A vehicle collision seriously injured a pedestrian in Berkeley this afternoon, according to police. 

The vehicle struck a pedestrian and then an electrical box near the corner of Allston Way and San Pablo Avenue at 1:02 p.m., police said. 

The male pedestrian was taken to a hospital with serious injuries. The vehicle's driver remained at the scene and is cooperating with the investigation, police said.

The Berkeley City Council has voted to impose a one-year moratorium on the use of drones by the city's Police Department but authorized the fire department to use them for disaster response purposes. 

The council's vote at its meeting on Tuesday night disappointed Bob Meola of the city's Peace and Justice Commission, which had proposed a two-year moratorium on the use of drones. 

The commission has been seeking a permanent ban on drones for more than two years and Meola said today that the proposed two-year moratorium was merely "a temporary Band-Aid for a potentially critical wound" while the city develops a long-term policy. 

Meola said of the City Council, "They might as well have done nothing" about drones. 

In their vote, the council pledged to formulate a policy for the police use of drones. 

Some council members said at the meeting that the proposed two-year moratorium would have been too long, too broad in scope or possibly unnecessary altogether. 

Seven council members voted for the compromise measure that was adopted. Lori Droste voted against it because she thought it's unnecessary and Kriss Worthington abstained because he wants a more restrictive policy. 

Mayor Tom Bates' spokesman Charles Burress said Bates and the council majority didn't want to impose a blanket ban on all city uses of drones because they think drones might be useful in emergencies such as fires and earthquakes. 

Although Berkeley's police and fire departments don't currently have drones and don't have any plans to acquire them, Burress said the council majority wants to leave open the possibility of having the fire department borrow a drone from another government agency in the event of an emergency. 

Meola said his fear is that if the fire department gets a drone, it could lend it to the Police Department. 

He also said he also doesn't want the fire department to have access to drones under any circumstances until the city comes up with a comprehensive policy on drones. 

Asked if he thought it was possible that the city might come up with a stronger policy on drones by the end of the one-year moratorium, Meola said, "I don't have a lot of faith in the Berkeley City Council doing the right thing in a timely manner." 

The Peace and Justice Commission first proposed a ban on drones back on Dec. 18, 2012, but the City Council referred the issue back to the commission, the Police Review Commission and the city's Disaster and Fire Safety Commission for further review. 

The Peace and Justice Commission held a town hall meeting on the issue on May 1, 2013, and the City Council had a work session on the subject last April. 

In proposing the two-year moratorium, the commission said in a letter to the council that a moratorium should be put in place as soon as possible "given the fact that it is and will be easier to regulate drones before they fill Berkeley's skies than after they are already in Berkeley's skies." 

The resolution proposed by the commission said, "The rapid implementation of drone technology throughout the U.S. poses a serious threat to the privacy and constitutional rights of the American people, including the residents of Berkeley."

The Berkeley City Council tonight will consider a proposal by the city's Peace and Justice Commission to impose a two-year moratorium on drones. 

The commission proposed a ban on drones more than two years ago but is now recommending that a moratorium be imposed while the city continues to study a permanent ban. 

The commission said in a letter to the council that it thinks a moratorium should be put in place as soon as possible "given the fact that it will take an undeclared and unknown amount of time before the council does further work on a drone policy and given the fact that it is and will be easier to regulate drones before they fill Berkeley's skies than after they are already in Berkeley's skies." 

The proposed resolution that the council will consider at its meeting at 7 p.m. tonight at its chambers at 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way says, "The rapid implementation of drone technology throughout the U.S. poses a serious threat to the privacy and constitutional rights of the American people, including the residents of Berkeley." 

The resolution also says, "Police departments throughout the country have begun implementing drone technology absent any guidance or guidelines from lawmakers. 

A city staff report says, "A moratorium on drones will eliminate the heightened risk of negative environmental effects associated with unregulated use of drones, including potential mid-air collisions with other such objects and wildlife and inadvertent crash landings of such unmanned vehicles." 

The Peace and Justice Commission first proposed back on Dec. 18, 2012, that the City Council proclaim the city to be a no-drone zone but the council referred the issue back to the commission, the Police Review Commission and the city's Disaster and Fire Safety Commission for further review. 

The Peace and Justice Commission then held a town hall meeting on the issue on May 1, 2013. 

City staff members said 18 speakers at the meeting "expressed strong opposition" to the use of drones and only two expressed willingness to see drones used in emergency situations with appropriate safeguards. 

One person expressed a desire for the city to use a drone to search for his granddaughter in an emergency situation, staff members said. 

City staff said four cities in the U.S. have banned drones and Seattle dropped a plan to use drones after residents and privacy advocates protested.

Two suspects have been arrested in the December shooting death of a wheelchair-bound man in Berkeley, police said. 

Kamahl Middleton, 36, was shot and killed in a parking lot near San Pablo and University avenues at about 9:45 p.m. Dec. 29, according to police. 

Carl Young, a 20-year-old San Leandro resident, was taken into custody Thursday on the 700 block of 85th Avenue in Oakland. Young is scheduled to appear in court for arraignment Monday. 

A 17-year-old San Leandro resident was also taken into custody, but the minor's identity is being withheld. 

Berkeley police responded to multiple 911 calls about the shooting in the 1900 block of San Pablo Avenue, near University Avenue and found Middleton and a female victim suffering from gunshot wounds. Middleton was pronounced dead at the scene and the female victim survived. 

The Berkeley Police Department is asking anyone with information about the shooting to call the homicide detail at (510) 981-5741 or (510) 981-5900. Anonymous tips can be reported to the Bay Area Crime Stoppers at (800) 222-8477.

Whole lotta shakin’ goin’ on about the future of downtown Berkeley. For those who have preferred to tune out (and that would include me, for years), here’s the Cliff Notes version (no connection to Clif Bar, which I think had a short period of being headquartered downtown, unless I’m thinking of PowerBar.)

Go way back, ten years ago. Start with the Downtown Area Plan Advisory Committee (DAPAC), in this story from the December 6, 2005 Planet: Touring Downtown With DAPAC, by Richard Brenneman.

Money quote: “The plan is mandated by the settlement agreement of the city’s suit against UC Berkeley over the university’s Long Range Development Plan (LRDP) for 2020.”

Name to note: “…Matt Taecker, the planner hired specifically for the plan.”

Now: fast-forward to February 2015. In the “Real Estate” section of berkeleyside:com: Developer of downtown Berkeley hotel offers ‘tapered’ tower; hopes for quick design review, by Frances Dinkelspiel.

Name to note: “The plans that the developers are showing the Design Review Committee on Thursday, Feb. 19, are preliminary and will probably change with time, according to Matt Taecker, whose Taecker Planning and Design is helping with the entitlement process. The idea is to ask Design Review for early input, he said.”

In ten years, the guy’s gone from planner to fixer (or as they’re called in San Francisco, where it’s been a big industry for decades, “expediter”.) You get the idea. 

There's a similar case on another site, now proceeding in parallel. Mark Rhoades is the former City of Berkeley planning director who’s now shilling for the L.A. financier who wants to demolish the block which now houses, among other thriving businesses, the Habitot children’s museum and the Landmark Shattuck cinemas. The listed address is 2211 Harold Street, but it’s just about the whole block on Shattuck, and they’re looking for, what is it, 18 stories, most likely luxury apartments for the rich, perhaps to be condo-ized. 

That’s the new normal for Berkeley. First you plan it, then you exploit it. 

Here’s a super-short trajectory for how we were set up for the kill: the Downtown Area Plan Advisory Committee (DAPAC) labored like an elephant and produced a draft plan after a number of years. The ruling city council majority in 2010 placed the original Measure R on the ballot: a touchy-feely contentless affirmation of values no one could disagree with, short on detail, which was subsequently used as justification for passing terminally vague downtown plan zoning which ignored the DAPAC recommendations for the most part. 

The labor of an elephant produced a mouse. 

Notably weak specification in the Downtown Plan as zoned by the council: some number (was it 3?) of super-tall buildings are now to be allowed downtown if they provide (undefined of course) “community benefits”. Uh-huh. 

Last fall a courageous group of citizens too intelligent for their own good put a wonkish initiative on the November ballot, what I called Measure R 2.0, which would have added teeth to the amorphous rhetoric in Measure R 1.0. 

From the Daily Cal: “No on R received about $245,000 in monetary contributions in comparison to Yes on R’s approximately $20,000 — roughly 14 times as much money.”  

Most of that money came from development interests: “No on R’s biggest contributions included $50,000 from the California Association of Realtors, $95,000 from the National Association of Realtors and $10,000 each from Berkeley development company Panoramic Interests and property owner and contractor Jay Lakireddy.” 

And this Measure R “only” lost three to one—a Quixotic victory, perhaps. 

Just now, belatedly, that smallish coterie of Berkeleyans who actually care about what happens to the city they live in is waking up to the idea that they wuz had. 

A friend, a smart friend, a civic-minded friend who used to write about international affairs for a major metropolitan newspaper, said to me: “I voted for the first Measure R and against the second one. I have nothing against a few tall buildings. But I didn’t know that THIS is what they meant. Where do I go to sign the petition?” 

Well, yes. I didn’t say I told you so, but I could have. 

His rude awakening was fostered by the efforts of a lively group of movie fans outraged at the idea that the ten screens of the Landmark theater, which often show unusual films not to be seen elsewhere, would be lost at least for the estimated 5 years of construction and perhaps forever. Under the name of Save the Berkeley Shattuck Cinemas, they’ve been leafleting theater patrons for several weeks, and are now expanding their reach to the Farmer’s Markets and other public places. They’ve gotten an impressive number of petition signatures, and are starting to attract the attention of others who are not moviegoers but who are appalled at the prospect of this behemoth taking over the Berkeley skyline. 

As my friend is quick to say, it’s not all tall buildings, it’s THIS tall building that repels many of them. The current downtown zoning allows for three tall buildings downtown, but doesn’t specify where or what they should be. And the appropriate location isn’t chosen by the planning process, but by the corporate person who happens to get a deal on a piece of property somewhere, anywhere, and then wants to make a huge profit by developing it to the max. 

Absent any other planning provisions, it’s the new Golden Rule: he who has the gold makes the rules. In the case of the Shattuck/Harold project, the guy with the gold is Joseph Penner, head of Hill Street Realty of Los Angeles. He bought the block in an estate sale for about $20 million, and he’s trying to turn that into much, much more. 

A limited internet search produces no evidence that Penner or his company has ever managed a development project from start to finish, let alone one of this magnitude. Curiously, the organization shows this project, as yet not even permitted, on its website as if it already existed. Evidently the privately-held real estate finance company is representing the “Residences at Berkeley Plaza” to investors as a done deal, already in the bag. 

Maybe he knows something we don’t know? 

It would be possible for expediter Rhoades to amass permits with the many variances an out-of-scale project like this would need on behalf of Hill Street, and then the company could sell the entitlements to an as-yet-unidentified third party. Or they could already be acting in behalf of some third party known to them, even for an overseas investor from Russia or China or the Middle East—a common transaction in desirable urban areas these days. 

One fear is that the project would proceed, with permits, as far as demolition, and then fall through, leaving a great big hole in the downtown fabric and a vacant though entitled lot for sale, perhaps for years. 

It’s an environmental joke, a green-washed disaster that would be out of date by the time it’s completed, if it ever is. 

The current state of discussion is whether or not either of these megaprojects would even provide the “community benefits” touted in both Measure R 1.0 and the downtown plan, but conveniently nowhere specified. The Zoning Adjustment Board is supposed to be grappling with what, if anything, this might mean, but has gotten roughly nowhere with the concept so far. 

I went to their lengthy meeting scheduled to consider the question, and was surprised to realize how many members of the ZAB work in the development industry on a daily basis. It will be difficult for people who make their living pleasing developers to make an unbiased assessment of what would benefit the people of Berkeley. 

Fortunately, it looks like a lot of people with some experience and no conflict of interest are jumping into the fray—three of their analyses are in our public comment section this week , several appeared there previously, and more are expected. Keep watching. There’s no question that Berkeley needs a lot of benefits at the moment. 

When I went to the ZAB meeting in the Maudelle Shirek Building (the beautiful historic old City Hall) I happened to climb the grand staircase next to former Berkeley Mayor Shirley Dean. She’s someone I never voted for (perhaps a mistake), but I respect her intelligence and her genuine devotion to Berkeley. 

It was the weekend after one of the big storms. When we looked down at the stairs, we saw that they were covered with flakes of paint—looking up we saw that the ceiling was disintegrating. 

“That’s a disgrace,” she said, and she’s right. The public commons, our civic inheritance, is being allowed to disintegrate before our eyes. 

A start would be to get involved with Save the Berkeley Shattuck Cinemas, but the problem is bigger than just stopping this one boondoggle. There are some big unanswered questions about Taecker's hotel too, and about other projects now seeking entitlements for downtown. The city's planning staff is working mostly for the developers, not for the citizenry. 

Somehow, we’ve got to figure out how to do better for Berkeley, and soon. 

Rob Wrenn commendably advocates that a proposed high-rise project in downtown Berkeley should offer quite substantial, rather than quite pathetic community benefits in exchange for the exceptional zoning permissions it seeks.

Upzoning greatly increases the economic value of effected real property. Berkeley, like many cities, offers limited upzoning options on the condition that a substantial portion of the added value is turned over the public in the form of "public benefits". This is called "value recapture" zoning.

The developers proposing a luxury housing high rise at 2211 Harold way have openly mocked the city's rules. They've offered such community "benefits" as hiring union workers (they have little choice anyway); opening the roof top as "public space" (a joke that has utterly failed in San Francisco); and even buying a cheap sign to project public transit arrival times on to the sidewalk (for some reason).

In short the developers propose that the city should settle for nothing more than very slight mediations of the project's overall hostility to the public interest.

In my opinion Rob has the right idea by demanding more from these developers but he errs by emphasizing direct cash transfers to the so-called affordable housing fund and to theoretical city projects like converting Center Street to a plaza.

There are two problems: One problem concerns the disposition of the physical structure proposed by developers; the other is the inefficiency and corruptability of cash transfers. 

First the built environment: The most direct and tangible form of public benefit from development of real property is public use. 

When upzoning allows more housing units to be built, a large percentage of those units should be handed over to the City to use as affordable housing, in perpetuity. In this way the city doesn't have to guess how many affordable units it might theoretically gain from a contribution to the housing trust fund. Instead, it will gain a definite number of units exactly where they are most needed. 

When upzoning encourages a developer to shutter a popular cinema for years on end, the City should gain control over the cinemas built as a replacement. The City can not bind Landmark theaters or any other company to lease and operate cinemas in the future. What the city can do is insist that the city itself is free to use the cinema, subleasing it to an operator below so-called "market rates" if necessary to ensure that the public benefit of an eclectic arts cinema is preserved in the theater district and is able to offer affordable ticket prices. 

Policies based on recapturing public use, not just a nominal equivalent in cash, will in the long run help the City to insulate vital economic activity downtown from extreme volatility in the real estate market brought on by the ongoing crises of the global financial system. 

Second, any cash payment from developers should be heavily discounted. 

Cash put into the Housing Trust Fund immediately loses value to substantial transaction costs before it ever turns into actual affordable housing that people can live in. It is very hard, arguably impossible for the city to say that if it is given X million dollars today, this will mean some Y number of housing units later. On the contrary, staff time, consultant time, inflation and other factors all conspire to erode the real purchasing power of those X million dollars. (Not to mention that, in the end, when the fund is used to provide favorable financing to private developers and enhance their profits, the city is giving up value which is rightfully its own.) 

Finally, by insisting on more actual public use of upzoned property -- not merely some cash pay-off -- the City can gain a finer degree of control and say over the form the built environment takes downtown and elsewhere in Berkeley.

Until just a few years ago, I was coasting along in my own world thinking that if I just voted I had done my civic duty and that was enough. I, of course, learned like others that voting important as it is, is hardly enough. And, that without continuing engagement officials will do what they do best, lose track of their responsibilities to the public and ethics and cater to the hands that feed them, developers and money. Oh, there are a few who retain personal integrity and a few who never had it.

This brings me to the proposed 2211 Harold Way project. If that project were called the 2230 Shattuck (address for the Landmark Shattuck Cinemas) instead of 2211 Harold Way it would have gotten a lot more attention. After attending the ZAB (Zoning Adjustment Board) meeting on November 13, 2014, I joined other volunteers in opposing this project. I was appalled by the height of the building and the impact this building would have on the view from Campanile Way and Shattuck. At one point, I thought that if we could just get the height reduced to 10 stories and replace the Shattuck Cinemas that would be a win for the citizens of Berkeley. That was before I started gathering petition signatures and speaking to people about the building. 

After weeks of talking with people, I am at a different conclusion. 2211 Harold Way is the wrong building, in the wrong place with the wrong design at the wrong time. The Landmark Shattuck Cinemas are a major economic driver in downtown Berkeley. You might notice if you go to downtown Berkeley our store fronts are full. On the weekends we have sold out movies at the Shattuck Cinemas and the streets are bustling with people going to the movies, buying ice cream cones, stopping for coffee, eating out and just generally frequenting our businesses. In our polling, we find 60% of the Shattuck Cinemas movie goers come to Berkeley from other cities across the bay area. They come specifically to this complex of ten theaters, because of all the intelligent documentary and art films offered at this one site. 

Demolishing the Shattuck Cinemas will do more than just shutter the cinemas, it will shatter the downtown. Businesses whether they realize it or not depend on the patrons of the Shattuck Cinemas to survive. Construction is projected to last four years. Even if the developers rebuilt the Shattuck Cinemas which is now in question, their offering of a significant community benefit is to subsidize the theaters for 20 years so the lease rate in the new building is only near double the current lease rate instead of the more than triple rate projected for the building. Which means the theaters cannot return as a viable business or the cost to us doubles, so much for community benefit. 

The more I see of the buildings planned for downtown, the more I realize these buildings are to fulfill the legacy fantasy of our mayor and line the pockets of the consultants and developers. The citizens of the Berkeley will be living with the reality of these misadventures and right now that reality looks pretty ugly.  

2211 Harold Way is still going through the approval process. The probability of stopping these monstrous misadventures are small, but if you feel better for trying as I do join us. Follow us on Facebook.com/saveshattuckcinemas or send an email to savingshattuck@gmail.com. Our city needs you to keep a watchful eye.

I am writing to suggest significant community benefits that should be included as conditions of approval for the proposed development a 2211 Harold Way. Since the developers have not yet released a pro forma for the project, it is difficult to know precisely what the developer can be reasonably asked to pay. ZAB should request a pro forma. The consultants hired to do an economic analysis of proposed community benefits will obviously need financial information from the developers to do their job and ZAB, the City Council and the public should have that information as well.

When the City up-zoned Downtown and allowed three 180’ buildings to be built where the previous height limit was 7 stories/87’, it greatly increased the value of the 2211 Harold Way site and what could be developed on it. The community benefits requirement allows the City to capture the increased value in the form of additional community benefits beyond those otherwise required as mitigations for the project’s impacts. The up-zoning by the City, called for in the Downtown Area Plan, was not done to provide windfall profits for developers and land owners.

I am suggesting additional significant community benefits in three of the areas suggested in the Downtown Area Plan policy on additional community benefits (Policy LU-2.2): affordable housing, green building and open space. 

Affordable Housing, 

I would second the recommendation that you have already received from the Housing Advisory Commission that “new high rises Downtown must also provide additional affordable housing benefits (HAC memo on Proposed Community Benefits, December 5, 2014). Clearly there is a particular need for housing affordable for those who are classified as “low income”, “very low income” and “extremely low income” (80%, 50% and 30% or below of Area Median Income respectively). The private sector cannot meet this need, but a large project like 2211 Harold can help with a large contribution to the City’s Housing Trust Fund. 

If this project were being built in San Francisco, the required affordable housing payment, resulting from the choice not to build any affordable units, would be $16,897,409. I calculated this using the affordable housing fee calculation template found here: http://www.sf-moh.org/index.aspx?page=1113). It would be higher than that if the housing were built in one of the Eastern Neighborhoods, which were upzoned, and require higher housing fees to recapture the increase in land value resulting from the upzoning. 

The developers, in their community benefits submission (“Documentation of Project Significant Community Benefits” October 20, 2014), state that they will be required to pay a fee of $24,000 per unit, totaling $7.25 million (Appendix A, page 4). This is incorrect. In their Revised Applicant’s Statement (also dated October 20, 2014), they correctly state that the fee is $20,000 per unit or a total of $6,040,000. (Page 8).  

This fee is much too small for a project of this scale, especially given the enormous unmet need for below-market housing, and should be supplemented as part of their required significant community benefits. They should pay closer to what they would be required to pay in San Francisco. 

Green Building 

By 2020, as outlined in the Statewide Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan, California will be requiring that all new housing be built to meet a Zero Net Energy Standard. Achieving Zero Net Energy requires both energy efficient design and use of onsite renewable energy generation, which will, in most cases, mean use of solar thermal and solar photovoltaic systems. 

Zero Net Energy housing is already being built in California, and in other states, and, on a greater scale in Europe, particularly in Germany. Housing for students and staff at UC Davis’ West Village was built to meet a Zero Net Energy standard. 

Information about the Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan and the New Residential Zero Net Energy Action Plan can be found here: http://www.californiaznehomes.com 

In their LEED Neighborhood Development Project Scorecard (2014-12-11 RESUB Green Building Memo), they are giving themselves zero points for “On-Site Renewable Energy Sources”. An earlier, 12/12/2012, LEED Building Design & Construction scorecard, prepared by MVE Institutional, suggests that they might have a very minimal amount of on-site renewable energy. 

2211 Harold Way, if built as proposed, would be an obsolete building from the moment the first resident moves in. It is not innovative or cutting edge in any way with respect to energy efficiency and green building. It doesn’t come anywhere near meeting the Zero Net Energy standard. 

The developers have proposed to allocate roof space as an open space amenity for residents rather than using that space for solar panels. It’s not clear whether the roofs on this building meet the “solar ready” standard adopted by the state last year. It would be difficult and expensive to retrofit this building in the future to achieve the soon to be adopted Zero Net Energy standard. While there are now windows being produced with built-in solar cells, and while solar walls and solar skins for buildings are being developed, the developers are not trying any of these innovative things either. 

The City's 2008 Climate Action Plan notes that In Berkeley buildings are the source of about 53% of Berkeley's greenhouse gas emissions (p. 61). Residential buildings account for about half of the 53%. 

The Climate Action Plan has this vision for 2050 (page 5): "New and existing buildings achieve net zero energy consumption through increased energy efficiency and a shift to renewable energy sources." Yet, if built as proposed, 2211 Harold might still be the largest single residential building in Berkeley as of 2050, and it wouldn't be zero net energy unless the owners were subsequently compelled to go back and do an expensive retrofit. 

Does the City really want the largest private residential development in Berkeley of the last 50 or more years to be obsolete, falling far short of the Zero Net Energy standard? LEED Gold many sound impressive but it can be achieved, and would be achieved on this project, by doing relatively little with respect to energy efficiency and reduction of greenhouse gas generation. 

Fortunately, because provision of significant community benefits are required beyond the baseline LEED Gold requirement, the ZAB and City Council can demand that the design of this project be changed so that it comes significantly closer to meeting a Zero Net Energy standard. 

Open Space – Center Street Plaza 

The developers should be asked to make a significant contribution toward the costs of constructing the pedestrian plaza planned for Center Street. This plaza, based on designs by renowned UC Berkeley landscape designer Walter Hood, would constitute a major addition to open space in the downtown. The City Council voted to support the Center Street Plaza in 2010 and it’s the most important project in the downtown Streets and Open Space Improvement Plan (SOSIP). The developer of the proposed downtown hotel at Center and Shattuck could pay for the balance of the cost of the plaza. 

As the plaza would run alongside the hotel it would be particularly appropriate for the hotel’s developers to contribute as well. With community benefits contributions from these two developers it would be possible to have the plaza built at the same time as the hotel. It would be very appropriate for major new downtown developments to contribute toward the creation of a major addition to the supply of downtown open space. 

Shattuck Cinemas 

In addition to providing significant community benefits, it is vitally important that this project avoid creating significant detriment. Loss of half of the downtown’s 20 movie screens would be, without question, very detrimental. 

The cinemas reportedly gross $3 million a year (footnote 11, page 22, “Documentation of Project Significant Community Benefits” October 20, 2014). Based on this figure, one can estimate that they sell about 250,000 tickets a year. Some proportion of these moviegoers also go out for a meal and/or drinks before or after their trip to the movies. They also patronize other downtown businesses. The Downtown businesses, particularly restaurants, stand to lose upwards of $1 million a year in business. It’s estimated, by the people who have been gathering signatures from moviegoers, that 60% of Shattuck Cinema moviegoers come from outside Berkeley. The Shattuck Cinemas show films that are not available anywhere else in the East Bay and that’s what brings many moviegoers to our downtown. 

The City’s Downtown Area Plan recognizes the importance of these theaters in the following policies: 

“Policy LU-1.2 Encourage unique cultural and entertainment uses that serve the city and region, including museums, live theater and cinemas.  

... 

b) Retain and support Downtown’s cinemas. Consider incentives for retaining existing movie theaters and upgrading their facilities. 

c) Recruit uses that complement Downtown as an evening destination, including new cinemas, restaurants, and art and entertainment venues.” 

(Pages LU-7, LU-10 in the Downtown Area Plan) 

“Policy ED-1.7: Entertainment & Culture. Strengthen Downtown as a prime regional destination for alternative and mainstream cinema, and live theater and music. Evaluate and enhance the theater- and cinema-going experience in subareas where they are concentrated. 

1. Work to retain and expand cinemas, live theaters, and music venues.
2. Work with cinema, theater, and music venues to upgrade to state of the art facilities.

(Page ED-5 in the Downtown Plan) 

I don’t see how it would be possible to make the required finding of no detriment for this project if the approved plans do not include retention of the movie theaters which means that it is essential that the developers reach an agreement with Landmark Theaters on terms that ensure the long term survival of movie theaters at this site. While the January 8 Staff Report on 2211 Harold Way suggested that the parties were close to making a deal, the latest “2211 Harold Way Community Benefits” memo from the developer (dated February 17) makes it clear that no agreement has yet been reached. 

Is the Project Labor Agreement a Community Benefit? 

In their latest memo, dated February 17, the developers have doubled down on their refusal to offer real community benefits. They have simply reasserted what they offered before despite the poor reception it received at ZAB in January. 

The project labor agreement with the building trades unions cannot be considered a community benefit unless you consider the entire East Bay as the “community”, which was clearly not the intent of the Downtown Plan. Berkeley makes up 7% of Alameda County’s population and its residents are disproportionately white collar workers and professionals. Some building trades’ union members live in Berkeley but the vast majority, probably in excess of 95%, live elsewhere in the county. Further, if contractors from outside Alameda County are used, which could happen, they are only required to hire 50% of their workers from Alameda County, so the percentage of workers on the site who live in Berkeley could end up being well under 5%. At any given time, there would only be a handful of Berkeley residents working on the site. 

Further, in the documents from the developers posted so far on the City Web site, there is no mention of First Source hiring or anything that would provide access to union jobs for currently unemployed Berkeley residents. Even if there were, the number of jobs would be small and temporary, lasting at best only the projected 26-30 months of construction. Since different kinds of workers are needed at different phases of construction, it’s doubtful that even if there were some temporary construction jobs for unemployed Berkeley residents that most of them would even last the full 26-30 months. 

It’s also not at all clear that use of a project labor agreement would add to the developer’s costs. Use of skilled union labor increases the likelihood that the project will be completed on time and on budget. With nonunion labor, there is a greater likelihood of cost overruns and delays. 

The construction unions themselves, not surprisingly, argue that project labor agreements are cost effective and efficient. To quote from a document produced by the AFL-CIO’s Building Construction Trades Department: 

“Simply put, project labor agreements help the end user (i.e. government or private sector) increase the efficiency and quality of its project by promoting a business model that employs a highly skilled workforce. 

Such a workforce ensures construction projects are built correctly the first time, on time, and as a result, on budget for the end user. This prevents costly delays that usually result from an unskilled workforce’s lack of knowledge regarding the use of building materials or tools as well as job site safety measures. Future building maintenance costs should be less, too. Regarding job site safety, a highly skilled workforce is safety certified to work in a dangerous job environment. Businesses will pay less for workers compensation and project delays because job site accidents will be less likely to occur.” 

Source: http://www.bctd.org/BCTD/media/Documents/Legislative%20Issues/PROJECT-LABOR-AGREEMENTS-TlkingPts-1.pdf 

A 2009 academic study of project labor agreements includes the following two conclusions: 

“PLAs are a valuable construction management tool for project planning and labor cost reduction” 

And 

“A key point made here is that there is no evidence to support claims that project labor agreements either limit the pool of bidders or drive up actual construction costs. Such claims by PLA opponents are based on inadequate data and faulty methodology. PLAs – in New York City and State and elsewhere – have instead proven very successful at saving costs while respecting fair labor standards. 

Source: http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1021&context=reports 

The fact that hourly wages for union construction workers are higher does not mean that the overall cost of a project that uses union labor will be higher than a nonunion project.

The Berkeley Neighborhoods Council (BNC) has been following the discussions concerning the "Significant Community Benefits" required for the high-rise buildings that will be built in downtown Berkeley. BNC attended the initial ZAB meeting where the public heard the developers’ version of what those benefits should be.

It is important that the community establish what "Significant Community Benefits" means to avoid prolonged discussions and disagreements as projects like these come before the City. 2211 Harold Way is the first, so let us get the ground rules established now. 

The project already exceeds the limits imposed by the Downtown Plan passed by the voters. The proposed building height at 194 feet tall exceeds the 180 foot height limit. Does this matter? Are we going to make plans for the city that are meaningless? 

After hearing the developers’ presentation one had to ask: benefits for whom? Only if you have decided that the project alone was a community benefit could you have made the decision that this project has any community benefits at all. All of the benefits cited by the developer would make more money for the owner of the project and provide benefits for the future tenants –nothing was offered for the Berkeley community as a whole. 

A prime example of this is the proposed construction of a new movie theater to replace the existing Shattuck Cinema Theater. The rent for the new theater will be approximately double what it is today. This will of course be reflected in high prices for tickets. The public will not benefit—the project owner will. 

Another example is the Habitot Kids’ Museum. In this case it will be lost if the developer does not help with the financial issues around trying to move to another location or possibly return to its present place. 

BNC spoke before ZAB and pointed out that all of the benefits offered by the developers' were for themselves and nothing was offered to the community at large, and ZAB seemed to get the message. At the January 24, 2015 BNC general meeting, BNC discussed the community benefits for the project. 

Community Benefits: re the 2211 Harold Way Building are to be defined as benefits that improve the general livability of all of Berkeley. 

The ZAB has suggested the benefits be grouped into categories or buckets and the list below can be sorted into them. On-site affordable housing, retention of the Shattuck Cinemas, transit passes for residents, union construction, and streetscape improvements around the site are all considered to be requirements that benefit the project and its residents, not community benefits for all of Berkeley's residents. 

Benefits could be: 

• $5M - for education - given to the Berkeley Schools
• $1M - improve city parks - including Civic Center Park and restoration of its fountain
• $1M - Toward renovation of old City Hall
• Money that Habitot Kids Museum has requested to help defray their moving and relocation expenses. All cost should be provided by the developer, not just some.
• Contribute to the affordable housing fund over and above locating the required percentage of affordable units scattered in the new 2211 Harold Way Building itself.
• Contribute to all existing businesses that will lose business while construction is on going.
• Create and finance an alternate plan for the relocation of the movie theater while construction is occurring and reduce the rent when the Shattuck Theaters return to the new building.
• Create a public safe playground for children and a safe pathway to get to the play ground.
• Set up a fund to assist Berkeley residents to install solar panels.

These are real community benefits that would contribute to the livability of all Berkeley residents. As this discussion goes forward, everyone must get involved if any of the benefits are to be realized. BNC is an organization that has contact with 92 neighborhood organization in Berkeley and will send all of them updates as this issue moves forward. We hope our city elected officials do the right thing and agree that "Significant Community Benefits" means just that. Only all of us together can make that happen. 

It is no accident that the Titans of high technology chose to shun President Obama’s visit to Stanford University. It seems that Obama’s plea to have private industry become partners in thwarting future cyber-attacks ignores the CIA and the NSA’s dark history. In his book, ‘Lords of Security Lords of Secrecy: America’s Stealth Foreign Policy’, author Scott Horton argues that the security agencies have grossly abused their power to enhance their own position in Washington and have thereby subverted the democratic process. Outgoing Democratic Senator Udall called for a purge of top CIA officials implicated in the abuses, including the firing of the current director, John Brennan. According to Kaspersky Lab the NSA has embedded spying devices deep inside hard drives in computers around the world targeting government institutions, oil and gas firms and the media. 

President Obama would do well to heed the observation of the famous German sociologist, Max Weber, who wrote “that national security bureaucracies will use secrecy to cover up their mistakes and errors, and as a result, incompetent people will invariably rise to the top”. 

Let me make a factual correction to Russ Tilleman's opinion piece "Greenwashing in Berkeley--again." Tilleman writes: 

"I read her [Lori Droste's] Candidate Information statement on the City of Berkeley website and I noticed that one of the 20 Berkeley Residents she refers to as supporting her is: Charles Siegel, author & environmental advocate I don't know if that has anything to do with her refusal to even meet with me. I assume it does but there is no way to know for sure." 

In fact, I met with Lori Droste before the election, and I was so impressed by her positions and her dedication that I endorsed her. We certainly did not mention Russ Tilleman during that meeting, and I have not talked with her since. She doesn't have any idea of what I think about Russ Tilleman, so there is no connection between my endorsement of her and her refusal to meet with Tilleman. I was a very active supporter of BRT, which is why most of the posts on our blog were by me. But being active is not the same as being extreme, so Tilleman's name calling is not warranted. Tilleman would do better to talk about the issues rather than engaging in personal attacks against me and against Councilmember Droste.

From Mary McAllister:

The author of the article and associated petition about monarch butterflies does not seem to be aware of the fact that monarchs in California do not migrate to Mexico. In fact, they spend their winter diapause here in California. All monarchs west of the Rocky Mountains come to the coast of California for their winter roost. Seventy-five percent of the monarchs in the California migration roost in eucalyptus. Eucalyptus is particularly valuable for their winter roost because it also provides nectar in the winter when little else is in flower. The California monarch migration has dwindled, just as the migration to Mexico has, but the eradication of eucalyptus along the California coast is just as important a factor as the availability of milkweed. The prejudice against eucalyptus is so strong that this is never mentioned by organizations such as The Center for Biological Diversity. Unfortunately their misguided advocacy is therefore contributing to the demise of monarchs in California. Nativism is killing wildlife. Wildlife does not care if plants are native.

Response from Gar Smith: 

Mary McAllister is correct. California is the overwintering site for millions of monarchs found west of the rockies. My petition was directed to a national audience. It addressed the larger migration of monarchs from Mexico to the Midwest. The plight of the smaller monarch migration does not get the attention it deserves. Even the Center for Food Safety's just-released 88-page report places its focus on the larger Mexico-to-Midwest migration. Unfortunately, some people view eucalyptus as a "nuisance plant" -- like milkweed. It we want to save the western monarchs, we need to protect eucalyptus as well as milkweed. Because the western migration is unique -- and similarly endangered -- it deserves its own petition. In the meantime, thanks for reading and signing the Midwest-Monarch-Milkweed-Monsanto petition. 

While I was privileged to be in class, three innocent lives were taken on Tuesday, February 10th. This isn’t hidden news. Rather news headlines depicted the murder of three Muslim students, execution style, in Chapel Hill near the University of North Carolina.

Being a student myself, I and my fellow students are well aware that now no place is safe anymore from terrorists whether be it homes, universities, or elementary schools. It used to be that parents would send their children to school without any worries, knowing that they will be safe but today things are different. Horrific incidents such as the Sandy Hook elementary shooting, Peshawar school shooting, and now Chapel Hill shooting have brutalized students across the world.

The disappointment is that initially the Chapel Hill shooting incident has had very little coverage by the media which caused an outcry on social media. In my opinion Craig Hicks, the killer, of the three students, who were very active members of their community, was clearly a terrorist then why has the media not given any attention to it? He took the lives of three innocent students then why has the media forgotten about these them? The Holy Quran states, “Whoever killed a person...it shall be as if he killed all humanity” (5:33). 

As a student I am saddened to see this incident which occurred near a university get little coverage. It only brings to mind the thoughts that the reason this went ignored was because the three were Muslims and the terrorist was a white man. The lives have been lost and nothing can bring them back but we can give the lives enough importance for this incident to be condemned and covered by the media. I would not be wrong to say that all students across the nation and world stand united in condemning such act and send our prayers and condolences to the families of Deah Barakat, Yusor Abu-Salha, and Razan Abu-Salha. 

Twenty-four states have enacted right-to-work laws.

Much has been made about the shrinking middle class in the United States where the wealthiest 160,000 families own as much as the poorest 145 million families. Income inequality is the gap in how much individuals earn from the work they do and the investments they make. Wealth inequality measures the difference in how much money and other assets individuals have accumulated. One of the contributing causes of wealth inequality is the labor movement’s diminished economic and political clout, as seen in the movement by states to enact right-to-work laws.

Thanks to collective bargaining, union members have higher wages and better benefits. In addition, union membership actually raises living and working standards for all working men and women, union and non-union. When union membership rates are high, so is the share of income that goes to the middle class. When those rates fall, income inequality grows and the middle class shrinks. 

Corporations did not all of a sudden give workers two days off each week, which we now call weekends, or paid vacations and sick leave, or rights at the workplace, or pensions, or overtime pay. Virtually all the benefits we have at work, whether in the public or private sector, are because unions fought hard and long against big business who did everything they could to prevent giving us these rights. 

Labor membership is shrinking. According to the Bureau of Labor Standards, in 2014 the percentage of wage and salary workers who were members of a union was 11.1 percent, down from 20.1 percent in 1983. Consider that union membership peaked in 1954 at 28.3 percent. 

And union popularity is down. Last year, a Gallup poll found only a small majority, 53 percent, approve of labor unions, down from 75 percent in the 1950s. Yet 71 percent of those polled support right-to-work laws. 

Right-to-work, or as some have called such laws, a right to work for less laws, are being enacted by more and more states. The 1947 Taft-Hartley amendments to the National Labor Relations Act, permitted a state to pass laws that prohibit unions from requiring a worker to pay dues, even when the worker is covered by a union-negotiated collective bargaining agreement. Thus, workers in right-to-work states have less incentive to join and pay dues to a union. As a result, unions have less clout vis-à-vis corporations. Twenty-four states have right-to-work laws. 

One study found “worker friendly [non-right-to-work] states are significantly healthier, are more productive, have less poverty, and with citizens who enjoy longer life spans. In four of the seven measures (GDP per capita, poverty, insurance and life expectancy rates) so-called ‘right-to-work’ states come out significantly (and statistically) worse.” 

The study concludes saying “instead of pursuing laws that actually lower the standard of living in their states, policy makers should look for ways to elevate everyone’s standard of living. Enacting RTW laws is not only misguided, but in fact counterproductive to achieving such ends.” 

Why do we need unions anyway? Because they are essential for America. Unions are the only large-scale movement left in America that serve as a countervailing balance against corporate power, acting in the economic interest of the middle class. But the decline of unions over the past few decades has left corporations and the rich with essentially no powerful opposition. You may take issue with a particular union’s position on an issue, but remember they are the only real organized check on the power of the business community in this country. 

Right-to-work laws are anti-union and contribute to a shrinking middle class and wealth inequality

Those who suffer from paranoid-type schizophrenia are subject to imagining elaborate plots to do harm to them, may incorrectly believe they are under surveillance and are constantly being watched, and may be fearful of the government--believing that it has an agenda of "getting" them. People with paranoid schizophrenia may inflate their importance and may believe that numerous people are malevolently monitoring and plotting against them--when in fact, they may not be noticed nearly as much as they think.  

For example, yesterday I was driving in Martinez, and another driver who wasn't looking seemed as though determined to careen into the side of my vehicle. I steered clear of the vehicle but had initially believed he was intentionally trying to create a car accident. Sometimes such an assumption, ironically, is useful if you are dealing with idiot drivers who are texting or paying attention to their GPS.  

Medication isn't nearly one hundred percent effective at freeing psychotic people from delusions. Even while medicated, people with schizophrenia or a similar disorder need to go farther than just taking the pills prescribed. Delusions can be stubborn and hard to get rid of. 

Delusions appear as if they are facts to the minds of those who suffer from psychosis. If we are lucky, we may retain some amount of faculty that disputes these illusions of the mind. I have arrived at a number of cognitive methods that help me recognize my delusions (most of the time) while I continue to stay medicated.  

If someone's psychotic illness is fairly severe, he or she should have a multipronged approach to maintaining a mostly non-delusional state of mind. You need medication, you need counseling, and you need cognitive techniques. Delusions are like cancer to the mind's software--delusions spread easily and can take over--wiping out normal consciousness. Delusions can also be compared to a computer virus that takes over.  

My understanding of computer antivirus software is that it is designed to target items that the antivirus company has discovered--the definitions that come in your antivirus updates specifically address known and newly discovered viruses. In the mind of someone who suffers from delusions, specific delusions can be targeted in an analogous manner.  

In this manner, you can share specific thoughts with a counselor, and this counselor can reflect back to you whether or not the thought seems delusional. It is then up to you to use this information and to acknowledge that a particular thought could be a delusion.  

Much of the time I am able to recognize delusions on my own, since I have had a lot of practice. But on occasion, a deluded thought sneaks up on me and becomes implanted. Then it takes more work to recognize and reprogram a delusion that has begun to expand toward being a "delusional system."  

The mere conscious recognition of a delusion does a lot toward alleviating it because of how our minds automatically incorporate the ideas we discover.  

You are better off erring on the side of naiveté rather than paranoia. Excessive vigilance against a perceived threat is counterproductive, can flower into paranoia as well as combativeness, and can lead you down the path of getting more ill.  

If we can learn to be a bit less high-strung and not adopt drastic interpretations of difficult events, events that we need not take personally, we can calm down a bit, and this helps in numerous ways.

Consider walking as exercise. Brisk walking can be an effective aerobic exercise. Walking provides the same benefits as jogging without the stress on joints.

“Unwind with a relaxing walk” advises the current issue of Senior Update…The Eyes and Ears of Alameda County Seniors. Chronic stress can produce too much cortisol, a hormone that can ramp up appetite and lead to overeating. A simple exercise like walking, just 30 minutes a day helps to incorporate a great way to minimize gaining weight and stress reduction all in one. (Get on the free mailing list by contacting the Alameda County Area Agency on Aging.) 

Balance is often a senior problem that may be caused by medications, overweight, a fall, and the need for many seniors to be pedestrians. A recent self-directed walking program for older people did not prevent falls. The numerous pieces of advice we get are often easier said than accomplished. Playing catch can improve balance and prevent seniors’ falls, according to the American Association for the Advancement of Science. I suggest that a cane may be safer. And read Jane E. Brody’s "Keeping Older Pedestrians Safe." (New York Times, January 5, 2015).  

The destinations most popular with retirees have the most dangerous streets for pedestrians. A measure of pedestrian deaths is not included in most reports on the best places to retire, despite the fact that many sunny climates popular with retirees contain the most perilous roadside shoulders, crossings and sidewalks. AARP reports that the 4 most dangerous cities for pedestrians in the U.S. are located in Florida; 10 are all in the South or Southwest.  

Nature walks, walking clubs and several other walkies versions are offered by senior centers that rely on staff and or volunteers. Senior centers should schedule walking programs. The Barbara Lee Senior Center in Milpitas has a Star Trackers Walking Group, a walking program that allows participants to track how far they walk each week. Staff leads Star Trackers on walks on Wednesdays and Fridays, starting at 10:30 A.M., around the Senior Center area. As walkers reach certain mileage markers, they receive incentive rewards.  

Get a pedometer. Vigorous walking helps accelerate blood flow; the veins in the legs get squeezed with every step, sending the blood back to the heart. Keep your target zone in mind and calculate your pace. Perhaps begin with a daily quarter-to half-mile walk or even shorter ones. 

The percent of Berkeley, California’s commute-walkers -- 15.99% -- places it among the highest rates of commute-walkers. Regular, brisk exercise of any kind can improve confidence, stamina, energy, weight control and life expectancy and reduce stress. It can also reduce the risk of coronary heart disease, strokes, diabetes, high blood pressure, bowel cancer and osteoporosis. 

Scientific studies have also shown that walking, besides its physical benefits, is also beneficial for the mind, proving memory skills, ability, concentration and abstract reasoning, as well as reducing stress and lifting spirits. Life expectancy is also increased even for individuals suffering from obesity or high blood pressure. Walking also improves bone health, especially strengthening the hip bone, and lowering the more harmful low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, and raising the more useful good high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol. Studies have found that walking may also help prevent dementia and Alzheimer's. 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's fact sheet on the "Relationship of Walking to Mortality Among U.S. Adults with Diabetes" informs that those diabetic persons who walked for 2 or more hours a week lowered their mortality rate from all causes by 39%.  

Walkers and canes can be lifesavers for older people, but they are linked to higher risk of falls. A new study of persons in assisted care facilities (who tend to be older and in poorer health than people still living at home) highlights the downside of using walkers and canes without training. A difficult gait pattern as a result can possibly increase the risk of falling, according to the study’s lead author, Tine Roman de Mettelinge of Ghent University in Belgium. After accounting for psychotropic drug use, falls in the previous years, older age, slower walking, longer periods spent standing still and less arm swinging, people who used walking aids were still nearly 4 times more likely to fall than those who did not. Those who fell walked much more slowly and took smaller steps than those who did not fall. 

Doctors and therapists should consider an individual’s physical and mental abilities and living conditions before prescribing a walking aid. Someone who needs a walking aid should be given balance and gait exercises and then be trained to use a walker or cane safely, including proper gait patterns and ways to avoid falls. The training should also include complicated maneuvers like opening and closing doors with the aid.  

xxxx 

About Walkies: Barbara Kathleen Vera Woodhouse (1910-1988) was a British dog and horse trainer, author and television personality. Her TV series, Training Dogs the Woodhouse Way, made her a UK household name. Among her catch-phrases was "walkies” with high falsetto emphasis on the first syllable. She was parodied in the 1983 James Bond film Octopussy. Parody uses imitation for comic effect or ridicule. 

xxxx 

CALIFORNIA NEWS 

"Death with dignity movement is alive and well in California," by Steve Lopez (Los Angeles Times, January 20, 2015). 

"California lawmakers will push death-with-dignity measure," by Patrick McGreevy (Los Angeles Times, Jan. 23, 2015).  

"California stumbles at shifting care for costly patients," by Chan Terhune (Los Angeles Times, January 31, 2015).  

"Chinese Elders Find California’s Low-Income Care Plan Promising, But Confusing," by Richard Lee (New America Media, January 31, 2015). 

"At NoHo Senior Arts Colony, it's never too late to be creative," by Hailey Bronson-Potts (Los Angeles Times, January 31, 2015).  

"Stockton bankruptcy judge calls California pension fund a 'bully'," by Robin Respaut (Feb. 5, 2015). 

"S.F. woman with leukemia sues for right to die at home," by Bob Egelko (SFGate.com_, February 11, 2015). 

"San Jose makes 'half-off' pension offer in attempt to solve bitter police battle," by Mike Rosenberg (San Jose Mercury News, February 12, 2015). 

"Growing numbers of seniors may aggravate doctor shortage," by Felix Adamo (Californian_ [Bakersfield, California], February 14, 2015). 

"Doctor-assisted suicide: California ban challenged in court," by Howard Mintz (San Jose Mercury News, February 15, 2015). 

### 

On Sunday, February 15, 2015, Chamber Music San Francisco presented French violinist Renaud Capuçon and Georgian pianist Khatia Buniatishvili in a concert at the Marines Memorial Theatre. Individually, these young artists – Capuçon is 39 and Buniatishvili is 28 – have carved out careers in major music venues around the world. Together, they have also carved out a wonderful chemistry in chamber music, beginning with their mutual love for César Franck’s immortal Sonata for Violin and Piano in A-Major. This was one of the works they played in San Francisco.  

Renaud Capuçon is fairly short in stature, perhaps 5’8” or 5’9.” Khatia Buniatishvili is tall and statuesque, perhaps three inches taller than her partner. She is also stunningly beautiful. She came on-stage wearing a low-cut, floor-length peach-colored gown which showed off her hourglass figure. Her pianistic demeanor is volcanic. She bends low over the keyboard in certain passages only to snap her head back suddenly in dramatic end notes. Capuçon’s demeanor, by contrast, is all business. Occasionally, he will bend low to bring out the nuances of a passage. That’s about it for mannerisms from this highly disciplined violinist. 

First on the program at the Marines Theatre was Antonín Dvořák’s Romantic Pieces, Op. 75. This work in four movements begins with a sighing motif played by the violin and supported by the piano. A second movement dramatically speeds up the tempo; and a third movement initially slows everything down with a poignant theme. Then everything accelerates again. The fourth and final movement is a piercingly sad larghetto filled with anguish. Capuçon’s timbre in this work was at times a bit thin at the top of his register; but this may in fact be called for in the score. 

Next on the program was the Sonata for Violin and Piano No. 3 in C-Minor by Edvard Grieg. This work’s first movement is marked Allegro molto ed appassionato; and our instrumentalists gave us all the passion we could hope for. Their handling of dynamics was particularly impressive. In the second movement, the piano introduces the theme, which is then taken up by the violin, which embarks on pizzicato passages to develop the theme. In the third and final movement, there is a bubbling ensemble theme, followed by pizzicato plucking by the violin, a sudden pause, then a slow and poignant ending. 

After intermission, Capuçon and Buniatishvili returned to play César Franck’s Sonata for Violin and Piano in A-Major, a work they have recorded together. This sublime piece always recalls for me Proust, for whom it was an inspiration for his fictional Vinteuil sonata in À la recherche du temps perdu. Having recently heard Pinchas Zukerman perform this work with Angela Chang in an interpretation that was refined and subtle, I was hardly prepared for the arresting, highly emotive interpretation offered by Capuçon and Buniatishvili.  

The first movement began innocently enough with a wistful four measures on piano, followed by a lilting violin melody that serves as the primary material for all four movements. However, never have I heard the attacks in the second movement as demonstrative as here. They were almost ferocious. Capuçon’s timbre seemed fuller and richer in this work than in the preceding Dvorák and Grieg pieces. As for Buniatishvili, she hammered away with all her might in Franck’s second movement, in which both instrumentalists emphasized the shifting dynamics, playing softly here and forcefully there. In the third movement, the violin opened with a dreamy theme that was developed by both instrumentalists prior to a long violin solo only sparsely and intermittently accompanied on piano. The final movement is full of joy, with the main theme recurring now in canon form. In the hands of Capuçon and Buniatishvili, this was committed musicianship at its finest. Renaud Capuçon and Khatia Buniatishvili are destined for great careers, individually and together. 

Tours start at 10:00 am and end at approximately 12:00 noon EXCEPT APRIL 25. Sometimes they are slightly longer, so some extra time should be allowed in case the walk meets an informative passerby or dwells at an interesting site. Tours are limited to 30 paying participants unless noted otherwise. Prepaid reservations are required and tickets are not refundable. Tours are conducted in rain, shine or Berkeley fog and are wheel chair accessible unless otherwise noted. 

Saturday March 28: Tilden Park Botanical Garden. Led by the Garden Volunteers 

Join us for a visit to Tilden Park’s 10-acre beautiful living museum of California native plants. Explore the Garden’s many habitats and plant communities from the High Sierra to the Coast Range and from the Northern rain forests to the southern deserts. Not all the garden is wheelchair accessible, but the staff can arrange a modified tour. 

Saturday April 11: The Kelsey Family. Led by Burl Willes 

The influential Kelsey Family settled in the Elmwood in 1860 before there were elm trees. On still bucolic Kelsey Street can be seen remnant buildings of their Kelsey Orchard. Nearby, Ishi lived with the Watermans. On College Avenue, we’ll stop to remember the historic “firsts” made by businesses in this pedestrian friendly two-block commercial district. 

Saturday April 25: Exploring UC Berkeley’s Libraries. Led by Bill Roberts 

NOTE: This walk will begin at 1 p.m., as some libraries are not open in the morning. 

How many libraries are there on the UC Berkeley campus? We’ll take a walk through the campus and find some of the more interesting and unusual ones. Most of the libraries have open stacks where materials may be used without formal affiliation with the university; some require only registration with identification, some require a university affiliation. What is your interest? We’ll see if we can find a collection especially for you. 

Saturday May 16: Berkeley City Beautiful: A Century Later. Led by Steve Finacom 

A century ago in 1915, German city planning expert Werner Hegemann published a master plan for Berkeley and Oakland. Following ‘City Beautiful’ ideals, the plan called for a grand Berkeley civic center, extensive park development and public improvements to residential districts and streets. At the same time, the University of California was rapidly building a neoclassical campus. This walk will trace built landmarks and ideals of that era from the 100-year-old Campanile to City Hall, and explore how those ideals could still inform municipal planning in Berkeley today. Wheelchair accessible. The walk will conclude at the Berkeley History Center where, for those who can stay past noon, the guide will give a brief gallery talk on his exhibit on Berkeley’s role in the San Francisco world fairs of 1915 and 1939/40. 

Saturday May 23: Berkeley Woods. Led by Paul Grunland 

This subdivision, dating in 1959, became part of Berkeley in 1959 along with the neighboring subdivision of Park Hills, thus rounding out the North & East boundaries of our city. Starting at the EBMUD reservoir at the top of Spruce St. we will explore an area once used by plant nurseries and the Pacific Lutheran Seminary at the top of Marin Ave. The route is uphill so prepare for an aerobic walk. 

http://www.berkeleyhistoricalsociety.org/Walks-Temp.html

Artist Ai Weiwei is a political prisoner under house arrest in Beijing. Because he is not permitted to travel outside China, he helped install this extraordinary exhibit from there. He says, “When you constrain freedom, freedom will take flight and land on a windowsill.” In this case it landed on our windowsill at Alcatraz. The exhibit is installed in parts of the former prison that have never before been open to visitors. The show runs through April 26, 2015.  

More

French pianist Hélène Grimaud joined the Rotterdam Philharmonic Orchestra led by Yannick Nézet-Séguin in two performances, Sunday-Monday, February 15-16, at Davies Symphony Hall. Monday evening’s concert, which I attended, featured two works by Maurice Ravel, Ma Mère l’Oye/ (Mother Goose) Suite and the Piano Concerto in G-Major, as well as Sergei Prokofiev’s Symphony No. 5 in B-Flat Major.  

Ravel originally composed his Mother Goose Suite as piano music for four hands, with child musicians performing the work at its première in Paris in 1910. In 1912, Ravel revised his score for a ballet-divertissement; and from this emerged the orchestrated Mother Goose Suite played here by the Rotterdam Philharmonic Orchestra. The various episodes of this suite are based on some of Charles Perrault’s Contes de ma Mère l’Oye (Mother Goose Tales). This work features a fairy-tale sound-world of exotic orchestration and delicate melodies, including an episode entitled Conversations of Beauty and the Beast, which was heralded by Claude Roland-Manuel as « a fourth Gymnopédie, » a reference to Eric Satie’s Trois Gymnopédies of 1888. (I attended Roland-Manuel’s lectures in 1967 on French music at the Sorbonne and prevailed upon him to create a discographie of recordings he played to illustrate his lectures. I have very fond recollections of Claude Roland-Manuel.) 

Next on the program was Ravel’s Piano Concerto in G-Major, with the 46 year-old Hélène Grimaud as featured soloist. Ms. Grimaud came on-stage dressed all in white, wearing white cotton slacks, a loose-fitting white ruffled blouse, and white shoes. With a quick nod to conductor Yannick Nézet-Séguin, with whom she has frequently collaborated, Hélène Grimaud seated herself at the piano and awaited this work’s opening percussive snap, which was immediately followed by a cheerful piccolo tune with piano accompaniment. Then the piano initiated a bluesy jazz-inflected melody which was developed in various shades of blue by orchestra and piano until a harp was heard, thus signaling the moment for a lengthy piano solo passage, beaut-ifully played by Hélène Grimaud. This first movement then quickly closed in bright, up-beat fashion. 

The second movement, an Adagio, begins with the pianist playing a long un-accompanied melody that seems to flow endlessly in the right hand over a slow, waltz-like bass figure in the left hand. The mood here, languorously played by Hélène Grimaud, is dreamy, lyrical and pensive. Eventually, the piano’s melody is seconded by a discreet flute, then by diverse woodwinds, until the English horn sings the same sublime melody accompanied by pianistic trills. Then, somewhat surprisingly, the movement lurches into a boisterous mood that closes this serene Adagio. The third and final movement is marked Presto, and there are recollections of the initial theme from the first movement, with the piano now staking out its territory as the soloist leading the orchestra. Trombones and bassoons then assert their presence with insistence, until a percussive crack reminds us of the work’s opening, and the finale closes with the same bass drum thump that ended the first movement. 

Hélène Grimaud’s inspired playing brought out all the light-hearted brilliance and charm of this concerto that Ravel said was « written very much in the same spirit of those by Mozart and Saint-Saěns. As encores, Ms. Grimaud was joined at the piano by Nézet-Séguin in playing a four-hands version of two waltzes by Johannes Brahms.  

Hélène Grimaud is such an individualistic pianist that a word or two must be said about the impression she creates on-stage. With her poise, beauty, and rock-solid affirmation of a strong-willed interpretor of music, Hélène Grimaud seduces listeners, especially male listeners like me. She seems – and no doubt is --a well-grounded, vibrant, radiant, and intelligent woman. Author of three books, Grimaud is a human rights advocate and founder of an organization for the conservation of wolves, which she raises on her northern Westchester County property in New York.  

Yet beneath this solid exterior, Hélène Grimaud has acknowledged there lies a troubled child, a rebellious teenager, and a cantankerous musician who has stood up to her former mentor Claudio Abbado by insisting that she – and not he – had the right to decide which cadenza she would record in Mozart’s 23rd Piano Concerto. In short, this is a rare human being, one who, as she acknowledges, has gone through innumerable love affairs and always come out on the other side knowing clearly that it was over and time to move on. So beware, you audience members like me, who are easily seduced by Hélène Grimaud’s extraordinary radiance and grace. It comes with a risk and a duly exerted price. Were I 20 years younger, however, I’d take the risk and damn the price. 

After intermission, The Rotterdam Philharmonic Orchestra returned to play Sergei Prokofiev’s Fifth Symphony in B-Flat Major. This work, begun in 1944, is considered Prokofiev’s greatest symphonic masterpiece. I demur, however. In my opinion, it is a bombastic piece with little to recommend it. The first movement is to me a cacaphony of bombast. The second movement offers a wryly ironic introductory tune which is quickly developed into a frenzied gallop that emerges into yet another bombastic finishing touch that concludes with a bang. The third movement begins as a slow movement, almost a funereal cortege. But it builds to an emotional climax that is yet again bombastic. Eventually, as this movement comes to a close, the music thankfully returns to a whispered pianissimo.  

The finale, predictably, runs straight ahead towards a rousing, over-the-top finish. I have nothing good to report about this work or its performance by the Rotterdam Philharmonic Orchestra other than to say that Yannick Nézget-Séguin gave himself a great workout by energetically conducting this demanding piece. Aside from that, I found myself wishing the program had offered this Prokofiev symphony before intermission and saved the sublime Ravel concerto played by Hélène Grimaud until the end. That would have offered a far more fulfilling climax to the evening’s music.