messengers
Transit and ground passenger transportation
Office administrative services
Legal services
Warehousing and storage
Environmental and other technical consulting services
805
376
261
230
205
168
160
123
109
108
98 93
71 64
60 Number of Jobs
0 20
40 60
80 100
Individual and family services
Limited-service restaurants
Full-service restaurants
Hospitals
Retail - Food and beverage stores
Other financial investment activities
Offices of physicians
All other food and drinking places
Other real estate
Retail - General merchandise stores
Personal care services
Other educational services
Automotive repair and maintenance, except car washes
Private households
Religious organizations
103
88 87
55 51
49 49
46 44
43 42
37 32
32 32
Number of Jobs
26 BERKELEY CREATIVE ECONOMY

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

BEYOND THE TICKET:

ARTS AND CULTURE ATTENDEE SPENDING
In considering the broader role of the creative economy, it is important to account for the additional activity generated by visitors to arts and culture establishments. Audiences at performances and visitors to museums often turn their outings into fuller experiences—grabbing a meal at a restaurant, stopping at a café or bar, or browsing nearby shops. This ancillary spending amplifies the value of arts and culture by circulating dollars into multiple sectors and sustaining the vitality of surrounding commercial corridors. The presence of continued arts and culture programming drives foot traffic that sustains nearby businesses and keeps commercial corridors vibrant.

To quantify this effect, CVL Economics used the SMU DataArts Cultural Data Profile database to compile attendance figures for an available sample of Berkeley arts and culture organizations. Together, the 37 arts and culture venues in Berkeley in this sample group attract roughly 1.4 million at
tendees annually.10
Spending estimates were drawn from Arts & Economic Prosperity 6 (Americans for the Arts), which provides audience spending patterns for local regions. While no Berkeley-specific profile exists, spending data from Walnut Creek and San Francisco were averaged to approximate Berkeley’s position—more urbanized than Walnut Creek, yet less dense (and with lower associated costs) than San Francisco. Similarly, the average mix of local and nonlocal attendees was applied to get an estimate of spending in Berkeley. This distinction is important because local attendees, who live in the city, generate less new spending when they attend a performance than their nonlocal counterparts. In total, the average Berkeley local attendee spends $35.76 on additional activities per art
istic/cultural event, and the average (nonlocal) attendee from outside Berkeley spends $48.83.

Applying these patterns to the Berkeley sample group shows th at arts and
culture audiences for these organizations generate an estimated $56 million in annual spending at other local businesses (Figure 18). This includes nearl
y $30 million at food and drink establishments, $7.6 million at retail stores, $7.2 million on local transportation, and $3.5 million on lodging. 10 SMU DataArts Cultural Data Profile (2017–2024).
27 BERKELEY CREATIVE ECONOMY

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

FIGURE 18: ANNUAL ARTS AND CULTURE ATTENDEE SPENDING BY CATEGORY FOR 37 ARTS AND CULTURE ORGANIZATIONS IN BERKELEY | 2024
Source: SMU DataArts, Americans for the Arts, CVL Economics.

SPENDING CATEGORY LOCAL ATTENDEES NONLOC AL ATTENDEES TOTAL ATTENDEES Food and Drink $17.6 Million $11.8 Million $29.2 Million Retail Shopping $4.5 Million $3.1 Million $7.6 Million
Overnight Lodging $0.6 Million $3.0 Million $3.5 Million Local Transportation $3.5 Million $3.7 Million $7.2 Million Clothing and Accessories $2.5 Million $1.4 Million $3.8 Million Groceries and Supplies $1.8 Million $0.8 Million $2.6 Million Childcare $0.5 Million $0.4 Million $0.9 Million
Other/Miscellaneous $0.6 Million $0.5 Million $1.2 Million Total Spending $31.3 Million $24.6 Million $56.0 Million

FISCAL IMPACT
Creative economy activity within the City of Berkeley also generates meaningful public revenues that flow across multiple levels of government. While these activities take place strictly within city boundaries, California’s layered tax system distributes the resulting revenues among the City of Berkeley, Alameda County, and the State of California. This means that a single dollar of creative economy activity in Berkeley contributes to multiple jurisdictions simultaneously.

Creative activity contributes to several types of taxes that fund distinct public services (Figure 19). The following are major sources of creative economy tax revenue:
• Property tax (shared by City of Berkeley and Alameda County) revenues come from the assessed value of land and buildings occupied by creative organizations and businesses—such as theaters, studios, galleries, or design offices—whether paid directly by the property owner or indirectly through commercial leases. These revenues fund a broad range of public services, from public safety to county-administered programs, including road maintenance and transit services.
• Sales tax (shared by City of Berkeley, Alameda County, and California) in the creative sector is typically tied to ancillary transactions like food and beverage concessions, merchandise, or purchases of supplies and equipment.

Ticket sales are not included because they are not subject to California sales tax. These revenues are distributed across all three levels of government—supporting the City’s general fund, countywide systems administered by Alameda County, and the State’s General Fund, which finances education, health and human services, and other statewide priorities.
• Personal income taxes (California only) are generated by the wages and self-employment earnings of workers employed in the creative economy, including W-2 employees, freelancers, and gig workers. They are a major source for the State of California’s General Fund.
• Corporate income taxes (California only) apply to the net profits of for-profit creative firms, such as design practices, production companies, or galleries, while nonprofit entities are generally exempt. These revenues also accrue to the State’s General Fund and help sustain statewide systems and programs alongside income taxes. 28 BERKELEY CREATIVE ECONOMY

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

FIGURE 19: SCENARIOS FOR UNDERSTANDING THE CREATIVE ECONOMY’S TAX REVENUE GENERATION Source: CVL Economics.

TAX TYPE & COLLECTOR SCENARIO 1: NONPROFIT THEATER COMPANY SC ENARIO 2: PRIVATE DESIGN FIRM

PROPERTY TAX
(City, County)
Theater company leases its space; tax is assessed
on the property owner but is effectively built into
rent.

Firm leases its space; tax is assessed on the
property owner but is effectively built into rent.

SALES TAX
(City, County, State)
Sales tax collected on concessions (food, drink),
merchandise, and taxable rentals. Ticket sales
exempt.

Core design services exempt. Sales tax applies to
tangible goods (printed collateral, models, branded
merchandise) and on taxable inputs purchased by
the firm.

PERSONAL INCOME TAX
(Stat
e)
Actors, stage crew, and set designers pay income
tax on wages or self-employment income.

Designers, administrative staff, and contractors
pay state income tax on wages or self-employment
income.

CORPORATE INCOME TAX
(State) Exempt as a nonprofit. Corporate profits taxed at the state level.

DIRECT TAX BENEFITS
Creative economy activity in Berkeley generates tax dollars that flow into the City’s General Fund, which provides flexible revenues that are budgeted to core municipal services, such as public safety and personnel. Unlike special district revenues that are legally restricted to specific purposes, General Fund revenues represent the City’s discretionary pool.

In fiscal year 2024, the City of Berkeley’s General Fund was budgeted at $273.4 million. 11 Of this, based on the IMPLAN
modeling described above which includes the impact of multiplier effects, the creative economy generated an estimated $10.7 million in tax revenues (Figure 20), equal to nearly 4% of the City’s discretionary tax base. The largest contributions came from sales taxes, where creative sector activity accounted for more than 15% of total collections, and property taxes at 4%.
11 City of Berkeley, Adopted Budget for Fiscal Year 2025 & 2026 (PDF). Available at: https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/FY-2025-2026- Proposed-Biennial-Budget.pdf.
29 BERKELEY CREATIVE ECONOMY

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

FIGURE 20: CITY OF BERKELEY GENERAL FUND (GF) TAX REVENUE GENERATED BY BERKELEY’S CREATIVE ECONOMY | 2024
Note: Totals may not be exact due to rounding. Includes impacts associated with private and non-profit entities in Berkeley’s creative economy.
* “All Other Taxes” for the creative economy include Business License Taxes, Utility Users Taxes, Cannabis Taxes, and other smaller categories. For the City’s total General Fund, this category also includes revenues not meaningfully generated by creative economy activity, such as Vehicle License Fees, Ambulance Fees, Interest Income, Franchise Fees, Indirect Cost Reimbursements, and Transfers.

Source: IMPLAN, City of Berkeley, CVL Economics.

SOURCE OF REVENUE CREATIVE ECONOMY

GF TAX R
EVENUE
FY2024 EST. ACTUAL

GF RE VENUE
(TOTAL GF REVENUE)

CREATIVE ECONOMY SHARE

OF TOTAL GF REVENUE
PROPERTY TAX $4.6 Million $116.0 Million 4.0%
SALES TAX $2.9 Million $18.7 Million 15.6%
ALL OTHER TAXES* $3.2 Million $138.7 Million 2.3%
TOTAL GENERAL FUND TAX REVENUE $10.7 Million $273.4 Million 3.9% FIGURE 21: COUNTY AND STATE TAX REVENUE GENERATED BY BERKELEY’S CREATIVE ECONOMY | 2024 Note: Totals may not be exact due to rounding. Includes impacts associated with private and non-profit entities in Berkeley’s creative economy.

Source: IMPLAN, CVL Economics.

SOURCE OF REVENUE REVENUE FOR ALAMEDA & CONTRA COSTA
COUN
TIES

REVENUE FOR THE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - $25.5 Million
PROPERTY TAX $12.3 Million
SALES TAX $0.6 Million $25.6 Million
CORPORATE TAX - $14.2 Million
OTHER TAX $1.4 Million $9.3 Million
TOTAL TAX REVENUE $14.3 Million $74.6 Million

SUPPORT FOR REGIONAL SYSTEMS THAT RETURN VALUE LOCALLY
Beyond the direct benefit to Berkeley residents through City revenues, the tax dollars generated by Berkeley’s
creative economy for county and state jurisdictions
also strengthen the regional and statewide system that
Berkeley’s population depends on.

In 2024, Berkeley’s creative economy generated $14.3
million in Alameda and Contra Costa County revenues
(most is appropriated through Alameda County since that is where Berkeley activity is directly located) and $74.6 million in state revenues (Figure 21). County revenues
flow into systems that the City does not operate directly, but that are critical for residents, including public health programs, social services, elections, courts, and jails. State revenues, meanwhile, are collected through income, sales, and corporate taxes and deposited into California’s General Fund, which supports K–12 and higher education (the
State General Fund is the largest source of public support for UC Berkeley), Medi-Cal, and other health programs.

Though administered at the county and state levels, these dollars cycle back to Berkeley by funding schools, public universities, healthcare access, and regional services that residents use every day.
30 BERKELEY CREATIVE ECONOMY

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

The City of Berkeley
provides grant funding
to arts and culture
organizations, festivals,
and individuals through
its robust Civic Arts Grant
Program, established in 1991.

RETURN ON

INVESTMENT
The Civic Arts Grant Program aims to strengthen Berkeley’s arts ecosystem by directly supporting individual artists, organizations, and festivals that expand cultural access, foster equity and inclusion, and contribute to the city’s creative vitality and economic vibrancy.
12 Over the past decade, the program has expanded significantly in scale, with annual direct investment increasing from $230,000 in fiscal year (FY) 2016 to approximately $700,000 annually since FY2022 (Figure 22).
13 Funding is distributed
across three primary categories: Individual Artist Project Grants, Community Festival Grants, and General Operating Support for arts organizations.
12 For more information, visit the City of Berkeley’s Civic Arts Grants page: https://berkeleyca.gov/community-recreation/civic-arts/civic-arts-grants. 13 City of Berkeley, Civic Arts Grants Program – Improved Practices & Community Impact (Work Session Item 01), March 21, 2023, https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2023-03-21%20WS%20Item%2001%20Civic%20Arts%20Grants%20Program.pdf. 31 BERKELEY CREATIVE ECONOMY

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

In FY 2024, the City of Berkeley awarded $698,782 in
Civic Arts Grants to 55 arts and culture organizations, 31 community festivals, and 11 individual artist projects (97 grants total).
14 This investment sustains year-round
organizational programming in Berkeley, supports artists’ livelihoods, and improves community access to diverse
cultural experiences. To provide a better sense of the
significance of this support, we estimate the City’s return on investment using the following process outlined below.

In 2024, the organizations and festivals receiving Civic Arts Grants reported a combined operating revenue of
$131 million. CVL Economics estimated the total operating revenue of grantee organizations by compiling financial data from the IRS Exempt Organizations Business Master
File. For festivals, revenue was attributed to the organizing entity (unless the festival was an entity itself); in some cases, the same organization received both a grant for its annual programming and a separate grant to support a
festival it manages. In aggregate, however, these awards represent funding to a single entity, and the reported
revenues reflect the full scope of that organization’s
operations.

While most revenue data was available through IRS
tax filings, there were a few data gaps in organizational revenue availability. Adjustments were made where
necessary—for example, nonprofits with annual revenues
under $50,000 are not required to submit total revenue
figures to the IRS, and CVL Economics developed
reasonable estimates recognizing the relatively small scale of these entities. In a few cases where 2024 revenue data was not yet available, 2023 filings were used as a proxy to ensure consistency across the analysis. In addition, in 2024 the program distributed $44,000 in project grants to individual artists, functioning as direct income in exchange for their creative work.

When accounting for both direct activity and the
broader ripple effects across the local economy, these
organizations and individuals that received grants
from the City of Berkeley together generated $137.4
million in economic activity within the City of
Berkeley. This estimate was developed using IMPLAN
input–output modeling, capturing not only the direct
contributions of grantees and their employees, but also the supply chain effects on local vendors, contractors, and service providers, along with the induced spending of households supported by arts-related jobs. In other words, every $1 of Civic Arts Grant funding supported nearly
$197 in total economic activity across the City of Berkeley.

Overall, the City’s investments supported about 7.5% of the total economic activity generated by its creative economy. 14 City of Berkeley, Fiscal Year 2024 Civic Arts Grant Awards (Information Calendar), October 10, 2023, https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/ documents/2023-10-10%20Item%2015%20Fiscal%20Year%202024%20Civic%20Arts%20Grant.pdf.

FIGURE 22: BERKELEY CIVIC ARTS GRANTS ALLOCATIONS | FY2016–FY 2024 Source: City of Berkeley, CVL Economics.

FISCAL YEAR TOTAL GRANT AMOUNT
AWA
RDED
NUMBER

OF GRANTS

AVERAGE

GRA NT SIZE
FY2016 $229,100 53 $4,323
FY2017 $378,848 56 $6,765
FY2018 $497,510 61 $8,156
FY2019 $500,000 63 $7,937
FY2020 $650,199 90 $7, 2 24
FY2021 $579,493 94 $6,165
FY2022 $714,470 104 $6,870
FY2023 $696,996 114 $6,114
FY2024 $698,782 97 $7, 20 4
32 BERKELEY CREATIVE ECONOMY

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

PUBLIC ART PROGRAM AND PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY GRANTS In addition to its Civic Arts Grants program, the City of Berkeley provides substantial support for the local creative economy through its Public Art Program. Unlike the Civic Arts Grants, which are allocated annually from the City’s General Fund, Public Art funding is generated primarily through Berkeley’s Public Art ordinances, which dedicate a portion of capital project budgets to commissioning,
installing, and maintaining public artworks, as well as through in-lieu fees paid by private developers who opt to contribute funds rather than install art on their buildings.

This structure means that funding levels are driven by
the scale and timing of both municipal capital projects and private development activity, both of which can
be cyclical, rather than a fixed appropriation. Because these allocations are tied to specific artworks and capital improvements—rather than to flexible operating support— they are not included in the ROI analysis, which focuses on General Fund dollars that flow directly into organizational capacity and community programming.

Public Art Program expenditures nevertheless represent
a meaningful municipal investment in Berkeley’s cultural landscape. Over the past five fiscal years, annual expenses have ranged from $276,656 in FY21 to nearly $923,475 in FY23. The spike in FY23 reflects one-time allocations from the City’s T1 Infrastructure and Facilities Bond,
15 which
funded new public art commissions and conservation
projects in conjunction with broader civic improvements.

More recent spending totaled $407,212 in FY24 and
$624,035 in FY25.
16 The City maintains a digital catalog of
its public art collection, including an interactive map that allows residents and visitors to explore artworks across the community.
17 Furthermore, in rapid response to the widespread impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the local arts and culture
sector, the City of Berkeley awarded more than $3
million in emergency relief and recovery grants
between 2020 and 2022. This included $2.5 million
to 88 arts and culture organizations and over $520,000
to 193 individual artists. Although these were one-time allocations, they were extraordinary in scale and helped many organizations withstand the most difficult periods of pandemic shutdowns. Every $1 of the City’s emergency
investments spurred by the pandemic leveraged at
least $5.64 in sustained arts and culture economic
activity that might otherwise have been lost entirely.
18 The impacts of these investments are detailed in the companion report (published concurrently), entitled
Assessment of Berkeley Arts & Culture Pandemic Relief
and Recovery Funding.
15 City of Berkeley, Measure T1: Infrastructure and Facilities Bond, https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/our-work/bond-revenue-measures/measure-t1. 16 Jennifer Lovvorn, Chief Cultural Affairs Officer at City of Berkeley, email to CVL Economics, September 26, 2025. 17 City of Berkeley, City of Berkeley Public Art Collection, https://www.artworkarchive.com/profile/civicartscollection/portfolio. 18 City of Berkeley, Assessment of Berkeley Arts & Culture Pandemic Relief and Recovery Funding, prepared by CVL Economics, October 2025. 33 BERKELEY CREATIVE ECONOMY

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

34 BERKELEY CREATIVE ECONOMY

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

PRE-PANDEMIC MOMENTUM LOST
While the creative economy in Berkeley delivers
significant impacts today, it is important to
recognize the strength and momentum the sector
had prior to the pandemic. In 2018, creative
employment in Berkeley had climbed to a peak of
nearly 9,850 jobs—growth that not only outpaced
overall citywide employment, but also exceeded
the expansion of creative sectors in neighboring
regions. That momentum was abruptly halted
when the pandemic hit. The shutdown of 2020
erased all of the gains built over the previous
decade; today, Berkeley’s creative sector sits
17% below its 2018 peak and is aligned with
employment levels experienced in 2013.

What had long been one of Berkeley’s greatest
cultural strengths—its concentration of live
performance venues and nonprofit arts
organizations—quickly became a vulnerability
when in-person gatherings were deemed unsafe.

Live theater, music, and dance were among
the first to close and the last to return, severing
both earned and ancillary revenue streams. This
challenge was compounded by Berkeley’s high
proportion of nonprofit organizations, which made
the sector particularly reliant on philanthropic and
public funding sources. As emergency relief and
federal grant programs have wound down, many
of these funding streams have diminished, leaving
organizations with fewer resources to sustain
operations.

FINAL

CONSIDERATIONS
35 BERKELEY CREATIVE ECONOMY

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

Unlike other industries that have since rebounded,
Berkeley’s creative economy has continued to decline
year after year, leaving a widening gap between its current scale and the trajectory it was once on. Its strength in live performance—one of the sectors hardest hit by shutdowns and slowest to recover—made the creative economy
especially vulnerable, while reliance on gig work, high local costs, and cautious audiences further compound the challenges.

The divergence between actual outcomes and the
projected pre-pandemic trend highlights what has been
lost, including nearly 1,800 more jobs than what was
observed in 2024 (Figure 23). Those unrealized jobs
represent more than just employment—they translate into lost wages, reduced household spending, and diminished
tax revenues. If the pre-pandemic trajectory had held,
Berkeley’s creative economy would not only employ more
people, but also generate higher levels of labor income and value added (contributions to the City’s gross regional product) than currently measured citywide.

FIGURE 23: ACTUAL CREATIVE ECONOMY EMPLOYMENT VS. PRE-PANDEMIC TRENDLINE IN BERKELEY Source: U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Lightcast, CVL Economics. 2005
2010
2015
2020
7 ,000
7, 5 0 0
8,000
8,500
9,000
9,500
6,500
10,000
8,186
9964
Actual Employment
Pre-Pandemic Trendline Employment
Number of Jobs
36 BERKELEY CREATIVE ECONOMY

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

ARTS AND CULTURE AS ENGINES OF ECONOMIC VITALITY
Beyond the numbers, the creative economy plays a central role in shaping Berkeley’s identity, quality of life, and appeal as a place to live and work. A strong creative sector enriches the city with performances, festivals, cultural institutions, and design-driven businesses that make Berkeley distinctive within the Bay Area and attractive to both residents and employers.

This connection between creativity and community wellbeing is not unique to Berkeley—it reflects a broader national understanding of the arts’ role in civic life. A 2023 nationwide survey conducted by Americans for the Arts reveals that a vast majority of Americans share this view: 86% agreed that arts and culture are important to their community’s overall quality of life and livability, and 79% affirmed the importance of arts and culture to supporting local businesses, the economy, and jobs (Figure 24).
19 19 Americans for the Arts, Americans Speak Out About the Arts: An In-Depth Look at Public Perceptions and Attitudes About Arts & Culture in America in 2023, December 2024. https://www.americansforthearts.org/sites/default/files/AFTA_2023_Public%20Opinion%20Study_FINAL_12.4.24.pdf How important, if at all, do you think having arts and culture are to… FIGURE 24: PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF THE ROLE OF ARTS AND CULTURE IN COMMUNITY WELLBEING IN THE U.S.

Source: Americans for the Arts.
0 %
20 %
40 %
60 %
80 %
100
%
Your community's quality of life and livability
Your community's business, economy, and local jobs
43 %
36 %
43 %
43 %
6 %
12 %
Very Important
Somewhat Important
Not Very Important
Share of Respondents
37 BERKELEY CREATIVE ECONOMY

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

The significance of arts and culture extends directly to the vitality of downtowns and commercial districts. Cultural venues—such as theaters, galleries, and music spaces—
serve as anchors that drive foot traffic, activate public spaces, and generate demand for nearby restaurants,
bars, and retail establishments. These dynamics not
only support small businesses but also contribute to
perceptions of safety and livability by ensuring that public areas remain active and inviting across a range of hours and days of the week. Investments in arts and culture have proven to be catalysts for broader downtown revitalization, sparking further private investment and creating a
multiplier effect that benefits the entire local economy.

Berkeley itself has long recognized this connection.

The establishment of the Downtown Arts District
along Addison Street in the 1990s and early 2000s was
a deliberate recognition of arts and culture’s role in
economic development as the city faced an 18% ground-
floor vacancy rate downtown.
20 By clustering cultural
venues along Addison Street and leveraging relatively
modest public investment into tens of millions in private dollars, Berkeley transformed a struggling downtown
corridor into a vibrant destination that continues to anchor the city’s economic and cultural identity.

Berkeley’s recent downward trends underscore what is
at stake, threatening to erode the progress built from the 1990s through 2020. Visitor spending in the city fell from over $1 billion in 2019 to just $174 million in 2024 (Figure 25), while the Downtown Berkeley commercial vacancy
rate (including office and retail spaces) sat at nearly 11% in 2024, more than double pre-pandemic levels in 2019
(Figure 26). Office vacancies have driven much of this
increase as remote work has become more prevalent,
but ground floor retail and restaurant spaces have also struggled.
20 City of Berkeley, Arts as Economic Development, presented by M. Caplan at the U.S. Mayors Innovation Conference, August 2016. Available online: https:// berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-02/ArtsDistrict_Panel_CoB_8.27.2016.pdf.

FIGURE 25: TOTAL SPENDING BY VISITORS TO BERKELEY | 2019–2024 Source: Visit Berkeley, Placer.ai, CVL Economics.
$
0 M
$
200
M
$
400
M
$
600
M
$
800
M
$
1000
M
$
1200
M
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
$
1,050
M
$
61 M
$
121
M
$
184
M
$
187
M
$
174
M
Total Visitor Spending
38 BERKELEY CREATIVE ECONOMY

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

FIGURE 26: DOWNTOWN BERKELEY GROUNDFLOOR COMMERCIAL VACANCY RATE | 2016–2024 Note: Includes office and retail properties.

Source: City of Berkeley Office of Economic Development, CVL Economics. 2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
4 %
6 %
8 %
10 %
12 %
14 %
2 %
16 %

4.7 %

4.6 %

3.1 %

5.1 %

9.9 %

15.7 %

11.9 %

10.8 %

10.9 %
Vacancy Rate
These findings can help shape practical solutions for
Berkeley’s long-term recovery and the resilience of
its diverse economy. As work continues to shift from
traditional 9 to 5 office schedules to flexible, remote arrangements, the daytime worker presence that once
sustained downtown retail, hospitality, and cultural activity has diminished. The outmigration of higher-wage workers to places with lower costs of living has left central business districts in Bay Area downtowns more vulnerable to
shrinking audiences and weaker engagement with arts
and culture.

Revitalizing downtown does not mean reverting to pre-
pandemic models. T o counter falling visitor spending and rising vacancies, Berkeley must reimagine how investment in the creative economy can drive renewal. Orienting
economic development around the creative and nighttime
economies is one of the most effective strategies for
sparking new energy, with efforts focused on leveraging existing arts, culture, and entertainment amenities to
attract residents and visitors alike. Sustaining and growing Berkeley’s creative economy—especially its artists, arts organizations, and festivals—is essential to preserving the qualities that make the city a place where people want to live, work, and visit.
39 BERKELEY CREATIVE ECONOMY

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

FIGURE A.1 CREATIVE ECONOMY INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION CODES

APPENDIX
To ensure clarity and comparability, the definition of the creative economy is grounded in the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), the federal standard used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Bureau of Economic Analysis. Using NAICS codes allows us to map creative industries consistently across geographies over time, and to model their economic contributions. While no single code fully captures the breadth of the creative economy, assembling a curated set of codes provides a robust picture of the industry.

A.1: CREATIVE ECONOMY INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION CODES

INDUSTRY CATEGORY AND DESCRIPTION NAICS
ARCH

ITECTURE & DESIGN
Ornamental and Architectural Metal Work Manufacturing 332323 Architectural Services 541310
Landscape Architectural Services 541320
Drafting Services 541340
Interior Design Services 541410
Industrial Design Services 541420

COMMUNICATION DESIGN
Graphic Design Services 541430
Advertising Agencies 541810
Photography Studios, Portrait 541921
Commercial Photography 541922

ENTERTAINMENT & DIGITAL MEDIA
Motion Picture and Video Production 512110
Motion Picture and Video Distribution 512120
Teleproduction and Other Postproduction Services 512191 Sound Recording Studios 512240
Software Publishers 513210
Radio Broadcasting Stations 516110
Television Broadcasting Stations 516120
Media Streaming Distribution Services, Social Networks, Other Media Networks and Content Providers 516210 40 BERKELEY CREATIVE ECONOMY

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

INDUSTRY CATEGORY AND DESCRIPTION NAICS

FASHION
Fiber, Yarn, and Thread Mills 313110
Broadwoven Fabric Mills 313210
Narrow Fabric Mills and Schiffli Machine Embroidery 313220 Nonwoven Fabric Mills 313230
Knit Fabric Mills 313240
Textile and Fabric Finishing Mills 313310
Fabric Coating Mills 313320
Apparel Knitting Mills 315120
Cut and Sew Apparel Contractors 315210
Cut and Sew Apparel Manufacturing (except Contractors) 315250 Apparel Accessories and Other Apparel Manufacturing 315990 Footwear Manufacturing 316210
Other Leather and Allied Product Manufacturing 316990
Toilet Preparation Manufacturing 325620
Jewelry and Silverware Manufacturing 339910
Jewelry, Watch, Precious Stone, and Precious Metal Merchant Wholesalers 423940 Piece Goods, Notions, and Other Dry Goods Merchant Wholesalers 424310 Footwear Merchant Wholesalers 424340
Clothing and Clothing Accessories Merchant Wholesalers 424350 Other Specialized Design Services 541490

FINE ARTS SCHOOLS
Fine Arts Schools 611610

FURNITURE, TOYS & DECORATIVE ARTS
Carpet and Rug Mills 314110
Curtain and Linen Mills 314120
Textile Bag and Canvas Mills 314910
Rope, Cordage, Twine, Tire Cord, and Tire Fabric Mills 314994 All Other Miscellaneous Textile Product Mills 314999
Pottery, Ceramics, and Plumbing Fixture Manufacturing 327110 Other Pressed and Blown Glass and Glassware Manufacturing 327212 All Other Miscellaneous Nonmetallic Mineral Product Manufacturing 327999 Wood Kitchen Cabinet and Countertop Manufacturing 337110 Upholstered Household Furniture Manufacturing 337121
Nonupholstered Wood Household Furniture Manufacturing 337122 Household Furniture (except Wood and Upholstered) Manufacturing 337126 Institutional Furniture Manufacturing 337127
41 BERKELEY CREATIVE ECONOMY

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

INDUSTRY CATEGORY AND DESCRIPTION NAICS
Wood Office Furniture Manufacturing 337211
Custom Architectural Woodwork and Millwork Manufacturing 337212 Office Furniture (except Wood) Manufacturing 337214
Showcase, Partition, Shelving, and Locker Manufacturing 337215 Mattress Manufacturing 337910
Blind and Shade Manufacturing 337920
Doll, Toy, and Game Manufacturing 339930
Furniture Merchant Wholesalers 423210
Home Furnishing Merchant Wholesalers 423220
Toy and Hobby Goods and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers 423920

PUBLISHING & PRINTING
Commercial Printing (except Screen and Books) 323111
Commercial Screen Printing 323113
Books Printing 323117
Support Activities for Printing 323120
Book, Periodical, and Newspaper Merchant Wholesalers 424920 Newspaper Publishers 513110
Periodical Publishers 513120
Book Publishers 513130
Directory and Mailing List Publishers 513140
Greeting Card Publishers 513191
All Other Publishers 513199
Libraries and Archives 519210

VISUAL & PERFORMING ARTS
Musical Instrument Manufacturing 339992
Art Dealers 459920
Theater Companies and Dinner Theaters 711110
Dance Companies 711120
Musical Groups and Artists 711130
Other Performing Arts Companies 711190
Agents and Managers for Artists, Athletes, Entertainers, and Other Public Figures 711410 Independent Artists, Writers, and Performers 711510
Museums 712110
*Note: In addition to the NAICS codes used to define Visual & Performing Arts, employment figures were adjusted to include three major arts and culture institutions at University of California, Berkeley, that would otherwise fall under the broader “colleges and universities” classification: Cal Performances, the Greek Theatre, and the Berkeley Art Museum and Pacific Film Archive. Employment data was provided by these entities directly.
42 BERKELEY CREATIVE ECONOMY

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

Data on Total Businesses is sourced from the City of Berkeley Active Business License (BL) dataset. Total Nonprofit data is sourced from the Internal Revenue Service Tax-Exempt Organizations Business Masterfile (IRS EO BMF).

A.2: BERKELEY BUSINESS COUNT METHODOLOGY
Total Business Count
The BL file provides the most comprehensive and locally specific inventory of business establishments available, capturing sole proprietorships, small enterprises, and other entities that are often excluded from federal datasets. While we know the BL file omits some arts organizations noted above, the reported total of 12,783 businesses is likely only a modest undercount. Even with this limitation, the BL dataset remains the most robust and locally accurate source for understanding the full scope of business activity in the city.

We benchmark the BL dataset against two other common sources for business counts: the U.S. Census Bureau County Business Patterns (CBP), which captures only employer establishments with payroll (and thus undercounts small nonprofits) and carries a 2-year reporting lag; and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), which provides establishment counts for payroll businesses at the county, metropolitan statistical area (MSA), and state levels (Figure A.2.2).

Nonprofit Organization Count
The IRS EO BMF is a national database of organizations recognized as tax-exempt under section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code. This dataset is updated monthly and serves as the most comprehensive listing of nonprofit entities in the U.S. It includes key information such as Employer Identification Number (EIN), ruling date, subsection designation, filing status, and industry. For analytic purposes, the IRS dataset is widely used to benchmark the size and scope of the nonprofit sector because it applies consistent classification standards across jurisdictions and time periods. For this analysis, arts- related nonprofits were identified using National Taxonomy of Exempt Entities (NTEE) codes in the “A” category (Arts, Culture, and Humanities), which map onto the industry NAICS codes used to define the creative economy.

CVL Economics uses the IRS file for nonprofit counts. The Berkeley BL dataset lists only 63 arts and culture nonprofits, which is a smaller number than what is present in the IRS findings. For example, several organizations known to be operational in Berkeley are not listed in the BL spreadsheet. In addition, the 2017 Arts and Culture Plan Update 2018–2027 indicates 152 arts nonprofits in Berkeley. In this context, the IRS count of 193 arts and culture nonprofits appears most consistent with the broader evidence presented in the table below (Figure A.2.2).

FIGURE A.2.1 TOTAL BUSINESS COUNT CROSS-REFERENCES IN BERKELEY *For reference, Berkeley employment accounts for about 10% of total Alameda County employment.

SOURCE REGION TO TAL BUSINESSES TOTAL ARTS & CULTURE

BUSINESSES
Berkeley Active BLs (2025) Berkeley 12,783 650
CBP Establishments (2023) Berkeley 4,279 139
QCEW Establishments (2024) Alameda County* 71,737 2,335 43 BERKELEY CREATIVE ECONOMY

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

Additional Data References on Berkeley’s Arts and Culture Nonprofit Composition Note that the methodology above estimates that 30% of creative economy businesses and 11% of total businesses (All Industries) are nonprofit organizations. To further benchmark this composition, we draw on the BLS Nonprofit Establishment Employment and Wage Estimates dataset. While that dataset is limited to state, county, or Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) geographies, offers limited NAICS detail, and the most recent data year is 2022, it supports benchmarking for the creative economy using NAICS 711 (Performing Arts)—Berkeley’s largest creative sector. When we adjust the business-count methodology above to focus on Performing Arts (NAICS 711), about 28% of Berkeley’s Performing Arts businesses are nonprofits. This is comparable to the shares shown in Figure A.2.3.

FIGURE A.2.3 BLS NONPROFIT ESTABLISHMENT EMPLOYMENT AND WAGE ESTIMATES (2022) FIGURE A.2.2 NONPROFIT COUNT CROSS-REFERENCES IN BERKELEY * An internal list of organizations compiled by the City of Berkeley that includes those listed in the City internal database (such as the Civic Arts Operating Grant program), organizations compiled by Visit Berkeley, and members of the Berkeley Cultural Trust. ** An economic impact report conducted in 2017 on the impact of Berkeley arts and culture nonprofit organizations, see section A.5 below. ***In 2020 and 2022, the City of Berkeley issued pandemic relief and recovery grants in response to the devastating toll of the COVID-19 pandemic. Grants were issued to 88 Berkeley-based nonprofit arts and culture organizations, of which 71 are still operating today.

REGION PERCENT TOTAL
BUS

INESSES NONPROFIT
PERCENT NAICS 711

BUSINESSES NONPROFIT

PERCENT TOTAL

EMPLOYMENT

NONPROFIT

PERCENT NAICS
711 EMPLOYMENT

NONPROFIT
Alameda County 4% 22% 9% 25.1%
Bay Area MSA 4% 23% 9% 36.8%
California 2% 4% 8% 15.8%

SOURCE TOTAL NONPROFITS TO TAL ARTS & CULTURE

NONPROFITS
IRS Tax-Exempt Organization Masterfile (2025) 1,407 193 City of Berkeley Active Business Licenses (2025) 634 63 City of Berkeley Internal Compiled Arts & Culture Organization List (2025)* n/a 187 Arts and Culture Plan Update - Economic Impact Report of the Arts in Berkeley (2017)** n/a 152
City of Berkeley Pandemic Relief and Recovery Grant Recipients (2025)*** n/a 71 44 BERKELEY CREATIVE ECONOMY

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

Methodology Considerations
IRS nonprofit filings and City active business licenses are based on different reporting systems. IRS counts reflect the number of federally recognized nonprofit entities, whereas business license data reflects locally registered operations. The IRS EO BMF dataset is therefore a more standardized and comprehensive source for counting nonprofit organizations because it captures all federally recognized tax-exempt entities, regardless of local business-license status.

Some nonprofits may not appear in City records due to reporting gaps, classification issues, or exemptions from local registration requirements, yet they will still appear in the IRS file as long as their tax-exempt status is active. For measuring the nonprofit landscape—especially for standardization and comparisons across jurisdictions and time periods—the IRS dataset is the most reliable count, while City BL data remains valuable for the broader local business context. Although these measures are not perfectly interchangeable, together they provide useful benchmarks on the scale and structure of the City of Berkeley’s creative economy.

Measuring employment in the creative economy requires going beyond traditional payroll data sources. Standard datasets, such as the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), provide a solid baseline for tracking salaried jobs, but they capture only part of the picture. Creative work often falls outside of conventional salaried employer–employee arrangements, relying instead on independent contracting, self-employment, and gig labor.

To produce a more accurate account of the sector, our analysis incorporates multiple employment categories, each drawn from established federal datasets that are widely used in labor market research and economic modeling.

Salaried Jobs: QCEW is the most widely used dataset for measuring local employment. It is based on administrative records from unemployment insurance (UI) programs, which employers are legally required to file for most payroll workers.

Additional salaried employment is derived from administrative and statistical adjustments that capture payroll jobs not covered by UI programs. These include W-2 employees at organizations exempt from UI reporting requirements, such as certain small nonprofits, charitable or community-based organizations, and religious institutions. • Includes: Full- and part-time payroll jobs.

Self-Employed Jobs: Measured using IRS tax filings (Schedule C income) and Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) data on proprietorships. Represents individuals whose primary income comes from operating their own business. • Includes: Sole proprietors, freelancers, and independent contractors whose primary source of income is generated from their own enterprises.

Gig Jobs: Derived from the U.S. Census Bureau Nonemployer Statistics (NES) dataset and supplemented by BEA adjustments. Represents secondary or contingent forms of work where individuals may earn supplemental income through short-term, project-based, or part-time activities.
• Includes: Freelancers, independent contractors, and sole proprietors engaged in gig-style or occasional work. Often counted in addition to a primary payroll or self-employed job.

Together, these categories ensure that creative employment is not undercounted and that the analysis captures the full scale and impact of the creative workforce.

A.3: CREATIVE ECONOMY EMPLOYMENT DOCUMENTATION
45 BERKELEY CREATIVE ECONOMY

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

The foundational step in quantifying the economic impact of Berkeley’s creative economy is the identification of the appropriate sectors that comprise the core—or “direct”—components of the industry (see industry classification in Appendix A.1).

Economic data are reported using the standardized North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), which allows for consistency and comparability across datasets. No single NAICS code wholly encapsulates the creative economy. As a result, a curated list of relevant sectors was assembled.

The Industry Economic Accounts produced by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) are a key foundational data source for all input-output models. The BEA’s tables provide a summary of how industries produce and consume commodities at the national level. The economic impact analysis in this report utilizes the industry-standard IMPLAN (Impact Analysis for Planning) software. IMPLAN is an input-output modeling system used to build economic models at various levels of geography. IMPLAN is widely used and recognized by government organizations, nonprofits, economic development organizations, workforce planners, education institutions, and consultants across the U.S. and Canada.

For this analysis, CVL Economics tailored the modeling framework specific to the creative economy to build an Input- Output (I-O) model to better account for market transactions, capture supply chains across regions, and more accurately estimate regional industry leakages. The impact analyses were estimated using a Multi-Regional Input-Output (MRIO) model, which expands upon the traditional I-O system to include various additional socioeconomic variables including sub-regional trade and income flows, commuting patterns, and household spending patterns between the City of Berkeley and the East Bay (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties).

Additionally, because Berkeley’s creative economy comprises a significant portion of self-employed and gig workers, we adjusted the model to reflect the differences between these job structures. Salaried jobs typically generate greater and more stable economic impacts (through higher wages, benefits, and payroll taxes) while self-employed and gig work tends to involve lower and/or variable earnings and different tax treatment. By accounting for these differences, our model avoids overstating independent work while still recognizing its importance to the sector.

Within this framework, the following impacts are generated:
• Direct effects capture the employment, labor income, and value added generated by creative economy organizations and workers located in Berkeley.
• Indirect effects reflect the activity supported through the supply chain. IMPLAN estimates these based on regional purchasing patterns—how much, on average, businesses in a given sector spend on inputs from other industries wi
thin the study area.
• Induced effects reflect household spending by workers employed and supported by the creative industries. These are modeled from regional averages of consumer expenditure data (sourced from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Con
sumer Expenditure Survey), adjusted to the income distribution of the study region.

A.4: ECONOMIC IMPACT METHODOLOGY
46 BERKELEY CREATIVE ECONOMY

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

A previous economic impact report, the Arts and Culture Plan Update — Economic Report of the Arts in Berkeley (2017), provided the last benchmark for understanding the role of arts and culture in Berkeley’s economy.21 It is important to note that there are key differences between the methodology used in the 2017 analysis and this report, which means direct comparisons should be approached with caution. Notably, the 2017 study examined a sample of 100 nonprofit arts and culture organizations, while the current analysis covers the broader creative economy, including nonprofits, private firms, individual artists, and other creative enterprises.

The following distinctions should be noted regarding the results reported in Table 6 (on page 18) of the 2017 study. This analysis modeled nearly $98 million in annual spending from the 100 nonprofits as the basis of its analysis. This produced estimates of 3,606 full-time equivalent (FTE) workers, $80.8 million in labor income, and $3.8 million in local tax revenue (including both City and County). By contrast, this current report captures the entire creative economy, counting 8,186 jobs (not converted to FTEs), which helps explain the larger overall economic contribution CVL Economics presents in the current report’s findings.

The methodology behind these calculations of economic and fiscal impact also differs. The 2017 study used the Arts & Economic Prosperity Calculator 5 (AEP5), developed by Americans for the Arts. AEP5 measures the economic impact of nonprofit arts and cultural activity through a standardized input–output modeling framework. It combines locally reported organizational expenditures with audience spending data collected through on-site surveys, and then applies pre-set IMPLAN multipliers to estimate jobs, income, and local and state tax revenues. While this approach ensures consistency across participating communities, the calculator does not allow for adjustments to the unique structure of each local economy.

In comparison, the current study is modeled directly within the IMPLAN system, enabling customization to Berkeley’s unique economic profile, including its composition of for-profit and non-profit organizations. This approach not only captures direct activity within Berkeley but also provides a breakout of the indirect and induced effects that ripple through the local economy and the broader East Bay as creative organizations and workers purchase goods and services and circulate income. This customization also allows for greater City-level detail on fiscal impact reporting.

Finally, the 2017 report added estimates of attendee spending on top of the modeled impact results, since they were able to capture attendee spending for their total sample of 100 organizations, using the SMU DataArts Cultural Data Profile and additional survey outreach. To ensure a process that can be standardized, we used the same approach to calculate visitor spending, but we treat these figures separately rather than folding them into the overall creative economy totals, recognizing that they represent only a sample of the wider ecosystem in this study.

A.5: DATA METHODOLOGY COMPARISONS TO 2017 ECONOMIC IMPACT REPORT 21 See the 2017 report here: https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-02/Berkeley%20Arts%20Economic%20Impact%20Report.pdf 47 BERKELEY CREATIVE ECONOMY

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

This report was made possible through the leadership and support of the City of Berkeley, including the Office of Economic Development and its Civic Arts Program, the Civic Arts Commission, and Berkeley City Council, whose commitment to advancing the city’s creative and cultural vitality guided this work. We also extend our appreciation to the many nonprofit arts and culture organizations, creative practitioners, and community stakeholders who generously contributed their time, insights, and experiences.

CVL Economics is an economic consulting firm that takes a data-driven, human-centric approach to equitable development and sustainable growth. Founded in 2021, CVL Economics partners with communities, municipalities, organizations, and institutions to address today’s most complex challenges and foster bold action. Coupling robust economic models with innovative research methodologies, we provide decision-makers with the actionable insights needed to effect change, expand opportunity, and improve economic well-being.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
PREPARED BY:

Berkeley Creative Economy
Economic Impact Analysis
DECEMBER 2025
48 BERKELEY CREATIVE ECONOMY

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

Assessment of
Berkeley Arts & Culture
Pandemic Relief and
Recovery Funding
DECEMBER 2025

Context 1
Key Findings 7
Pandemic Relief and Recovery For Arts & Culture Organizations 13 Pandemic Relief and Recovery For Arts & Culture Individuals 31 Conclusion: Sustaining Berkeley’s Arts & Culture Ecosystem 39 Appendix 41

TABLE OF

CONTENTS

Between 2020 and 2022, the
City of Berkeley awarded over $3
million in emergency relief and recovery
grants to arts and culture organizations and
individual artists in Berkeley facing severe financial hardship during the COVID-19 pandemic.

CONTEXT
As one of the first municipalities to mobilize
comprehensive support for the cultural sector, Berkeley’s intervention provides a unique case study in crisis
response for arts ecosystems operating in high-cost
environments. Drawing on financial data, organizational surveys, and demographic analyses, this assessment
examines both the immediate stabilization effects and
longer-term outcomes of the City’s emergency relief and sustained recovery investments, offering evidence-based insights into the effectiveness of targeted cultural relief strategies and the fundamental challenges facing creative communities during periods of economic disruption.

When the COVID-19 pandemic brought the Bay Area to
a standstill in March 2020, the region’s vibrant arts and culture sector—from intimate theaters and galleries to
community festivals and independent artists—faced an
unprecedented crisis as venues shutdown, events were
cancelled, and revenue streams vanished overnight.

Recognizing the essential role of arts and culture in
the city’s identity and economy, the City of Berkeley
quickly mobilized a series of emergency grant programs
to support local artists, nonprofit organizations, and
cultural institutions facing acute financial strain. Over the course of three years, the City awarded $2.5 million to 88 organizations and $523,089 to 193 individual artists and cultural workers (Figure 1).
1 The City directed resources
with a focus on equity and accessibility to sustain creative work, preventing organizational closures and ensuring
underrepresented communities remained at the center of
recovery.
1 To view the original documentation for these grants, see City of Berkeley, “Business and Arts Organization Continuity Grant Awards” (Off Agenda Report), April 27, 2020, https://newspack-berkeleyside-cityside.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Business-and-Arts-Organization-Continuity- Grant-Programs-042720.docx-1.pdf; and City of Berkeley, “Civic Arts Grants Program—Improved Practices & Community Impact” (includes Berkeley Art Works Project and Berkeley Arts Recovery Grants,), March 21, 2023, https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2023-03-21%20WS%20 Item%2001%20Civic%20Arts%20Grants%20Program.pdf.
1 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

These investments, totaling over $3 million, were extraordinary in scale. By comparison, the City’s annual Civic Arts Grants program distributes nearly $700,000 to arts and culture organizations, festivals, and individuals in a typical year. The pandemic-era funding programs for arts and culture organizations and individuals granted more than $1 million in 2020 and over $1.8 million in 2022, more than doubling its Civic Arts Grants investment in a typical year. For many Berkeley organizations and individual artists, the pandemic relief and recovery programs were more than simply helpful—they meant the difference between shuttering permanently and surviving long enough to rebuild.

Figure 1: Summary of Berkeley Pandemic Relief Funding Programs * The East Bay/Oakland Relief Fund was a regional grant program administered by the Center for Cultural Innovation that provided grants to 515 artists and cultural workers across Alameda and Contra Costa counties. The table includes only the portion awarded to 47 indiv
idual Berkeley artist residents leveraged with City of Berkeley funds.

Source: City of Berkeley, CVL Economics.

PROGRAM
YEAR
NUMBE
R OF

GRANTEES

AVERAGE GRANT

AWARDED

RECIPIENT
TYPE

TOTAL AMOUNT

AWARDED

ARTS ORGANIZATION CONTINUITY
GRANTS 2020 63 $15,151
organization
Nonprofit or fiscally-
sponsored arts and culture
organizations
$954,543

EAST BAY/OAKLAND RELIEF FUND
FOR INDIVIDUALS IN THE ARTS* 2020 47 $1,372
per individual
Individual artists and arts
workers $64,500

BERKELEY ART WORKS PROJECT
(BAWP) 2021 32 $5,698
per individual
Individual artists, performers,
and community members $182,339

BERKELEY ARTS RECOVERY GRANTS
(BARG) FOR ARTS ORGANIZATIONS

AND FESTIVALS
2022 74 $20,707
per organization
Nonprofit or fiscally-
sponsored arts and culture
organizations and festivals
$1,532,345

BERKELEY ARTS RECOVERY GRANTS
(BARG) FOR ARTISTS AND CULTURAL

PRACTITIONERS
2022 114 $2,423
per individual
Individual artists, culture
bearers, teaching artists $276,250
Total Amount Awarded to Arts & Culture Individuals (2020-2022) $523,089 Total Amount Awarded to Arts & Culture Organizations (2020-2022) $2,486,888 Total Berkeley Pandemic Relief and Recovery Funding (2020-2022) $3,009,977 2 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a wave of regionally
mandated closures that reshaped daily life and severely disrupted arts and cultural activity. Berkeley is just one of three cities in California that operates its own public health department separate from the county, with an independent Health Officer who has the authority to issue local health orders.
2 During the pandemic, this meant that while
the City often issued orders in alignment with Alameda
County, it also at times acted earlier, leaving city residents and businesses subject to mandates that on occasion
differed from neighboring cities and counties.

On March 17, 2020, Berkeley joined Alameda County and
five other Bay Area counties to issue shelter-in-place
orders, two days before Governor Newsom’s statewide
order on March 19. Under these orders, residents were
required to remain in their places of residence except to perform essential activities. All non-essential business— like retail, entertainment, cultural, and recreational
facilities—had to close to the public. This marked the
beginning of what would become one of the most
disruptive periods of widespread closures and halted
activity in recent history.

In this environment of sudden and prolonged shutdowns,
the timing of Berkeley’s pandemic support for arts
organizations and individuals was especially critical (Figure 2). The first round of funding (Arts Organization Continuity Grants) for organizations distributed in May 2020 arrived at the height of shutdowns and, for many organizations, served as their first—and in some cases only—source of
external aid. In parallel, the City also contributed to the East Bay/Oakland Relief Fund for Individuals in the Arts, a regional effort launched in May 2020 to provide direct cash assistance to artists and cultural workers. These
local dollars often reached grantees before county, state, or federal relief programs such as the California Arts
Council’s Cultural Organizations Emergency Relief Fund, Shuttered Venue Operators Grants, Alameda County Arts
Relief Grants, and the Paycheck Protection Program.

It wasn’t until October 2020 that the City of Berkeley, along with Alameda County, cautiously began reopening a wider range of businesses and community spaces to the public
under strict capacity limits. New health order protocols could now allow businesses like museums, galleries,
personal care services, libraries, places of worship,
restaurants, and movie theaters to operate indoors at 25% capacity. These steps marked the first time many cultural and social gathering spaces could invite the public back, albeit in highly restricted forms.

However, this momentum was short-lived. In December,
a resurgence of COVID-19 cases strained intensive care
unit capacity to below 15%, which in turn triggered a new regional stay-at-home order and the closure of nearly
all indoor sectors across Berkeley and Alameda County
once again. As cases eased in early 2021 and vaccines
became widely available, cultural and recreational facilities were gradually permitted to return in stages: first at 25% capacity, then 50%, and by the spring of 2021 up to 75%.

By May 2021, many museums, galleries, and other indoor
spaces were operating under these expanded limits. It
was not until June 15, 2021—fifteen months after the first shutdown—that nearly all restrictions were finally lifted, and businesses across California could fully reopen.

Recognizing the toll of lost work opportunities on local SCALE OF COVID-19 DISRUPTION
2 Sara Kassabian, “Berkeley is unusual in having its own public health division. How does that work during a pandemic?, ” Berkeleyside, April 15, 2020, https://www.berkeleyside.org/2020/04/15/berkeley-is-unusual-in-having-its-own-public-health-division-how-does-that-work-during-a-pandemic. 3 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

artists throughout this period, the City of Berkeley
launched the Berkeley Arts Works Project
(BAWP) in 2021, funded through the City’s Cultural
Trust Fund (Fund 148).
3 Modeled in spirit after the
New Deal–era Works Progress Administration, which
employed artists during the Great Depression to create
public works, the program provided paid opportunities
for artists, performers, and community members to
produce temporary public artworks. These projects not only offered much needed income, but also fostered community healing by addressing themes of public health, resilience, and belonging at a time when many cultural venues were only beginning to reopen.

While the statewide June 2021 reopening marked a turning point for most cultural and recreational facilities, performing arts venues had endured some of the longest closures.

Classified as among the highest-risk settings, they were the last to reopen, allowed to return only when the rest of the economy was cleared to resume operations. The Berkeley Repertory Theatre offers a vivid example of just how long the road back was for performing arts institutions. Despite the state’s reopening in June, Berkeley Rep remained dark until November 12, 2021, when it finally welcomed audiences back with its production of Wintertime—a nearly 20-month closure from March 2020.

The City’s next major rounds of recovery funding came through the Berkeley Arts Recovery Grants (BARG) two years later in 2022 (funded with American Rescue Plan Act dollars). 4 This program was available to both arts and culture
organizations and individuals. The BARG program arrived at a moment when federal and state programs wound down and organizations were confronting new pressures: inflation, workforce shortages, and lower levels of consumer engagement that had not fully recovered since the pandemic.

Together, the launch of these programs over three years created a phased response that moved from emergency relief to longer-term recovery. This approach helped preserve Berkeley’s cultural ecosystem and sustain its creative workforce during one of the most disruptive periods in recent history. 3 The Cultural Trust Fund is a dedicated pool of City revenues that supports Berkeley’s arts ecosystem through grants, public art, and cultural programming. 4 The American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), a $1.9 trillion federal stimulus package enacted in March 2021, provided local governments with flexible State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) to address public health and economic impacts of the pandemic, with a focus on disproportionately impacted communities. The City of Berkeley allocated a portion of these funds to support arts and culture organizations and individual cultural practitioners. 4 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

Figure 2: Timeline of COVID-19 Pandemic Relief & Recovery Grant Distribution Source: CVL Economics.
2020
2021
15 months of
mandated
closures and
restrictions
2022
April–May 2020
February–June 2021
October 2020
April 2021
September 2021
May 2020
April–October 2021
Feb 2022
May 2022
May–June 2020
Dec 2020–Jan 2021
March 2020
Original COVID-19 strain.

Berkeley issues shelter-in-place order on March 17.

California issues its statewide order two days later on March 19. All arts and culture venues close immediately and events are cancelled.

March 2021
Berkeley rolls out mass vaccination efforts.

Berkeley begins easing restrictions again; some
indoor activities are allowed at limited capacity
(e.g., gyms, restaurants, movie theatres).

June 2021
Delta strain becomes the dominant variant.

California formally lifts most statewide restrictions.

Indoor capacity limits and social distancing
requirements largely removed.

December 2021
Omicron strain becomes the dominant variant.

Holiday programming resumes in modified form, but
attendance levels remain well below pre-pandemic
norms. Rising case counts and the arrival of the Omicron variant once again create uncertainty.

June 2020
December 2020
California allows limited outdoor activities and businesses (e.g., outdoor dining, retail pickup), but performance
venues and most cultural institutions remain closed.

Rising COVID-19 cases trigger a new stay-at-home order
across much of California. Businesses close again.

Paycheck Protection Program
begins issuing loans.

Shuttered Venue Operators
Grants issued.

Berkeley starts easing restrictions and
begins reopening businesses with capacity
restrictions. Some museums and galleries
reopen with reduced hours and timed entry.

Performance venues largely remain closed,
though small-scale outdoor or drive-in style
events begin to appear.

Outdoor live events permitted
with capacity limits; museums and
galleries reopen under state health
guidelines. Some Berkeley arts
organizations experiment with small
outdoor or hybrid performances.

Larger theaters and music venues reopen with
vaccination or negative-test requirements.

Restaurants and retail in cultural districts return
to more regular service, though many still face
staffing shortages and reduced hours.

Berkeley Arts Organization
Continuity Grants
Berkeley Arts Works Project
grants issued.

Berkeley Arts Recovery Grants
for Arts Organizations and
Festivals issued.

Berkeley Arts Recovery
Grants for Artists and Cultural
Practitioners issued.

East Bay/Oakland Relief Funds
for Artists
California Arts Council Cultural
Organizations Emergency
Relief Grants issued.

Alameda County Arts Relief
Grants
Berkeley pandemic relief and recovery grants Other notable state and federal pandemic grants 5 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

At the same time, these prolonged closures exacerbated
Berkeley’s already exceptionally high-cost environment
(Figure 3). The East Bay (comprising Alameda and Contra Costa counties, also known as the Oakland-Fremont-
Berkeley metropolitan division) consistently ranks among the most expensive regions in the country—not just for
households but also for employers. Berkeley arts and
culture organizations must contend with some of the
nation’s highest commercial rents, utility costs, and taxes.

For nonprofit cultural organizations, the in-person
experience is central to their survival. Earned income
streams—such as ticket sales, performances, classes,
festivals, gallery admissions, and space rentals—depend almost entirely on people gathering in shared physical
spaces. When COVID-19 forced those spaces to close,
the entire business model of many arts groups collapsed overnight. Unlike some industries that could pivot to
remote operations, much of Berkeley’s arts and culture
sector remained tied to in-person engagement. While
many organizations worked hard to provide online content and cultural experiences, virtual substitutes could not replicate the community connection of live experiences
nor meaningfully make up for revenue shortfalls. Moreover, many organizations continued to shoulder fixed costs,
such as leases, insurance, and baseline staffing. The
inability to shed these expenses during more than a year of shutdown meant reserves were rapidly depleted, forcing some organizations to suspend operations entirely.

Figure 3: Cost of Doing Business Index by Metropolitan Division | 2022 Note: The Cost of Doing Business Index is a Moody’s Analytics calculation factoring in labor costs, energy costs, office rent, and tax burden in a given metropolitan division.

Source: Moody’s Analytics, CVL Economics.
0 % 50 % 100 % 150 % 200 %
San Francisco-San Mateo-Redwood City, CA
New York-Jersey City-White Plains, NY-NJ
Oakland-Fremont-Berkeley, CA
Cambridge-Newton-Framingham, MA
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale, CA
Anaheim-Santa Ana-Irvine, CA
Miami-Miami Beach-Kendall, FL
Seattle-Bellevue-Everett, WA
Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX
Denver-Aurora-Centennial, CO
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA
202
151
127
121
120
118
116
112
106
105
94 Cost of Doing Business Index
6 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

KEY FINDINGS
IMPACT OF BERKELEY’S PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING FOR ARTS &

CULTURE ORGANIZATIONS
The two rounds were the Arts Organization Continuity Grants ($954,543) in 2020 and the Berkeley Arts Recovery Grants (BARG) for Arts Organizations and Festivals ($1.5 million) in 2022.

Two rounds of Berkeley pandemic relief and recovery grant programs were administered to 88 arts and culture organizations, totaling almost $2.5 million.

Nearly 83% of Arts Organization Continuity Grant (2020) and 90% of BARG (2022) recipients rated their Berkeley pandemic relief and recovery grant(s) as either “very helpful” or “essential. ” The remaining organizations, which were lar
ger in size, described the funding as “moderately helpful. ” Importantly, the vast majority of grantees (up to 84%) credited the grants with preventing both organizational shutdowns and employee layoffs during the most acute months of the pandemic.

Relief and recovery funding was broadly seen as critical, helping most organizations avoid layoffs and business closure entirely.

At the onset of the pandemic, organizations with annual budgets of $500,000 or less saw their revenues drop by nearly 50% on average, compared to a 30% decline among mid-sized organizations ($500k–$1M) and about a 40% decline among l
arge organizations (over $1M). This sharper decline highlights how limited reserves and thinner margins left smaller organizations far more vulnerable to the initial shock.

Smaller organizations were the most vulnerable to initial pandemic disruptions. 7 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

A majority of grantees (49 of 88) benefited from receiving both the 2020 Arts Organization Continuity Grant and the 2022 BARG. This sequencing mattered: the first round provided a lifeline in the immediate aftermath of shutdowns, while the second arrived during a difficult reopening phase marked by inflation, workforce shifts, and lagging consumer engagement. Taken together, the two rounds of support compounded one another, allowing organizations not only to survive the immediate crisis but also to weather the prolonged and unpredictable recovery period. In this way, limited local dollars stretched across multiple years of disruption, amplifying their effect far beyond what a single grant cycle could have achieved.

Many arts & culture organizations received both rounds of funding, which extended impact beyond any single cycle.

Issued at the height of uncertainty in May 2020, these grants kept doors open during the first wave of shutdowns.

Arts Organization Continuity Grants reached organizations before many other federal, state, and local relief pro
grams. However, their impact tended to be short-term: most grantees (84%) stated funds sustained operations for less than six months, 11% said funds lasted 6-12 months, and just 5% stated funds lasted a year or more. Even so, the immediacy of this funding was critical; more organizations attributed the Arts Organization Continuity Grant as helping them avoid layoffs (85%) and closures (84%) than the BARG (2022) program. Over half of the recipients stated the grants helped them survive the pandemic period but left no lasting impact.

Arts Organization Continuity Grants (2020) served as an immediate lifeline.

Distributed in a more stable but still challenging environment in 2022, BARG enabled longer-term planning and adaptation. 22% of recipients stated the funding lasted 6–12 months, and 11% reported funding lasting a year or more
. Nearly one in five (19%) described the grants as transformative—compared to just 5% of Arts Organization Continuity grantees—and almost half (48%) credited the funds with helping them stabilize and make strategic changes. 70% of BARG recipients credited the grant for avoiding layoffs and 74% for avoiding business closure.

Berkeley Arts Recovery Grants (2022) offered stabilization and transformation. 8 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

IMPACT OF BERKELEY’S PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY
FUNDING FOR ARTS & CULTURE INDIVIDUALS5
5 While pandemic relief funding supported both organizations and individuals, this assessment focuses primarily on organizations. Relief to individual artists in Berkeley was important, and a high-level assessment is included, however the anonymity of individual grant awards limited the availability of detailed data. In addition, organizations serve as anchors for artists and the community and are more deeply established within communities, making their stability a clearer lens into the overall health of the creative ecosystem.

The three programs were the East Bay/Oakland Relief Fund ($64,500 to Berkeley residents) in 2020, the Berkeley Art Works Project (BAWP; $182,339) in 2021, and the BARG for Artists and Cultural Practitioners ($276,250) in 2022.

While the East Bay/Oakland Relief Fund (2020) and BARG (2022) programs provided unrestricted funds to Berkeley’s arts and culture workers, BAWP (2021) supported paid temporary visual and performing arts projects in public spaces. Instead of serving as direct stimulus assistance, BAWP (inspired by the Depression-era Works Progress Administration) functioned more like traditional income, employing artists who might otherwise have been working locally in theaters or other cultural venues, and redirecting their talents into community-based creative projects.

Three Berkeley pandemic relief and recovery grant programs were administered to arts and culture individuals residing and practicing in Berkeley, totaling over $520,000.

Grants provided immediate relief for artists facing significant reductions in income, often covering essential living costs like rent, groceries, and medical bills. When measured against the median individual housing cost in Berkeley ($1,
100/month), the impact becomes clear: East Bay/Oakland Relief Fund awards covered over one month of housing, BARG awards covered more than two months, and BAWP awards stretched nearly four months. Even this short-term coverage of basic living expenses mattered enormously for artists, and in some cases represented the difference between staying in Berkeley or being displaced.

Individual grants covered the equivalent of up to nearly four months of housing costs.

Grants were mostly awarded to historically underrepresented artists, including Black, Latinx, Indigenous, and multi- racial cultural workers. More than half of grantees reported losing at least 50% of their arts-related income in 2020, wi
th nearly one-quarter losing 90–100%, showing funding reached those in greatest need.

Relief and recovery programs advanced equity and reached those most impacted. 9 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

10 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

Nine of the 28 grantee organizations with operating budgets under $100,000 closed, the highest number of any group.

But large organizations were also not immune; two of the 13 institutions with revenues between $1M-$2M also shut down, as did two of the 11 organizations with operating budgets over $2 million. This pattern shows that while scale and resources provided some resilience, no segment of the sector was fully insulated. The loss of larger organizations— typically those with the broadest audiences or consumer base, most extensive programming, and greatest fundraising capacity—underscore the vulnerability of even the city’s established cultural institutions. 17 of the 88 grantee organizations or 19% (of both relief and recovery programs to arts and culture organizations) closed permanently between 2020–2024, the majority of which were very small organizations.

In 2024, grantee median revenue sat 9% below the 2019 benchmark. That said, smaller grantee organizations that are still operational have fared relatively better over time than their larger peers. For many of these groups, Berkeley’s relief and re
covery funds represented a substantial share of their annual budgets—sometimes covering the bulk of operating revenue in a given year. This scale of support often made the difference between survival and closure, allowing small organizations not only to stay afloat but also to begin rebuilding sooner than larger institutions, which in some cases remain more deeply destabilized.

Revenue for the 71 surviving grantees sits 9% below pre-pandemic levels, though the 62 smaller surviving organizations, with budgets less than $2 million, fared relatively better over time.

The City’s $2.5 million investment in arts and culture organizations during the years spanning 2020 to 2022 helped safeguard more than $12.9 million in arts and culture revenue that otherwise would have been lost. This translates to ever
y $1 of City pandemic emergency funding having leveraged at least $5.64 in arts and culture economic activity. This return captures not only the direct operations of arts and culture organizations, but also the ripple effects through local suppliers, contractors, and service providers.

Every $1 in City funding leveraged at least $5.64 in ongoing arts and culture economic activity.

LONG-TERM OUTCOMES FOR ARTS & CULTURE ORGANIZATIONS
11 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

Together, these findings illustrate that while the pandemic-era grants were not sufficient in resolving every financial challenge for Berkeley’s artists and arts organizations, they served as a lifeline. For many organizations, relief and recovery funding was the difference between survival and closure during unprecedented times, ensuring that Berkeley’s arts and culture ecosystem remained intact long enough to begin navigating the long road to recovery.

For larger organizations, City relief and recovery grants accounted for a smaller share of overall budgets, limiting their ability to offset the steep financial shocks of the pandemic. As a result, for organizations with operating budgets over $1 million, funding was often described as moderately helpful rather than transformative. By 2024, revenues at these larger organizations remained one-third below 2019 benchmarks—far below the average 9% decline across all grantees.

The 9 larger organizations with budgets over $2 million that received grant funding faced deeper structural challenges, with current revenues sitting 33% below pre-pandemic levels.

Expenses have risen much faster than income, and earned revenue has been slow to rebound, leaving organizations more reliant on contributed income. Additionally, performing arts venues in particular continue to struggle with reduced at
tendance and shrinking subscriber bases. As a result of both of these factors, and a changed federal funding for the arts landscape, competition for public sector and philanthropic support has intensified, making recovery uneven, precarious, and difficult for arts organizations. Compounding these challenges, downtown revitalization struggles— including empty storefronts, reduced foot traffic, and heightened safety and transportation concerns—have made it more difficult for some arts venues to fully reestablish themselves as hubs of community life.

Broader economic challenges are compounding strain across Berkeley arts organizations of all sizes.
12 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

Eighty-eight arts and culture
organizations received at least
one of the two pandemic relief
and recovery grants, with
49 organizations receiving
both the Arts Organization
Continuity Grant in 2020
and BARG in 2022 (Figure 4).

Together, these programs
directed nearly $2.5 million
in emergency support to
the sector, which provided
targeted financial assistance
to help organizations weather
immediate losses, retain staff,
and adapt to rapidly changing
conditions.

PANDEMIC

RELIEF AND

RECOVERY FOR

ARTS & CULTURE

ORGANIZATIONS
13 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

In response to the immediate financial crisis faced by arts organizations during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the City of Berkeley launched the Arts Organization
Continuity Grants program in March 2020. This program
was funded directly by the City of Berkeley’s General Fund Catastrophic Reserve. The program ultimately awarded
$954,53 in emergency funding to 63 local nonprofit arts organizations. Grants of up to $25,000 (with an average award of approximately $15,150) were distributed in May 2020 to organizations that demonstrated a loss of at least 25% in earned revenue, such as ticket sales, class fees, or venue rentals.

The program was designed as emergency gap funding
to stabilize organizations experiencing acute financial hardship. Eligibility was limited to Berkeley-based
organizations with a mission focused on the development or presentation of arts and culture, including fiscally sponsored entities. In keeping with the City’s 2018 Arts & Culture Plan and commitment to cultural equity,
applications were evaluated not only on financial need
but also on equity-centered criteria, such as whether the organization worked primarily with artists from historically marginalized communities, served underrepresented
audiences, operated in geographically underserved parts of Berkeley, or had a staff and board composition reflective of diverse communities.

ARTS ORGANIZATION CONTINUITY GRANTS (2020)
In 2022, the City of Berkeley distributed over $1.5 million in one-time Berkeley Arts Recovery Grants (BARG) to
74 nonprofit arts organizations and recurring festivals as part of its broader pandemic recovery strategy. Funded
by American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) dollars, the BARG
program was designed to support sustainable recovery for Berkeley’s arts sector after nearly two years of widespread disruption in the sector as a result of the COVID-19
pandemic. Award amounts ranged from $3,000 to $33,000,
with an average award of approximately $20,700 per
organization.

Eligible applicants included Berkeley-based nonprofit or fiscally sponsored arts organizations and recurring festivals that had experienced a decline in revenue between 2019
and 2020. Awards were determined through a scoring
system that prioritized organizations serving or led by historically marginalized communities, with 70% of the
evaluation focused on cultural equity factors such as
programming by or for BIPOC, LGBTQIA+, low-income,
disabled, senior, or unhoused populations. Funds could be used to offset lost revenue, support safe reopening efforts, or invest in long-term sustainability through marketing, consulting, or business planning.

BERKELEY ARTS RECOVERY GRANTS FOR ARTS ORGANIZATIONS AND FESTIVALS (2022)
Figure 4: Summary of Berkeley Pandemic Relief and Recovery Grants for Arts & Culture Organizations Source: City of Berkeley, CVL Economics.

PROGRAM
YEAR
RE

CIPIENT
TYPE

NUMBER OF

GRANTEES

TOTAL AMOUNT

AWARDED

AVERAGE GRANT

AWARDED

ARTS ORGANIZATION CONTINUITY
GRANTS 2020
Nonprofit or fiscally-
sponsored arts and culture
organizations
63 $954,543 $15,151

BERKELEY ARTS RECOVERY GRANTS
(BARG) FOR ARTS ORGANIZATIONS

AND FESTIVALS
2022
Nonprofit or fiscally-
sponsored arts and culture
organizations and festivals
74 $1,532,345 $20,707
14 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

Although grantees varied in focus, size, and diversity, all Berkeley organizations faced acute financial hardships
resulting from the pandemic, and for many, this persists into the present day. The scale of these challenges is underscored by the grantees themselves, who reported widespread disruptions to programming, facilities, and core revenue streams as the pandemic unfolded.

To better understand how Berkeley’s pandemic relief and recovery funding shaped the local arts ecosystem, CVL Economics surveyed grantee organizations. Of the 88 organizations that received support through the Arts Organization Continuity Grant (2020) or the Berkeley Arts Recovery Grant (BARG; 2022), 30 completed the survey, providing valuable insights into both the immediate and lasting effects of the City’s investment.6
COVID-19 Disruptions
At the onset of the pandemic in mid-March 2020, every grantee organization had to cancel or postpone performances, exhibitions, or events. In a survey of grant recipients conducted five years later, in June 2025, 80% reported suspended education or community programs; and more than 73% were forced to close their physical facilities, resulting in the reduction or elimination of key earned revenue activities (Figure 5). Another 70% reported having to delay or cancel critical fundraising campaigns, cutting off vital revenue streams at a moment when operational expenses remained constant or, in some cases, increased due to safety measures.

Community connection was also severely disrupted by the pandemic in Berkeley. Nearly 77% of respondents reported difficulties reaching audiences or community members, a challenge compounded by the digital divide and the learning curve associated with pivoting to online programming. Limited access to artists, collaborators, and essential partners was cited by 70% of organizations, underscoring how the pandemic fractured the networks that sustain creative production.

The employment landscape in Berkeley in this sector shifted dramatically as well (Figure 6). Forty-three percent (43%) of arts organizations implemented temporary layoffs or furloughs, 40% imposed hiring freezes, and 13% faced permanent position eliminations. These staffing impacts not only affected the livelihoods of arts workers but also reduced organizational capacity, making recovery more difficult even after restrictions eased.

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY

GRANT IMPACT FOR ARTS & CULTURE

ORGANIZATIONS
6 See Appendix A.1 for more details on survey methodology. 15 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

Figure 5: Immediate COVID-19 Disruptions Experienced by Berkeley Arts Organizations Figure 6: Immediate COVID-19 Employment Disruptions Experienced by Berkeley Arts Organizations N=30
Source: CVL Economics Survey (2025).

N=30
Source: CVL Economics Survey (2025).
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Cancellation or postponement of performances, exhibitions, or events Reduction or elimination of earned revenue activities
Suspension of education or community programs
Difficulty reaching audiences or community members
Closure of physical facilities
Limited access to artists or collaborators
Delay or cancellation of fundraising campaigns or events 100%
93%
80%
77%
73%
70%
70%
Share of Grantee Survey Respondents
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Reduction in hours or wages
Temporary layoffs or furloughs
Hiring freeze or delayed hires
Other
Permanent layoffs or position eliminations
No employment disruptions
77%
43%
40%
23%
13%
7%
Share of Grantee Survey Respondents
16 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

The financial toll of these disruptions is reflected in the immediate revenue loss experienced by grantee organizations (Figure 7). Across the 74 BARG grantees, average revenue fell by 44% between 2019 and 2020. The depth of these losses varied significantly by organization size. The smallest organizations—those with annual budgets under $100,000—were hit the hardest, with revenues dropping nearly 50% on average. Mid-sized organizations with budgets between $500,000 and $1 million saw the least severe declines, though they still averaged a 30% loss. Large organizations with budgets over $2 million were not immune either, facing an average revenue reduction of 40% at the onset of the pandemic.

Figure 7: Grantee Revenue Loss by Organization Size | 2019–2020 Source: City of Berkeley, CVL Economics.
−40%
−30%
−20%
−10%
0%
−50 %
<$100k $100k-$499k $500k-$1M $1M-$2M >$2M
−49% −48%
−30%
−38%
−40%
Percent Change in Revenue
Berkeley’s pandemic relief and recovery grants for arts and cultural organizations were not just helpful but essential for many grantees (Figure 8). Nearly half of Arts Organization Continuity Grant recipients (47%) and more than a third of BARG recipients (37%) said they could not have
sustained operations without the grant. Another 37% of
Arts Organization Continuity Grant recipients and 48% of BARG grantees reported that the funding was very helpful, significantly supporting their ability to continue operating.

The grants played a pivotal role in preventing widespread layoffs and closures. Eighty-four percent (84%) of Arts Organization Continuity Grant recipients and 70% of
BARG recipients said the grants helped them avoid
workforce reductions, protecting jobs during the most
precarious months of the pandemic (Figure 9). Similarly, 84% of Arts Organization Continuity Grant recipients and 74% of BARG recipients said the funding prevented them
from permanently shutting down (Figure 10).

IMMEDIATE IMPACTS:

ROLE OF PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING
17 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

Figure 8: Extent to Which Pandemic Relief and Recovery Funding Was Essential Among Berkeley’s Grant Recipients Figure 9: Share of Grantees That Avoided
Layoffs Due to the Grants
Figure 10: Share of Grantees That Avoided
Closure Due to the Grants
N=30
Note: Responses were measured on a five-point scale from “Not at all helpful” to “Essential.” No respondents selected either of the two ratings below “Moderately helpful.”
Source: CVL Economics Survey (2025).

N=30
Source: CVL Economics Survey (2025).
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Arts Organization Continuity Grant (2020)
BARG (2022)
47%
37%
37%
48%
16%
11%
Essential: We could not have sustained
operations without it
Very helpful: It significantly supported
our ability to operate
Moderately helpful: It helped, but we still
faced major challenges
Share of Grantee Survey Respondents
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100 %
Arts Organization
Continuity Grant (2020)
BARG (2022)
84%
70%
Share of Grantee Survey Respondents
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100 %
Arts Organization
Continuity Grant (2020)
BARG (2022)
84%
74%
Share of Grantee Survey Respondents
18 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

Given their distribution in the earliest stages of the
pandemic, the Arts Organization Continuity Grants
provided critical short-term relief, serving as a bridge during the early days of the pandemic and sustaining arts organizations until other assistance programs became
available. For many organizations, the funding was the
difference between survival and immediate closure. That said, the support tended to last for a shorter duration and left fewer long-term organizational changes in place than the BARG program. Most (84%) Arts Organization
Continuity Grant recipients said the funding lasted
less than 6 months (Figure 11). More than half (53%) of recipients reported that the funds helped them survive the pandemic but did not generate lasting impact, and only
5% described the funding as transformative (Figure 12).

By contrast, BARG—issued at a time when most
organizations had transitioned from response to recovery phases— tended to have a broader effect. The grants were generally larger, conditions had shifted toward reopening, the “new normal” was settling in, and organizations were positioned to leverage fiscal support for longer-term
stability. Reflecting this, nearly half of BARG recipients (48%) said the grants helped them stabilize and make
strategic changes, and almost one in five (19%) reported transformative, lasting impacts. Even in terms of duration, BARG funding stretched further: a third of recipients
reported that it sustained operations for six months or more.

Figure 11: Length of Time Grants Sustained Operations in Berkeley Figure 12: Scale of Grant Impact on Berkeley Arts and Culture Organizations N=30
Source: CVL Economics Survey (2025).

N=30
Source: CVL Economics Survey (2025).
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Less than 3 months 3-6 months 6-12 months One year or more 37%
47%
11%
5%
30%
33%
22%
11%
Arts Organization Continuity Grant (2020) BARG (2022)
Share of Grantee Survey Respondents
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
It made a transformative, lasting
impact on our organization
It helped us stabilize and make
some strategic changes
It helped us survive the pandemic
period but left no lasting impact
5%
42%
53%
19%
48%
26%
Arts Organization Continuity Grant (2020) BARG (2022)
Share of Grantee Survey Respondents
19 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

Organizations reported that relief and recovery funding helped them retain staff and leadership (67% of Arts
Organization Continuity Grant recipients and 68% of
BARG recipients) (Figure 13). More than half credited
the grants with enabling them to maintain or expand
relationships with their audiences and communities
(58% and 53%, respectively), and nearly half of grantees noted that the funding allowed them to sustain access to physical spaces.

Arts Organization Continuity Grant recipients were more likely than BARG recipients to report developing new or enhanced programming (42% vs. 37%). This difference
likely reflects the urgent pivot many organizations were forced to make at the height of the pandemic crisis—
rapidly adapting to online or hybrid formats, experimenting with digital content, and reimagining community
engagement in a socially distanced world. In other
words, the Arts Organization Continuity Grant helped
seed immediate programmatic adjustments that allowed
organizations to stay connected with their audiences
under extraordinary circumstances.

By contrast, the BARG program in 2022 was more
about strengthening internal systems, fundraising, and
longer-term stabilization as organizations adjusted to
a new operating environment. Nearly half of BARG
recipients (47%) reported using funds to improve internal systems and operations, compared to just a third of Arts Organization Continuity Grant recipients. Additionally, 16% of BARG grantees said the funds helped increase
fundraising capacity or visibility, compared to 8% of Arts Organization Continuity Grant recipients.

The distinction between the two grant programs points to a critical shift in focus of the City’s approach to pandemic relief and recovery across the arts and culture sector. While the earlier Arts Continuity Grant program was more focused on immediate survival, the BARG program was better positioned to help organizations adapt to a new normal by strengthening infrastructure and building capacity to generate new revenue. Notably, most organizations (49 out of the 88 grantees) were able to benefit from both rounds of relief and recovery funding. This compounded support allowed grantees not only to weather the initial crisis but also to remain afloat during the prolonged and unpredictable recovery period, extending the effect of the funding well beyond a single grant cycle.

Figure 13: Detailed Impact of Relief and Recovery Grants for Berkeley Arts and Culture Organizations N=30
Source: CVL Economics Survey (2025).
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Retention of key staff
or leadership
Maintained or
expanded
relationships with
audiences/community
Maintained access to
physical space
Improved internal
systems or
operations
Developed new or
enhanced
programming
Laid groundwork for
future growth or
partnerships
Increased
fundraising capacity
or visibility
67%
58%
50%
33%
42%
33%
8%
68 %
53%
47% 47%
37%
26%
16%
Arts Organization Continuity Grant (2020) BARG (2022)
Share of Grantee Survey Respondents
20 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

Five years since the onset of the pandemic, we can begin to see the longer-term impacts on Berkeley’s arts and
culture ecosystem. The initial shock was compounded
by rising costs for labor, rent, and production; challenges rebuilding and retaining staff; slower-than-expected
audience and consumer engagement recovery; and
changes in the funding landscape.

LONG-TERM OUTCOMES:

WHERE GRANTEE
ORGANIZATIONS STAND IN 2025
Organizational Closures
Despite the critical role of relief and recovery funding, not all grantee organizations were able to withstand the prolonged pressures of the pandemic and its aftermath. Between 2020 and 2024, 17 grantee organizations ultimately closed. Of those 17 organizations, the vast majority were small (Figure 14). The steepest losses were among grantees with annual budgets under $100,000: nine organizations of this size were unable to continue operating. Mid-sized organizations fared better, with only one organization closing with a budget between $500,000 and $1 million. Larger organizations also experienced notable losses: five organizations with budgets over $1 million closed during this period. Among the closures were two of Berkeley’s established and well-known institutions: the Bay Area Children’s Theatre in 2023 (which had an operating budget exceeding $3 million) and the Aurora Theatre Company in 2025. 7 This pattern shows that while scale and resources provided some resilience, no segment of the sector was fully insulated.

For larger organizations—typically those with the broadest audiences or consumer base, most extensive programming, and greatest fundraising capacity—such losses underscore the vulnerability of even the city’s most established cultural institutions.
7 At the time of writing, Aurora Theatre Company has not officially announced a permanent closure, but it has announced staff layoffs and the closure of its venue; for the purposes of this analysis, we are considering it closed. See: Lily Janiak, “Bay Area Theater Moves to Lay Off Staff, Vacate Downtown Berkeley Venue, ” August 12, 2025, San Francisco Chronicle, https://www.sfchronicle.com/entertainment/article/aurora-theatre-layoffs-venue-vacate-20813096.php. 21 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

8 U.S. Department of the Treasury, Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds: Interim Final Rule, Federal Register, 86(93), 26786–26861 (2021), https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/05/17/2021-10283/coronavirus-state-and-local-fiscal-recovery-funds.

Figure 14: Closures Among Berkeley Arts Relief and Recovery Grantee Organizations by Revenue Size Source: City of Berkeley, CVL Economics.
0 2
4 6
8 10
<$100k $100k-$499k $500k-$1M $1M-$2M >$2M
9 2
1 3
2 Number of Grantee Organizations
While small organizations were more likely than larger
ones to face permanent closure, those that survived often reported that pandemic relief and recovery funding was
especially critical to their survival. For organizations with annual budgets under $100,000, the grants represented a larger share of their total operating revenue (Figure 15).

By contrast, larger organizations tended to view the
grants as moderately helpful—providing short-term relief without fundamentally altering their financial trajectory.

For institutions with budgets exceeding $2 million,
the grants made up less than 1% of annual revenue.

Notably, because award criteria emphasized equity and
demonstrated revenue loss rather than organizational
size, some of the smallest organizations received equal or even greater funding amounts than their much larger
counterparts. This approach magnified the impact of relief and recovery funds for smaller organizations, and it aligned with the intent of the American Rescue Plan Act (the
BARG program leveraged ARPA State and Local Fiscal
Recovery Funds dollars), which explicitly recognized the disproportionate impact of the pandemic on communities
of color and sought to direct resources toward advancing equity in recovery.
8 The significance of this support comes in light of the fact that more than one-quarter (28%) of grantee organizations reported receiving no other forms of pandemic-related
financial assistance (Figure 16). For these organizations, the City of Berkeley’s grants meant the difference between survival and closure, particularly for smaller organizations that may have lacked the capacity or access to other
federal, state, or county-level programs.
22 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

Figure 15: Average Size of Grant in Proportion to Total Operating Budget by Organization Size Figure 16: Share of Respondents that Received Other Pandemic Relief Support Source: City of Berkeley, Internal Revenue Service, CVL Economics.

N=30
Source: CVL Economics Survey (2025).
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100 %
<$100k $100k-$499k $500k-$1M $1M-$2M >$2M
18%
7%
4% 3% 1%
83%
10%
4% 2% 1%
Arts Organization Continuity Grant (2020) BARG (2022)
Share of Grantee Organizations
0%
20%
40%
60%
80 %
Did not receive other
pandemic relief funding
Received other pandemic
relief funding
28%
72%
Share of Survey Respondents
23 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

Evolving Revenue Streams and Rising Costs
By 2024, the median revenue across all surviving grantees was still 9% below pre-pandemic levels—although this was still an improvement from the sector’s low point in 2021, when the median revenue had fallen 15% from 2019 (Figure 17). While smaller organizations were far more likely to close their doors permanently, those that survived fared relatively better than the largest organizations over time; the median revenue for grantee organizations with budgets above $2 million, on the other hand, is still one-third below 2019 benchmarks.

Figure 17: Percent Change in Median Surviving Berkeley Grantee Revenue Since 2019 Note: Based on the median inflation-adjusted (2024 dollars) revenue across the 71 surviving grantee organizations.

Source: Internal Revenue Service, CVL Economics.
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
−30%
−20%
−10%
0%
10%
20%
−40%
30%
−9%
−33%
All Grantees >$2M Grantees
Percent Change in Median Revenue
24 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

These patterns map onto broader regional trends: smaller organizations tended to show greater resiliency in recovery than their larger counterparts. A 2024 report on the
sustainability of Bay Area performing arts organizations post-pandemic found that micro-organizations (defined
as very small organizations, often characterized as those with fewer than 10 employees)—despite being largely
excluded from federal relief programs—remained nimble
by expanding programs and attendance, maintaining
or growing their artistic workforce, and prioritizing
community engagement and mission-focused recovery,
even as expenses outpaced revenue growth.
9 By contrast,
while larger organizations experienced the highest
increase in government funding during the pandemic and
exceptional federal relief programs kept many of these
institutions afloat, those temporary funds are now waning, leaving structural financial gaps behind.

Across the Bay Area, arts organization expenses have
risen much faster than income. Between 2022 and 2023,
total expenses for regional arts organizations increased by 21% while revenues fell 12%. Earned revenue rebounded
by 42% in 2023 but remained 26% below pre-pandemic
levels after adjusting for inflation. In-person attendance more than doubled between 2022 and 2023, yet still sat
42% below 2019 levels. As a result, organizations have
grown increasingly dependent on contributed income.
10 These local trends reflect broader national patterns in the nonprofit performing arts sector. Nationwide, total income dropped sharply during the pandemic and, while
it has begun to recover, expenses have risen at a much
faster pace since 2021 (Figure 18). Regional theaters also report losing 20–30% of subscribers since 2019, eroding a dependable source of earned revenue and compounding
these financial pressures.
11 At the same time, the funding mix has shifted: as earned income has struggled to rebound, contributed income
now accounts for a larger share of organizational budgets (Figure 19). Even so, recent budget cycles have become
more challenging, with heightened competition for
contributed dollars. Many foundations are shifting priorities away from the arts, while federal uncertainty has created a chilling effect nationwide. Proposals from the executive branch to eliminate the National Endowment for the Arts and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, to condition or cancel awarded grants, and to impose new ideological restrictions on future eligibility have further undermined confidence for arts organizations across the country.

Locally, these trends are echoed by the experiences of the grantee organizations in Berkeley. Over 81% reported that financial stability remains their most pressing challenge today, followed closely by rising costs (74%) (Figure 20).

Nearly half cited the intensifying competition for limited public and private funding as a major barrier and 30%
reported access to affordable space as a top challenge.

Some organizations also included rebuilding audience
engagement and attendance, difficulty retaining or hiring qualified staff, and limited capacity for grant writing or fundraising as top challenges. Understanding these
specific challenges helps inform local grantmaking by
highlighting where support is most urgently needed—not
only in covering rising operating costs, but also in building organizational capacity, sustaining workforce pipelines, and ensuring that cultural offerings remain accessible in Berkeley.

Feedback from stakeholder outreach reinforced these
findings. As one organization leader put it, “It’s more expensive than ever to operate in the Bay Area. Meanwhile, federal and state support is drying up and audiences have not returned to pre-pandemic levels.” This illustrates the compounding pressures organizations now face: not only
are operating costs escalating, but audience behavior has shifted in ways that directly affect earned revenue and long-term sustainability.

For many, this includes challenges rebuilding traditional subscriber bases. While theatre subscribers had already been in steady decline over a long horizon, the pandemic accelerated this trend—leaving older and more risk-averse audiences slower to return and making it increasingly
difficult to rely on subscription revenue as a notable
income stream. Berkeley Rep illustrates this shift: at its 9 Kenneth Rainin Foundation & SMU DataArts at Southern Methodist University, Bay Area Arts and Culture Organizational Sustainability Survey Report:

Top line findings, 2019–2023 (2024), https://culturaldata.org/learn/data-at-work/2025/kenneth-rainin-foundation-smu-dataarts-bay-area-sustainability- assessment
10 Ibid.
11 Michael Paulson, “A Crisis in America’s Theaters Leaves Prestigious Stages Dark, ” The New York Times, July 23, 2023, https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/ 23/theater/regional-theater-crisis.html.
25 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

Figure 18: Percent Change in Total Income and Expenses of Nationwide Nonprofit Performing Arts Organizations Since 2019
Figure 19: Percent Change in Income Type of Nonprofit Performing Arts Organizations Nationwide since 2019 Source: Theatre Communications Group, CVL Economics.

Source: Theatre Communications Group, CVL Economics.
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
−30%
−20%
−10%
0%
−40%
10%
−2%
8%
Total Income Expenses
Percent Change
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
−60%
−50%
−40%
−30%
−20%
−10%
0%
−70%
10%
−11%
−25%
Contributed Earned
Percent Change
26 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

peak the theatre had about 22,000 season ticket holders, compared to roughly 12,000 just before the pandemic; today subscriptions hover closer to 9,000, with the goal of stabilizing around 10,000—acknowledging it is unlikely to return to pre- pandemic levels. While subscriptions rarely make up the majority of a theatre company’s revenue, they serve as a critical pipeline for cultivating individual donors—a major source of contributed income. A shrinking subscriber base not only reduces reliable ticket revenue but also weakens the sense of loyalty that often leads patrons to become long-term donors, making fundraising even more difficult.
12 12 Lily Janiak. “Can Bay Area Theaters Make Subscriptions Sexy Again? A Quick Survey Shows Subscription Declines of 23% to 61% Since the Pandemic.” Datebook/San Francisco Chronicle, July 26, 2023. https://datebook.sfchronicle.com/theater/bay-area-theater-subscription-18197863.

Figure 20: Top Challenges Berkeley Art and Culture Organization Grantees Face Today N=30
Source: CVL Economics Survey (2025).
0 % 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 %
Financial sustainability
Rising costs
Competition for limited public/private funding
Access to affordable space
Audience engagement and attendance
Retaining or hiring qualified staff
Limited capacity for grant writing or fundraising
Mental health and burnout among staff and leaders
Customer traffic or sales
Uncertainty about future disruptions
81%
74%
48%
30%
19%
19%
15%
7%
7%
4%
Share of Grantee Survey Respondents
27 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

13 Lily Janiak, “Bay Area theater moves to lay off staff, vacate downtown Berkeley venue, ” San Francisco Chronicle, August 12, 2025, https://www.sfchronicle. com/entertainment/article/aurora-theatre-layoffs-venue-vacate-20813096.php 14 Stakeholder interviews.

Figure 21: Downtown Berkeley Groundfloor Commercial Vacancy Rate | 2016–2024 Note: Includes office and retail properties.

Source: City of Berkeley Office of Economic Development, CVL Economics. 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
2%
16%

4.7% 4.6%

3.1%

5.1%

9.9%

15.7%

11.9%

10.8% 10.9%
Vacancy Rate
Ecosystem Challenges
These financial and audience pressures are compounded by the broader struggles facing Berkeley’s urban environment.

Empty storefronts, shuttered restaurants, and declining foot traffic have weakened the vibrancy that cultural districts depend on t
o attract and sustain audiences. As one stakeholder noted, “The Downtown area, like many downtown areas, is visibly struggling to retain tenants and drive foot traffic, which is concerning.” “In 2024, Downtown Berkeley’s ground floor commercial vacancy rate sat well above pre-pandemic levels (Figure 21). At 10.9%, the vacancy rate was more than double its 3.1% rate in 2019 — driven in large part by the enduring shift to remote and hybrid work, which has sharply reduced demand for traditional office space across the Bay Area. Fewer daily office workers have also meant fewer customers to nearby restaurants, cafés, and shops, which has in turn contributed to a rise in retail vacancies. These economic pressures are compounded by heightened safety concerns and ongoing transportation limitations, which have further reduced accessibility. The result is a more difficult operating environment for cultural organizations: even well-resourced institutions face added headwinds, while smaller and midsize groups struggle most to regain stability.

Across all of these challenges, the recent suspension of Aurora Theatre Company activities in mid-2025 exemplifies how these pressures converge: leadership has pointed to attendance never fully recovering from the pandemic, skyrocketing costs, and shifting philanthropic priorities as factors threatening its future. 13 The theatre joins a growing list of Berkeley
organizations that have already closed or gone dormant—including the Bay Area Children’s Theatre, TheatreFirst, and the Youth Musical Theatre Company. The precarity extends to the city’s remaining flagship organizations as well: Berkeley Repertory Theatre faces a $5 million deficit, Berkeley Symphony is operating with a reported $500,000 structural deficit, and Freight & Salvage has a $200,000 deficit—illustrating how fragile the ecosystem remains. 14 28

ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

While revenues across Berkeley’s arts and culture
ecosystem remain below pre-pandemic levels, it is
important to consider not only what was lost but also
what was preserved. Every organization that received
Arts Organization Continuity Grant or BARG funding
was required to demonstrate clear financial hardship as a condition of eligibility. In the case of Arts Organization Continuity Grants, for example, applicants had to show at least a 25% decline in earned revenue. Half of the grantee organizations experienced revenue loss of over 40%, and some organizations experienced a 100% decline in earned revenue.

Survey results highlight the critical role of the City of Berkeley’s funding intervention. More than one-quarter of grantees (28%) reported receiving no other pandemic relief. For these organizations, the City’s programs were their only source of external support. Without this funding, it is reasonable to assume that many would have been unable to sustain operations in Berkeley—likely joining the 17 organizations that ultimately closed between 2020 and 2024.

Over a five-year period (2020–2024), the absence of City relief and recovery support would have resulted in an estimated additional $12.9 million in revenue losses across the local arts and culture ecosystem by 2024. 15 As
such, the preservation effect of the City of Berkeley’s $2.5 million investment in pandemic relief and recovery support to arts and culture organizations in Berkeley extended far beyond the immediate crisis.

THE CITY OF BERKELEY’S RETURN

ON INVESTMENT IN THE CREATIVE

ECONOMY DURING THE PANDEMIC
(2020–2022)
13 CVL Economics quantified the value of organizations preserved by City funding using organizational operating revenue as the basis, drawing from a master grantee revenue dataset compiled by our firm. This dataset integrates IRS Form 990 filings for each organization and supplementing with revenue data from the City of Berkeley’s grant application database and grantee survey responses to fill in gaps. Applying the 28% figure of Berkeley grantees who reported receiving no other pandemic relief to the revenue data as a baseline, and weighting by organizational size (since smaller groups found Berkeley’s funds more impactful), $12.9 million is the estimated total revenue value of the at-risk organizations. 29 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

When taking into account direct and ripple
effects across the local supply chain, every $1 in
City funding leveraged at least $5.64 in ongoing arts
and culture economic activity. This figure was derived
using IMPLAN (Impact Analysis for Planning) input–output modeling, which captures not only the direct impacts
on grantee organizations and their employees, but also
the supply chain effects on local vendors, contractors, and service providers, as well as the induced effects of household spending by arts and related workers.
16 In
this way, the estimate reflects the broader ecosystem
value preserved by the City’s relief and recovery efforts— extending beyond the prevention of immediate closures
to safeguarding a network of organizations that continue to generate jobs, sustain community programming, and
contribute to local tax revenues today.

While emergency relief and recovery support alone cannot address the sector’s long-term structural challenges—
particularly around rising costs and audience recovery—the City of Berkeley’s intervention illustrates how targeted municipal support can serve as an effective bridge during periods of acute disruption, maintaining cultural capacity that might otherwise be permanently lost.
16 See Appendix A.2 for more details on return on investment methodology. 30 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

In addition to pandemic relief and recovery grants awarded to arts and culture organizations, the City of Berkeley awarded $523,089 across three grant programs between 2020 and 2022 for Berkeley- based individuals engaged in the arts (Figure 22).

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND

RECOVERY FOR ARTS &

CULTURE INDIVIDUALS
These programs aimed to sustain the livelihoods of artists, performers, and cultural practitioners who faced significant income loss due to COVID-19 disruptions. In particular, they prioritized support for lower-income individuals and those from historically underrepresented communities, providing direct financial assistance at a time when creative work opportunities were severely limited.
31 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

This program was a regional emergency grant launched in May 2020 to support artists and cultural workers in Alameda and Contra Costa counties. Administered by the Center for Cultural Innovation (CCI), the fund included $49,000 directly from the City of Berkeley, which ultimately leveraged a total of $64,500 in awards to Berkeley artists. The additional dollars came from unrestricted contributions by local foundations,
17 meaning Berkeley’s participation drew in more resources to benefit the local community than the City invested directly. In total, 515 individuals received grants of up to $1,500—including 47 Berkeley artists. The program prioritized BIPOC, immigrant, disabled, and trans individuals and was designed to provide fast, non-taxable relief without requiring tax or citizenship documentation.

THE EAST BAY/OAKLAND RELIEF FUND FOR INDIVIDUALS IN THE ARTS (2020)
First launched in 2021 by the City’s Civic Arts Program, the Berkeley Art Works Projects (BAWP) grants awarded nearly $182,339 in grants to 32 Berkeley-based artists, performers, and community members to create temporary public art projects. These works addressed themes of public health, economic resilience, and community belonging. The program’s name was a deliberate play on the Works Progress Administration (WPA), the New Deal–era initiative that employed artists to create public works during the Great Depression. In a similar spirit, BAWP was designed not simply as relief funding but as an employment initiative—providing income to artists while generating public benefit through new creative works.

Funded through the City’s Cultural Trust Fund (Fund 148) BAWP supported creative responses to the emotional and social toll of the pandemic and produced public artworks across the city. Unlike the other pandemic grant programs for individual artists and cultural workers, these awards functioned more like compensation for services rendered, including related material costs—ensuring that artists were paid to create projects that directly engaged and benefitted the Berkeley community.

THE BERKELEY ART WORKS PROJECTS GRANTS (2021)
Aimed at supporting individual artists and cultural practitioners impacted by the pandemic, this program was administered in partnership with the CCI and funded through ARPA. In 2022, it awarded $276,250 to 114 Berkeley-based recipients, with grant amounts ranging from $1,250 to $8,000. Priority was given to those experiencing significant financial hardship, particularly from historically marginalized communities, and applicants were evaluated based on income loss from arts-related work, geographic distribution, and residence in underserved neighborhoods. Grants were unrestricted and designed to sustain creative practitioners during a period of prolonged economic instability.

BERKELEY ARTS RECOVERY GRANTS (BARG) FOR ARTISTS AND
CULTURAL PRACTITIONERS (2022)
17 Berkeley Relief Fund, “About the Berkeley Relief Fund, ” https://berkeleyrelieffund.org/about/. 32 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

Figure 22: Summary of Berkeley Pandemic Relief and Recovery Grants for Individuals in Berkeley *Table includes only the program’s Berkeley allocations.

Source: City of Berkeley, CVL Economics.

PROGRAM
YEAR
RE

CIPIENT
TYPE

NUMBER OF

GRANTEES

TOTAL AMOUNT

AWARDED

AVERAGE GRANT

AWARDED

EAST BAY/OAKLAND RELIEF FUND
FOR INDIVIDUALS IN THE ARTS* 2020 Individual artists and arts workers 47 $64,500 $1,372

BERKELEY ART WORKS PROJECT
(BAWP) 2021 Individual artists, performers,
and community members 32 $182,339 $5,698

BERKELEY ARTS RECOVERY GRANTS
(BARG) FOR ARTISTS AND CULTURAL

PRACTITIONERS
2022 Individual artists, culture
bearers, teaching artists 114 $276,250 $2,423
Pandemic Relief and Recovery Grant Impact for Arts & Culture Individuals in Berkeley These awards reached artists across a wide range of creative disciplines spanning visual and performing arts, literary arts, design, digital media, education, and folk/traditional practices. This diversity highlights how the relief and recovery programs not only sustained individual incomes, but also helped preserve the city’s rich and multifaceted cultural landscape during a time of widespread disruption.

Direct-to-artist pandemic support played a vital role in stabilizing household budgets during an unprecedented crisis. The awards—ranging from an average of $1,372 through the East Bay/Oakland Relief Fund to $5,698 through the Berkeley Art Works Projects—provided a critical bridge for individual artists, teaching artists, and culture bearers to cover essential living costs. For many, this meant helping to cover essential household expenses, such as rent or mortgage payments, groceries, utilities, or medical bills, at a time when other income sources had collapsed. In this way, relief and recovery dollars not only stabilized artists and their families but also circulated quickly back into Berkeley’s local economy, sustaining neighborhood grocery stores, restaurants, landlords, and service providers during a broader period of contraction.

To put their value into context, the scale of the grants becomes especially clear when measured against local housing costs. The median monthly individual housing payment (including renters and owners) for Berkeley arts and culture workers is $1,100.
18 Housing is often the single largest expense
for artists and cultural workers, and in the context of widespread income loss, even short-term support provided critical stability.

In May 2020, the East Bay/Oakland Relief Fund arrived during the immediate aftermath of shutdowns when uncertainty was at its peak. The average $1,372 awarded to each individual 18 This is the median per capita housing payment for Berkeley arts and culture workers, which adjusts for household size. This figure is calculated from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2023 5-Year Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS), which averages data collected between 2019 and 2023.
33 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

represented the equivalent of just over one month of
rent (Figure 23). Although smaller in size than the other individual grants, this was a meaningful bridge for artists facing a sudden collapse of earned income, helping them cover essential living expenses when opportunities were limited.

The Berkeley Art Works Projects (2021) provided the most substantial lifeline for awarded individuals, with average grants of $5,698. Assuming 25% of each grant was
allocated toward material costs, the BAWP grant covered nearly four months of average individual housing costs.

At a moment when the sector was still struggling with
extended closures, this level of support allowed artists to stabilize their personal circumstances while working on their creative practice and benefiting the general Berkeley public by improving the public realm with works of art and performances.

Finally, the Berkeley Arts Recovery Grants (2022) offered average awards of $2,423, or the equivalent of more than two months of rent. While smaller than the BAWP program, this support was still critical in providing paid opportunities for artists at a time when many venues remained closed
and other sources of work were scarce.

Figure 23: Average Grant Value in Terms of Individual Housing Costs * Based on the median monthly per capita housing payment for Berkeley arts and culture workers, averaged across 2019–2023. **Table includes only the program’s Berkeley allocations. *** Since BAWP grants covered paid public art projects, this reflects the assumption that 25% of the grant covered material costs for the project.

Source: City of Berkeley, U.S. Census Bureau 5-Year American Community Survey Public-Use Microdata Sample (2023), CVL Economics.

AVERAGE
GR

ANT AWARD

EQUIVALENT MONTHS OF
INDIVIDUAL HOUSING COSTS *

EAST BAY/OAKLAND RELIEF FUND FOR
INDIVIDUALS IN THE ARTS** $1,372 1.3 Months
BERKELEY ART WORKS PROJECTS (BAWP) $5,698 3.9 Months***

BERKELEY ARTS RECOVERY GRANTS (BARG) FOR
ARTISTS AND CULTURAL PRACTITIONERS $2,423 2.2 Months
34 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

The demographic makeup of individual artist grantees in Berkeley reflects the City of Berkeley’s commitment to
cultural equity and inclusion in its pandemic relief and recovery efforts. In terms of race and ethnicity distribution, while African American or Black residents make up just
2% of Berkeley’s artist population,
19 they represented 14%
of BARG grantees and 34% of East Bay/Oakland Relief
Fund grantees (Figure 24). Similarly, individuals identifying as Latinx, Indigenous or Native, and those of two or more racial identities were represented at significantly higher rates than their proportions in the general population, suggesting that relief and recovery funds were effectively prioritized for historically marginalized communities.

Although Asian residents comprised only 5% of BARG
and 4% of East Bay/Oakland grantees while accounting
for 26% of Berkeley’s general population, this disparity reflects the composition of the applicant pool, and awards largely mirrored the share of Asian-identifying applicants.

Additionally, foreign-born individuals made up 28% of
East Bay/Oakland grantees and 20% of BARG grantees,
compared to 22% of Berkeley’s artist population.

These trends highlight how the City of Berkeley’s cultural relief and recovery programs for individual artists during the pandemic not only addressed economic precarity,
but also advanced racial and cultural equity by investing in artists who have been historically excluded from
opportunities and in communities disproportionately
impacted by the pandemic.

AN EQUITABLE FUNDING APPROACH
Figure 24: Demographic Distribution of Pandemic-Era Grantees Compared to Berkeley’s Total Artist Population | 2019–2023
Note: Includes grantee data for the BARG and East Bay/Oakland programs; these were the two largest programs in terms of number of grant recipients. See Appendix A.3 for detailed methodology on defining the Berkeley artist population.

Source: City of Berkeley, U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 5-Year Public Use Microdata Sample (2023), CVL Economics. 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
African
American/Black
Asian Indigenous, Native
Alaskan, Native
American; Native
Hawaiian, Pacific
Islander
Latin American,
Latino/a, Latinx
White Two or More
Identities
Other Race/Ethnicity Foreign Born
2%
26%
0% 0%
62%
7%
3%
22%
34%
4%
9%
15%
19%
15%
4%
28%
14%
5%
0%
10%
32%
22%
14%
20%
Berkeley Artist Population (2019-2023 Avg.) East Bay/Oakland Grantees (2020) BARG Grantees (2022) Share of Group
18 The Berkeley artist population is defined as individuals working in selected occupations identified by the federal Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) codes, which includes jobs in visual arts and design; media and communications; performing arts; film, television, and digital media; and other creative technical roles. See Appendix A.3 for a detailed methodology and list of SOC codes. 35 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

Understanding Artist Needs
Creative work is often characterized by freelance, gig-based, or self-directed employment—forms of labor that typically fall outside traditional systems of worker protections and public benefits. During the pandemic, federal programs like Pandemic U
nemployment Assistance (PUA) were created to extend eligibility to independent contractors and self- employed workers, offering critical relief for many in the arts. Yet in the earliest months of the shutdown, PUA was slow to roll out and many applicants faced delays or administrative hurdles before receiving payments.

This made the City of Berkeley’s early intervention in funding this population all the more vital. Nearly 85% of East Bay/ Oakland Relief Fund grantees reported they had not yet received PUA at the time of their City of Berkeley grant application (Figure 25). By moving quickly, Berkeley’s contribution to this regional relief effort ensured that artists received immediate support when other aid was not yet available. These local grants filled a critical gap, helping to cover housing, food, and other essentials at the peak of uncertainty, and allowing many artists to remain in Berkeley when displacement was a real risk.
36 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

Berkeley’s pandemic relief and recovery grants reached artists who were among the hardest hit by the crisis. More than half of all grantees experienced a loss of 50% or more in their arts-related income between 2019 and 2020, including nearly one-quarter who lost 90% to 100% of their income during that period (Figure 26). Indeed, two-thirds of grantees reported making less than $10,000 in arts-related income in 2020, and over 90% earned under $30,000 that year (Figure 27).

Figure 25: Share of Grantees Receiving Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) Benefits at Time of Grant Application | May–June 2020
Note: Includes grantee data for the East Bay/Oakland Relief Fund program.

Source: City of Berkeley, CVL Economics.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100 %
Receiving PUA Not receiving PUA Not sure
11%
85%
4%
Share of East Bay/Oakland Relief Fund Grantees
37 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

Figure 26: Number of BARG Grantees by Percentage of Arts-Related Income Lost between 2019–2020 Figure 27: Number of BARG Grantees by 2020 Arts-Related Income Bracket Source: City of Berkeley, CVL Economics.

Source: City of Berkeley, CVL Economics.
0 5
10 15
20 25
Less than 10% 10%-19% 20%-29% 30%-39% 40%-49% 50%-59% 60%-69% 70%-79% 80%-89% 90%-100% 1 4 4
8 12 12
7 11
18 23
Number of BARG Grantees
0 20
40 60
80 Less than $10k $10k-$19k $20k-$29k $30k-$49k $50k-$79k $80k or Greater 76 16
13 6
1 0
Number of BARG Grantees
38 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

Arts and culture form a
vital part of Berkeley’s
community life—shaping
the city’s identity, enriching
public spaces, and
providing opportunities for
connection, creativity, and
expression.

CONCLUSION:

SUSTAINING BERKELEY’S

ARTS & CULTURE ECOSYSTEM
A thriving cultural ecosystem depends on many interlocking parts from individual artists and small collectives to established organizations and major venues. When this ecosystem is under strain, the effects ripple outward, limiting opportunities for participation, weakening creative networks, and eroding the cultural vibrancy that defines the city.

The stability of cornerstone cultural institutions is critical not just for their own survival, but for the vitality of the entire artistic ecosystem. When even established organizations are at risk, it threatens Berkeley’s identity as a cultural center and sends discouraging signals to smaller companies and emerging
artists working to establish themselves. Protecting these institutions is therefore about more than sustaining current programming—it is about safeguarding pathways for future generations and ensuring that the region continues to foster creativity, innovation, and community engagement.

Berkeley’s pandemic relief and recovery efforts were
extraordinary in both scale and impact. By mobilizing more than $3 million for both individuals and organizations in emergency grants, the City provided lifelines to dozens of arts and culture organizations and nearly 200 individual artists during one of the most disruptive crises in modern history.

These funds helped prevent permanent closures, sustained creative practices, and ultimately enabled Berkeley to prevent its creative fabric from completely fraying.

CONCLUSION:

SUSTAINING BERKELEY’S

ARTS & CULTURE ECOSYSTEM
A thriving cultural ecosystem depends on many interlocking parts from individual artists and small collectives to established organizations and major venues. When this ecosystem is under strain, the effects ripple outward, limiting opportunities for participation, weakening creative networks, and eroding the cultural vibrancy that defines the city.

The stability of cornerstone cultural institutions is critical not just for their own survival, but for the vitality of the entire artistic ecosystem. When even established organizations are at risk, it threatens Berkeley’s identity as a cultural center and sends discouraging signals to smaller companies and emerging
artists working to establish themselves. Protecting these institutions is therefore about more than sustaining current programming—it is about safeguarding pathways for future generations and ensuring that the region continues to foster creativity, innovation, and community engagement.

Berkeley’s pandemic relief and recovery efforts were
extraordinary in both scale and impact. By mobilizing more than $3 million for both individuals and organizations in emergency grants, the City provided lifelines to dozens of arts and culture organizations and nearly 200 individual artists during one of the most disruptive crises in modern history.

These funds helped prevent permanent closures, sustained creative practices, and ultimately enabled Berkeley to prevent its creative fabric from completely fraying.
39 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

Yet the road ahead remains uncertain. One-time relief and recovery funding helped many organizations and artists
survive the immediate crisis, but long-term sustainability will require ongoing attention and investment. High
operating costs—commercial rents, wages, utilities,
insurance—remain a persistent burden. At the same time, philanthropic support is tightening and public funding
sources remain limited and highly competitive.

Survey responses reflect both resilience and fragility on the outlook of Berkeley’s arts & culture sector (Figure 28 and Figure 29). Many see renewed energy, community
demand, and resilience across Berkeley’s cultural
landscape. At the same time, others remain deeply
concerned about financial sustainability, affordability, and the slow pace of recovery from the COVID-19 Pandemic
of 2020. This split outlook underscores the importance of funding continuity: without sustained support, hard-won gains may erode, but with targeted continued investment, the City of Berkeley can solidify its reputation as a cultural hub while ensuring equitable access to arts for future
generations.

Figure 28: Outlook on Berkeley’s Arts & Culture Sector from Grant Recipients | June 2025 N = 30
Source: CVL Economics Survey (2025).
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
28% 38% 21% 7%
Somewhat optimistic Neutral Somewhat pessimistic Very pessimistic Share of Grantee Survey Respondents
Figure 29: Detailed Outlook on Berkeley’s Arts & Culture Sector from Grant Recipients | June 2025 N = 30
Source: CVL Economics Survey (2025).

OPTIMISTIC OUTLOOKS UNCERTAIN OUTLOOKS
Str
ong interest and engagement in the arts; hopeful audiences are returning. Many feel it’s “too early to tell” which direction things are headed.

Community demand and momentum despite challenges. Concerned about long-term sustainability, closures, and diminished philanthropy.

Commitment from City of Berkeley and collaborative spirit cited as positive drivers.

Rising Bay Area costs, lack of viable performance space, and drying up of public support noted as major risks.

Seeing demand for mid-size venues and opportunities for new spaces. Downtown struggles (e.g., reduced foot traffic, empty storefronts, crime) hurting recovery.

Confidence in sector resilience, innovation, and interdependence. Audiences slower to return; uncertain policy environment and ongoing affordability crisis.
40 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

APPENDIX
To better understand how Berkeley’s pandemic relief and recovery funding shaped the local arts ecosystem, CVL Economics surveyed grantee organizations. Of the 88 organizations that received support through the Arts Organization Continuity Grants (2020) or the Berkeley Arts Recovery Grants (BARG, 2022), 30 (34%) completed the survey, providing valuable insights into both the immediate and lasting effects of the City’s investment.

The survey captured a diverse mix of organizations in terms of size, discipline, and leadership demographics. Respondents ranged from very small, community-based nonprofits with annual budgets under $100,000 to larger institutions with multimillion-dollar operations. Disciplines represented included performing arts, visual arts, festivals, and educational organizations, reflecting the broad spectrum of Berkeley’s creative ecosystem. Responses also included organizations led by people of color, LGBTQ+ leaders, and women, ensuring that a range of perspectives and experiences were reflected in the findings.

Additional survey responses can be found below.

A.1: SURVEY OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE ORGANIZATION GRANT RECIPIENTS Figure A.1.1 Share of Respondents by Leadership Demographics N = 30
Source: CVL Economics Survey (2025).
0 % 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 %
Women-led
LGBTQ+ led
Latinx-led
Other historically underrepresented group
Black-led
Not historically underrepresented
Asian or Pacific Islander-led
77%
27%
20%
20%
20%
10%
10%
Share of Grantee Survey Respondents
41 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

Figure A.1.2 Share of Respondents by Arts & Culture Discipline (Multi-Choice) N = 30
Source: CVL Economics Survey (2025).
0 % 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 % 100 %
Performing Arts
Humanities/Literary Arts
Folk/Traditional Arts
Festivals
Visual Arts
Media Arts
Education
Design
83%
27%
27%
13%
13%
10%
10%
3%
Share of Grantee Survey Respondents
Figure A.1.3 Share of Respondents by Organization Size
N = 30
Source: CVL Economics Survey (2025).
0 10
20 30
40 50
Under $100k $100k-$499k $500k-$1M $1M-$2M Over $2M
23 40
13 10
13 Share of Grantee Survey Respondents
42 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

Figure A.1.5 Degree of Satisfaction with Administration of Pandemic Relief and Recovery Grants in Berkeley | 2020–2022
N = 30
Source: CVL Economics Survey (2025).
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100 %
66% 14% 17% 3%
Extremely satisfied Somewhat satisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Somewhat dissatisfied Share of Grantee Survey Respondents
Figure A.1.4 Top Organizational Support Needs Beyond Funding for 2025–2030 N = 30
Source: CVL Economics Survey (2025).
0 % 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 % 50 %
Networking opportunities
Professional development
Access to affordable space
Technical assistance
Other
Mental health or staff wellness resources
52%
52%
41%
31%
17%
14%
Share of Grantee Survey Respondents
43 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

The City of Berkeley’s relief and recovery funding for arts and culture organizations was evaluated through a return on investment (ROI) framework, designed to measure not
only immediate stabilization but also the longer-term value preserved in the local economy.

The first step was to define the scope of the creative
economy in order to capture impacts across the entire
creative ecosystem. Economic data are reported using
the standardized North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), which allows for consistency and
comparability across datasets. Because no single NAICS
code fully captures this sector, CVL Economics developed a curated set of industries spanning performing arts, visual arts, film, media, design, and related support services (see below for a detailed list of NAICS codes).

We quantified the value of organizations preserved by City funding using organizational revenue as the basis, drawing from a master grantee revenue dataset compiled by CVL
Economics. This dataset integrates IRS Form 990 filings for each organization and supplementing with revenue data
from the City of Berkeley’s grant application database and grantee survey responses to fill in gaps. Grantee surveys and applications also established a baseline of financial hardship: all recipients of Arts Organization Continuity Grants and Berkeley Arts Recovery Grants (BARG)
documented significant revenue losses. Survey results
further revealed that 28% of grantees received no other pandemic relief, making the City of Berkeley’s support their sole external lifeline.

Using the master revenue dataset and the 28% figure as a baseline for the additional organizations that would have closed without funding (and weighting by organizational size to reflect the greater impact of funding on smaller groups), we estimate that the combined annual revenues
of these at-risk organizations totaled $12.9 million.

To translate these preserved revenues into economic ROI, we employed IMPLAN’s input–output modeling system.

IMPLAN is widely used by governments and researchers
to quantify the total value of an investment, capturing not only the direct benefits to grantees, but also the indirect benefits to vendors, contractors, and service providers, as well as the induced effects from household spending by
arts workers. This analysis found that these preserved arts organizations generated a total of $14 million in economic output in the City of Berkeley, reflecting the full ripple effects across the local economy.

Through this framework, we estimate that every $1
invested by the City leveraged at least $5.64 in ongoing arts and culture economic activity. This ratio represents the ROI of Berkeley’s $2.5 million in relief and recovery funding to arts and culture organizations.

A.2: BERKELEY’S RETURN ON INVESMENT ON PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY

FUNDING TO ARTS AND CULTURE ORGANIZATIONS
44 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

Figure A.2 Creative Economy Industry Classification Codes

INDUSTRY CATEGORY AND DESCRIPTION NAICS
ARCH

ITECTURE & DESIGN
Ornamental and Architectural Metal Work Manufacturing 332323 Architectural Services 541310
Landscape Architectural Services 541320
Drafting Services 541340
Interior Design Services 541410
Industrial Design Services 541420

COMMUNICATION DESIGN
Graphic Design Services 541430
Advertising Agencies 541810
Photography Studios, Portrait 541921
Commercial Photography 541922

ENTERTAINMENT & DIGITAL MEDIA
Motion Picture and Video Production 512110
Motion Picture and Video Distribution 512120
Teleproduction and Other Postproduction Services 512191 Sound Recording Studios 512240
Software Publishers 513210
Radio Broadcasting Stations 516110
Television Broadcasting Stations 516120
Media Streaming Distribution Services, Social Networks, Other Media Networks and Content Providers 516210 45 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

INDUSTRY CATEGORY AND DESCRIPTION NAICS

FASHION
Fiber, Yarn, and Thread Mills 313110
Broadwoven Fabric Mills 313210
Narrow Fabric Mills and Schiffli Machine Embroidery 313220 Nonwoven Fabric Mills 313230
Knit Fabric Mills 313240
Textile and Fabric Finishing Mills 313310
Fabric Coating Mills 313320
Apparel Knitting Mills 315120
Cut and Sew Apparel Contractors 315210
Cut and Sew Apparel Manufacturing (except Contractors) 315250 Apparel Accessories and Other Apparel Manufacturing 315990 Footwear Manufacturing 316210
Other Leather and Allied Product Manufacturing 316990
Toilet Preparation Manufacturing 325620
Jewelry and Silverware Manufacturing 339910
Jewelry, Watch, Precious Stone, and Precious Metal Merchant Wholesalers 423940 Piece Goods, Notions, and Other Dry Goods Merchant Wholesalers 424310 Footwear Merchant Wholesalers 424340
Clothing and Clothing Accessories Merchant Wholesalers 424350 Other Specialized Design Services 541490

FINE ARTS SCHOOLS
Fine Arts Schools 611610

FURNITURE, TOYS & DECORATIVE ARTS
Carpet and Rug Mills 314110
Curtain and Linen Mills 314120
Textile Bag and Canvas Mills 314910
Rope, Cordage, Twine, Tire Cord, and Tire Fabric Mills 314994 All Other Miscellaneous Textile Product Mills 314999
Pottery, Ceramics, and Plumbing Fixture Manufacturing 327110 Other Pressed and Blown Glass and Glassware Manufacturing 327212 All Other Miscellaneous Nonmetallic Mineral Product Manufacturing 327999 Wood Kitchen Cabinet and Countertop Manufacturing 337110 Upholstered Household Furniture Manufacturing 337121
Nonupholstered Wood Household Furniture Manufacturing 337122 Household Furniture (except Wood and Upholstered) Manufacturing 337126 Institutional Furniture Manufacturing 337127
46 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

INDUSTRY CATEGORY AND DESCRIPTION NAICS
Wood Office Furniture Manufacturing 337211
Custom Architectural Woodwork and Millwork Manufacturing 337212 Office Furniture (except Wood) Manufacturing 337214
Showcase, Partition, Shelving, and Locker Manufacturing 337215 Mattress Manufacturing 337910
Blind and Shade Manufacturing 337920
Doll, Toy, and Game Manufacturing 339930
Furniture Merchant Wholesalers 423210
Home Furnishing Merchant Wholesalers 423220
Toy and Hobby Goods and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers 423920

PUBLISHING & PRINTING
Commercial Printing (except Screen and Books) 323111
Commercial Screen Printing 323113
Books Printing 323117
Support Activities for Printing 323120
Book, Periodical, and Newspaper Merchant Wholesalers 424920 Newspaper Publishers 513110
Periodical Publishers 513120
Book Publishers 513130
Directory and Mailing List Publishers 513140
Greeting Card Publishers 513191
All Other Publishers 513199
Libraries and Archives 519210

VISUAL & PERFORMING ARTS
Musical Instrument Manufacturing 339992
Art Dealers 459920
Theater Companies and Dinner Theaters 711110
Dance Companies 711120
Musical Groups and Artists 711130
Other Performing Arts Companies 711190
Agents and Managers for Artists, Athletes, Entertainers, and Other Public Figures 711410 Independent Artists, Writers, and Performers 711510
Museums 712110
47 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

To analyze Berkeley’s artist workforce, we defined an “artist population” within the Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) based on occupational classifications. Specifically, we restricted the dataset to individuals whose Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) codes align with creative, cultural, and artistic work.

The SOC codes were used to capture a wide spectrum of artistic and creative occupations, including:
• Visual arts and design fields (e.g., art directors, fine artists, designers, animators, architects) • Media and communication occupations (e.g., writers, editors, reporters, broadcasters, public relations specialists) • Performing arts and entertainment (e.g., performers, dancers, musicians) • Film, television, and digital media production (e.g., producers, directors, camera operators, sound technicians, editors)
• Other creative technical roles (e.g., computer occupations in visual effects/animation, printing workers, sound engineering, lighting technicians).

The follo
wing SOC codes were included in our definition:
• 112011 – Advertising and Promotions Managers
• 112021 – Marketing Managers
• 112030 – Public Relations and Fundraising Managers
• 119041 – Architectural and Engineering Managers
• 131011 – Agents and Business Managers of Artists, Performers, and Athletes • 151251 – Software Developers, Applications
• 151252 – Software Developers, Systems Software
• 151253 – Software Quality Assurance Analysts and Testers • 151254 – Web Developers
• 151255 – Web and Digital Interface Designers
• 171011 – Architects (Except Landscape and Naval)
• 171012 – Landscape Architects
• 171020 – Surveyors, Cartographers, and Photogrammetrists • 173011 – Architectural and Civil Drafters
• 254010 – Postsecondary Teachers, Art, Drama, and Music • 271010 – Artists and Related Workers
• 271021 – Animators and Special Effects Artists
• 271022 – Fine Artists, Including Painters, Sculptors, and Illustrators • 271024 – Graphic Designers
• 271025 – Industrial Designers
• 271026 – Fashion Designers
• 272011 – Actors
• 272012 – Producers and Directors
• 272030 – Dancers and Choreographers
• 272041 – Music Directors and Composers
• 272042 – Musicians and Singers
• 272099 – Entertainers and Performers, All Other
• 273011 – Broadcast Announcers and Radio Disc Jockeys
• 273031 – News Analysts, Reporters, and Journalists
• 273042 – Media and Communication Workers, All Other
• 273043 – Public Relations Specialists
A.3: DEFINING BERKELEY’S ARTIST POPULATION
48 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

• 273099 – Media and Communication Occupations, All Other • 274021 – Photographers
• 274022 – Camera Operators, Television, Video, and Film • 274023 – Film and Video Editors
• 274024 – Audio and Video Technicians
• 274025 – Lighting Technicians
• 274026 – Sound Engineering Technicians
• 274027 – Broadcast, Sound, and Lighting Technicians, All Other • 274028 – Motion Picture Projectionists
• 274029 – Media Equipment Workers, All Other
• 274030 – Television, Video, and Film Camera Operators and Editors • 393011 – Motion Picture Projectionists
• 393012 – Ushers, Lobby Attendants, and Ticket Takers
• 393013 – Entertainment Attendants and Related Workers, All Other • 393019 – Miscellaneous Entertainment Attendants and Related Workers • 515111 – News Analysts, Reporters, and Journalists
• 515112 – Editors
• 515113 – Technical Writers
• 516021 – Commercial and Industrial Designers
• 516031 – Floral Designers
• 516040 – Merchandise Displayers and Window Trimmers
• 516050 – Set and Exhibit Designers
• 516093 – Costume Attendants
• 516099 – Media and Communication Equipment Workers, All Other • 517011 – Radio Operators
• 517021 – Sound Engineering Technicians
• 517031 – Broadcast Technicians
• 517041 – Media and Communication Equipment Workers, All Other • 517099 – Media and Communication Workers, All Other
• 519071 – Jewelers and Precious Stone and Metal Workers • 519194 – Musical Instrument Repairers and Tuners
49 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

This report was made possible through the leadership and support of the City of Berkeley, including the Office of Economic Development and its Civic Arts Program, the Civic Arts Commission, and Berkeley City Council, whose commitment to advancing the city’s creative and cultural vitality guided this work. We also extend our appreciation to the many nonprofit arts and culture organizations, creative practitioners, and community stakeholders who generously contributed their time, insights, and experiences.

CVL Economics is an economic consulting firm that takes a data-driven, human-centric approach to equitable development and sustainable growth. Founded in 2021, CVL Economics partners with communities, municipalities, organizations, and institutions to address today’s most complex challenges and foster bold action. Coupling robust economic models with innovative research methodologies, we provide decision-makers with the actionable insights needed to effect change, expand opportunity, and improve economic well-being.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
PREPARED BY:

Assessment of Berkeley Arts & Culture
Pandemic Relief and Recovery Funding
DECEMBER 2025
50 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

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: https://berkeleyca.gov/

CONSENT CALENDAR
June 9, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Peter Radu, Assistant to the City Manager, Neighborhood Services Carianna Arredondo, Assistant to the City Manager
Subject: Companion Report: Policy Recommendations for the City of Berkeley Regarding Event Producers and Civic Events

RECOMMENDATION
Refer to the City Manager:

1. A feasibility and cost analysis of the Civic Arts Commission’s Policy Recommendations, with the inclusion of alternative recommendations that meet the Civic Arts Commission’s intention of an equitable, transparent, efficient, and predictable special events program in Berkeley;

2. Present analytical findings and any alternative policy recommendations to the Civic Arts Commission for feedback and stakeholder engagement; and

3. Return to the City Council with findings and final recommendations regarding Special Events in Berkeley.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Performing this analysis and developing findings and finalized recommendations will require dedicated staff time from the multiple city departments responsible for reviewing and approving all permitted park and street events in Berkeley.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The Civic Arts Commission’s recommendations reflect shared goals held by City staff, who strongly agree that Berkeley benefits from a vibrant civic events calendar and that event permitting should be clearer, more consistent, and more equitable. The Civic Arts Commission plays a critical role in Berkeley’s reputation as a vibrant cultural destination for street and park events, distributing approximately $150,000–$200,000 annually in Community Festival Grants to more than 30 nonprofit organizations and community producers who organize and produce many of Berkeley’s most beloved special events.

These City-supported festivals depend on Berkeley’s special events permitting process.

Once an event producer submits a special event application to the city, application review, revisions/corrections, and approvals are conducted through a multi-

Companion Report: Policy Recommendations for Special Events CONSENT CALENDAR June 9, 2026
departmental team in which most participating staff are not dedicated full-time to events and must also cover other core city functions. Participating departments who must review and approve special event applications include but are not limited to the City Manager’s Office; Berkeley Fire Department; Berkeley Police Department; Berkeley Public Works; Health, Housing and Community Services; and Parks, Recreation and Waterfront. With the exception of one Program Manager in Neighborhood Services who coordinates this cross-departmental team and liaises with event applicants, none of these staff work full time on special events. They are also directly responsible for numerous other city priorities, including routine public safety operations, construction- related closures, inspections, encampment operations, and other citywide service obligations. This distributed staffing model makes special events highly sensitive to citywide workload demands, staffing vacancies, and equipment availability.

As a result, and as noted in the October 14, 2025 Staff Report1 titled, “Changes to Special Events Permitting Fees and Requirements,” as well as the May 20, 2026 Off Agenda Memo2 titled, “Interim Measures to Address Special Events Staffing Challenges,” Berkeley’s special events system is currently experiencing structural strain. The City’s annual number of special events has surpassed pre-pandemic levels, with a notable increase in requests for street closure events (which require the most time-consuming and complex reviews). Because the Special Events team strives to be flexible and accommodating to all who wish to host an event in Berkeley, it rarely rejects an event proposal. However, this customer-focused orientation can create a highly chaotic workload for the operations team reviewing events, with numerous events competing for staff time every week and short application submission timelines – with some applications received mere weeks or even days prior to the proposed event date – upending review timelines, compounding staff stress, and compromising responsiveness to organizers. This highly customer-focused orientation has inadvertently reinforced many of the issues the Civic Arts Commission’s policy recommendations identifies as problematic. Staff agree with the Commission whole- heartedly that the status quo is not sustainable.

The Commission’s recommendations include items that range from low-cost process improvements to major structural and technology investments, including a potential centralized special events department and a single publicly accessible permitting platform. From a fiscal standpoint, the City faces two realities:
1 https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2025-10- 14%20Item%2014%20Changes%20to%20Special%20Events%20Permitting.pdf 2 https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2026-05/2026-05- 20%20%20%20%20Interim%20Measures%20to%20Address%20Special%20Events%20Staffing%20Cha llenges.pdf

Companion Report: Policy Recommendations for Special Events CONSENT CALENDAR June 9, 2026

1. Capacity is constrained. Special events are coordinated across multiple departments, and most reviewers are not dedicated solely to events. Any expectation of increased responsiveness, expanded field support, or faster timelines must be paired with either (a) new resources, or (b) reduced scope/service levels elsewhere.

2. Cost recovery has not kept pace with the City’s rising costs of hosting and accommodating events. As a result, multiple departments have moved toward fee adjustments and regulatory changes to better recover costs as event demand increases. Because the City owns and is ultimately liable for what happens on its streets and in its parks, there are real limits to community members’ and event organizers’ involvement in the event production process, and there are real costs associated with those limits that currently have no source of subsidy in the City’s budget.

Staff support the spirit of the Commission’s recommendations, but implementation of any changes to the City’s special events review and approval processes must be sequenced and right-sized to the City’s staffing and fiscal capacity. As such, staff recommend that the City Council refer the Civic Arts Commission’s recommendations to the City Manager for an analysis of cost and feasibility, identifying those recommendations that can be implemented, those that would need additional resources to implement, and those whose intended outcomes might best be addressed with alternative recommendations that recognize the City’s real fiscal and operational constraints.

BACKGROUND
Berkeley has long had a reputation as a destination for culture, food, and vibrant public life. Cultural and civic events—ranging from neighborhood block parties to multi-day festivals—play a meaningful role in shaping that identity and supporting community cohesion and local economic activity. At the same time, Berkeley’s special events permitting system is currently under growing operational strain. The City permitted 185 special events in 2024 (not including the City’s three weekly farmers’ markets), and demand has surpassed pre-pandemic levels, with a notable increase in street closures compared to prior years.

On October 14, 2025, the City Manager’s Office provided Council with an Information Report, “Changes to Special Events Permitting Fees and Requirements,” summarizing impending and proposed changes to special events permitting fees and requirements, including department-specific efforts to improve cost recovery, update regulatory standards, and increase consistency and rigor in the application of public safety requirements.

Companion Report: Policy Recommendations for Special Events CONSENT CALENDAR June 9, 2026

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
There are no identified environmental or climate impacts associated with staff’s recommendation.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Staff share the Civic Arts Commissions desire for a more equitable, transparent, efficient, and predictable special events program in Berkeley, but are concerned about the cost and feasibility of implementing them as written in a budget- and staffing- constrained environment.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None.

CONTACT PERSON
Peter Radu, Assistant to the City Manager, Neighborhood Services, (510) 981-7045

CONSENT CALENDAR
June 9, 2026
To: Honorable Members of the City Council
From: Mayor Adena Ishii (Author)
Subject: Berkeley Poet Laureate Program: Relinquishment of Council Office Budget Funds to General Fund and Grant of Such Fund

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution approving the expenditure of an amount not to exceed $2500 per Councilmember including $2500 from Mayor Ishii to the Berkeley Poet Laureate Program to support the continuation of the program by covering associated selection panelist fees and stipends for the selected poet laureate with funds relinquished to the City’s general fund for this purpose from the discretionary Council Office Budgets of Mayor Ishii and any other Councilmembers who would like to contribute.

BACKGROUND
The City of Berkeley’s Poet Laureate Program was formalized as an open competitive process in 2023, as a joint program of the City and Berkeley Public Library. Historically, the Library has provided funding for the Poet Laureate Program, and the city’s civic arts staff has administered the selection process.

The purpose of the Poet Laureate program was established to: champion Berkeley’s poetry, spoken word, and literary arts communities; honor a Berkeley poet to serve as a creative ambassador of the city and a collaborator with the broader arts community.

Over the course of a two-year service term, the Poet Laureate is required to complete an original poem inspired by or related to Berkeley, give at least two public readings, recite poems at City or Berkeley Public Library events, and act as a mentor for Berkeley’s Youth Poet Laureate program, a program managed by the Berkeley Public Library.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
No General Fund impact; $2500 is available from Mayor Ishii’s budget discretionary accounts.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
There are no environmental impacts associated with the recommendations in this report.

CONTACT PERSON
Mayor Adena Ishii
510-981-7100

Attachments: Resolution for Council Expenditures

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

AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF DISCRETIONARY FUNDS FROM THE

OFFICE EXPENSE ACCOUNTS OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS FOR A

GRANT TO PROVIDE PUBLIC SERVICES FOR A MUNICIPAL PUBLIC PURPOSE

WHEREAS, Mayor Adena Ishii has funds in her office discretionary account; and

WHEREAS, the Berkeley Poet Laureate Program seeks funds from the City of Berkeley not to exceed $2500 per Councilmember, including the amount of $2500 from the office of Mayor Adena Ishii to support the continuation of the City of Berkeley’s Poet Laureate Program to underwrite the City’s process to select its next Poet Laureate and to pay that person a stipend for their two-year service in that role; and

WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley’s Poet Laureate Program was formalized as an open competitive process in 2023 as a joint program of the City and Berkeley Public Library; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the Poet Laureate program was established to: champion Berkeley’s poetry, spoken word, and literary arts communities; and have a Berkeley poet serve as a creative ambassador of the city and a collaborator with the broader arts community.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that funds relinquished by the Mayor and Councilmembers from their Council Office Budget up to $2500 per office shall be granted to the Berkeley Poet Laureate to fund the following service of having the selected Poet Laureate serve as a champion of Berkeley’s poetry & arts communities.

CONSENT CALENDAR
June 9, 2026
To: Honorable Members of the City Council
From: Mayor Adena Ishii (Author), Councilmember Kesarwani (Co-Sponsor) Subject: Chavez/Huerta Tribute Site: Relinquishment of Council Office Budget Funds to General Fund and Grant of Such Fund

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution approving the expenditure of an amount not to exceed $2500 per Councilmember including $2500 from Mayor Ishii and $500 from Councilmember Rashi Kesarwani to the Kala Art Institute, the fiscal sponsor for the Chavez/Huerta Tribute Site, with funds relinquished to the City’s general fund for the purpose of providing the resources needed for the maintenance of the Chavez/Huerta Tribute Site, from the discretionary Council Office Budgets of Mayor Ishii & Councilmember Kesarwani and any other Councilmembers who would like to contribute.

BACKGROUND
The Chavez/Huerta Tribute Site, located at Cesar Chavez Park along Spinnaker Way, is centered around a lush green space overlooking the Bay Area. The site has intentionally developed a comprehensive solar/lunar calendar, along with a quartet of stones engraved with four virtues of the Farmworkers Movement: Determination, Courage, Hope, and Tolerance. The site draws from design concepts in art, astronomy, and architecture found at ancient and indigenous sky observatory sites from around the world.

These funds will support fees and costs associated with employing gardeners, hauling soil, conducting stone replacement, composting goods, grounds maintenance, upgrading signage, and paying the Kala Art Institute a fiscal against fee.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
No General Fund impact; $2500 is available from Mayor Ishii’s budget discretionary account and $500 is available from Councilmember Kesarwani’s budget discretionary account.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
There are no environmental impacts associated with the recommendations in this report.

CONTACT PERSON
Mayor Adena Ishii
510-981-7100

Attachments: Resolution for Council Expenditures

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

AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF DISCRETIONARY FUNDS FROM THE

OFFICE EXPENSE ACCOUNTS OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS FOR

FUNDING TOWARDS THE MAINTENANCE OF THE CHAVEZ/HUERTA TRIBUTE

SITE GRANT, A PUBLIC SERVICE FOR A MUNICIPAL PUBLIC PURPOSE

WHEREAS, Mayor Adena Ishii has funds in her office discretionary account; and

WHEREAS, a California non-profit tax-exempt corporation, the Kala Art Institute, seeks funds from the City of Berkeley not to exceed $2500 per Councilmember, including the amount of $2500 from the office of Mayor Adena Ishii, and $500 from Councilmember Rashi Kesarwani, to provide maintenance and upkeep for the Chavez/Huerta Tribute Site located along Spinnaker Way; and

WHEREAS, the Chavez/Huerta Tribute Site brings communities across the city together to honor the virtues and contribution of those involved in the Farmworkers Movement; and
WHEREAS, these funds will support fees and costs associated with employing gardeners, hauling soil, conducting stone replacement, composting goods, grounds maintenance, upgrading signage.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that funds relinquished by the Mayor and Councilmembers from their Council Office Budget up to $2500 per office shall be granted to the Kala Art Institute to fund the following services to bring communities together to honor the virtues and contributions of those involved in the Farmworkers Movement.

2180 Milvia Street
Berkeley, CA 94704
Tel: (510) 981-7100
TDD: (510) 981-6903
[email protected]

CONSENT CALENDAR
June 9, 2026
To: Members of the City Council
From: Mayor Ishii (Author), Councilmember Tregub (Co-Author) Subject: 2027 Holocaust Remembrance Day Program: Relinquishment of Council Office Budget Funds from General Funds and Grant of Such Funds

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution approving the expenditure of an amount not to exceed $3,500 per Councilmember, including $3,500 from Mayor Ishii, and $500 from Councilmember Tregub to support the City’s Annual Holocaust Remembrance Day program with funds relinquished to the City’s general fund. The relinquishment of funds from the discretionary Council Office Budget of all Councilmembers who would like to contribute, allows the City of Berkeley to invite the community to its 24th Annual Holocaust Remembrance Day program, created by the community with City Council support.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
No General Fund impact: $3,500 is available from Mayor Ishii’s Office Budget Discretionary Account. $500 is available from Councilmember Tregub’s Office Budget Discretionary Account.

BACKGROUND
The City of Berkeley’s Annual Holocaust Remembrance Day program has been supported by the City Council since its inception in 2002. The program has occurred annually, except in the year 2020 when the pandemic hit without enough time to pivot to a virtual program. Berkeley’s Holocaust Remembrance Day has become a treasured event for Holocaust survivors, family members and the Bay Area community as the only secular, city-sponsored program in the region. The community program invites attendees to honor those who perished in the Holocaust and those who survived. With fewer living survivors available to share their stories, firsthand, and rising antisemitic hate crimes in our region and nation-wide, it is essential that we support the testimony of survivors and their children about the Holocaust and re-affirm our City’s resolve to never forget.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
No impact

CONTACT PERSON
Adena Ishii, Mayor, (510) 981-7100
Attachments:
1: Resolution

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

AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF SURPLUS FUNDS FROM THE OFFICE EXPENSE

ACCOUNTS OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS FOR A GRANT TO PROVIDE PUBLIC

SERVICES FOR A MUNICIPAL PUBLIC PURPOSE
WHEREAS, Mayor Ishii has surplus funds in her office expenditure account and will contribute $3,500, and Councilmember Tregub has surplus funds in his office expenditure account and will contribute $500, and they invite the Councilmembers to join them in contributing; and WHEREAS, a California nonprofit tax-exempt corporation, The Jewish Community Center of the East Bay, serves as the fiscal sponsor of the Holocaust Remembrance Day program and will receive funds in an amount up to $3,500 per contributing Councilmember’s discretionary account; and WHEREAS, the provision of such services would fulfill the municipal public purpose of providing an educational community program supporting Holocaust survivors, community recognition and factual information about the Holocaust. The grants will provide funds to produce the event.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that funds relinquished by the Mayor and Councilmembers from their Council Office Budget, up to $3,500 per office, shall be granted to the Jewish Community Center of the East Bay to fund the City of Berkeley’s 24th Annual Holocaust Remembrance Day program.

Berkeley City Councilmember
Mark Humbert, District 8
2180 Milvia Street, 5th Floor
Berkeley, CA 94704
[email protected]
www.MarkHumbert.com

CONSENT CALENDAR
June 9, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Mark Humbert
Subject: Amendments to Berkeley Municipal Code Section 23.204.070 (D) (Hot tubs)

RECOMMENDATION
Refer to the City Manager and the Planning Commission to amend Berkeley Municipal Code Section 23.304.070(D) to:

1. Allow unenclosed outdoor hot tubs, jacuzzis, and spas ministerially in all zoning districts except ES-R, subject to compliance with applicable building, fire, noise, and setback requirements; and

2. Replace the Use Permit requirement in the ES-R district with an Administrative Use Permit (AUP).

This change aligns the level of review with the actual impacts of these installations, reduces unnecessary delay and cost (both to applicants and the City), and preserves appropriate oversight in environmentally sensitive areas.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Under the current Berkeley Municipal Code, unenclosed outdoor hot tubs require an Administrative Use Permit (AUP) citywide and a Use Permit in the ES-R district. This framework treats a common residential amenity as a discretionary land use subject to notice, appeal, and a required public hearing in ES-R districts before the Berkeley Zoning Adjustments Board.

This approach creates several problems:
● Mismatch between impacts and process: The primary concerns associated with hot tubs—noise, drainage, electrical safety, and placement—are technical issues already governed by objective standards in the building and fire codes. Discretionary land use review does not meaningfully improve these outcomes.
● Unnecessary delay and cost: Even routine installations are subject to multi-month permitting timelines, adding expense and uncertainty for homeowners.

● Overuse of discretionary review: The requirement invites appeals and prolonged disputes over minor residential improvements, which also engenders neighbor conflicts. ● Staff and Council burden: Projects with limited public impact are escalated into time- intensive processes, diverting attention from higher-priority matters.

BACKGROUND
Berkeley is one of the only local jurisdictions that requires an administrative use permit (AUP) for hot tubs and jacuzzis. The City of Berkeley currently treats backyard hot tubs like a discretionary land-use/development issue, while neighboring cities generally handle the same improvement with objective setbacks, noise controls, screening, and standard building, electrical, or plumbing permits. Those tools already address noise, placement, drainage, and safety without forcing homeowners into a multi-month, costly, and appealable AUP process.

For comparison, it is now easier to build an ADU than to add a hot tub to an ADU.

Recent experience demonstrates how this policy can be misused. One homeowner seeking to install a backyard hot tub was drawn into a seven-month permitting and appeals process, culminating in a February 27, 2024, City Council decision rejecting a neighbor’s appeal. While the project ultimately complied with applicable standards, the process required significant staff time, legal resources, and Council attention, while imposing unnecessary costs on the applicant.

This case reflects a broader structural issue: the current framework allows minor residential improvements to become protracted disputes, not because of their impacts, but because of the discretionary process applied to them.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
This amendment would reduce staff workload associated with processing AUPs and Use Permits, as well as appeals to the Berkeley Zoning Adjustments Board and City Council. By shifting routine projects to ministerial review, the City can reallocate staff time to higher-priority planning efforts and reduce administrative and legal costs.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Hot tubs will continue to be regulated through building, fire, and noise standards, including requirements related to drainage and wildfire safety. Streamlining the permitting process does not reduce environmental safeguards and supports efficient use of City resources.

SUGGESTED PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 23.304.070(D) D. Hot Tubs, Jacuzzis, and Spas.

1. Permit Requirements.
(a) An unenclosed outdoor hot tub, jacuzzi, or spa located anywhere on a lot requires (a) an AUP shall be permitted ministerially in all districts except for the ES-R district, subject to compliance with all applicable provisions of this Code, including but not limited to setback, noise, building, fire, and electrical requirements, and (b) A Use Permit i In the ES-R district, an unenclosed outdoor hot tub, jacuzzi, or spa shall require an Administrative Use Permit (AUP).

2. Noise Standards.

Any pump associated with an unenclosed outdoor hot tub, jacuzzi, or spa shall be mounted and enclosed so that its sound is not audible on an adjacent lot (Ord. 7981-NS § 7, 2025; Ord. 7787- NS § 2 (Exh. A), 2021)

3. Nothing in this subsection shall exempt a project from compliance with grading limits, drainage requirements, wildfire regulations, or other applicable provisions of this Code.

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Mark Humbert
(510) 981-9180