Land Use Planning Received February 7, 2019 Marti MacGibbon
Dear Fatema Crane:
I support designating the Symmes Garden at 1440 & 1450 Hawthorne Terrace with Landmark status. I have visited there and really enjoy the garden and its atmosphere. Marion McNiven has given me an account of its history and described the considerable work she and the late Sylvia McLaughlin have done over the years to maintain the character of the place. I also enjoyed talking with Sylvia there and becoming familiar with her conservation work. She was a phenomenal, inspirational person, and I hope her home, especially the outdoor environment, is preserved. One feature particularly stands out to me: the common open expanse of lawn and garden with its accompanying partially covered shared patio area. With its access to both houses, room for tables and chairs and barbecue equipment etc., it is great for ambiance and outdoor meals. I have heard of proposals to put a fence or wall to divide the common area. I would advise against it. It would negatively impact at least one of the houses (1440 Hawthorne Terrace) and reduce the quality of life of its residents. For many decades, Donald McLaughlin and Hugh McNiven, both engineers, had the skills and opportunity to modify the original design of the garden-shared patio. But they decided that the original (current) layout was the highest and best use of the property. To protect the degradation of the property and the reduction of Marion McNiven, Sylvia McLaughlin and Mabel Symmes’ legacies, I urge the board to designate Landmark status on the Symmes Garden at 1440-1450 Hawthorne Terrace.
Sincerely,
Marti MacGibbon [email protected] 5531 Cannes Way Fair Oaks, CA 95628
P.O. Box 255, Orangevale, CA 95662 T 310 210 4674 W: http://martimacgibbon.com Crane, Fatema
From: chris fitzhugh
Dear Fatema Crane: I am writing to support granting Landmark protection status to the Symmes gardens and exteriors of 1440 and 1450 Hawthorne Terrace (Berkeley). In addition to displaying appropriate respect for the work of Henry H. Gutterson and Mabel Symmes, protecting the properties would preserve the legacy of Marion McNiven and Sylvia McLaughlin, who worked together for sixty years maintaining the vision of the houses’ and garden’s creators. Radically transforming the 1450 landscaping would ruin the character of the common garden. Separating the properties with a barrier would be like introducing a Berlin Wall and would detract from the 1440 property. Given the obvious age and design of the established backyard gardens and the common outdoor seating area of the houses, it should have been obvious to any potential buyer performing due diligence, i.e. simply looking at the manner in which the properties were connected, that proposed radical modifications would be objectionable. Please grant Landmark status to the Symmes garden.
Sincerely,
Chris Fitzhugh [email protected] P.O. Box 255 Orangevale, CA 95662
1 [44A HAWIIF{OR.NIE 1T]ER.R.,ACIE BIER.KEN.]EY" CA 94VA8
Land Use Planning February 6,2018 Received February 6, 2019 Landmarks Preservation Commission c/o Fatema Crane Senior Planner and Secretary Planning and Development Department 1947 Second Street,2nd Floor Berkeley, CA 94704
Re: Landmarks Designation for Sperry-Mclaughlin House and Gardens
Dear Commissioners:
I write to augment the excellent report and draft findings prepared by staff with respect to the Speny-Mclaughlin House and Gardens landmark applications and to respond to the January 3I,2019letter from the Dreyfuses's legal counsel.
Regarding that letter, the Dreyfuses (through their attorney) now assert that "The gardens and grounds should not be designated either independently as a landmark or as contributing in any way as to the historic significance of the home itself." This is extraordinary because Stacy Kozakavich, the expert for the Dreyfuses who evaluated the landmark application for the 1450 Hawthorne Terrace property, stated (under oath), "My opinion is that any landmark status afforded to this property should include 1450 Hawthorne, 1440 Hawthorne, and the entire garden." (Ex. A.) The property's neighbors and over 6o Berkeley citizens who signed the petitions to preserve the house and gardens likewise believe the gardens are worthy of protection as do the landscape architecture authorities who wrote in support of the landmark designation for the garden designed by Mabel Symmes, including Janet Gracyk, Chris Pattillo, and Profs. Elizabeth Macdonald and Joe McBride.
The owners' counsel now contends, erroneously, that the City does not have the authority to designate areas outside the public view as landmarks. Here, the gardens at issue - particularly the gardens of 1450 Hawthome Terrace -- ure generally visible from the public streets, namely Hawthorne Terrace and Vine Lane. The front yard and front arbor, for example, are fully visible from the public sidewalks on Hawthorne Terrace. Even if the garden was not visible to the public, the LPC has the authority to protect areas of architectural, historic and cultural merit. Counsel's th reliance on Francis Martin ttt v. Ctty and County of San Francisco (2005), 135 Cal.App. 392, is misplaced. That case arose out of San Francisco's attempt to preserve a V/illis Polk designed room with redwood paneling. The court of appeals held that the city could not dictate to property owners what they could do to interior rooms, and as such has nothing whatsoever to do with the authority of a city to designate grounds and landscapes as landmarks. Significantly the relevant Page2 of 4 state statute authorizing local landmarking, California Government Code $ 37361(b), contains no such restriction. In short, they do not have a leg to stand on.
Their late-breaking contention that the garden is not worthy of preservation is based upon the faulty premise that a female landscape architect who practiced in the early 20th Century is somehow less worthy than better known male practitioners. That misconception was addressed in my last missive to the Commission and has been soundly rebutted by eminent landscape architecture historians such as Professor Thaisa Way, author of Unbounded Practice: Women and Landscape Architecture in the Early Twentieth Century (2009), and Janet Gracyk who personally inspected the garden and authored the HALs designation for the White House grounds.
Notwithstanding the attempts to portray Mabel Symmes as insignificant, she is not; her garden design for Blake House has influenced generations of students and her other masterwork, the garden of the Charles Menill House in Orinda, has been recognized on the national register of historic sites by the US Park Service. The Hawthorne Terrace garden under consideration by the LPC is in substantially the same condition as it was when originally designed by Symmes. As the landscape architectural experts, including the owners' own expert, agree, the gardens have integrity and are worthy oi preservation. As Prof. McBride states, "It is a model of early 20th Century design that should be preserved for future students of landscape architecture and others interested in the design history of Berkeley and the Bay Area." Ignoring the importance of the landscaping to the overall design of the property would be a disservice to the citizens of Berkeley as well as Sylvia Mclaughlin who loved and preserved the garden that Symmes designed.
V/ith respect to the Draft Findings, we agree with findings#2,3 and 4, and respectfully recommend as follows: o Finding #2be revised to reflect that Sylvia Mclaughlin lived at 1450 Hawthorne Terrace (the Speny-Mclaughlin House) from 1955 until her death in20l6; o Finding #2 be revised to reflect that meetings of the UC Board of Regents took place at the 1450 House during the 1960s (Free Speech Movement); o The last sentence of Finding #3 be revised as follows: ". . , within a family compound setting that was integrated with a designed landscape by Henrv Gutterson and landscape architect Mabel Svmmes." (underlined text to be added)
The Report should also be revised to reflect that the pond and fountain on the 1450 property were original features designed by Gutterson and Symmes as reflected on the blueprints. The frieze of Sylvia and her brothers dates from approximately l92I (when Sylvia was 5 years old). Prior to being mounted in the patio area of the 1450 Hawthome Terrace home circa 1960, it resided at Sylvia's parents'home ("Cramner House") at200 Cheny Street in Denver, Colorado, which is on the National Register of Historic Places.
With respect to the "Features to Be Preserved" listed in Staff s draft findings, we write to request that the following clarifications and revisions be made: o The description after the numeral 1 appears to reference the Sperry-Mclaughlin House and a portion of the "sperry Marsh House." As written the scope is confusing, which is further compounded by the fact that the bulleted list includes numerous hardscaping features. The recommendation should be revised as Page 3 of4
follows: "The designation shall apply to the building and hardscape features of the subject property ("the Speny Mclaughlin House and Gardens") and the distinguishing features thereof, namely (a) the primary residential building on the 1450 Hawthorne Terrace property, (b) that portion of the adjacent garage structure sitting on the 1450 property, as well as (c) attached or abutting hardscaping features such as patios, arbors, and enclosed or partially enclosed exterior spaces connected to the main house or ancillary garage building." a We note that the house is three stories, not two, so the third bulleted phrase (Numeral 1, Section A: "Building Exterior of Sperry-Mclaughlin House", under the heading "overall features") should be revised as follows: "Regular, multi-light wood-frame fixed and casement windows at first, and second and third story of all facades o To be consistent with other bullets under this heading, the description of the North Façade should be revised to include a bullet erroneously listed under numeral 2, namely, "Peaked, painted wood arbor covered with wisteria vine and spanning walkway between north façade of Speny-Mclaughlin House and south façade of Marsh House, supported by wood posts with shaped capitals set on patio and in stucco halÊwalls. Includes tripartite fountain with figural ceramic spout covet on West side of half-wall, which is topped by lattice: and cement patio projecting to the V/est from the atbor." a To be consistent with other bullets concerning the exterior façade of the main house, the following bullets should be added under "East Façade": o "Wood Trellis attached to Eastern Façade" o Metal railings on staircase outside living room patio area; a The description after numeral 2 should be revised to reflect that the designation "shall apply to the subject property's landscape and garden (the Marsh-Speny Garden)" a With respect to the garden features to be preserved under Numeral 2, Section A: o The Dawn Redwood is in the South/East portion of the front garden, and the flrndings should be revised to so reflect; o The redwood groves, mature live oak, and the character of the adjacent wildemess area running along the Vine Lane should be described as such and the character of this "wilderness" area preserved together with the mature redwood and oak trees; o The trumpet vine over the front arbor should be preserved (it is the original plant) - the arbor is pointless without it; o In addition to location and configuration of all existing patios, paths, walls, and stairs, their surfaces, including surface materials, should be preserved; o The fourth bullet on page 4 is confusing, we propose the following: "Location and configuration of formal rose and iris beds surrounded by boxwood hedging bordering west end of shared yard (below lower path and stairs); and formal rose beds at east end of shared formal central garden
hedging and rock walls;" o The flfth bullet is confusing: we propose, "Location and general configuration of shrubbery and flower beds surrounding the lower half of Page 4 of 4
the shared lawn as bordered to the North and hv mature sreen hedsins anrl rock walls- and fo the West hv rock wall s.' o "Circular planting bed" (bullet # 6 on page 4) appears to refer to the filled in pond. I'd remove it as redundant. o The third to the last bullet on page 4 should include the brick patio area along the front flaçade of the house (other patios are referenced; this one was omitted for some reason); o The final existing bullet should be revised to reflect the frieze of Sylvia Mclaughlin and her brothers, circa 1921. o A bullet should be added to include the 1960s arbor/trellis at the west-end of the garden flanked by matching trees; 'West o A bullet should be added to include hedges along the boarder of the shared cement patio area; o A bullet should be added to include the view corridor to the West to San Francisco Bay to protect the views from the main house and shared patio and lawn area, which is obviously a key feature of both the house and gardens (and which played a key role in Sylvia Mclaughlin establishing Save the Bay).
After reviewing the letter sent by the Dreyfuses' attorney, I wish to amend and clarify my view with respect to preservation of plants and planted areas. Except for the handful of original (or near original in the case of the Dawn Redwood) plants referenced in the draft findings and this letter (the wisteria, redwoods etc.), I believe that the specific plants need not be specihcally protected by the LPC. It is more appropriate and realistic to require that the character of key planting areas remain, namely that the rose garden remain plated with roses; flower beds be planted with flowers etc.; and the mature hedges that are specific features mentioned in the report remain tr planted with mature hedges. This is particularly true of the central shared area, which was designed to be a mirror image -both planted areas bordering the lawn planted with like species. The modest revisions that I have proposed I believe will preserve the overall design esthetic that the experts have lauded while permitting the current owners freedom to improve the garden as they prefer. Thus, as revised, the list of features to be preserved will maintain the overall design without overly constrictive formalism as to specific individual plants or species. Such an approach is well-within the parameters of the LPC's powers. I also think that the list staff proposed, as amended as suggested in this letter, is both appropriate and appropriately narrow.
S
F. McNiven EXHIBIT A In the Matter Of:
CAROLYN McNIVEN vs KAREN DREYFUS, et a1.,
STACY KOZAKAVICH
January 08, 2019
Court Reporters, Videography, Trial Preparation
Vi deoconference Cente r
Oakland + San Francisco . San Íose Sacramento ' lrvine + Los Angeles 877.451.1580 Ail 1 Turnbull's corEnents regarding the format and content of 2 the report ehould not be understood to question the 3 overall conclusíon that the subject property is worthy 4 of local landmark status.r' 5 Is that, in fact, your overall conclusion, Èhat 6 the subject property, that is 1450 Hawthorne Terrace, 7 is worthy of landmark protection? 8 MR. MARTIN: Objection. Beyond the scope. 9 THE WITNESS: Do you mean protection or status? 10 BY MR. CIOCHON: L1 a . I'lI stick Èo your words. So, statug. l2 MR. MARTIN: May I ask the court reporter to 13 repeat the question. L4 (Record read. ) 15 THE WITNESS: We didn't evaluate the property. 16 CIOCHON: L7 . You don't have a conclusion one way or the 18 1_9 A. I have an opíníon. An independent evaluation 20 and eeparate evaluation was not Part of our scoPe. My 2L opínion is that, any landmark Etatus afforded to thís 22 property should include 1450 Hawthorne ' t440 llawthorne' 23 and the entíre garden. 24 A. IE that because the properties were designed -- 25 the properties and the garden were designed together? 877.451.1580 www.aikenwelch.com SIACY KOZAKAVICH 01/08/2019 Íl.þi 7 l1 ?-4 ,oo*lllf raar 33 Land Use Planning Received eÙ February 6, 2019 C{-r'l .SI;t-tl: hich is hereby acknowledg"d, ADELIA O. SPERRY, 7 GRANT sto DONALD H. Mc LAUGHLIN and SYLVIA C. MeLAUGHLIN his wife, as joint tenants all rhat real properry siruated in the Cl ty of Borkeley, Counry of Alameda, Srare of California, described as follows: Beginning at a pofnt dlstant south 50 5Ot east L43.2L feeü frãni the northeastern corner of that certain bnact of land conveyed by F. úf. Beardslee and Fannle B. Beardslee, his wlfer- to A. CarÌlslo, by deed dated Aprl} 14, 1887' recorded Aprll I5, ]887, ln Book õ2O of Deeds, af page 262, Alameãa'Ccunty Records; running thence south 50 3Or east, 186.?9 feet; thence south 8Oo 50t west, Ì65 feet; thence north 50 3Ot west, 198.86 feot tc a }lne drawn south B4o 5Or west fro r the polnt of beginnlng; thrence north B4o 3Ot east L64.36- feet to the point of begLnning. Betng Lct Numbered'] and a portion of Lot Numbered 6, as s ãld Lots are shown on the Map accompanylng the Refereest Report ln the Sulü ln Partltlon, Case No. 2õ508, ln the Superlor Court öf the State of California, ln and for the County of Alameda, entltled, EII-nor Carllsle vs. Catherine C. Van Ornum, et aI. Excepting from the above described property thos_e portions thereof whlch lle wltb.in the llnes of ilawthorne Terrace and Vlne Street, as sald Terrace and Street are shown upon that certaln Map entltled, nMap cf Vine Street anC ilarvthorne Terrace Extenslon", flLed Decernber' 1r L9O2, 1n Book 19 of Maps, aü page 45r ln the offlce of the County Recorder of Alameda Counüy. Dn I7 1955 STÁ.TE OF CALIFORn*lA COUNTY OF ALAÀ{EDA t7?.4 -.lc)Ê- Aþ:7 rl;-; 1n k-r^.- -. .h-,,^,1Â..;'ñê¡ - . ,Ë.1 ,, -:;,è=Éi'.,Ð"-'ú all rhat real properry siruared in rhe Clty of Borkeluyr Counry of ,tlameda, Srare of California, described as follows: Beginning at a polnt dlstant south 50 õOt east L43.2I feet from the northeastern corner of that certain tracü of land conveyed by F. /1/. Beardslee and Fannie B. Beardslee, his wlfe, to A. Carlisle, by deed daüed April 14, 1887' recorded Aprll 15' 1887, ln Book 32O of Deeds, at page 262, Alamedg'County Reccrds; running thence south 50 5Of east, 186.?9 feet; thence south BOo 50t west, 165 feet; thence north 50 3Ot west, 198.86 feet tc a l1ne drawn scuth 84o õ0f west fronr the polnt of beglnnlng; thence north B4o 5Ot east 16+.36- feet üo the polnt of beglnning. Belng Lot Numbered'J and a portion of Lct Numbered 6' as s áld Lots are shown cn the Map accompanylng the Refereest Report ln the Sult ln Partltlon, Case No. 23 608, ln the Superlor Court Öf the State of Californi-a, fn and f or ühe County of Hlameda, entltl-ed, Ellnor CarllsIe vs . Ca the r j-ne C . Van Ornum, e t aI . Excepting from the above descrlbed property thos-e portions thereof whlch lle wlthln the llnes of Hawthorne ierrace end Vlne Street, as sald Terrace and Street are shovrn upon that certaln Map entitled, nMap cf Vlne Street and ilawthorne Terrace Extenslont', flIed Decernber Ir L9O2, ln Book 19 of Maps, at page 45r 1n the offlce of the County Recorder of ÁLameda County' Dnr¡o I'1av L7. 1955 STÂTE OF CÂLIFOR¡{IA s5. COUNTY OF ALAr\ÍEDA Ê.K7 117-t¡ On il1ay L7 , 1955 bèfore me, the undersigned a Norary Public in and for said County and Sta¡e pcrsonally appeared .A,delia O. Sperryr Fon Reconoen's Usa O¡¡¡-v ,i i ''kn.r,r,n i,, me to be rhc person whose 1s subscribed ro the RECORDED at REQULST CF u'i¡hin ins¡rumen¡. and acknou'ledged rh¡¡ S rhe slmc- A.LAh!ED.iA. COUNTY EAST BÀY TTTLE, INS. CO. ÄT 8:30 A-hÁ. '(Se¡r) and for said and Srrte uuL - 6195s \X/hen rec<¡rded mail Ðe,rq4{, .// z¡-u (.¡¿¿ B¡irï?7j i irlir 33 O5T1C¡ÀL RECOI\DS OF ë() t-.é.tiiD.\ f r -1 cc l;\n-, c/rLtf oRN A ¡J .!1:. ¿nv¿i r",¡rì, i{, Appl. N.r.- .ã 3-7AA:7---A/ æ Crane, Fatema From: Ann Patton Dear Ms. Crane, I am writing to support the designation of the Symmes’s garden as a landmark. It is a beauty and shouldn’t be destroyed. Thank you! Ann Patton 1 Crane, Fatema From: eric burkhart To: Ms. Fatema Crane From: Eric Burkhart 1211 Derby St. Berkeley, Ca 94702 Re: 1440/1450 Hawthorne Terrace‐ Mabel Symmes Gardens To Whom It May Concern: I am a semi‐retired gardener (still doing design work) and have been working with Carolyn’s mother, Marion for over 20 years. She is my only remaining maintenance customer, a lifelong gardener, and a good friend. I have seen the landscapes at 1440/1450 Hawthorne evolve in many ways over the years I’ve worked there, but one thing has remained constant: the garden bed areas in question that are shared by the McNivens and their adjacent neighbors are, in my 30 plus years of working in many gardens of the East Bay area, absolutely unique. In my opinion, the Mabel Symmes Garden was created by someone who obviously appreciated the beauty of the particular layout of the space in question; there are shared views of the S.F. Bay area, including both the Golden Gate and Bay Bridges, a large expanse of the city of Berkeley, and the shared garden space, including rose beds, iris beds (the best iris collection I’ve ever seen!), a shared expanse of lawn, a river‐pebble pathway and arbor, and an ancient, lovely wisteria bridging both houses. A good part of the uniqueness of this landscape is due to it’s sprawling, shared openness, and this was no accident; clearly, it was designed by someone with an eye and a talent for combining elements of both yards and integrating the natural beauty of each with the surrounding views. Lastly, I can say with certainty that I never arrived to work there with a new helper when they weren’t amazed by the views and feeling of the landscape. It would be a true shame and a loss to both future guests of the residents and the City if Berkeley not to protect this one‐of‐a‐kind landscape. Many thanks for your service and consideration. Sincerely, Eric Burkhart “Equality is for underachievers. Am I right ladies?” ‐ Comedian Bonnie McFarlane 1