Report to BUSD Board, Presented June 22, 2005
Part
I1. IntroductionCITIZENS’
CONSTRUCTION ADVISORY COMMITTEE PAST
The “recommendations to
the Board” contained in past CCACCCAC reports have had mixed consequences.
Some recommendations were not explicitly adopted. A few were adopted but abandoned
when found ineffective or too difficult to sustain. But there is near consensus
that the substance of all the reports, as well as the discussion at each
meeting, have served the charge by raising either Board or public consciousness
regarding the facilities program, providing “heads up” regarding problems and
public perception, and generally making the District and the Facilities
Department a more savvy player of the school facilities construction “game.”
A potential topic for
CCACSCOC follow-up.
Why do some projects
proposed by the District become “problematic” because of public dissent and
opposition?
There are many possible
reasons. The Committee has discussed
one of them in detail. It is clear
that, when faced with new projects, “People have irrational fears.” Often these
fears are based upon presumption, misinformation or lack of information, and
are exacerbated by insufficient time to adequately process information.
Berkeley residents
can name many public planning and decision-making exercises which have not gone
well. But
the Committee is firmly convinced that dissent and obstructionism are NOT
inevitable
- even
when the changes at issue are big and controversial; even in Berkeley where public dissent is a
local sport.
See the appendix or the CCACSCOC website (http://www.busduse.org/ccacCCAC) for a local example “preemptive concern-addressing”, a potent means for gathering public consensus and support
for sensitive public use-change projects.
Our recommendation is
for the District to deal with these fears as a psychotherapist would.
Although the tactics in of thise example ar may
be too “fine-grained” for use to be used routinely by
a large entity like a school district, BUSD HAS engaged in a version of
“pre-emptive concern addressing” on three occasions when a great deal was at
stake. Those successes help validate the concept. Prior
to placing on the local ballot the first bond “A”, the second bond “AA” and
parcel tax “BB”, and the most recent parcel tax, the District has contracted a carefully designed telephone poll of Berkeley households
to solicit residents’ opinions and priorities. In each case BUSD made its “go /
no go” decision AND determined the size and the goals of its tax measures based
upon the results of these surveys.
This is a method rarely if ever undertaken
in Berkeley, even by the City of Berkeley. Instead Wwe can recall many name
many episodes initiated by enthusiastic leaders or activists who are
very enthusiastic and are sure that most people will agree with
the overwhelming “logic” of their plan but have no polling data to back up
their confidence. At the first – typically premature - public meeting people
appear and publicly raise objections. The initiators are (1) surprised, and (2)
initially unsympathetic. Both reactions are fatal to realization of the initiators’
goal.
Perhaps these suggestions
sound obvious and intuitive. Then wWhy then, besides “cost”, are
they so rarely heeded? BUSD deserves kudos for the number of times it has
gotten planning right. The CCACSCOC would like to see these methods
institutionalized and thereby increase the District’s success rate.
Show
Respect: Part of the method’s potency is uniformly
treating people’s concerns with respect; don’t dismiss them as misguided. Systematically recording and responding to
concerns shows respect for the public and heads off opposition.
Take
Sufficient Time: Public facilities planning and programming
are not like other types of administrative decisions. It involves:
A. Listening to all
stake-holders. Listening cannot be hurried.
B. Identifying,
disseminating and absorbing large bodies of information.
C. Invention, a process
that cannot
be accelerated by neither administrative will nor by resources.
D. Harmonizing
conflicting interests.
E. Specifically
addressing public concerns, whether “rational” or not.
F. Dealing with city and
state procedures, timetables and plans.
Allowing too little time
for these results
assures “failure” - the certainty of in having to
repeat the process or a of the project
being stalled indefinitely by
entrenched opposition. This wastes winds up wasting money
and stuntsing
the growth of our shared civic asset.
Part 32. A
Parking Structure on the BHS Tennis Courts Site
A “cause” for CCACSCOC championing - or at least follow-up.
On March 27, 2003 CCACSCOC commenced the
discussion of parking at Berkeley High. The entire committee favors building a
parking structure of compact “footprint” to contain the 230 parking spaces
which are permanently allocated to BHS staff upon the BHS campus. The obvious
location for a structure is the former tennis courts site on Milvia. Lloyd Lee suggested an alternative: parking beneath an
elevated ball field. For eight subsequent months the CCACSCOC gave this its
sustained attention. For the background and rationale see:
http://www.busduse.org/BHSParkingBackground.html
On October 23, 2003 the CCACSCOC heard a presentation by local developer
Patrick Kennedy and city of Berkeley “parking czar" Matt Nichols. Mr.
Kennedy, with Mr. Nichols looking on, proposed to build for BUSD at no cost to
BUSD a parking structure on the tennis courts from which BUSD would receive all
parking revenue. A summary of this presentation is available. (Contact CCACSCOC chair Bruce Wicinas
for the MS Word .doc)
CCACSCOC halted its discussion through the duration through
the duration of master planning at Berkeley High. The parking structure concept
has now been
endorsed by the master plan and waits to movemove forward.
Part 4. Capacities: BUSD and BHS
A potential topic for
CCACSCOC follow-up.
In 2002 the attention of
the committee was repeatedly drawn by the prolonged "capacities
study" for which the Superintendent had commissioned a consultant, California
Financial Services. All subsequent building program decision-making
during that year was declared suspended pending outcome of this study. Near
the year’s end the committee saw a partial draft. The CCACSCOC wrote a response in
1/2003. The Manager of Facilities also wrote a recommendation to the Board at
this time. There
have been no further recommendations by the District since that date. Nothing
came of any of it.
In
2004 the committee heard a brief presentation by the consultant CCAC
chair, who drew the three “zone” divisions for BUSD in 1993,
regarding the recent history and rationale of BUSD capacity allocation. For North Zone elementary students and perhaps for
sub-populations the capacity distribution remains an issue of some tension. The CCACSCOC agrees that questions
remain, that capacity planning decisions have facilities
consequences and that capacity allocation falls under the charge of no other
oversight committee.
A potential topic for
CCACSCOC follow-up.
“Special use” space can
be used for only one purpose. In many cases the District has yielded to
community and parent pressure and built such spaces. Examples are new-concept
food service and performing arts spaces. In some cases the outcome has been
positive and the expense apparently justified by use and by community and staff
satisfaction. In other cases, the space is “orphaned” by the time it is
completed. BUSD facilities money has been spent on facilities which are
under-used or are even perceived as liabilities.
What lessons
can be learned from these efforts? What
mistakes can we avoid in the future? The Committee suggests:
impose a “test” criterion. “Is there an alternate use this space can be adapted
to?” (In case the constituency for the idiosyncratic use “goes away” by the
time it is built.)
Over the life of the CCACSCOC we have looked at a
variety of approaches by which the building were programmed. Most of the
schools had strong site committees. Some spontaneously sprang up when the
facilities improvements appeared on the horizon before “start” date of the
District’s project timeline. Others (such as BHS) were programmed via public
processes initiated by the District or by the Architect. The site committees
had varying styles that reflected the members and leader. For example the
G&H building programming was characterized by: “weak principal, strong
departments.”
Inflexible programming
decisions lead to inflexible buildings.
When the enthusiasm for
the use or program goes away, the building becomes less useful.
Analyze whether the
program for which there is current enthusiasm (and/or the constituency) might
go away. Require that there be an
alternative use (i.e., a “plan B”) regarding the use of that space. There is
more than enough history from which to pull some generalizations regarding
these kinds of spaces.
A potential topic for
CCACSCOC follow-up.
In the course of the
building program, programming decisions were made that became
“form-determinants” of buildings. There should be an attempt to go back and see
what worked. Some schools were designed around some theme or generating idea –
was this facilitating or restrictive? For example, the unconventional design
for Columbus was greeted with much hoopla. Cragmont was billed as “built
around” its great room. How do these
programming decisions look with the perspective of years? How do students,
staff and parents feel about these schools? What was the discussion that led to
grand program decisions? How was the program manifested? How have the plan,
components, materials, and systems performed?
There are many ways to
apply the “Did it work?” criterion.
Part
7. Appendix
Past
Reports
& Topics
of Interest; “Pre-emptive Concern
Addressing”
Topics of Interest
indicated
by the Board in the recent past At the presentation of its most recent “Annual
Report” in
2002 the
Board indicated interest in the following topics
1) Possible futures
for unused properties,
2) Future rehab of
District properties not covered by the bond (Oregon St., etc),
3) Energy Efficiency
and "Green" Standards,
4) Life cycle and
maintainability regarding construction materials and hardware.
Committee discussions of these led to no report. It proved beyond the capacity
of a small volunteer committee to produce a policy manual which would serve the District’s need. But committee discussions
helped inform
the hiring of consultants. It is possible for the CCACSCOC to re-approach aspects with a tighter scope.
Bibliography of CCACSCOC authored or
sponsored Documents and Media, 1996 to present Find the “CCACSCOC Bibliography” online
at http://www.busduse.org/ccacCCAC. Several documents are
on the web - the best means to connect public & consultant interest to
information. Other documents or forms of media can be obtained from
the Facilities Department or from the committee chair. Most of the referenced documents have been previously accepted by the
Board. The topic headings:
·
BHS Food service – Planning Issues
·
BHS Pre-programming, 2001 –
·
BHS Parking: A Parking Structure on the Tennis
Courts
·
“Budget Monitoring”
·
Capacities, BUSD/BHS: Response to consultant’s 2002
“Capacities Study”
·
The Construction Program Computer Control System
·
Energy Policy
·
Inflation of Construction Cost: Enumeration of
Contributing Factors
·
Inflation of Construction Cost, Sources: Lack of
"As-builts"
·
Inflation of Construction Cost, Sources:
"Constructability" Reviews
·
Inflation of Construction Cost, Sources: Analysis
of Change Orders
·
Inflation of Construction Cost, Sources: The
"Program Inflation" phenomenon.
·
Life cycle Costs
·
Master Planning at BHS, (Incomplete) History 1937
to Present
·
Moving and Storing (to/from temporary location
during construction)
·
Old Gym Pre-Programming Workshop
·
The "Orange Book" (2000)
·
Parcel Tax: Proposal for a new parcel tax in 2000
·
Pilfering
·
Pre-qualifying of Bidders: EMR (Experience
Modification Rating) and other schemes
·
Press and Public Information
·
Principals' Needs Survey
·
Project Commissioning
·
"Project Manual Steps"
·
“State of the Construction Program” (2001)
·
Video Documentary by Quest Productions for 1998 Public Forum
“Pre-emptive
Concern-Addressing” It is clear that, when faced with new
projects, “People have irrational fears.” Often these fears are based upon presumption,
misinformation or lack of information, and are exacerbated by insufficient time
to adequately process information. Our recommendation is for the District to deal with
these fears as a psychotherapist would. Listen earnestly to all concerns and write them all
down. Characterize them; tally them; ask questions about them. Then commence a
sincere effort to answer the concerns. “Here’s the response to ____.” Once the
truth has been ascertained and answers have been researched, publish the
concerns and the responses.
An example of “preemptive concern-addressing” in
Berkeley Around 1994 a few neighbors in the vicinity
of Prince St. and Halcyon considered converting a middle-right-of-way parking
lot to a park. Though everyone enjoyed the idea as a fantasy, residents became
anxious when they learned that a few neighbors were seriously pursing it. The
city of Berkeley was completely opposed, listing a roster of objections. The
small founders group pursued a quiet, patient, homework-intensive method. A large
public meeting was not held. First they distributed a written survey to every
household in the vicinity and doggedly retrieved them all. Neighborhood
concerns clustered into two: sufficiency of parking and increased crime. The
parking need of every household in the vicinity was tallied. The total number
of parking spaces required by residents was compared to the number of on-street
spaces available without the parking lot. This computation showed that
residents did not need the parking lot. In fact the lot was being exploited by
non-residents. Regarding the crime question the activists contacted the police
department. The Community Affairs Bureau predicted no crime problem with the
park as designed and agreed to provide a letter of endorsement from chief of
police Butler. “Armed” with these information assets the activist visited every
household in the vicinity to talk face to face through individuals’ concerns.
As a result of this thorough, “preemptive” addressing of the publics’ concerns
this project cleared hurdles of approval of all levels of city government in
record time without a whisper of public dissent. All this process-shepherding
was done by the neighborhood activists who sponsored the project. If done by
paid consultants it would surely have been expensive.
The value of prior “concern-addressing” was
evident. By the time of its opening the new park’s unanimous support make it a
project for which every public figure sought credit.