Features

After the city tax measures went down to defeat last fall, Tom Bates started talking about “re-inventing Berkeley government.” 

“Berkeley is … known throughout the world as a leader in social policy,” asserted a “Policy Brief” put out by the mayor’s office in January. “[W]e must also work to be just as well known for an effective government that has the trust of the people it serves.” In his Jan. 11 “priority setting speech,” Bates sounded the same theme. “During a time when people’s faith in progressivism and government is shaken,” he said, “we must … put our values to work and lead by example. ... We need to listen to our bosses—the voters of the city.”  

Tom Bates regards Berkeley voters as his bosses? The evidence of the last two and a half years says just the opposite.  

A few examples: In February 2003, barely three months after taking office, the mayor pressured the then Planning Commission chair (myself) to keep members of the public from directly engaging representatives of UC at an upcoming workshop on the Southside Plan. In a message left on my answering machine, Bates said that “it was inappropriate for outside parties”—meaning ordinary citizens—to “be in dialogue” with the University.  

In early 2004, having realized that, rather than shooting the breeze, the Planning Commission’s UC-Hotel Conference Center Task Force was going to make substantial recommendations to the City Council, the mayor asked that it be disbanded. In March 2004 he proposed changes to public comment that, the Daily Planet reported, “would significantly limit the ability of Berkeley citizens to present their views to City Council.” During this same period, Bates repeatedly held secret, illegal meetings with the developers of the code-busting, Seagate luxury high-rise.  

This March, out of the blue, the mayor revealed his intention to rezone Gilman Street and Ashby Avenue west of San Pablo Avenue for retail. That scheme has multiple conflicts with the city’s new General Plan, itself the product of an extensive public process.  

Now it appears that to expedite his plans for a commercialized west Gilman Street, Bates has extended his imperious sway over the Berkeley Unified School District. On May 12 BUSD Public Information Officer Mark Coplan told me that the mayor had blocked the BUSD’s plans for a much-needed new bus yard at 1325 Sixth St. until the district agreed to give up the site’s Gilman Street frontage for retail.  

How, you may ask, was this possible? Aren’t the city and the school district legally separate authorities? In fact, if a BUSD project is not primarily educational, then the city’s zoning laws take over. But nothing in city law, policy or precedent says that under such circumstances, the mayor takes over.  

An Oct. 22, 2004 letter to city planner Greg Powell from BUSD Director of Facilities Lew Jones recounts the school district’s efforts to build new facilities for its Transportation Department. The department is now housed on three separate, rented sites in the area. In 2000, the BUSD bought the 82,000 square foot parcel at 1325 Sixth St.  

“The City of Berkeley,” writes Jones, “requested that the District explore other alternatives to housing the facility at 1325 Sixth St. The mayor was a particular advocate for exhausting all possibilities, but we also met with the city manager and other city staff.” When it turned out that 1325 Sixth St. was the only appropriate site, “[t]he city”—i.e., the mayor—“requested that we build the facility to the south of the site and leave the north end (Gilman Street frontage) available for future development.” After spending several more months working to satisfy “the city,” the BUSD submitted its revised plans to the Zoning Department last November.  

The Zoning Department’s website indicates that the BUSD’s current application was deemed complete on Jan. 21. The site plan shows the buildings and staff/visitor parking lot set back 70 feet behind the Gilman Street property line. An April 18 memo from Coplan says that “approximately 8,800 square feet is being reserved at the Gilman Street site for retail use.”  

Mayor Bates did not return my calls regarding his involvement with 1325 Sixth St. But his chief of staff, Cisco de Vries, denied that his boss prevented the city from signing off on the Transportation Yard project until the Gilman Street frontage was reserved for retail. De Vries conceded that the mayor made it known to the BUSD that he would like to see commercial development there. The parcel is currently zoned for light industry.  

Consider, then, that the district is proposing to put light industrial uses—its warehouse, kitchen and Buildings and Grounds Department facilities—on the former Adult School site at West Campus, in the middle of a quiet residential neighborhood of modest single-family homes. Reasonably enough, West Campus neighbors would like at least some of those industrial uses moved to the 8,800-square-foot strip at 1325 Sixth St.  

Is it mere coincidence that on May 11 the School Board voted to ask Bates’ wife, Assemblywoman Loni Hancock, to add Berkeley’s name to Assembly Bill 952, which exempts specified school districts from state laws governing the sale of their “surplus property?” That category could conceivably include the Gilman frontage at 1325 Sixth St. (as well as portions of West Campus).  

Irrational land use and back-room dealing aside, the episode raises issues of fiscal irresponsibility. “The ongoing rental costs required to pay for the three sites [now used for the BUSD buses] is financially crippling the district as we currently pay almost $500,000 per year rent,” wrote Jones last October. “In addition, as long as the district is renting the three sites, the city cannot collect all its taxes on either proposed site or on the rented sites.”  

Tom Bates owes the public a full explanation of his role in this mess, as well as a vow to stop overreaching his mayoral authority. For now, we have one more indication that he’s “re-inventing” Berkeley in the image of Willie Brown’s Sacramento.