The 2012 Downtown Area Plan and Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 23E.68 (Commercial Downtown Mixed-Use District) permit five buildings of exceptional height (above 75 ft. height limit) in the Downtown area. Three residential buildings are permitted up to 180 feet, with one being a hotel-conference center. And two residential buildings are allowed up to 120 feet in height. In order for the City to approve a project to exceed the 75 foot height limit in the Downtown, the City must find that the project provides “significant community benefits, either directly or by providing funding for such benefits to the satisfaction of the City, beyond what would otherwise be required of the City.” 

The Downtown Area Plan, Policy LU-1.5 states that “All new buildings shall deliver significant community benefits many of which should be in proportion to building height”. 

This policy guidance suggests that the “significant community benefits” provided by the five taller exceptions should provide be “significant” in value and must exceed the baseline requirements that all Downtown projects must meet in the Berkeley Municipal Code. In addition, the benefits should be proportional to value of the additional building height granted. 

“Community benefits” for purposes of this policy means: 

A community benefit is defined as a tangible contribution to the broader community, either physically constructed in the project or a monetary contribution to the city, made by an applicant in exchange for an exception to zoning standards (i.e. additional height) and beyond the established requirements of the municipal code, which does not directly benefit the project or occupants of the project, but rather the entire community. The value of the community benefit will be determined based on a portion of the increased value of the zoning exception provided to the applicant.  

In order to determine whether the community benefits chosen by the project are in fact “significant” in value and proportional to the value of the additional height requested, the City must based on an applicant’s pro forma determine (considering construction costs, existing fee, land value, and factoring in a reasonable rate of return for the project) what additional monetary value the up-zoning provides the project and based on that how much benefits the project can reasonably bear. 

This framework for significant community benefits would require applicants to meet two mandatory categories (“Affordable Housing” and “Labor Requirements”) and meet at least one additional benefits category, or more, depending on the total value determined by the City for what the project can reasonably bear and whether there is additional value that the City can reasonably recapture after considering the cost of the other benefit categories. 

VALUATION 

In order for staff and the ZAB to evaluate the community benefits package selected by the applicant (Affordable Housing and Labor Requirements+ one or more benefit categories), the applicant must provide a pro forma showing pre-development and hard costs as well as the projected rate of return the project would generate, and expected ongoing income sources once the project is completed, including the rents/sales prices expected to be generated at the floors above 75 feet. 

In addition the applicant should attempt to cost out the economic impact of their benefits package in order for the city to independently evaluate whether the benefits package is “proportional” to the value of the additional height (as the Downtown Plan requires), and whether the project can achieve a reasonable amount of profit while providing the significant community benefits proposed. 

This financial information will be independently reviewed by a consultant selected by the City and paid for by the applicant. The findings of the independent economic analysis will be presented to the ZAB. 

The valuation model should reflect growth trends in rental income in determining the dollar range of benefits the city could reasonably request. The total value of benefits must equal or exceed the highest reasonable amount the project can support. 

MANDATORY CATEGORIES OF SIGNIFICANT COMMUNITY BENEFITS 

Under this proposed framework, applicants for the five buildings exceeding 75 feet in height in the Commercial Downtown Mixed-Use (C-DMU) Zoning District would be required to automatically fulfill two Significant Benefit categories: Affordable Housing beyond what is already required by the Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC), and Labor Requirements. 

Additional Affordable Housing - Mandatory 

Applicants would be required in each tall building to set aside an additional 10% of units in the project as affordable to households earning up to 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI) for rental projects. The units would be required to be built on-site and rented to qualifying low-income households for the life of the building, enforced through conditions of approval and a regulatory agreement between the developer and the city, setting forth which units are designated below-market-rate, the requirement that the units be equitably distributed throughout the building and be of similar finishing and materials as other units, setting forth the rents of the units, requirements for reporting incomes, monitoring and penalties for non-compliance. 

If the applicant elects to set aside below-market-rate units in the project to satisfy the Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee Ordinance (at roughly 10% of the base project units), then factoring in the additional 10% on-site “significant community benefits” requirement would result in a cumulative affordable housing requirement of 20% for the entire project. This is roughly proportional to the old Inclusionary Zoning requirement.[1] 

This affordable housing requirement of 20% on-site has been tested in Berkeley’s real estate market, since it basically matches the Inclusionary Ordinance which was enforced for 20 years, during which time numerous projects achieved feasibility and were constructed. 

Ownership (condominium) projects would be required to comply with the Inclusionary Zoning requirements for condominiums or pay an in-lieu fee as permitted by existing law (62.5% of the difference between the market price and the inclusionary sales price). In addition, condominium projects above 75 feet in height Downtown would be required to pay an additional in-lieu fee, at a rate to be determined by the City.  

Labor Requirements: Project Labor Agreement with Local Hire Requirement - Mandatory 

Applicants would also be required for each project to fulfill the “Labor Requirements” category, which would be satisfied by voluntarily entering into a Project Labor Agreement. In addition, applicants would be required to sign an agreement stating that no less than 50% of the project’s construction workers be Berkeley or Green Corridor/Alameda County residents, with priority in that order. Berkeley residents would be hired first, and if a sufficient number of Berkeley residents is not available, then the applicant can hire residents of the East Bay Green Corridor (which includes the cities of Albany, Alameda, Berkeley, El Cerrito, Emeryville, Hayward, Richmond, Oakland, and San Leandro) or residents of other Alameda County communities to fulfill the local hire requirement. Staff will develop monitoring and enforcement measures. In developing an enforcement process for labor requirements, staff should investigate the monitoring and enforcement language adopted by UC Berkeley for its University Village project in Albany as well as the City of Berkeley’s Community Workforce Agreement. 

BENEFITS APPLICANTS CAN CHOOSE TO SATISFY REQUIREMENT OF PROVIDING ONE OR MORE ADDITIONAL BENEFITS 

In addition to the two mandatory “significant community benefits” categories, applicants must meet a minimum of one additional benefit category by choosing from the menu of benefit options below. 

Additional funding for SOSIP or Construction of SOSIP or similar/updated projects approved by the City  

Applicants can satisfy one of the three required community benefits categories by meeting one of the open space options: 

1. Make a contribution to the Streets and Open Space Improvement Plan (SOSIP) Fund that significantly exceeds the amount already required to be paid in Open Space fees. The fees must be spent towards SOSIP projects within 5 years of the contribution.
2. Applicants may chose to construct projects beyond the perimeter of the property or in the greater Downtown area to implement the SOSIP Plan or one or more similar projects approved by the City.
3. Applicants may also choose to make a contribution to the City to finance improvements to Civic Center Park.

Public Restrooms 

Applicants can construct public restrooms in their project on the ground floor level in a location accessible to any member of the public, and agree to ongoing maintenance. The restrooms must be disabled accessible and include a changing station for parents. 

As an alternative applicants may provide a financial contribution to the City to subsidize the cost of building new public restrooms in the Downtown area. Restrooms need to be built within 5 years. 

Higher Green Building Standards 

Projects constructed to State-of-the-art sustainable building practices, including but not limited to Zero Net Energy, LEED Platinum, and/or other markers of the most progressive sustainable building practices available, to establish and demonstrate the lowest environmental impact that is feasible for buildings 

Arts Incubation 

Construct in the project itself or at an off-site location in the Downtown area, gallery, arts and/or performance space for local visual and performing arts organizations, to be managed by a qualified arts organization, or movie theaters. In order to ensure long term access to gallery, arts, and/or performance space or movie theaters, the City shall include specific requirements in the Conditions of Approval on the amount of square feet of such space, and the designated uses of the space, as well as a requirement for arts space that it be managed by one or a consortium of qualified arts organization(s) to be selected by the applicant with input from the city’s Civic Arts Coordinator. To enforce arts space requirements the applicant shall record a Notice of Limitation that the arts space is governed by the conditions of the use permit. The city should examine the conditions for arts/cultural space for the 2041-2067 Center Street “Seagate” project in crafting conditions to enforce this community benefit requirement. 

As an alternative to constructing physical space for visual/performing arts in the project, the applicant can make a contribution to the city’s Cultural Arts Fund, to provide additional arts grants for new local arts organizations, or funding for local live entertainment and community based performing arts organizations. 

Restoring Historic Civic Center Buildings 

Applicants can elect to make contributions to the City to finance the seismic retrofitting and restoration of historic buildings in the Civic Center District Overlay, including Old City Hall and the Veterans Memorial Building. 

Site-Specific and/or On-Site Benefits 

Due to the uniqueness of each site, there may be special Significant Benefits that are compelling at one or another site. Applicants can choose to develop and provide such benefits directly (such as free and publicly accessible meeting or conference space). 

Tenant Relocation/Mitigating Displacement 

Projects can also elect to provide funding to assist in relocation of displaced businesses, or dedicating space in the building to displaced businesses at same rent that was previously paid or a comparable rate. 

Homeless Services/Supportive Social Services. 

Applicants can also elect to make a contribution to the City to fund additional homeless services, or services for youth or low-income populations. As an alternative, applicants can provide facilities on site or in the immediate Downtown area to serve these populations, subject to input from the City and community members who work with these populations. Such services could include a homeless service facilities (drop in center/homeless services center, health clinic, child care center, youth counseling center). 

Additional Affordable Housing 

Projects can elect to provide an even greater number of affordable units, beyond the mandatory 10% on-site “significant community benefits” requirement, to be affordable to households earning no more than 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI). In addition projects can agree to rent additional below-market-rate units at a deeper affordability level (e.g. 60% AMI, 50% AMI). 

METHOD OF DELIVERY 

As described in the section on “Benefit Categories”, the benefits could be built on-site or fees could be paid to the city, depending on which benefit categories the applicant chooses. 

ENFORCEMENT 

All significant community benefits agreed to by the applicant and approved by the City will be included as Conditions of Approval. Affordable Housing requirements will be enforced through a separate regulatory agreement. Other requirements such as payment of additional fees or financial contributions to the City would be due prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Some requirements such as constructing cultural/arts space on-site would be enforced through the recording of a Notice of Limitation to comply with the conditions on building, maintaining and using the arts space for visual/performing art/or movie theater space. These legal documents could be enforced through litigation by the City if the owner fails to comply with the conditions, or evicts the arts/movie theater uses and reverts the space to another use. 

Any project that fails to meet the Conditions of Approval could be subject to revocation of their permit, and substantial monetary penalties. 

BART officials are holding out hope that repairs to a San Francisco trackway can be completed by 5 p.m. today, but there could be delays of up to an hour during this evening's commute. 

BART is running only the San Francisco International Airport line past the Montgomery station in San Francisco until repairs are completed, BART spokeswoman Alicia Trost said. 

The problem was discovered at about 9:20 a.m. on the eastbound trackway between the Civic Center and 16th Street Mission BART stations, Trost said. 

A train operator reported a possibly broken trackway there. Repair crews later confirmed there was a 10-inch gap in the track, Trost said. 

"It was a bumpy ride," she said. 

Repairs were underway on the tracks by noon, but were expected to last several hours and might not be completed until 4 or 5 p.m., Trost said. 

If the trackway is not reopened by this evening's commute, there could be delays of up to an hour and station agents might need to limit the number of people entering the station, Trost said. 

Complicating matters is that the San Francisco Giants are playing a day game against the San Diego Padres today, so BART is seeing increased ridership. "It's very unfortunate we are having delays and we are very sorry, especially with the Giants game, but this is a safety issue," Trost said. "Every line is affected, there's just not enough redundancy in the system, it wasn't built to accommodate this." 

There were 433,000 BART trips systemwide Tuesday. 

BART officials are recommending passengers seek alternate methods of transportation. San Francisco Municipal Railway and Alameda-Contra Costa Transit are honoring BART tickets today. 

Trains are single-tracking through all downtown San Francisco stations and only airport-bound trains traveling from the East Bay to the city are running past Montgomery, Trost said. 

Trains that normally run from Fremont to Daly City are stopping at the MacArthur station in Oakland, trains from Dublin to Daly City are turning around at Montgomery, and no trains are running directly from Richmond to San Francisco, Trost said. 

Passengers on any of those trains will have to get off at those stations and continue on an airport-bound train, according to Trost.

A concerned group of neighbors met recently about transients in their neighborhood. Their concerns were real; primarily safety and health issues. But people were puzzled when subsequently urged to speak up for "community benefits" requirements for developers. What's the connection, one of them wondered.

Our current crop of politicians and developers who fund them love this disconnection. They need to keep the perplexing dilemma of how to address people camping in local parks and open spaces as far away as possible from story of Berkeley's systematic destruction of single room occupancy hotels, boarding houses, and low income housing, once plentiful in Berkeley, where low-income travelers used to be able to find short-term shelter. 

Developers' preference for building dense high-end, luxury housing is obvious; the more you can charge and the more units you can build, the more money you make. The more you convince planners that forcing people to live six to a "quad" in tight spaces, the more profit you can generate for yourself and the more sensible the money you threw into a politician's campaign begins to look. 

But politicians, while enjoying the cozy and lucrative relationship they achieve with wealthy developers for voting for such proposals, have a community beyond that group to please, at least until the day that elections are entirely bought. 

The concerned group of neighbors put it together pretty quickly. Their representative on the council did not connect the dots between the city's blind dedication to luxury housing, which produces a comically small handful of "affordable" apartments for the $80,000 a year set, and the community costs of leaving people who need housing the most out on the street. 

The good news is that people are making the connection. Conservative neighborhood groups are making the connection. The large "Luxury Apartments" signs, a point of pride for a developer group, send a different message to those who have connected the dots and know what the signs really mean; our current politicians and planners planned this housing emergency, and now need to take emergency measures to get whole families off the streets.

Opposition continues to grow to the 2211 Harold Way mega-development proposed for Downtown Berkeley. The luxury apartment / condo tower would be Berkeley’s biggest private building ever as well as—at 194 feet—the tallest private building ever constructed in Berkeley, and the second tallest overall after the Campanile.

Part of that huge bulk and height would block a significant portion of the historic view down Campanile Way on the UC Berkeley campus towards the Golden Gate.

This view corridor—established in 1873 and formalized with the construction of the Sather Campanile one hundred years ago—was oriented to connect the campus to the Golden Gate, San Francisco Bay, and Alcatraz Island. It is also the last place on the Berkeley campus where the Bay and the Golden Gate can be seen from ground level.

Alexandra Smith, a Cal student, recently started an online petition to protest the loss of the view. In barely a week the petition now has nearly 3,000 signatures, and many of those signing have added moving comments about what the view has meant to them.

April 30, Channel 5 / KPIX ran a story on the Campanile Way controversy. In that story, this is what Mayor Tom Bates says when asked about preserving the view. Appropriately, the Mayor appears to be standing in front of a big construction site.

"I think it's an important 'Way' but I don't think you necessarily need to see the Golden Gate Bridge. We need to have some Downtown affordable housing built so it's a trade off."

This reasoning doesn’t make any sense. 

Bates conflates two unrelated issues in his comment. 

First, the 302-unit building proposed is luxury housing. The developers themselves projected in October 2014, that rents would be at least $5.10 cents per square foot per month if the units are rented as apartments. 

For the average size 729 square foot unit, that works out to $3,718 / month per apartment, or nearly $45,000 a year in rent. 

Conventional wisdom is that you shouldn’t be spending more than a third of your total income on rent. So only the independently wealthy or those with jobs paying $150,000 a year or more will be able to afford to rent those units. 

Hardly “affordable housing.” 

Now, to be fair, the Mayor may be implying that the more luxury housing built, the more fees the developers pay and that money can be used by the City to fund affordable housing. 

If that’s his argument, he might start by reforming his own “affordable housing” policies. 

The City of Berkeley is supposed to be charging developers $28,000 per apartment unit to put in the public affordable housing fund. That’s the Affordable Housing Mitigation fee the Council established, with Bates leading, in 2012. 

But wait…the Council, with Bates voting in favor again, “temporarily” lower the fee in early 2013 to $20,000 a unit, a reduction of nearly a third. That reduction is still in force. 

Given today’s construction costs, a $20,000 fee would barely buy a bathroom remodel, much less fund much affordable housing development. But it’s still a start. 

And if the fee were brought back to the original Council approved level, then the Harold Way development would be generating nearly two and a half million dollars more for the Affordable Housing fund. 

Or, to put it another way, if the City was charging the Harold Way project $28,000 instead of $20,000 per unit, the whole development could be 30% smaller (less view impact!) and still generate the same amount of affordable housing funding for the City. 

As long as Bates and his Council majority keep the fees artificially low, it’s absurd for him to argue that luxury highrise housing development needs to be maxed out—with huge community impacts and costs—to provide for theoretical affordable housing. He’s talking out of both sides of his mouth. 

Now back to those estimated rents for a moment. An average rent of $3,718 per apartment per month translates into more than $1.12 million dollars a month in rental income from the 302 units. 

Yes, these apartments will truly have the proverbial “million dollar views”, which will be taken from the public and Campanile Way. 

The million dollars is what would go each month to the Southern California developer in income. The public just ends up losing the view. 

-- 

To sign the petition to save the view down Campanile Way, see: 

https://www.change.org/p/city-of-berkeley-save-the-golden-gate-view-from-campanile-way 

For developer’s estimate of rental income from project, see page 32 of this document: 

https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Planning_and_Development/Level_3_-_ZAB/2014-12-11_ZAB_ATT1_2211%20Harold_Community%20Benefits%20Booklet.pdf 

For background on the Council reduction in the affordable housing fee: http://www.dailycal.org/2013/02/24/berkeley-lowers-affordable-housing-fee/

On next Tuesday the Berkeley City Council promises to devote two hours to considering what might constitute enough “significant community benefits” to justify demolishing parts of a couple of historic buildings downtown in order to permit L.A. financier Joseph Penner to squeeze maximal profit out of his fortuitious acquisition of the site, now the home of Landmark Shattuck Cinemas and the Habitot children's center.

Penner's company, with the aid of local fixer Mark Rhoades, is asking for variances sufficient to allow construction of almost a full block’s worth of luxury apartment, 18 stories tall, to lure new wealthy residents to Berkeley. 

We’re doing ourselves no favor by participating in Tuesday’s charade, trying to imagine what might compensate the people of Berkeley for allowing this monstrous eyesore—which will even intrude on the iconic view of the Golden Gate from the U.C. Campanile—to be deposited in our midst. The few ideas I’ve heard about have not been actual benefits, but at best inadequate compensation for the glaring detriments this project will cause.

And now Berkeley is being asked to beg for crumbs from the corporate table. It’s demeaning, it’s inadequate, and we shouldn’t go along with it. 

But it’s an old story. Various mythic comparisons suggest themselves. 

How about Pandora’s Box, from the Greeks? The city moms and dads are itching to take the top off the goody box, but they’ll find that a lot of bad things will fly out instead. 

Or, how about a legend from the holy books of the three similar desert religions, the story of how Jacob conned his brother out of his birthright by giving him a bowl of lentil stew, “a mess of pottage” in oral tradition? 

Wikipedia’s version: “A mess of pottage is something immediately attractive but of little value taken foolishly and carelessly in exchange for something more distant and perhaps less tangible but immensely more valuable. The phrase alludes to Esau's sale of his birthright for a meal of lentil stew ("pottage") in Genesis 25:29–34 and connotes shortsightedness and misplaced priorities.” 

Yep, that’s what we’re in danger of doing if we let the money boys sell us this project. We’re trading our historic and appropriately scaled streetscape and our beloved movies for a few leftovers from the table of the rich. 

Traditions from Africa and the first people of North America portray trickster figures who exhibit many of the characteristics of today’s developers and their wannabe local imitaters. They’re always amongst us. 

From the European tradition, we get the story of the two tailors who conned an Emperor into thinking they’d made him a gorgeous new suit, and the sycophantic populace who just went along with the game. 

“The gold trim on your new outfit is particularly charming, sir.” 

“The roof garden will be public open space.” 

But the Emperor in the story, as you may remember, is naked. It takes a fearless child to speak the truth about his “new clothes”. 

Just for amusement, I’ve engaged in a bit of gedanken experimentation to figure exactly what pig we might get in this poke. 

The German“Gedanken” in this context means “thought”—one online dictionary says that “A thought experiment is one you carry out in your head. .. an experiment that is impractical to carry out, but useful to consider because it can be reasoned about theoretically.” 

Think about it. Some downside possibilities are suggested by the admittedly inadequate environmental impact report the Zoning Adjustment Board has been offered. 

Imagine Berkeley High students at lunch, exiting from their campus just 400 feet away, crossing Harold Way at the same time as a fleet of huge construction trucks exits the site, and just to make it more exciting, think about a few cowboys from rival high schools waiting on that corner to confront their BHS foes in a fist fight. A fight, or series of fights, like that happened downtown last week, and it was somewhat unpleasant, even minus, of course, the construction site traffic . 

Nope, three or four years of demolition and construction chock-a-block with our high school—not a significant benefit. But the EIR doesn’t even talk about it. 

Or imagine one of the rich Residents of the proposed Residences at Berkeley Plaza, coming to California for the weekend from his primary Residence in Moscow or Shanghai or Saudi. Maybe he wants to use his Berkeley pied-a-terre as base camp for a visit to his wine country estate, so he hops on BART out to downtown Richmond, then catches a Greyhound to Napa….nope, pretty hard to imagine that he’s not firing up the Lexus he keeps here instead. 

It’s just plain unrealistic to imagine that dwellers in the three hundred pricey units will decide to live carless to avoid paying for garage space. The average rent is estimated by the proponents to average $3,718 per unit per month, even before sale as condos--and you can be sure that whatever Rhoades claims, they’ll be condoized as soon as they’re built. 

With an inadequate EIR, we don’t even know what we’re getting. 

Yesterday Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge James C. Chalfant issued a decision stopping a Los Angeles skyscraper project that deftly framed the issue that now confronts Berkeley as we evaluate the Harold Way plans. 

In his opinion he said that “A developer must present an accurate and stable picture of the project so that the public and decision-makers can decide whether its environmental consequences are outweighed by its public benefits.” 

The information presented so far on this proposal comes nowhere near to meeting this reasonable standard. Berkeley officials should be demanding to know more. 

Instead, we’ve gotten inaccurate and unstable descriptions of what the project might end up being from promoters, accompanied by salivating over fantasy benefits, some even coming from elected and appointed decision-makers who are supposed to be protecting the public interest. 

“Would you like a piece of pie in the sky with that mess of pottage, sir?” 

Since it’s May Day, let’s give Joe Hill and U. Utah Phillips the last word on the topic. 

Last night the Berkeley City Council devoted more than two hours to listening to residents speculate on what "significant community benefits" must be provided by the lucky winners of the up-zoning variances which might be granted for a smallish number of extra-tall buildings downtown.

The distinction between mitigating detriments which such buildings create and providing new and better stuff for Berkeleyans was frequently blurred: For example the very popular children's center Habitot, which would be demolished to make way for luxury apartments marketed as the “Residences at Berkeley Plaza" (RatBP), appealed for a $250,000 "benefit" as compensation for an expected $3,000,000 cost of replacement. Of the 87 people who spoke, perhaps 5 showed any real enthusiasm for the kind of projects under discussion. RatBP proponent (and ex-planner for the city of Berkeley) Mark Rhoades didn't say anything at the mike, but chatted with a couple of supporters in a back corner and at least one councilmember in the hall.

After the public comment period the councilmembers spent a half-hour discussing options. Councilmember Jesse Arreguin presented a full-blown roadmap for defining significant community benefits, complete with flow chart, which was praised by Councilmember Worthington as better than work the council usually gets from staff. Worthington pointed out that the Council was not obliged to approve the first buildings which vied for the extra stories.

Worthington emphasized the need for accurate financial information from the developer, verified by an independent consultant, since benefits by law must be proportional to the cost of the building. His own ballpark estimate was "tens of millions" to be spent for the public good, at least.

Max Anderson had stressed the same need at an earlier meeting. Last night he delivered one of his signature populist exhortations, highlighting his discomfort with the fact that men formerly employed by the city to make the zoning rules [Rhoades and Matt Taecker, who is promoting a hotel downtown and was present last night] were now trying to exploit those same rules on behalf of paying clients. He compared the situation to the often criticized "revolving door" in Washington. 

Councilmember Droste, responding to public comments from those who wanted to be sure that the Shattuck Cinemas would be rebuilt if destroyed on behalf of the RatBP, expressed apprehension that movie theaters might be on their way out. This elicited a skeptical grimace from Councilmember Wengraf, whose husband has won four Oscars for film sound work. 

An anonymous visitor snapped Wengraf chatting in the hall with Rhoades during the meeting, and also observed him going a couple of times into the councilmembers' back room through a (non-revolving) door clearly marked “authorized personnel only: members of the City Council and authorized employees only beyond this point”. 

Presumably this was just a flashback to his staffer past? 

This schedule for approval of the RatBP (2211 Harold Way) project has been provided to the Landmarks Preservation Commission, which must make recommendations regarding demolition of the historic buildings on the site: 

• May 7, 2015 - LPC Preliminary Design Recommendation
• May 14, 2015 - ZAB Final EIR certification - continued
• June 4, 2015 - LPC hearing on SAP
• June 11, 2015 - ZAB hearing on Use Permit

And even before that, the supplied Environmental Impact Report must be certified as providing enough information to guide a decision. Given the fact that construction impacts on Berkeley High, only 400 feet away, were essentially ignored in the EIR, that seems even more unlikely. Even if the ZAB were to approve the EIR, it could still be appealed to the Council. 

There will surely be more to come. 

Berkeley Council urged to stand firm with high-rise developers

Cal Students Petition To Block Construction That Would Block Berkeley’s View Of Golden Gate

Mayor Bates Tells Reporter He's Backing the Developer's Current Plan

Proposed Housing Development in Downtown Berkeley Sparks Concerns

The issue of affordable housing is looming again, because the issue of development, as "required" by Plan Bay Area, is looming. And when certain people talk about development, “affordable housing” is mentioned, most often as a paliative. The city says that we have to have development, high-rise buildings, and new apartments and condos, but it's okay because there will be affordable housing units included.

We know that the developers are coming. They will be building all over town, mostly along the major transit corridors, like San Pablo Ave. and Adeline. In some circles, however, when “affordable housing” is mentioned, eyes roll and one hears guffaws in the background.

Yet it is a beautiful concept. Suppose no one had to pay more than 25% (for instance) of their income for rent. For whom would that be a problem?

In reality, 40% of “low income” families pay more than 50% of their income for rent in this city. According to The Bay Citizen, Berkeley has the largest gap between rich and poor in the Bay Area, and 10 percent of households make less than $10,000 a year. That’s a bigger problem than a slogan about affordability can cover. 

HUD (the federal Dept. of Housing and Urban Development) actually states that affordable housing can be defined as costing no more than 30% of one’s income. “Families who pay more than 30 percent of their income for housing are considered cost burdened and may have difficulty affording necessities such as food, clothing, transportation and medical care. An estimated 12 million renter and homeowner households now pay more than 50 percent of their annual incomes for housing. A family with one full-time worker earning the minimum wage cannot afford the local fair-market rent for a two-bedroom apartment anywhere in the United States.” [http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/comm_planning/affordablehousing/] 

That’s an amazing admission. Housing is internationally recognized as a human right. An item is affordable if, after you buy it, you have enough money left over on which to survive. What does it mean that the cost of housing (whether renting or paying a mortgage) might put one’s survival in jeapardy? 

Those who prefer not to think about this issue will point to subsidized housing and “section 8” vouchers. But the lines are long. One can lose everything waiting for one’s turn. That is not what the guffaws are about. 

The guffaws are about HUD’s dividing line, its threshold for those for whom the notion of affordable is important. That dividing line is called the “Area Median Income” (AMI), and it is different for each region. For HUD, the notion of “affordable housing” refers to those people whose income is less than the median income. For Alameda County, the AMI is just shy of $90,000 a year. "Median" means the middle, so for any region, there are as many people earning less than the AMI as there are people earning more. To earn 80% of the AMI ($72,000) is listed by HUD as “low income,” and thus eligible for affordable housing units in new developments. “Low” income is 50-80% of AMI; below 50% is “very low”. But the deeper one gets into those categories, the more “cost burdened” people become. 

The expression, “cost burdened,” is a euphemism for being impoverished. It does not signify poverty; it signifies being pushed into poverty. We’re not speaking here of the impoverished, who cannot survive without rent subsidies. We’re talking about those who are being impoverished. If you are paying 50% of your income for rent, and the landlord raises your rent 10%, you have just taken a 10% wage cut. If you are paying more than 50% of your income for rent, and the rent goes up 10%, your wage cut is more than 10%. Rent and low income mortgage debt are part of an impoverishment machine. It is that descent into impoverishment that "affordable" housing is supposed to stop. 

Here’s where the guffaws come in. For the city to require a few “affordable housing” units in a high rent development makes it look as if it is actually doing something about impoverishment. 

How is the slogan “affordable housing” used?  

Let’s look at Plan Bay Area (the Plan), which has brought the issue of housing to the fore. The "Plan" requires the city to have 2959 new apartments built by 2022. They will be built along the major transit corridors, such as San Pablo Ave. 

Of the 2959 units that the Plan requires of Berkeley, 442 are projected (in the Plan) to be affordable by low income families, and 532 are supposed to be affordable by very low income families. That would amount to 33% of the total. 

The city however only plans to require 14 low income units among all these thousands planned, and only 182 “very low” income units. That’s 196 units, which is only 6%. What happened to the rest? They get turned into money. 

For one thing, developers are corporations. Their business model (debt and financing structure) requires that they operate at a certain volume of capital expenditure to make the venture pay. They need buildings that will break zoning rules if they are to pay for themselves. Those rules govern height limits, resident density, and space usage (open space). They regulate land usage as a defense of the human dimension of the city, its life-style. I asked a developer planning a seven story building at Blake and Telegraph why he couldn’t make the building 5 stories instead. He said they couldn’t make it pay otherwise. With respect to impinging on the neighborhood, and generating traffic and a parking problems, 5 stories was already excessive. 

It turns out that, according to city code, a developer is required to include “affordable” units only if the building is going to break the rules. In other words, Berkeley’s zoning rules have to be broken for a defense against impoverishment to click into effect. 

But corporate landlords don’t want to accept low rent units in a high priced building. It interferes with the marketability of building (as an investment). In LA, in 2009, landlords took this to court, claiming the low rentals of "affordable" units represented a loss of income – a wholly subjective argument since the varying rent levels were present in the original negotiations. The court found for the landlords, and said the city must compensate any loss incurred through its rules. 

To get around the legal bind between its rules and the law, the city of Berkeley created a “mitigation fee” which, if paid, would excuse the developer from including affordable units. The fee is a charge on each unit (each apartment) in the building for each affordable unit the developer does not want to include. That makes the inclusion of affordable units voluntary, and gets around the court decision. The money from the fee goes to the city’s Housing Trust Fund (HTF), through which affordable housing projects are supposed to be financed. 

The original fee the Berkeley City Council approved was $28,000 per unit. The developers informed the city that the fee was prohibitive, and threatened to cancel their plans. The city lowered it to $20K, an almost 30% discount. Either the city couldn’t find developers willing to build affordable housing without subsidies (to replace those cancelling), or it was hungry for high rent housing (for which it is willing to sacrifice $8000). 

There is currently one affordable housing project being built – at 2748 San Pablo. It was originally slated for condos (pre-2008); SAHA (Satellite Affordable Housing Assoc.) took it over. 

But the city’s hunger is also for money. On April 28, 2015, a proposal was brought to city council for a city "density bonus" (a fee developers could pay to increase building resident density beyond regulations). Its purpose is to compete with a state “density bonus” that was inducing developers to discard plans for affordable units. This city plan would do that too. By offering a lower (and thus more attractive) fee – still called a "bonus" – it would capture that money for the HTF. Apparently, “affordable housing” is not even affordable for the city of Berkeley. 

Let us summarize. In the face of a growing housing crisis, the developers tell the city they will build only if they can build big, and only if the mitigation fee is not too high. And the city accedes rather than sending them home. (It was actually admitted on the record in city council (4/28/15) that the mitigation fee has not been paid, implying that it is unenforceable). We get a 5% increase in affordable housing instead of the 40% that is needed, and the city plays with financial schemes, turning the crisis into money. 

But Berkeley will not even get that. When developers come in, they look at low cost real estate [sites]. (the natural habitat of lower income people) on which to build. When they build, lower rent housing will be lost, because low income people are less able to defend themselves. This loss of low income housing will offset any that is gained through the new developments. The 6% that will be built in the new buildings will be cancelled out before ground is even broken. 

Though Berkeley needs affordable housing, its financing schemes have put it in a double bind. It has to provide high-rent housing in order to accrue the funds to finance affordable housing. And in order to provide that high-rent housing, it has to allow developers to tear down affordable housing. The city gains nothing. And there is inflation. ”The effect of putting in high rent buildings is to raise the general “market rate” for housing.” [Aboubacar Ndiaye; 8 Reasons Why The Rent Is Too Damn High; January 07, 2014] 

Appendix for Edward Snowden  

Founded in 1990, the “housing trust fund pools funds for affordable housing from a variety of sources, making them available to developers through one single application process. Its funds come from state and federal grants, tax increment funds, and mitigation fees. The HUD "HOME" program provides funds for low income rental assistence. The HTF lends the money for affordable development, with the power to sign contracts providing for rent and income restrictions on the rental units involved. 

The city’s description of the fund goes on to say, “One important clause requires the borrower to disclose information on tenants' incomes, rents, asset management, reserves, and financial records to the City for purposes of review and evaluation.[1] This clause provides the immediate legal basis for the City's monitoring activities. Monitoring is also called for by federal regulations”. 

And we know what that is about. The form it takes is “controlled substance;” its content is the substance of control. 

******* 

There will be a Community Forum in West Berkeley, sponsored by the Berkeley Neighborhoods Council, on May 19, 2015, to discuss these and other issues. The Forum will take place at Finn Hall, 1819 10^th Street, at 6:30 pm. It is open to all

More than two weeks have passed since the murder of Freddie Gray by the Baltimore police. The basic questions have been ignored by a purposeful delay hoping passions will subside and the guilty will escape punishment. Why was such overwhelming force used to subdue Gray and why was 80% of his spine severed and his voice box crushed after 45 minutes? Why was medical help withheld ignoring Gray’s desperate cries for help? To defend such savage police behavior is not an act of loyalty but one of utter betrayal where the ‘rotten apples’ besmirch the reputation of the entire police force. Sadly, a culture of impunity exists between police departments and prosecutors; an independent body must be appointed to bring Gray’s killers to justice. If the killers escape punishment, black rage will likely engulf the city in a frenzy of uncontrollable violence. 

The high crime and despair in black neighborhoods is deeply disturbing. The systematic long-term denial of equal opportunity to people based on their skin color and ZIP code is an affront and national shame. If wealthy white parents found their children consigned to substandard schools and neighborhoods, denied access to good colleges and jobs and harassed and occasionally killed by the police — why, then we’d hear roars of grievance. And they would right to roar: Parents of any color should protest, peacefully but loudly, about such injustices.

Israel has elected the most right wing government in its history. This will surely accelerate the Palestinian-led Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement. The decades of peace efforts have been tossed into the dustbin of history. The government, led by Prime Minister Netanyahu, rejected Palestinian statehood. His key ally, Jewish Home, openly advocates creating South African style, Palestinian Bantustans, which is sure to accelerate its global isolation and put it on a collision course with the United States.  

Consider what is already happening; American star Lauryn Hill’s recent cancellation of a concert near Tel Aviv followed an earlier boycott of 1,000 artists in the U.K and a growing number of U.S. academic associations; Dutch and Norwegian pension funds have divested from Israeli banks. More significantly, a recent poll reveals a growing number of Jewish Americans favor boycotting products from Israel and oppose settlement expansions. Former Mossad chief, Shabtai Shavit, expressed grave concern that the growing BDS movement is a grave threat to Israel’s survival, a view shared by former Prime Minister Ehud Barak.

The Center for Media and Democracy has recently issued a new report, "New Documents Show How Taxpayer Money Is Wasted by Charter Schools,” alleging that the federal government has spent more than a $3 billion over the past two decades on charter schools, without showing any conclusive evidence that they offer a superior education than that offered by local school districts. 

The Center argues that there is no oversight, regulation or accountability of Charter Schools. The policies and curriculum of these Charter Schools are driven by right-wing ideologues of ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council. No one really knew how much money is being spent by these schools, and how much of our tax dollars is being spent on executive pay, or outsourced to ‘for-profit’ corporations.  

Good schools should be offered to all our children irrespective of their ability to pay and out of the clutches of corporations driven solely by the profit motive. 

The Obama administration has asked Congress to increase funding for charter schools by almost 50 percent. He would do well to reverse his request until more convincing data becomes available.

Editor's Note: The latest issue of the Pepper Spray Times is now available.

You can view it absolutely free of charge by clicking here . You can print it out to give to your friends.

Grace Underpressure has been producing it for many years now, even before the Berkeley Daily Planet started distributing it, most of the time without being paid, and now we'd like you to show your appreciation by using the button below to send her money.  

This is a Very Good Deal. Go for it! 

What has happened to our mind-set? Why do we sit quietly and watch the political games going on in Washington? Do we no longer believe we can revive our dying democracy? Have we given up on the power of our own unity? Why did we allow money power to break the unity among poor, needy and lower middle class people? Why did we start believing in the advertisements and propaganda of those who have money to throw on elections? 

We are pursued by wrong messages. We are getting wrong information from candidates for the 2016 elections. It is high time we start to focus on their real aims. Let the poor and needy be ignored. Let children and seniors be left to fend for themselves. If people are ignorant of the real aims of nice sounding politicians they vote for them. But we need to have critical minds. We need to participate in political meetings. We need to check the facts candidates present to us. 

I believe that there will be no real progress if children are left behind. Today's children are the leaders of tomorrow. Don't take away their rights to have the same opportunity as children of the rich. Why is our district cutting nearly 50% of early childhood money from the budget? How will we help the needy and poor families? How will children from poor families and bad neighborhoods get quality early education? I am urging board members, local governments and Alameda County to make sure that quality education for young children never suffer

Saudi Arabia’s bombing of Yemini insurgents has caused horrific civilian casualties. They have embarked on a military adventure that has created greater instability and violence that has weakened Yemen beyond repair and may very well boomerang upon the kingdom itself. Oblivious of the unfolding mayhem, billionaire Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, offered to donate 100 Bentley cars to the fighter pilots participating in the campaign. Claims that their air campaign achieved their goals rings hollow given that the insurgent Houthis advance has not been slowed down. 

The Yemeni leader, Ali Abdullah Saleh, has fled to the safety of the Saudi Kingdom abandoning his people. Once again we have aligned ourselves with one of the greatest purveyors of terrorism in the world, Saudi Arabia, which has sent rivers of money to the demonic ISIS fighters. Saleh is a thoroughly corrupt dictator, universally despised by his people. The Houthis sent overtures that were prepared for a cease fire and power sharing prior to the Saudi bombing. Reigning down terror from the safety of the skies will only exacerbate the suffering of the Yemini people and prolong the conflict. 

The Vatican's saint-making office -- the Congregation for the Causes of Saints -- has officially approved the Reverand Junipero Serra, the controversial 18th-century missionary, for sainthood. Pope Francis will canonize him during his upcoming visit to the United States. 

Serra was born on the Spanish island of Mallorca on Nov. 24, 1713 and died in 1784 at the Carmel mission near Monterey, California. The Catholic Church calls him a great evangelizer who established 21 missions across California. However, many Native Americans accuse him of forced conversions, enslaving converts and helping wipe out indigenous populations as part of the European colonization machine in the Americas. Ronald Andrade, executive director of the Los Angeles City/County Native American Indian Commission, said there is “nothing positive in the history of Serra.” 

Normally a second miracle is required for sainthood; Pope Francis bipassed this requirement by simply declaring Serra's life work the second miracle. 

I am not a Roman Catholic. But I do find the whole concept of sainthood absurd whereby a group of old men in the Vatican decide whether a person is worthy of being a saint. Serra will shortly join about 10,000 other saints in the Roman Catholic heaven. That Serra represented a mission system infamous for its terrible treatment of Native Americans doesn't seem to matter. 

With apologies to Groucho Marx, I bet most Native American would not want to be in a place that had Junipero Serra as a member.

In observing the world as anyone may do, to me it is clear that a lot of ordinary men, including those not afflicted with a mental illness, when older become easily irritated, angry and in a bad mood. This is how many men show depression. Depressive symptoms in men may include grumpiness, irritability, and moodiness, sometimes to a point of being abusive. 

I have read that depression may be more common in women than in men. Yet also, when men become depressed, they are less likely to ask for help. Because of this, accurate numbers may be difficult to obtain. 

Depression is sometimes neurochemical sometimes situational, and sometimes a combination of both. Depression can also be caused by having a non-psychiatric medical problem. 

As I have aged, expectations left over from young adulthood come back to haunt me. When younger, I had the expectation that things would be a lot better than they actually turned out to be. I never anticipated that I would be forced to live on Social Security at fifty, and that I would be unemployable. 

Many men could be disappointed with their lack of material progress. Some may have residual anger or hurt left over from a divorce. Many people may compare ourselves to others who seemingly have made more progress in their lives, who may have become wealthy, who may be driving expensive cars and own expensive houses. 

We are looking at a combination of possible sour grapes, envy, changes to the body as men age, and in some men, a preexisting mental health diagnosis. Cardiac problems can also can cause depression. 

At some point, many people may come to the realization that we won't always be here. Acknowledging our mortality can be frightening, or it could be saddening. It entails the acceptance of limits, it leads to the conclusion that there are things that we may never get or do in our lifetimes. (If thought about in more accepting terms, the fact of mortality can also feel like a relief. On the other hand, it can also bring a sense of accomplishment.) 

For some people subject to depression, it helps to take the right antidepressant rather than the wrong one. When I recently switched antidepressants, it did a lot toward easing my anxiety level and it restored a lot of my previous humorousness. Life isn't always hopeless. 

Many people who do not officially have a mental health diagnosis object to the idea of taking a pill to feel better. I am not clear on the specific issues that lead to that objection. A lot of people feel strongly that they do not want to take any more pills than absolutely necessary. They may not feel the same about a high blood pressure medication or a blood thinner. The stigma of taking any type of psychiatric medication is prevalent. A number of people, even to the point of masochism, would rather just suffer with their depression.  

Lately, drug companies have been marketing antipsychotic medication to address depression. This may work for some people, when the depression is created by a great number of negative thoughts. It is not helpful for everyone--this is a strategy of treating depression with a central nervous system depressant. Some people need to take an antidepressant that adds energy rather than subtracting it. 

There are still psychiatrists around who advocate electroconvulsive therapy. This is like going after a fly with a sledgehammer.  

Like it or not we are all getting older. When older, comfort and getting enough rest are raised in priority. When mentally ill on top of the fact of aging, there is a lot that can go haywire. Many persons with mental illness, who have taken medication for a matter of decades, die off before reaching their sixties. There are a whole slew of problems that are unique to geriatric mentally ill people. This is compounded by the likelihood of being financially poor, as many mentally ill adults are. 

Is there a bright side to this? I don't know. People with mental illness live difficult lives. It adds injury to insult when we realize that things may not be materially better when we are older and that we may still have a debilitating psychiatric disorder along with the long-term side effects of taking psychiatric drugs. Perhaps the most we can do is to enjoy our lives when we can and hope for the best.

A recent Bloomberg poll noted a disturbing political fact: Republicans are willing to support Israel even when its objectives diverge from those of the US. This ominous stance is a consequence of the fundamentalist Christian leanings of the GOP. Many Republicans blindly support Israel because they are praying for Armageddon.

The Bloomberg poll examined the deep political divide surrounding US policy on Israel and Iran. The poll asked: “When it comes to relations between the US and Israel, which of the following do you agree with more?” 47 percent of respondents chose, “Israel is an ally but we should pursue America’s interests when we disagree with them.” However, 45 percent chose, “Israel is an important ally, the only democracy in the region, and we should support it even if our interests diverge.”

Whether or not to offer Israel unquestioning support was split along Party lines. 67 percent of Republicans said we should support Israel even when we disagree with them. 64 percent of Democrats said we should pursue America’s interests when we disagree with Israel.

While the Bloomberg poll question may appear theoretical, it’s based upon the reality that Israel’s interests are not always in sync with those of the US. 

Israel is a nuclear power. Moreover, the current Israeli government of Prime Minister Netanyahu has made it clear that Israel reserves the right to defend itself from neighboring states (such as Iran) without consulting the US. That suggests that Israel might launch a nuclear attack on an Arab state even if the US opposed such an action. 

Why would Republicans be willing to support Israel “even if our interests diverge?” 

According to the Bloomberg poll, unquestioning support for Israel is a consequence of the fundamentalist Christian leanings of many members of the GOP: 

Religion appears to play an important role in shaping the numbers. Born-again Christians are more likely than overall poll respondents, 58 percent to 35 percent, to back Israel regardless of U.S. interests. Americans with no religious affiliation were the least likely to feel this way, at 26 percent.

Unquestioning support for Israel is the result of recent GOP strategy. Since the Reagan era, Republicans have courted fundamentalist Christians. A 2012 Pew Research poll found that 70 percent of “white evangelical protestants” either identified as Republicans or leaned toward the Republican Party. 

According to the Gallup Poll 76 percent of Americans identify as Christians. Of these, 41 percent attend services regularly (at least once per week). 34 percent of Christians identify as Born Again. The Gallup Poll found that 42 percent of Christians believe in “creationism,” “God created humans pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.” 

Many of the Christians who are regular church attenders, and believe in creationism, also believe the end times are coming soon. They are fundamentalist Christians, mostly evangelicals, “born again.” A Pew Research Poll found that 47 percent of US Christians believe that “Jesus will return to earth in the next 40 years.” A Newsweek Poll found that 45 percent of US Christians, “believe that the world will end, as the Bible predicts, in a battle at Armageddon between Jesus and the Antichrist.” 

There’s a disturbing connection between a belief in Armageddon and support for the state of Israel. It’s detailed in the writings of Dr. Timothy P. Weber. Weber discusses “dispensationalism,” the belief that we are “living in the last days.” According to Weber, “About one-third of America's 40 or 50 million evangelical Christians… believe that the nation of Israel will play a central role in the unfolding of end-times events.” 

Throughout their history, dispensationalists have predicted that before the final events of the End Times can take place, the Temple must be rebuilt in Jerusalem. According to their scenario, half way through the Great Tribulation, Antichrist will enter the restored Temple and declare himself to be God.

Dispensationalism explains the rock-solid support for the state of Israel evidenced by fundamentalist Christians. It’s strengthened by the reality that many of these Christians believe that Barack Obama is the antichrist. (A 2013 Public Policy Poll found that 13 percent of respondents believed Obama to be the antichrist and 13 percent were “not sure.”) 

Recently, retired Republican congresswoman Michele Bachmann opined that President Obama is moving the world into the end times: “Barack Obama is intent, it is his number one goal, to ensure that Iran has a nuclear weapon… We have very little time… left before the second return of Christ. That’s good news." 

It’s important to understand why Republican fundamentalist Christians stand with Israel and oppose a nuclear-arms agreement with Iran. These dispensationalist Christians seek to increase the probability of war between Israel and its neighbors because this will hasten the end times. 

Support the nuclear-arms agreement. Vote no on Armageddon. 

Barry Bonds -- baseball's home run king and steroid user -- had his conviction overturned by the appeals court, who ruled that his evasive answer as to whether Greg Anderson of BALCO gave him performance-enhancing drugs was not perjury. (The prosecutors are considering an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.) Before the San Francisco Giants even consider bringing Bonds back in any capacity, I would expect them to require Bonds to confess to knowingly using steroids. Remember, Mark McGuire and Alex Rodriguez confessed to using steroids. 

As Bonds stated before winning his appeal, he is a felon. He then went on to gloat that he was “never convicted of steroids,” but did not deny using them. And remember, Bonds testified before a grand jury that he received and used "cream" and "clear" substances from Anderson, who was indicted in a steroid-distribution ring during the 2003 baseball season, but claimed he was told they were the nutritional supplement flaxseed oil and a rubbing balm for arthritis. 

Let's look back. 

* In 1991, Fay Vincent, then baseball's commissioner, released a commissioner's policy that said, "the possession, sale, or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance by Major League players and personnel is strictly prohibited. ... This prohibition applies to all illegal drugs and controlled substances, including steroids." 

* On December 4, 2003, before the Grand Jury, Bonds was asked about calendars seized in a raid on BALCO that contained his name and notes about performance-enhancing drugs. Bonds replied, "I've never had a calendar with him, never had anything." Bonds could also not explain a calendar with the name "Barry" on it, nor a note indicating an invoice of $450 for blood tests. 

* On February 17, 2004, Anderson told federal agents he gave steroids to several baseball players. 

* On March 2, 2004, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that Bonds, baseball players Jason Giambi, Sheffield, Marvin Benard, Benito Santiago, Randy Velarde and Bill Romanowski received steroids from BALCO. (On June 22, 2006, it was revealed that Conte, the convicted BALCO founder, was a source in the San Francisco Chronicle's reporting on the steroids scandal). 

* On June 25, 2004, Bonds angrily denied Tim Montgomery's leaked testimony that Conte gave Bonds the steroid Winstrol, and threatened to sue Montgomery. (Montgomery, a runner, was stripped of his records after being found guilty of using performance-enhancing drugs). 

* On October 11, 2004, Gary Sheffield -- a retired baseball player for the Marlins/Dodgers/Yankees/Brewers/Braves -- told Sports Illustrated he was introduced to BALCO by Bonds, with whom he was training before the 2002 baseball season in California. According to the magazine report, officials at the lab gave the New York Yankees player a testosterone-based steroid knows as "the cream" to be applied to a scar on his right knee. Sheffield says he didn't realize "the cream" was a steroid. Shortly after, Sheffield severed ties with Bonds. 

* On October 24, 2004, in documents disclosed by the government, James Valente, VP of BALCO, told federal investigators a year earlier that Bonds tried the company's new performance-enhancing drugs but didn't like how one of them made him feel. 

* On December 3, 2004, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that Bonds admitted receiving "cream" and "clear" substances from his personal trainer during the 2003 baseball season, but denied he knew they were steroids during his testimony December 4, 2003, to a federal grand jury. 

* On March 25, 2005, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that Kimberly Bell, who stated that she dated Bonds from 1994 to 2003, was subpoenaed by prosecutors in the BALCO case to testify before a San Francisco grand jury the previous week. According to the Chronicle, and two sources familiar with the testimony, Bell said Bonds gave her $80,000 to help purchase a house in Scottsdale, Arizona, and admitted to her in 1999 that an elbow injury, in which he had to undergo surgery for a bone spur and torn triceps tendon, was caused by his use of steroids. 

* On July 15, 2005, Conte and Anderson pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute steroids and money laundering. Valente pled guilty to one count of distributing steroids. On October 18, 2005, Conte was sentenced to four months in prison after pleading guilty to distributing steroids. Valente was given three years' probation and Anderson a three-month prison sentence on similar charges. 

* On March 8, 2006, Sports Illustrated went on sale with an excerpt from a new book, "Game of Shadows," by San Francisco Chronicle reporters Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams. The book details use of steroids and other drugs by Barry Bonds in exhaustive detail. 

* On March 8, 2006, Bonds' use of performance-enhancing supplements began in January 1997. Stan Antosh, a California biochemist whose Osmo Labs was the first to market androstenedione in the United States, told ESPN The Magazine's Shaun Assael that he gave it to Bonds. 

* On March 15, 2006, ESPN The Magazine published an excerpt from a new book "Love Me, Hate Me: Barry Bonds and the Making of an Antihero" by Jeff Pearlman. According to the book, Bonds, after the 1998 season, told a small group over dinner at the home of Ken Griffey Jr. that he was going to start using "some hard-core stuff" to increase his hitting power. 

* On November 15, 2007, a federal grand jury in San Francisco indicted Bonds on four counts of perjury and one count of obstruction of justice. He was accused of lying when he said he didn't knowingly take steroids given to him by Anderson. He was also accused of lying that Anderson never injected him with steroids. Anderson, who had been imprisoned for refusing to testify against Bonds, was ordered released. 

Bonds’ lack of credibility and the substantial circumstantial evidence have convinced me and others that Bonds knowingly took steroids, and thus his reputation and legacy are forever tarnished. But does it matter? In this age of wide-scale cheating and lying by public officials, researchers, school officials, students, etc., Bonds’ use of steroids appears irrelevant to a lot of people. After all, baseball is just entertainment and “everyone” was doing it. It should matter, because steroid use is up among high school students and even eighth-graders. 

The San Francisco Giants should not even consider bringing Bonds back in any capacity until he confesses to knowingly taking performance-enhancing drugs. Even if he does fess up, I hope the Giants sever all ties with him. The Giants should be no place for cheaters.

Giuseppe Verdi’s opera I due Foscari (The Two Foscaris) occupies a strange and unique place in my opera-going experience. It is – or was until yesterday – the only opera I once saw but never heard. In 2012, I attended a Los Angeles Opera performance of I due Foscari starring Placido Domingo in the baritone role of Doge Francesco Foscari. However, I had been swimming earlier in the day with my granddaughters at a Pasadena swimming pool, and my ears had become plugged so badly I couldn’t hear much at all. So when I attended I due Foscari that evening, the only voice I could faintly hear was that of soprano Marina Poplavskaya, who sang the role of Jacopo Foscari’s wife, Lucrezia; and she sounded to me as if she were miles away. All other voices went largely unheard. This was a huge disappointment to me, for this was my first opportunity to hear the rarely performed I due Foscari; and I wondered if I would ever get a second chance. 

Happily, West Edge Opera came along with a scaled-down concert version of I due Foscari, led by Music Director Jonathan Khuner at piano, with a violinist, cellist, and clarinetist. I attended the Monday evening, May 4, performance of I due Foscari at Berkeley’s Freight & Salvage. (This opera was also given on Sunday, May 3, at Walnut Creek’s Rossmoor Center.) Verdi’s I due Foscari, which premiered at Rome’s Teatro Argentina in 1844, is set to a libretto by Francesco Maria Piave based on a play of the same title by Lord Byron. The opera is set in 15^th century Venice, and its plot, which revolves around the octogenarian Doge Francesco Foscari and his son Jacopo, is largely based on actual occurrences in the political intrigues of Venice.  

Although a distinguished Doge of many decades of service to Venice, the 86 year-old Francesco Foscari is powerless to help his son Jacopo, who is falsely accused on trumped-up charges by political rivals of the Foscari family. A member of Venice’s governing body, the Council of Ten, Jacopo Loredano, harbors a long-standing grudge against the Foscari family for an ill-founded belief that Francesco Foscari had many years ago ordered the murder of Loredano’s father and uncle. Loredano now leads the Council of Ten in condemning Francesco’s son, Jacopo, for his alleged murder of a noble named Donato. As evidence of Jacopo’s alleged treachery Loredano brandishes a letter Jacopo sent to the Lord of Milan asking for help in Jacopo’s efforts to return to Venice from his earlier exile. 

In the role of Doge Francesco Foscari, baritone Roy Stevens sang magnificently, his voice ringing out in robust tones with great emotional expressiveness. This is one of Verdi’s great roles for the baritone voice. Francesco’s first big aria, “O vecchio cor che batti” (“Oh, old beating heart”), consists of music of real character, establishing Francesco as a somewhat frail yet still vigorous statesman caught between his duties as Doge and his love and concern for his son. Here,and throughout this opera, Roy Stevens was brilliant in the role of Francesco Foscari. 

As Francesco’s son, Jacopo Foscari, tenor Michael-Paul Krubitzer also sang with great expressiveness. In Jacopo’s first big aria, delivered in a prison cell within the Doge’s Palace while awaiting a verdict that is certain to be against him, Jacopo sang of his love for Venice, and of his longing for Venice during his exile. Meanwhile, Jacopo’s wife Lucrezia, sung by soprano Melody King, proclaims her hatred of Loredano and his clique, then kneels in a prayer to God to save her husband and punish the treacherous conspirators. Although Miss King had some difficulties at first, she warmed up to the role and sang well thereafter. In the role of Loredano, baritone Paul Cheak acquitted himself admirably in what little music he is given to sing, most of which occurs in ensembles. Tenor Sigmund Seigel sang two brief roles – Senator Barbarigo and an unnamed officer of the Council of Ten. Finally, mezzo-soprano Ellen Presley sang the role of Pisana, a friend and confidante of Lucrezia.  

Near the end of Act I, Francesco, implored by Lucrezia to save his son and her husband, sings a moving duet with his daughter-in-law. In this duet, Roy Stevens and Melody King sang beautifully, their voices blending passionately. Act II opens with Jacopo in prison, where he becomes delirious and believes he sees a ghost. When his wife enters his cell, at first he fails to recognize her. When his father subsequently enters his cell, Jacopo is reassured of the support of his loved ones, who are convinced he is innocent. However, Francesco admits that as Doge, he must implacably enforce the decision of the Council of Ten.  

Nonetheless, Jacopo regains the courage to face either death or exile. A resounding trio ensues which celebrates the solidarity of this beleaguered family. However, the trio becomes a disquieting quartet when Loredano enters the cell and, relishing his vengeance, commands Jacopo to leave Venice without his wife and children and go into permanent exile alone. Here librettist Piave has added a scene not found in Byron’s play, one in which Lucrezia brings her two children into the Council Chambers in a vain effort to win the sympathy of the Ten. Jacopo then begs his father to look after the well-being of his children as he prepares to go into exile. Next a lively Barcarole is heard, sung by revelers and gondoliers celebrating a festa. Amidst this happy throng in the Piazza San Marco, Jacopo Foscari is led to the galley that will take him away into exile. Lucrezia bids her husband a final, emotional farewell. Jacopo boards the ship, which sails away. In a plot contrivance that is barely plausible, moments later Lucrezia bursts into Francesco’s room and tells him that Jacopo has died on board the ship as it left Venice. Francesco is heartbroken. Almost immediately after this tragic news, Loredano enters and announces that The Council of Ten demands the Doge’s abdication. At first, Francesco angrily refuses to abdicate. Eventually, he gives in. Now overwhelmed in sadness, Francesco sings, “Più figli, più trono, più vita non ho” (“No more sons, no more throne, no more life have I”). In heartbroken despair, Francesco dies, and the opera comes to a tragic end. 

In I due Foscari, Verdi explores two major themes that are dear to his heart. The first is paternal love; and the second is the exercise of statecraft and the effect on men of power. In this opera, these two issues are set in conflict with one another. In some ways, I due Foscari can be seen as a moderately successful trial run for Verdi’s later – and far more effective -- treatment of these conflicting themes in his Simon Boccanegra. In spite of its unrelentingly gloomy plot, however, I due Foscari has some fine music; and I am happy – at last – to have heard it. 

Two shows worthy of note in Bay Area theater played--and one, 'Death of a Salesman', continues to play this weekend--in San Jose' recently, plays (and theater companies) from opposite ends of the world, of different eras and cultures and in very different styles of performance: the Arthur Miller classic at San Jose' Stage Company and 'Kalyana Souganthikam,' a Kathakali play written by Kottayom Tampuram (1645-1716) in South India, based on the Mahabharata and performed in the unique physical and musical style of Kathakali. 

"It's not what you do, it's who you know--and the smile on your face." Willy Loman's advice to his ne'er-do-well older son, Biff, belies his existence as an aging salesman, perpetually on the road. Miller's now-classic of small lives lost in the rush to an elusive success and of dysfunctional family life, is given a good, straightforward production at The Stage in San Jose', directed by Kenneth Kelleher, also artistic director of San Francisco Shakespeare, a workman-like director, who--especially in the first half--has a game cast moving the show along rails, crisply following the plot, nearly devoid of the nuancee aspect of many other productions, which sometimes dampens 'Salesman's' drive towards a modern, more Ibsen-like tragedy. 

The show also captures pretty well the sense of middle class "drivel" of the immediate postwar period, something Miller inherited from Ibsen (who in turn realized it from his reading Kierkegaard), the sometimes banal, sometimes fantastic, even self-contradictory things people say to get themselves through the day, slough off the slings and arrows--or to do evil to themselves and others. 

The performers, some featuring borough accents from New York ("So this is BROOKLYN," says Willy's rich entrepreneurish Uncle Ben in one of Willy's reveries, not so pleased at the prospect), work together as an ensemble. Noteworthy are Randall King (San Jose' Stage's co-founder and artistic director) as Willy, Michael Bellino as Willy's neighbor (and "only friend" and mock-antagonist Charley) and (in particular), Lucinda Hitchcock Cone as Linda, Willy's long-suffering wife, seemingly an aging ingenue, but sharp and ever-watchful, the only one besides Charley who has an idea of the real score. The two sons, Jeffrey Brian Adams as the rakehell Happy and Danny Jones as the melancholy, angry Biff, give a good account of the two very different but sympathetic--at least on the surface--offspring of the salesman's nest, raised on the over-stated difference between who's "liked, but not well-liked." 

It's the ironic salvation of that nest that provides the most famous line of the play, maybe most famous final line of any American play: "Free and clear!" ... in the graveside denouement scene, a tricky one to play, always fraught with possible awkwardness of tone, but brought across here, in great part due to Lucinda Cone's straight ahead performance, unstinting emotion. 

The other star of the show is Giulio Cesare Perrone's set and costuming. It's in part used well, but some of its subtle possibilities maybe remain overlooked. (Perrone is founder and artistic director of Berkeley's Inferno Theatre.) 

It's more than worth a trip to San Jose'--and this is the final weekend.8 p. m. Friday and Saturday in the excellent auditorium of The Stage; the Sunday closing matinee is sold out Tickets are $22.50-$54. thestage.org or (408) 283-7142 

Performing in the CET Soto Theater--one performance only, alas--in San Jose', the Troupe was on a proscenium stage in a school auditorium, but arraayed as they would be in the fields of Kerala in South India to perform all night for a village. 

With no sets, merely a bench for Hanuman to climb up on to show the transcendental image of his grandiose rage as it will appear in a forthcoming battle, the ensemble--two stick drummers, drums suspended from them, two singers who provide the exposition and dialogue (no dialogue from the actors, just gestures and sounds--and rigorous performing) through the sung or chanted poetry of the text, and in this show, three actors, Sandanam P. V. Balakrishnan as the divinely heroic Bhima, in ornate costume and crown, green make-up befitting gods and heroes (as well as rice paper beard and other make-up that takes hours to apply), sent on a quest of the rare flower of the title by his consort, Droupadi, during which (in a mimed sequence) he crashes through the forest with hhis legendary cudgel, sees an elephant felled by the combination of a lion and a python, and finally comes near the garden where, unknown to him, his brother Hanuman is meditating. 

The very heart of the play is the encounter between the driven and arrogantly confident Bhima and the gentler, humorous monkey demigod Hanuman. And Sandanam Bhasi, as Hanuman in his fantastic get-up, is delightful and impressive. Small in stature and wingspan by South Indian standards, Bhasi plays the role physically like a tall actor might, with careful gestures, close to the body, like the wily and precious monkey character really might, alternating great leaps and turns when called for, in perfect--exquisite!--control, but with the appearance of wildness, of great abandon. 

First the stand-off, with Hanuman pretending to be an old monkey lying in Bhima's path, who Bhima to his surprise (which follows a kind of pre-emptory contempt) finds he cannot budge, then the recognition scene, Hanuman revealing who he is by whispering in Bhima's ear ... 

The synaesthesia of music and singing, bright costumes and the dynamics of the dance and movement, from the hieroglyphic mudras that convey messages by hand gesture to the elaborate footwork and facial expressions, is the real reason to go to a Kathakali performance, full of humor and virtuosity, playfulness and dedication. It's a world unto itself--a fantastic world from Indian myth, but one that can be read like a storybook as a reflection of our world, too, centuries ago or today. 

(The local producer's website: www/sankritilaya.org/ --they produce touring performers and companies of music and dance from South India, several shows a year.)

Susan Lamb Cook, cello, and Gayle Blankenberg, piano--the Cook-Blankenberg Duo--will play four pieces in a program at 8 p. m. Tuesday May 12 at the Berkeley City Club: Beethoven's 1796 Sonata in G minor for Piano and Cello, Opus 5 no. 2; Manuel de Falla's Suite Populaire Espanole, seven folkloric "miniatures" originally for voice and piano; Ross Bauer's Five Pieces for Cello and Piano (2013; Bauer teaches composition at UC Davis) and Rachmaninoff's four movement Sonata in G minor, Opus 19.  

A complimentary wine and cheese reception will follow the concert, which is the final one for Berkeley Chamber Performances' 22nd season. 2315 Durant, near Dana. Tickets: $25. High school students, free; post-high school students: $12.50. 525-5211; berkeleychamberperform.org

On Monday evening, April 27, John Eliot Gardiner’s English Baroque Soloists and Monteverdi Choir gave their only performance at Davies Hall of Claudio Monteverdi’s epochal opera L’Orfeo, favola in musica. This seminal work, first performed at the Gonzaga court in Mantua in 1607, won for Monteverdi the sobriquet “the father of opera.” While his Orfeo was not totally unprecedented, having been preceded by several works by the Florentine Camerata, whose composers Jacopo Peri and Giulio Caccini attempted a hypothetical approximation of ancient Greek music-drama, Monteverdi’s Orfeo none the less set opera on its future course by giving infinitely expressive voice to gli affeti (the affections or emotions). With Orfeo, Monteverdi achieved a dramatic unity of text and music, in which emotional “key” words expressing the joy and anguish of lovers, anger, despair, etc., were both clearly enunciated in the declamatory singing and given heightened emphasis in the melodic structure of the music, thereby creating a “passionate musical speech.” 

The tale of Orpheus and Eurydice is one of the world’s great, albeit tragic, love stories. In Monteverdi’s Orfeo, set to a libretto by Alessandro Striggi, the opera opens with a brilliant toccata with muted trumpets playing a fanfare above a droning bass. After three repeats, this martial and “masculine” music gives way to a “feminine” string ritornello, ushering in an allegorical prologue sung by a soprano representing “La Musica.” As the embodiment of music, Francesca Aspromonte sang of her ability to calm and/or arouse the passions. In strophic song, she also lauded the legendary powers of Orpheus (Orfeo), who, with his beautiful voice and elegant playing of the lyre, could hold even the wild beasts in thrall to his music.  

In a concert performance without sets or costumes, John Eliot Gardiner’s English Baroque Soloists gave us a semi-staged interpretation of Orfeo by having various singers dance to the instrumental music, make dramatic entrances and exits through the wings, and either step forward from the massed choir or modestly retreat among the choristers. After the prologue by La Musica, a shepherd stepped forward to announce that today is the happy wedding day of Orfeo, who, after years of pining away for his beloved Eurydice (Euridice in Italian), has at last won her love. Amid general rejoicing, singers dance to celebrate this joyful day. Various nymphs and shepherds join their voices in honoring these nuptials.  

Orfeo, sung here by tenor Andrew Tortise, begins a hymnal arioso addressed at first to the sun-god, his father, divine Apollo, then addressed in more direct recitative style to his beloved Euridice. Musically, this shift from the more formal arioso to the more natural recitative vividly demonstrates Orfeo’s musical virtuosity, in which, himself a demi-god, he acknowledges the sacral homage to the divine while honoring as well the down-to-earth immediacy of the human. Euridice, beautifully sung by soprano Mariana Flores, responds with a lovely recitative pledging her complete devotion to her love for Orfeo. More choral singing and general dancing bring Act I of Orfeo to a joyful close. 

As Act II begins, Orfeo and his shepherd friends reminisce about the wooded hills where they often lingered. Orfeo then sings a great strophic aria, “Vi ricorda, o boschi ombrosi” (“Do you recall, oh shady woods”), in which he vividly contrasts his newly won marital bliss to his earlier years of sorrows, “when the stones to my plaints made piteous response.” Orfeo’s present joy may momentarily dominate this aria, but an underlying evocation of mournful sadness points backwards to his past sufferings and also forwards in hinting at what tragedy may lie ahead.  

Sure enough, a messenger named Silvia soon arrives with fateful news. Beautifully sung by soprano Francesca Aspromonte, (who does double duty as La Musica and Silvia), the messenger hesitates to pierce Orfeo’s heart with the words she must tell. Singing in a minor key with touches of mournful chromaticism, Silvia begins her tale slowly, reluctantly: “La tua bella Euridice …” (“Your beautiful Eur-idice…”); but her voice breaks off with a notated rest. She cannot finish the sentence. The opera’s action and Orfeo’s life are suspended in the balance. After a pause, she resumes: “La tua diletta sposa…” (“Your beloved spouse…”); but again she hesitates, until finally completing the sentence with the fateful words, “è morta” (“is dead”).  

There follows a stunned silence, eventually broken by Orfeo’s wretched cry “Oimè!” (“Woe is me!”). At last Silvia tells in full what happened, how Euridice, picking wild flowers with her bridesmaids, was bitten by a venomous snake and died within minutes, expiring in Silvia’ arms. Monteverdi’s expressive vocal line sinks dejectedly on Silvia’s final notes.  

Now Orfeo, barely able to realize what has happened, sings his plaintive recitative, which begins, “Tu se’ morta, se’ morta mia vita, ed io respiro?” (“You are dead, dead is my life, and I still breathe?”). Orfeo can’t come to grips with what has occurred. He begins anew: “Tu se’ da mi partita per mai più, mai più, non tornare, ed io rimango?” (“You have gone from me, never more, never more, to return, and I remain?”). Orfeo is still stunned.  

Yet after a brief pause, he rallies his spirits with a resounding, “No,” rejecting his momentarily powerless state of despair. “If my songs have any power,” he now declares, “I’ll descend to the deepest abysses and, having softened the heart of the King of Shades, I’ll bring you back with me to see again the stars.” The lowest note here is on the word “abissi” (“abysses”), and the highest note is on the word “stelle” (“stars”). Finally, he moves towards the end of this recitative by declaring that if malign fate denies him success in this venture, he’ll remain with Euridice in the company of death, ending here on a precipitous low note. With a last look around him, Orfeo addresses a farewell to earth, sky, and sun, then begins his journey beneath the earth to Hades.  

As Orfeo, tenor Andrew Tortise sang most movingly in this great piece of music, which conductor John Eliot Gardiner, a leading Baroque specialist, faithfully honored with all its suggestive pauses and rest notes, which figure like catches in the throat of a man on the brink of tears. This is music of incredible poignancy, full of alternating despair and brave resolve. 

As Act III opens, Orfeo is escorted on the way to Hades by the allegorical figure of Hope (“La Speranza”), whom he thanks for her solace and guidance. Sung by Mariana Flores, (who does double duty by singing both Euridice and Hope), the soprano informs Orfeo that she can accompany him no further, for they have reached the swampy shore of the river Styx, on whose opposite shore lies the realm of Hades. There, Hope declares, it is engraved in stone, “Lasciate ogni speranza voi ch’entrate” (“Abandon all hope ye who enter here”). Left alone, Orfeo is confronted by Charon (Caronte in Italian), who, sung by full-throated bass Gianluca Buratto, chal lenges Orfeo for daring to come where no mortal may venture. Now Orfeo begins one of this opera’s most revealing passages, an aria that illustrates Monteverdi’s deeply held convictions about the power of music. 

In the strophic aria, Possente spirto,” (“Mighty spirit”), Orfeo addresses him self to Caronte and seeks by means of his song to persuade the boatman to allow him to cross the Styx. In the first four strophes, each followed by elaborate instrumental ritornellos, Orfeo musters all the arts and artifices of his musical knowledge, employing ever greater virtuosic ornamentation as he proceeds. Each strophe becomes ever more florid. However, in the fifth strophe, Orfeo begins to shift to a more direct and less formalized style of musical address.  

Now addressing Caronte directly, yet still employing elements of vocal and instrumental ornamentation, Orfeo assures Caronte he need not fear him, since his only weapons are his voice and his fingers upon the lyre. Caronte replies in blunt fashion, acknowledging that impressed though he may be by Orfeo’s musical song (canto) and plea (pianto), he is forbidden the luxury of pity. Orfeo then shifts musical styles quite dramatically and unleashes a passionate recitative wherein he eschews the vocal ornamentation of the earlier strophes and now sings simply, directly, and powerfully from the heart. With this effort, he succeeds, for Caronte either falls asleep or, more likely, feigns to fall asleep so he can’t be blamed by Pluto for letting Orfeo cross the Styx. If we have listened well, we understand that Monteverdi has presented this aria as an object lesson demonstrating that no matter how great a singer’s (or a composer’s) virtuosity in handling florid coloratura, the simple, direct, unembellished yet heartfelt expression of deep human emotion is by far the best way of moving listeners and involving their sympathy and empathy for the protagonists. 

Seizing the moment, Orfeo jumps into Caronte‘s boat and rows himself across the Styx. Act IV takes place at the court of Hades where Plutone (Pluto) and Proserpina (Persephone) reign. Sung by mezzo-soprano Francesca Boncompagni, Proserpina beseeches her royal consort to take pity on Orfeo, whose beautiful laments have moved her heart. Plutone, admirably sung by bass Gianluca Buratto (who does double duty as both Caronte and Plutone), defers to his beloved wife, while admonishing her not to neglect the duties of the marriage bed. Plutone makes a public proclamation that Orfeo may lead Euridice out of Hades and back up to earth provided, however, that Orfeo avoid looking at Euridice until they have left Hades and reached the land warmed by the sun. Various spirits and choruses of the dead praise the generosity of Plutone. 

Orfeo, followed by Euridice, begins his journey upward out of Hades. As he goes, he sings of the powers of his lyre, which will be celebrated forever among the constellations of the firmament. With his lyre, Orfeo proudly proclaims, he has softened every hardened heart even in the realm of Tartarus. Suddenly, however, a strange noise is heard. Frightened, Orfeo thinks aloud it may be the Furies taking up arms against him. At that, Orfeo turns around and checks to see if Euridice is still faithfully following him. The luminous splendor of his beloved’s eyes momentarily enthralls him. However, before his own eyes Euridice begins to fade away, as if dissolving in a mist that arises from the depths of Hades. Addressing Orfeo, Euridice laments that, “through excess of love you lose me.” She adds that she loses the power to enjoy either light or life, and, worst of all, she loses her beloved Orfeo. At that, she disappears from view; and a chorus of spirits sings that, “Orfeo conquered Hades and then was conquered by his emotions. Worthy of eternal glory only is he who has victory over himself.” Thus ends Act IV of Monteverdi’s Orfeo. 

There remains only a brief Act V, which begins with Orfeo roaming disconsolately the countryside of Thrace, bemoaning in ever greater intensity his unhappy fate. At one point, the last syllable of his lament is echoed back to him by the hills. This echo is repeated several times. But Orfeo is incensed that all it gives back to him is the last syllable. He wants to wallow in the totality of his laments. 

Totally self-centered, as he has been thus far throughout the opera, Orfeo angrily demands that the totality of his laments be echoed back to him. In Orfeo’s encounter with Echo, Monteverdi suggests an analogy with the mythical Narcissus, who saw his reflection in the waters of a stream and fell in love with his own image. Yet Monteverdi and librettist Striggio give a twist to the legend of Narcissus. Here, encountering the echo of his own voice, Orfeo begins to realize that up till now he has been incredibly self-centered. Most of his singing has revolved around his pride in his musical virtuosity, his initial suffering in wooing the reluctant Euridice, his joys in ultimately winning the love of Euridice, and his utter despair at losing Euridice twice, once on his wedding day and a second time in the realm of Hades. Now, suddenly, hearing his own voice echoed in the hills, Orfeo looks outside himself and thinks of Euridice. This woman, he declares, was a paragon of virtue, embodying the most alluring physical beauty in a soul equally beautiful and pure. Never, he declares, will he submit to love with any less worthy woman than the peerless Euridice.  

At this point, Orfeo’s father, the sun-god Apollo, sung here by tenor Nicholas Mulroy, descends from the clouds and gives his son a few choice words of advice. “Do not be a slave to your passions,’ he admonishes. “Far too greatly did you delight in your happy fortune, now too greatly do you bewail your hard and bitter lot.” When asked by Orfeo whether he may yet again see his beloved Euridice, Apollo assures him that he may cherish her fair features in the swirling firmament. Encouraged by this divine reassurance, Orfeo accepts Apollo’s offer to raise up Orfeo himself to the heavens.  

A final hymn of apotheosis is then sung by Apollo, Orfeo, and a chorus of nymphs and shepherds. Among these latter are tenors Krystian Adam, Nicholas Mulroy, and Gareth Treseder, countertenor James Hall, and bass David Shipley. Thus, Monteverdi’s Orfeo comes to a happy end in spite of all the sorrow that has tragically intervened. In this semi-staged performance of Monteverdi’s Orfeo, John Eliot Gardiner’s English Baroque Soloists and gifted Monteverdi Choir have offered us a remarkably moving interpretation of this masterpiece that stands out like a beacon at the very birth of opera.

Christopher Hawthorne, architecture critic for the Los Angeles Times, will discuss how the preservation movement in California has become slow and reactive and how it can get back ahead of the curve of public taste. Featuring case studies including a guesthouse by Julia Morgan on the Hearst/Davies beachfront estate. Presented by the Berkeley City Club Conservancy, Thursday, May 21st, 7:30. 

$15 on Eventbrite (http://www.eventbrite.com/e/hawthorne-lecture-tickets-16630977702), or at the door: Berkeley City Club, 2315 Durant Avenue, Berkeley