Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary 2750 and 2770 Marin … · 2017-03-31 · 1. Street Address: 2770 and 2750 Marin Avenue County: Alameda City: Berkeley Zip: 94708 2. Assessor’s

LANDMARK INITIATIONCity of Berkeley

Ordinance #4694 N.S.

Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary2750 and 2770 Marin Avenue

Berkeley, CA 94708

“It is a significant jewel in the history of Berkeley and its cultural impact in California.”

Peter E. Hanff, Deputy Director, UC Bancroft Library

Figure 1. Founders Hall, PLTS, January 2017Historic Name: John Henry Nash House

(figures 1,2,3 photos Greg Ward)

Land Use PlanningReceived

March 13, 2017

ATTACHMENT 1 LPC 04-06-17 Page 1 of 160

Figure 2. Sawyer Hall, PLTS, January 2017Historic Name: Hugh T. Dobbins House

Figure 3. Chapel of the Cross, PLTS, January 2017


1. Street Address: 2770 and 2750 Marin Avenue County: Alameda City: Berkeley Zip: 94708

2. Assessor’s Parcel Numbers: 63-3120-50, 63-3120-31, 63-3120-32-4, 63-3120-33, 63-3120-34, 63-3130-93, 63-3130-94 Dimensions: to be provided , 12 acres total Cross Streets: bounded by Marin Avenue, Woodmont Avenue, and Creston Road

3. Is property on the State Historic Resource Inventory? Yes Is property on the Berkeley Urban Conservation Survey? Yes

4. Application for Landmark Includes: a. Building(s): Yes. Dobbins House(Sawyer Hall), Nash House(Founders Hall), and Chapel of the Cross, Giesy Hall Garden: Thomas Church hardscape and grounds surrounding Dobbins House, Formal gardens and grounds surrounding Nash House Other features: Decorative Spanish tiles depicting scenes from Don Quixote de la Mancha on Nash outbuildings b. Landscape or Open Space: Yes c. Historic Site: No d. District: No

5. Historic Names: Dobbins Estate, John Henry Nash House, Chapel of the Cross, Giesy Hall6. Dates of Construction: Hugh T. Dobbins House: 1930-1931 Factual: Yes Source of information: Princeton Alumni Weekly, July 2, 1931

John Henry Nash House: 1930-1931 Factual: Yes Source of Information: Oakland Tribune, March 13, 1931

Chapel of the Cross: 1965 Factual: Yes Source of Information: Seminary records dedication date

Giesy Hall: 1959 Factual: Yes Source of Information: Building date engraved on building

7. Architects: Hugh T. Dobbins House: James H. Mitchell, architect (1889-1964) Dobbins Estate grounds: Thomas D. Church, Landscape architect (1902-

1978) John Henry Nash House: Mark Daniels (1881-1952) Giesy Hall: Robert Ratcliff (1913-1998) Chapel of the Cross: James M. Leefe (1921-2004)


8. Builders: Not known

9. Styles:Dobbins Estate: Spanish Colonial Revival with Mediterranean Villa influence

Nash House: Spanish Colonial Revival

Chapel: Modern, after Le Corbusier’s Notre Dame du Haut chapel at Ronchamps, France Poured concrete technology

Giesy Hall: Bay Area Modern

10. Original Owners: Dobbins Estate: The Reverend Hugh T. Dobbins and Roberta Lloyd Dobbins from 1950: The Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary Nash House: John Henry Nash, then Herbert W. Clark from 1950: The Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary Chapel: The Pacific Lutheran Theological SeminaryGiesy Hall: The Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary

Original Uses: Dobbins Estate: Single family residence, musical and theatrical presentations Nash House: Single family residence Chapel: Place of worship, classroomsGiesy Hall: Library-Classroom building

11. Present Owner:California Lutheran University 60 West Olsen Road Thousand Oaks, CA 91360

12. Present Use Residential: Seminary residents Institutional: School: Classrooms, offices, worshipCurrent Zoning: R-1H Adjacent Property Zoning: R-1H

13. Present Condition of Property: Good Exteriors: Good Interiors: Good Grounds: GoodHas the property’s exterior been altered? Dobbins Estate: A statue of Moses with desert scene has been added to the cloister-like east entrance. Otherwise, little to no alteration to exterior. Nash House: Little alteration to exterior. Chapel: Little alteration to exterior.Giesy Hall: No alteration to exterior



Executive Summary:The Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary at the top of Marin Avenue is a unique campus with a rich history. The fact of a Seminary campus is significant. Other localities are not as conducive to such institutions as Berkeley, but here, campuses are character-defining elements of our city. Within the campus, three principal structures are of special significance. These are Founders Hall (the“Nash House,”) built in 1930-1931, Sawyer Hall ( the “Dobbins House,”) built in 1930-1931, and the “Chapel of the Cross,” built in 1965.The John Henry Nash house is a prime example of the Spanish Colonial Revival style. It shows exceptional craftmaship and detailing, with fine materials and finishes inside. The designer, Mark Daniels (1881-1952) was an important Berkeley architect who laid out the Thousand Oaks tract forJ. H. Spring, and who championed the incorporation of scenic beauty and inspiring views in the built environment. The original owner, John Henry Nash (1871-1947), was a well-known and highly respected printer of fine books. The house is built with classic symmetry, complemented by the symmetry of the formal front garden and the heavy, wooden, hand-carved front doors. The significant period landscaping is intact; it is rare to have designed landscape context survive with the architecture.The Dobbins Estate, built for prominent Berkeley Presbyterians Roberta Lloyd and Hugh T. Dobbins, has aspects of the Mediterranean villa-style combined with features from a cloister or abbey. The cloister model is an unusual and satisfying architectural form, incorporating abbey-like courtyards and a bell tower in this case. The building’s hand-carved redwood capitals are exceptional. The Dobbins House is one of Berkeley’s most elaborate mansions, conceived on a truly grand scale, impressing the viewer with its opulence and elegance. The architect, James H. Mitchell (1889-1964), graduated with a B.S. from UC Berkeley in 1911, and trained as a draftsman with John Galen Howard from 1912-1915.The grounds of the Dobbins Estate were designed by the internationally famed landscape architect, Thomas D. Church (1902-1978), and his colored original drawings are still extant (see figures 5 and 6). Church was a major practitioner of the Second Bay Tradition (along with William Wurster, Joseph Esherick and others). Church integrated indoor and outdoor living, and this is evident in the flow of indoor and outdoor spaces in the Dobbins estate.The Chapel of the Cross was designed in the style of Le Corbusier's church (1954) at Ronchamps, France by architect James M. Leefe. It is a rare example of such an homage to Le Corbusier’s Notre Dame de Haut. It attracts architectural enthusiasts, and is instructive in how an internationally recognised icon can be reinterpreted in a local context. An emphatic termination of the progression up Marin Avenue, it lends an uplifting, spiritual quality befitting the hilltop. This is after all one of the highest points in a Berkeley neighborhood, and the Chapel is an expressive marker.


The entire campus is significant as the home of the Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary from 1952 to the present. It is the only Lutheran Seminary west of the Mississippi, and has trained hundreds of Lutheran ministers. The Seminary will leave its campus in the spring of this year; the campus will be sold. It is incumbent upon Berkeley’s citizens to preserve these historic buildings and grounds, their magnificent views and open landscapes, as a resource for all.

Recorder: Mardi Sicular-Mertens for Top of Marin Stewardship




10

14. Description: This section is divided into three parts describing the physical structures on the property. The section first describes the Nash House / Founders Hall. The sec-ond describes the Dobbins House / Sawyer Hall. The third describes the Chapel of the Cross. The Dobbins House description also describes the freestanding “Faculty Annex”, originally a garage, standing in the Dobbins House grounds. Each description begins with a general introduction to the architecture and con-text of the building, then continues through a detailed review of architectural elements, surveying each building elevation by elevation and noting those fea-tures that appear to be original and those that appear to be replacements. Figures contained in Section #18 under “Architectural Images” show the build-ings today. Figure numbers in the text reference specific images in Section #18. For ease of use, Nash House images have a “N” prefix, Dobbins House images have a “D” prefix, and Chapel images have a “C” prefix. Thus, if the text says “see Figure N16” it means go to the Image section, find the figures with the prefix N, and go to image 16, arranged in chronological order. The Nash House / Founders Hall Architectural Description: The Nash House is a one to three story (with partial basement) mansion de-signed in a Spanish Colonial Revival style. Located at the highest point of the property, the house is an imposing presence seen from the climbing entrance road and paths to the north. The bulk of the building forms a shallow “C” facing east. The height is a combi-nation of one to three story elements. It crowns its hilltop with a central two story section facing east, descending to three stories on the southwest. A one story garage / service wing stands southeast of the main house, connected to the main building by a walled courtyard and exterior stairs. The house is positioned to have a grand, sunny, entrance plaza / courtyard on the southeast, and excellent views of San Francisco Bay from the west. Formal main rooms lie in a north to south bar along the main central wing, with a kitchen / service wing to the north. The second / upper floor presumably con-tains bedrooms.

ATTACHMENT 1 LPC 04-06-17

Page 10 of 160

11

Figures N1, N2, N3, N4, and N5 provide aerial views of the house and its grounds from various perspectives. The immediate landscape of the building is also part of the historic context since it was designed and built with the house. For the purposes of this designation the landscape of this house includes the area enclosed by the entrance road from the north end of the seminary grounds, the area north of the driveway that curves downhill south of the main house and between the house and the Chapel of the Cross, and the area west of the house to an asphalt parking area and Giesey Hall. This area contains numerous designed landscape features and inten-tional plantings, including the main (eastern) entrance courtyard, the walled garden with the St. Francis statue, the flagstone patios and terraces to the west and south of the house, and the plantings to the west and immediately to the north of the house. Not all individual garden features and plantings have been described in this text, but the landmark designation should be taken to include all original or early ex-terior features including terrace, stairway, and wall hardscape, the general form of original plantings (such as parterres in the entrance garden enclosed with clipped boxwood hedges), the form and layout of pathways, original or early garden features including benches, fountains, and statuary, and some trees that appear to date to the early years of the house. Because the house literally “crowns” a hilltop and is highly visible, the historic context also includes views to the house from the north, south, and east, and views from the house and its gardens east to Tilden Park and west to San Fran-cisco Bay. There as been no interior visit to the house, so this description necessarily relies on exterior observations. This description begins on the central, east facing, facade and proceeds counter-clockwise around the building. Primary landscape elements are described fol-lowing the architectural description. General architectural elements: “The romantic Spanish Revival style—or alternately Spanish Eclectic— refers to the architec-tural style that was built from about 1915 to about 1940. Like Mission Revival, Spanish Revival was influenced by Spanish Colonial architecture of earlier centuries. Unlike its immediate prede-cessor, Mission, Spanish Revival was more ornate with stylistic detail apparent in both large fea-tures and small, such as intricately patterned tile work and wrought iron hardware.


Page 11 of 160

12

After the Panama-California Exposition in 1915, the Spanish Revival style caught hold. The growth of California and the film industry during the 1920s and 1930s facilitated the dissemina-tion of the Spanish Revival style. Though it is a prominent housing style in the Southwest US as well as Florida and Texas, it is less common in Northern states. Spanish Revival is an extremely eclectic style. Many Mediterranean touches are combined to create an exotic, but harmonious appearance. Influences include Spanish Baroque, Moorish, and Gothic elements. Tile roofs and stucco exteriors are characteristic with half rounded doors and windows. Elaborate timework, applied relief ornamentation, and wrought iron grillwork is used to create frames around doorways and windows, and is used widely as decorative accents throughout the house. Towers and columns are often seen, as are balustrades, cantilevered balco-nies, covered porches, and arcaded walkways. Front entrances were often highly ornamented and many were balanced by a commanding triple-arched focal window. The Monterey style is a later (1925-1955) two-story adaptation of Spanish Revival style com-bined with features of the Colonial Revival. Its primary distinguishing characteristic is its prominent second-story cantilevered balcony that often runs the length of the front of the house.” antiquehome.org, accessed February, 2017 These features below are generally consistent throughout the Nash House, ex-cept as otherwise described in the text: • red terra cotta tile roofs, gabled on the main house and shed on the garage ex-tension to the south and on one section of the north wing. The roofs generally appear original, with one clear exception, a brighter reddish area on a portion of the garage wing. There are portions of the main building roof, generally on the southwest and north, where the tiles appear lighter / brighter than the main tiles, possibly indicating replacement.

• stucco / cement plaster exterior walls and painted white. • wooden doors, painted or stained a uniform dark brown. There are solid wooden doors (individually described below) and a number of French doors, typically with five true divided lites. Door and window hardware appears largely original.

• wooden casement windows, usually side by side with three true divided lites in each casement. All the window elements are also stained or painted a uni-form dark brown. The windows are slightly inset in the walls and have painted wooden surrounds.

• chimneys expressed on the exterior. Most of the windows on the west side of the house also have a very narrow wooden (or perhaps metal) slanted “awning” or trim that extends just a few inches from the facade above the window.

• metal door and window hardware, apparently original. • metal, most likely copper, gutters and downspouts. Each description below references Figures in the attached Figure appendix. Figures for the Nash House have an “N” prefix. (e.g. “Figure N-15”).


Page 12 of 160

13

East Facade: Approached through an elaborate level formal courtyard garden, this main ele-vation is centered on a two story core, with a long second floor wooden balcony above a tile-floored portico. This feature is particularly characteristic of Mon-terey style Colonial Revival architecture. (Figures N6, N7, N8, and N9 show this primary elevation from various perspectives). The tiles are elongated hexagons, glazed in shades of orange to red, bordered on the perimeter by a double row of square tiles. (Figure N12 shows porch floor de-tails). The portico columns are square, with beveled corners. The portico is roofed with exposed wooden joists that have carved beam ends. On the second level there is a carved wooden railing, and the balcony columns replicate, in smaller dimen-sions, the first floor porch columns. The roof projects above exposed rafter ends beyond the porch. (Figures N10 and N11 show details of the porch and balcony.) Two large, handled, green-glazed neoclassical urns or vases with stoppers stand on the flagstone patio adjacent to the porch columns. These are shown in Figure N10. In an early postcard photograph shown in the Historic Images appendix urns that appear to be the same as these are shown freestanding in the garden, at the upper corners of the parterres that flank the fountain. This original site is several feet east of the current location of the urns, but they could be easily relo-cated to their original sites. Figure N9 shows this relationship; if the urns, visible in the background, were moved across the terrace to the corners of the low step, they would be in their original locations. To the right (north) of the portico there is a formal double door on axis with the main pathway approaching the building. This serves as the main entrance. (Fig-ure N13 shows the main entrance door in context. Figure N14 shows the door in detail.) At the north and south ends of the inset portico are wooden double doors enter-ing the end wings. The doors on the north, which enter the main vestibule of the house, are French doors, while those on the south are solid, with raised panels in a pattern of crosses and hexagons. (Figure N15 shows the north end of the por-tico. Figure N16 shows the paneled double doors at the south end. Above each door is a della Robbia style roundel, mounted in the wall. The south roundel portrays Madonna and Child in white with flanking cherubs (shown, on a light blue background, surrounded by a wreath of leaves, flowers, cones and fruits (shown in Figure N17). The north roundel portrays the Holy Family (Ma-


Page 13 of 160

14

donna, Joseph, and Christ), in white on a light blue background, similarly sur-rounded by a wreath of leaves, flowers, cones and fruits. The portico is upheld by two large wooden columns on the first level with an or-namental bracket on each side, and five columns on the second level, all placed symmetrically. The ground level facade of the house behind the porch has a very large fixed picture winter at the center, flanked symmetrically with pairs of wooden French doors, with five lites each. There are two dark metal ornamental light fixtures mounted on the wall between the doors and picture window. (Fig-ure N18 shows the picture window and detail and location of the light figures). The second level elevation facing onto the roofed balcony also has paired French doors on the main wall, but no end doors; there are two metal light fixtures, smaller than those on the ground level, on the wall adjacent to the doors. There is no central window, just an unadorned wall of stucco. (see upper portion of Fig-ure N8 for a perspective on the balcony.) The main double doors to the house, just north of the portico, have a simple raised surround. The doors themselves are carved wood, with intricate raised geometrical patterns on the exterior. Each door has a raised relief carved male face at the top, and another near the center. The doors are stained a light walnut color, with darker hues in the raised relief surfaces. (Note: these doors may have been the ones damaged and repaired or replaced in the 1930s fire that damaged the house) The doors are flanked by two non-historic wall mounted signs that say “Private Residence” and “President’s Residence”. (Figures N13 and N14 show the door in context and in detail.) Above the door, depending from the porch ceiling, is a hexagonal art glass light fixture with light amber and light green glass panels, decorated with metal quat-refoils, hanging from a single large metal ring. The fixture appears to have been retrofit with a later electrical connection mounted to the porch ceiling. (Figure N19 shows the porch light fixture.) The front porch has two low cheek walls flanking a single step that leads from the flagstone patio to the concrete porch that has a simple pattern of square, un-adorned, concrete blocks. Two simple square wooden columns rise from the cheek walls to uphold a simple shed roof above the porch. The right (north) cheek wall cap is cracked. There are freestanding neoclassical planters of uncer-tain vintage (not original) on the cheek walls. (Figure N20 shows the northern cheek wall and the inscription described in the text below.) From an early photograph included in the Historic Images (H9), it appears that the cheek walls originally supported ornate freestanding light fixtures on poles. They are not present, but very similar light fixtures are found on the stone gate-


Page 14 of 160

15

posts at the entrance to the eastern patio. A second early postcard shows the gateposts without light fixtures. It is quite possible that the original light poles were moved from the front porch to the gate entry, and mounted there, possibly on new metal posts. (See Figures N59 and N60 for the original light fixtures shown in their current context on the gateposts, and Figure N61 for a detail of one of the fixtures.) The historic image (H9) also appears to show no porch roof or light fixture above the main door. It is possible that when the fire damaged the door the light fix-tures were moved and the current porch, and suspended art glass light fixture, were added. The right (north) cheek wall bears a cast or incised inscription facing east: HAEC DOMVS A MARCO DANIELS ARCHITECTO DESIGNATA EST JOANNI HENRICO NASH M.A. LITT.D AEDIFICO, ANNO DOMINI MCXXX Translation: "This house designed by the architect Mark Daniels is built by me, John Henry Nash, master of arts, doctor of literature, in the year of our Lord 1930." Ironically, the inscription actually says MCXXX or “1,130” not 1930; an M was left out. However, this application does not contend that this house is nearly a thousand years old. Above the entrance porch is a double casement window. (See Figure N13.) North of the entrance porch the house wall extends a few feet from the plane of the main facade, then runs north to a cross wing. On the south facing wall of the north wing is a small side door facing the courtyard, but unconnected to it. The east-facing wall has two ground floor windows, and one window centered on the upper floor. The south facing wall has, in addition to the door, two second floor windows and one small ground floor window with two casements with two lites each. (Figure N21 shows the north wing in relation to the main entrance of the house). The east end of this wing has a simple tile gable, with one window on the second floor, offset to the south, and one window on the ground floor, in the northwest corner.


Page 15 of 160

16

Above the angle where the wing protrudes from the plane of the facade there is a low third story element visible from the courtyard, that appears from this per-spective as a very low tower element or clerestory, with small windows and a tile roof, set back from the main elevations. (On the northwest corner of the building this element is integrated with the second floor and does not appear as a free-standing element) North Facade: The north elevation of the house is two stories over basement, with a projecting element on the northwest corner. From left (east) to right (west) the main ground level has a single window, then a glassed in porch reached by three concrete steps, with tile roof in the angle of the projection, then paired windows in the kitchen. Most probably the porch, which has a utilitarian east-facing door, was a service entrance and this wing, at least on the main level, functioned as a service wing. (Figure N22 shows a general view of the north end. Figure N23 shows the service porch in more detail.) In the small utilitarian terrace outside the service porch there are two period lid-ded metal garbage cans inset into the stone paving. (Figure N24 shows this de-tail.) On the second floor there is one large window on the east, three small windows in the center above the service porch, and one large window in the projection on the west end. The grade slopes slightly from east to west, allowing for a partially exposed basement at the northwest corner, with one deeply inset window at ground level on the north facade. At the base of the wall are regularly placed round openings that may be vents for the basement or crawl space. (Figure N25 shows as general view of the northern end of the house.) The northwest corner of the building contains an angel of the kitchen wing and central wing. The kitchen wing facing west has two windows on the second floor and one horizontal window on the kitchen level; this window appears to be a non-period aluminum replacement with stucco patching visible at the base. (Fig-ure N26 shows a view of the northwest corner of the house. The altered kitchen window is the horizontal window at bottom center.) On the north facing side of the angle there are two main floor windows, and one second floor window and, high in the angle of the wall, two very small square windows. (Figure N27 shows a detail of two typical windows, showing the standard pattern of casements, divided lites, and small “eyebrow” features above the windows that may function as rain guards or decorative sunshades.)


Page 16 of 160

17

West Facade: The west side of the building has a series of complex projecting and inset planes and elements. From north (left) to right (south), on the second floor there are two windows, then a projecting balcony with three wooden columns, a French door, and two small windows, then an expanse of wall with one projecting window that appears to contain a fixed panel of leaded glass in a 5 x 5 pattern of square panes. (Figure N28 shows the northwest corner of the house, including second floor and balcony. Figure N29 shows the balcony in more detail and the project-ing leaded glass window to its right/south.) Below the projecting window bay there are two main floor windows and a wooden hatch door with the appearance of five vertical boards and a small, inset, square window, below a transom window, the two separated by a slanted sill. The wall continues to the south, with a wide stuccoed chimney with venturi cap projecting from the wall and rising above the roof. South (right) of the chimney a concrete stair descends from the upper terrace to a lower terrace; adjacent to the top of the stairs there is an entrance door to the main floor, with a projecting light fixture adjacent to it, on an “L” bracket. The door is flanked on the south by an “L” shaped wrought iron railing. The door connects to the railed terrace with a single, high, concrete step. Adjacent to the step there is a 3 over 3 inset concrete grill in the wall with utility pipes projecting from it (shown in Figure N32). Beyond this door, to the south, the grade descends and the wall becomes a three-story elevation, two windows, one above the other. The wall then turns inward perhaps five feet, creating a shallow southwest corner to the building that has a wooden balcony, with wooden rails and balusters, on the top (second) floor level and a stuccoed balcony, with wrought iron railing, on the main (first floor) level. The second floor balcony has a french door. The first floor balcony has double french floors. Below the balconies there is a window and a low door to the basement, behind a projecting wall. (Figures N30, N31, N32, N33, N34 and N35) show general perspectives and de-tails of the western wall and southwestern corner of the house, including wrought iron railings, flagstone terrace, door and window character and detail, and projecting light fixture. Figure N38 shows chimney and roof detail on the southwest corner, and Figure N39 shows gutter and downspout and roof detail on the west facade.) South Facade:


Page 17 of 160

18

The south facade of the main building is three floors in elevation and a single, flat, plane with a projecting chimney with a venturi cap. At the left (west) end are three windows stacked one over the other on the three floors. At center, on the top floor, there is a stuccoed balcony with wrought iron railing attached to the right (east) side of the chimney and appearing to be supported in by a projec-tion of the chimney stack, and in part by a stuccoed bracket. Above this balcony, in the eave, there are two very small square windows, side by side. East (to the right of) this balcony there are two-second floor windows. Below the balcony is a high main floor window, then a lower window also on the main floor level and to the right (east). (Figure N36 shows a general view of the south facade.) At the ground level to the right (east) of the chimney stack there is an inset ground level porch with two wooden columns rising from a half-height stuccoed wall. The porch has a three panel solid wooden door into the ground floor (basement) level, two adjacent windows, and an open-air door / passage to an enclosed courtyard on the southeast corner of the building. (Figure N37 shows a view of the inset porch.) Garage Wing: Projecting from the southeast corner of the building is a stucco wall that de-scends in three sections of varying height to join the garage wing. The wall forms the east end of a U shaped courtyard, facing south, with the main block of the building to the north and the garage wing to the south. The courtyard is floored in flagstones with foundation plantings and contains a large olive tree, most likely original to the design. (Figure N40 shows the courtyard and olive.) Attached to, and projecting from, the west side of this east wall is a rectangular ceramic fountainhead, turquoise glazed, with a seated figure of Pan playing pipes, backed by a scalloped shell, above a dolphin head with open mouth. The dry fountain is above a small rectangular dirt-filled area of the flagstone terrace, most likely an infilled pool. (Figures N41 and N42 show the fountainhead in con-text and detail.) This courtyard, and the adjacent garage wing to the south, are at the basement level of the main building. The south side of the courtyard had a shed-roofed porch at grade, with a shed roof upheld by two simple wooden columns and exposed rafters. (Figures N43 and N44 show the general character of this extension. Figure N49 shows detail of the carved rafters and roof edge.) There is one solid wooden door at the west end beneath the porch roof. There are no windows at present in the wall, but


Page 18 of 160

19

there is a rectangular arrangement of square inset glazed tiles 7 high and 13 long (36 tiles, total). Each tile is hand-decorated with a separate scene from Don Qui-xote. At the east end of the porch, facing west, there is a small wooden window with seven small glazed tiles in a “U” above it; the top five depict human figures, three female, two male (one in plate armor). The two lower tiles, and an eighth tile set alone below the window, depict the heads of horses, in profile. (Figures N45, N46, and N47 show general context and detail of the tiles on the wall. Fig-ure N48 shows the tile arrangement around the smaller window.) To the west (right) of the wooden door is a single small glazed tile inset in the wall depicting the head of a Spanish grandee, possibly Don Quixote. The west end of the garage has a single window (non original double hung vi-nyl), with a low, projecting, courtyard wall at the southwest corner. (See Figure N43 for detail of this window.) The south side of the garage wing has two main elements. On the west end, oc-cupying perhaps 4/10s of the length of the south facade, is a shed-roofed room, with two casement windows, each with three lites. Set perhaps 6/10s of the way up the south wall is a horizontal row of inset tiles, matching those on the north (courtyard) wall of this same structure, also depicting scenes of Cervantes. Each square tile is set flush with the stucco surface and is edged in blue, with a multi-colored low relief image in the center. There are 16 tiles in this horizontal row. At the extreme west end of the wall, where it projects beyond the building, there is a nine piece (3 x 3) inset panel of pale blue and yellow tiles forming a single image of a Spanish dignitary in court dress, above the inscription “Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra.” (See Figure N50.) The eastern two thirds of the garage wing has a tile-shed roof and three garage entrances, separated by square wooden columns. The garage entrances have been infilled with inserted office “storefronts” each with a paneled door and an aluminum slider window, to form three offices. The doors, windows, and wall infills are not original. (See Figures N51 and N52 for the garage wing and infill.) Landscape: North of and above the garage wing is a rectangular walled courtyard at the southeast corner of the main house. This courtyard is accessed through an open passage in the basement level of the house, and from the main entrance court-yard above, to the north. The courtyard has high, capped, stucco walls and a rec-tilinear arrangement of flagstone pathways and planter beds, separated by wooden (non-period) edger boards. There are a number of whimsical stone or


Page 19 of 160

20

cast stone benches in the courtyard, Renaissance in style. On the east wall of the courtyard, inset in the stucco, is a dry fountainhead, with a stylized fish spout above a scalloped basin. The courtyard is planted in camellias, lavender, and other shrubs; there is a small, freestanding, cast stone figure of a monk, most likely St. Francis. in front of the east wall, facing west. The rear wall of the garage forms the south wall of this courtyard; the southeast corner of the main house forms the west wall. A stair ascends along this west wall from the garage level to the main courtyard at the east side of the house; the stair is concrete, with a simple metal railing, most likely not original, attached to the house. (Figures N53, N54, N55, N56 show the courtyard and details including the fountain, benches, and St. Francis statue.) The main landscaped garden of the house is on the east, forming the formal ap-proach to the main east facade. The courtyard is laid out in a formal pattern, with a stone or cast stone fountain at the center. The fountain has a low, concrete edged, basin and a central urn, with lions head and a single jet. (Figures N57 and N58 show the garden and fountain. Please also refer to Figures N2 and N3, aeri-als, and Figures N6, N7, N8 and N9 for general character of this garden. See Fig-ure N62 for a detail of the stone flagging and low perimeter walls and step ar-rangements.) The eastern end of the garden is divided into three triangular lawn panels, bor-dered with low boxwood hedges. The western end is divided into four equally sized square parterres each with one beveled corner, on the interior, edged with low hedges, and arranged symmetrically around the fountain. (See Figure N3 for an aerial view of the garden arrangement.) The pathways and fountain terrace are flagstoned. The planter beds are edged with low boxwood hedges and containing low shrubs and herbs or panels of grass. There is a slight descent, from west to east, marked by low steps, and the courtyard also has low stone walls of flat-laid or stacked flagstones. There is a single large camellia to the left (south) of the main front door of the house, and a large deciduous ornamental tree, species undetermined but possi-bly a maple, in the northwest corner of the courtyard; the tree rises above the second floor roof. This courtyard stands immediately west of and above the main entrance drive to the house, which curves around to the south to reach the garage wing. Where the drive passes the east facade there is a long stone wall, with central stone steps flanked by pillars topped by metal light fixtures. Ascending the steps, the visitor faces a long formal axis vista down one of the garden paths to the front door. (Figure N59 shows a general view of the main pedestrian entrance from the east.


Page 20 of 160

21

Figure N60 looks back at the interior of the same entrance from the garden side. Figure N61 shows a detail of a light fixture on the entrance columns.) The north side of the house, adjacent to the service wing, has high box wood hedges, concrete or stone stairs, asphalt pathways, and a single multi-trunked shrub, possibly a cordyline or yucca, adjacent to a large, decomposed, tree stump. A large deodar cedar stands further from the house. Foundation hedges are at the northwest corner of the house, and a simple unpainted board fence separates the service area from the west terraces, and the hillside is covered with ivy, below a hedge. There are narrow flagstone terraces and low stone walls made of flat-laid or stacked flagstones along the west side of the house that extend outward from the wall, with no foundation plantings. The terraces are partially edged with low boxwood hedges, above an ivy slope that descends to a lawn area edged with ir-regular field stones. There is one older Canary Island Palm in this view (Figure N63 shows a general view of the western side of the house with trees, hedges and lawn shown.) Dobbins House / Sawyer Hall This description incorporates the original garage of the Dobbins House, a free-standing structure currently used as a “Faculty Annex”. The garage is part of the building complex and although physically separated forms an integral part of the complex and is intended for inclusion in the landmark designation. The immediate landscape of the building is also part of the historic context, espe-cially because of its association with Thomas Church. For the purposes of this designation the landscape of this house includes the area enclosed by the en-trance road from Marin Avenue, the driveway that curves downhill south of the main house to the Faculty Annex, the Faculty Annex environs, and the hillside descending west from the house to the property line. This area contains numer-ous designed landscape features and intentional plantings. Not all individual garden features and plantings have been described in this text, but the landmark designation should be taken to include all original or early ex-terior features within the boundaries described above, including terrace, stair-way, and wall hardscape, the general form of original plantings (such as clipped boxwood hedges, or foundation plantings), the form and layout of pathways, original or early garden features including benches, fountains, and statuary, and some trees that appear to date to the early years of the house. Future garden and landscape work should reference the original plans of Tho-mas Church and adhere to them in specifics and general character as closely as possible.


Page 21 of 160

22

Architectural Description This is a complex building with many parts and many “faces”. While it is archi-tecturally unified, there are components that, when viewed from different per-spectives, evoke different characters. Overall, however, the building has the feel of a structure older than it is, that has grown by accretion. “Wings” extend in five different directions and the multi-plicity of roofs and heights, topped with a tower, creates a sense of a stately that evolved through generations, rather than being constructed at a single time. The building has the general architectural character of a Renaissance revival villa from the Mediterranean, with neoclassical detailing contrasted in some areas with components that evolve a medieval heritage. This architectural description begins on the east side of the building where the “main” entrance is and proceeds in a counter-clockwise circuit around the exte-rior. Figures D58 through D63 show aerial views of the house from several perspec-tives. (Google Earth, accessed February, 2017). When reading through the archi-tectural description below, examine these figures if the progression of the de-scription of the house and its various masses and components is not clear from the text. There as been no interior visit to the house, so this description necessarily relies on exterior observations. Primary landscape elements are described following the architectural description. These features below are generally consistent throughout the building, except as otherwise described in the text: • red terra cotta tile roofs, primarily gabled. The roofs generally appear origi-

nal, darkened with age. • stucco / cement plaster exterior walls painted white. • wooden doors, painted or stained a uniform dark brown. There are solid

wooden doors (individually described below) and a number of French doors, with true divided lites. There are also several metal French doors that appear original, all located in the south facing main courtyard.

• wooden casement windows, usually side by side with divided lites in each casement. All the window elements are also stained or painted a uniform dark brown. The windows are slightly inset in the walls and have painted wooden surrounds.

• chimneys expressed on the exterior.


Page 22 of 160

23

• metal door and window hardware, apparently original. • balconies with wrought iron or wooden railings. Each description below references Figures in the attached Figure appendix. Fig-ures for the Dobbins House have a “D” prefix. (i.g. “Figure D-12”). East Facade: This is one of the more complex sides of the house and adjoins the entrance road which curves around the building. Visitors (and trades people) would have ini-tially arrived at this side of the building. Two exterior elements are predominate; a walled courtyard on the left (south) and a roofed cloister at the right (northeast) corner of the house. (Figures D1 and D2 show the kitchen courtyard from the ex-terior.) The courtyard has a plain, solid, stuccoed wall, perhaps four to five feet tall, with a flat integral cap and simple, rectangular, columns. The courtyard has two un-gated entrances, one on the south and one on the east. Beyond the courtyard is a simple one story building on the southeast corner of the house that, from some perspectives, almost reads like a detached cottage but is in fact a wing of the main structure. Immediately north of the one story wing is the east end of the main, two story, “bar” of the house which runs east / west. This elevation has what appear to be three original windows, all casement, two of them side by side and square, and two doorways, one a double French door, and the other a single door with a non-period metal glass door inserted. Between the single door and the square windows there are two groupings of four terra cotta pipes, each, ap-parently painted, protruding from the wall in a 2 x 2 grid. Because of their siting, these may have been placed for an original utilitarian function such as venting. Adjacent to the french doors there is a hanging metal exterior light fixture that would appear to be an original or early element. To the left (south) of the French doors there are two ornamental masonry grills, integral to the wall, with fanciful stacked arches. An exterior staircase, presumably to a basement, descends along this wall, from north to south. (Figures D3 and D4 show the kitchen courtyard and details of the building above, as well as the railing of the external staircase that leads to the basement.) The french door has an exterior sign reading “Seminary Kitchen” and a large metal HVAC structure protrudes from the tile roof. This does not appear to be an original element. On the second floor there is a narrow, unroofed, balcony element formed from a slight setback at this level. The balcony has wrought iron railings with curlicue elements. The second floor has two side by side casement windows in the north-east corner, and a French door in the southeast corner with three horizontal lights above a solid wood panel on each door.


Page 23 of 160

24

Very simple, shallow, stuccoed pilasters rising from horizontal wooden sills are expressed on either side of the doors and on either side of and between the win-dows. This pattern of pilasters adjacent to windows repeats itself on other eleva-tions of the building. The northeast corner of the building is one of the most fascinating elements of the entire structure. It is a square one-story cloister that provides the formal “front door” to the residence. The cloister is walled on all four sides but pierced by open-air doorways on east and west. (Figure D5 shows the entry cloister from the drive. Figure D5A shows the overhanging porch roof.) The east doorway faces the building exterior. It contains an arch, supported by two thick masonry columns with Ionic capitals. The columns rise about half the height of the entry wall, and support a simple, unadorned, masonry arch. (Fig-ure D7 shows a detail of the southern / left-hand column and base of arch.) Extending from the tile roof of the cloister over this entrance in a tiled porch roof supported on two monumental wooden beams projecting from the wall, with carved rafters. There is some deterioration to the south end of the main cross beam. (See Figure D5A.) On the north (right) side of the arched entrance there is a square hanging metal and glass lantern similar to the lantern adjacent to the other entrance on this fa-cade. (The lantern is visible in Figures D5 and D5A). On the south (left) side of the arched entrance there is a metal (presumably bronze or brass) verdigris plaque inset into the wall, below raised metal letters with the street address, 2850 Marin. The plaque reads, “Sawyer Hall - Named for John L. Sawyer, D.D. 1895 - 1956. First President of Seminary Board. 1950-1956. Above the inscription is a small Cross Aiguisé (Pointed Cross), also known as a Passion Cross because of the resemblance of the pointed ends to Crucifixion nails. (Figure D6 shows the dedication plaque.) Immediately beyond the arched entrance is a concrete perimeter pathway, level but curiously patterned, under the cloister roof; this may not be original. Facing the entrance is an interior wall that extends solidly to the cloister roof on the ends, but has an open center screened with a wrought iron railing. (This entry sequence is visible in the center of Figure D5, and is shown from the interior, looking north into the cloister, in Figure D8. Figure D 14 looks across the cloister to the entry, with the wrought iron railing in upper center. Figure D12 shows one of the wrought iron entry gates folded back against the cloister wall.) Those entering face this wall and turn either left or right through ornate wrought iron gates to enter the cloister.


Page 24 of 160

25

The square perimeter roof of the cloister is upheld by the interior entrance wall, by stuccoed square masonry columns at the two inner corners, and by six wooden columns, with visible grain, painted or stained a uniform dark brown, each rising from a low foundation wall. The six columns, two per side of the cloister, have similar bases but different capitals; three are Doric and three are Corinthian. They are not placed in matched pairs, and there are two variations of the Doric capital. The overall sub-tle impression is that the cloister is an old structure containing even older sal-vaged architectural elements. (Figure D9 shows the interior of the courtyard looking south. Figure D10 shows a corner of the cloister with two columns. Fig-ure D11 shows three different types of column capitals present in the cloister.) The open-air center of the courtyard, exposed to the sky, most likely originally contained plantings, perhaps with a fountain. It is presently occupied by a sculp-tural work, “Moses Striking the Rock”, by R. Walden Gambaro. The sculpture is a compilation of small irregular boulders and cut slabs of stone, the latter in-stalled to rise pointed between the more naturalistic boulders. Standing on two boulders is a bronze figure of Moses, extending a staff with his right arm to strike the ground. (Figure D9 and D14 show the sculpture arrangement. The dedica-tory wall plaque is visible in the center of Figure D9). This is described as “a delightful fountain. In it stands a nearly-life sized metal sculp-ture of…Moses…striking a rock with his staff from which trickles a stream of flowing water that gives promise of slaking the thirst of his perpetually complaining people amid their forty-year trek in the wilderness” (John Rollefson, “Postils for Preaching: Commentaries on the Revised Common Lectionary”, for the Third Sunday in Lent, 2016.) Ferns and moss grow amidst the rocks. A wall plaque describes the sculpture as “a gift of inspiration and encouragement to the community of Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary from the Price family.” This is adjacent to another wall plaque quoting Deuteronomy, 34:10-12. “Never since has there arisen a prophet in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face. He was une-qualed for all the signs and wonders that the Lord sent him to perform in the land of Egypt, against Pharaoh and all his servants and entire land and for all the mighty deeds and all the terrifying displays of power that Moses performed in the sight of all Israel.” In the southeast corner of the cloister there is a small pair of windows, divided by a column. Each window is divided horizontally into three sections. The lower two sections contain amber bottle glass panes in lead cames, while the top sec-tions rise to a trefoil point and contain single panes of amber glass. (Figure D13 shows this window arrangement, and one of the corner lanterns described be-low.)


Page 25 of 160

26

Mounted in the corners of the cloister are metal light fixtures, equipped to con-tain light bulbs but appearing to be candle sconces. The western side of the cloister opens through another open doorway to a level porch or terrace surfaced with what appear to be terra cotta rectangular pavers in varying sizes, laid in a random pattern. This porch in turn is beneath another tile roof to the main entrance door of the house at the far (west) end, solid wood with eight raised panels. (Figure D15 and Figure D16 show the porch from two per-spectives. The main entry to the house is the paneled door in Figure D15. Figure D17 shows the terra cotta pavers of the entrance porch, adjoining the stone pavers of the patio.) Along the interior wall of the porch there are four windows (described below) in the wall, and two wall-mounted metal and glass light fixtures that appear origi-nal or period. (Figure D19 shows a detail of one of the porch windows, and Fig-ure D16 shows their positioning.) Along the right (north) side of the porch the beamed roof is upheld by two wooden columns similar to those in the cloister, and also presenting what ap-pears to be an intentional “mis-match” of one Ionic and one Corinthian capital. On the entrance porch wall, and on the adjacent wall to the north of the main door, there are six windows, in three pairs. The larger windows have a 4 x 8 grid arrangement of circular “bottle glass” panes in leaded cames. The windows on the porch wall are clear glass; those on the adjacent wall (north of the door) con-tain amber glass in a variety of shades. The amber glass is replicated in the inter-stices. At the far western end of the porch is a paired window of the same form as that in the cloister, with amber bottle glass and trefoil points. Stepping back for a moment from the building, it is possible to view from the ad-jacent courtyard the remarkably complex massing elements of the building exte-rior, a view that would have been seen by visitors approaching the house. (Fig-ures D22, D23 and D26 show this perspective, and the tower and chimney ele-ments described below.) To the right (north) of the entrance porch there is a single floor building element with two windows, terminating in an open air corner porch, also tile roofed and upheld by two wooden columns, with a wall mounted metal and glass lantern. The columns reflect the same design as the cloister column, with a mix of neo-classical forms. (Figure D20 shows the windows on this wall, and Figure D21 shows the corner porch.) Above and beyond these two single story elements—the main entrance porch, the single story wall, and the corner porch—rises the second floor of the building


Page 26 of 160

27

with two gable-roofed wings, one extending east and one extending north. At the juncture of the wings a tower element rises, with a shallow pyramidal tile roof above a open belvedere with two arched openings on the north and west sides, and one each on the south and east sides. What would be second east fac-ing openings is infilled (presumably original) with a small central window. On each facade one masonry Doric column rises between the two open-air openings, and each opening has a shallow arched top, with small masonry brackets. Addi-tional brackets are found below the eaves. On the east wall of the north wing a heroic chimney rises clear of the roof, nearly as tall as the tower. The rectangular tower has three horizontal brick bands in the upper third, below a tile-roofed venturi cap with two openings on east and west and one opening each on north and south. The chimney cap is supported on simple posts of exposed brick. In the northeast angle formed by the north and east wings of the house there is a raised patio of stone and a simple wooden cross. The north end of the north wing has the corner porch, described above (see Fig-ure D21) on the left (east) corner, two large windows with 2 x 4 lites roughly cen-tered in the ground floor wall, with a small window deeply inset in an embra-sure in the gable above. (Figures D24 and D25 show the north end of this wing.) Continuing around the building to the west, the building has a two-story wall with two levels of windows on the northern portion, a projecting wooden second floor balcony on wooden pillars in the middle, and a projecting wing on the southwest corner of the building. (Figure D27 shows the wooden balcony.) The middle of this wing is three stories, dropping to two stories at the southwest corner. At ground level at that corner there an open-air portico with four ma-sonry arches supporting a portion of the upper floor. The portico, floored with terra cotta pavers, contains two doors into the building (one painted white and possibility not original). In the west facing wall between the two doors is a sin-gle window divided horizontally into two lites in an arched opening, flanked by wooden shutters (these shutters are also present on the courtyard side of the “kitchen wing” described below). The portico has a non-original ceiling light fix-ture. Above the portico there are two windows on the upper facade.


Page 27 of 160

28

Because of the topography, the ground level of this wing is equivalent to the basement level of the rest of the house, and what appears to be the second floor on this elevation is the “main” level of the house. There is a wooden second floor porch on this elevation, upheld on wooden col-umns, with stylized beam ends and wooden balusters. The south end of this wing has a large expanse of blank wall, three windows on the second level, and a single window centered on the lower level; the lower window has a shallow arched inset and a decorative metal grill on the exterior. The window sash behind the grill does not appear to be original. In the peak of the gable there are three roof tiles inserted in the wall as a decora-tive or venting element. (Figures D28 and D29 show the west and southwest cor-ners of the building. Figure D30 shows the south wall of this wing. Figure D31 shows the iron grill, with non original window behind, and Figure D32 shows the upper level corner windows, with a pattern typical to the house of small col-umns between the casements.) Turning the corner onto the east side of this wing, the upper floor has a band of four windows separated by freestanding columns, two additional windows, and an open air exterior staircase with wrought iron railings. The wing has a single, simple, chimney with no decorative elements; this appears a raw concrete or sil-very color, and may be a rebuilt or resurfacing of an original chimney, or per-haps even an added element. (Figure D33, D34, and D35 show this wing from the east, courtyard, side) The south elevation of the main two story central bar of the house opens to level ground and forms a “U” surrounding an expansive stone courtyard with two levels, separated by a single shallow step. At the center of this facade the main east / west bar of the house forms two stories, the ground level with two French doors and two arched door openings, and the upper level with five evenly spaced casement windows. (Figure D35 and D37 and D38 show the courtyard and south side of the central wing. Note the tower above.) The main level French doors and the transom windows above are metal, painted brown to match the wood trim of the houses, with true divided lites. Like many of the windows on the building, the doors are separated and flanked by shallow pilasters on the facade. (Figure D39 shows the metal French doors and metal transoms in the northwest corner of the courtyard; note the intent balcony above with wrought iron railing.) The house tower is visible centered on this facade behind the roof gable, and the southeast corner of the bar has a monumental chimney with painted or stuccoed chimney pots.


Page 28 of 160

29

Above the left (westernmost) ground floor arch there is a small balcony with wrought iron railing inset into the second floor. (See Figure D39). The right (east) side of the courtyard contains an inset porch or portico fronting the one-story “kitchen wing” at the southeast corner of the building. The portico roof is upheld by three octagonal masonry columns scored horizontally to re-semble cut stone. The portico is floored with a slightly raised terra cotta tile sur-face. (Figure D38 shows the relationship of this one story wing to the courtyard. Figure D39 shows the portico of the wing facing the courtyard, and Figure D41 shows details of the porch and the porch columns. Figure D40 shows the south-ern approach to the wing.) On the interior wall of the portico there are three single leaded glass windows, with the same arrangement of circular “bottle glass” panes as the windows on the north facade of the building described previously. These are amber glass. Alone among the windows on the exterior of the building, with the exception of one on the west facing portico, these windows are flanked with wooden shutters painted the same dark brown as the exterior wood work. The shutters are formed of two vertical boards and each has an elaborate wrought iron hasp or anchor embedded in the wall. There are also metal light fixtures, apparently original, on this wall. (Figure D42 shows a wall detail of the kitchen wing portico, showing window, wooden shutters, wrought iron latches, and wall mounted lantern light fixture.) At the north end of the porch is a door into the central wing of the house. The second floor of the main wing above the north end of the porch has one narrow, tall, window that appears to have a jalousie insert; whether the window insert is original could not be determined. The overall impression of this courtyard is formed from a combination of three different building elements. A formal main two story wing, a less formal west wing that appears a floor and a half high, and the low, one story, “kitchen wing” on the east with its deep, covered, porch. Together these three elements form a sheltered “U” embracing a courtyard paved in irregularly sized rectangular stones.) Faculty Annex: The main driveway on the east side of the house continues to a sweeping curved driveway that arcs downhill south of the Great Lawn and loops around on both the east and the west sides of the “Faculty Annex”, which apparently served as a garage structure for the original house.


Page 29 of 160

30

The architectural character and construction of the Faculty Annex closely matches the main house. Both have rusticated stucco walls, wooden windows, tile roofs, and classical detailing. The Faculty Annex is simple rectangular two story bar with a hipped roof lying north / south on the hillside. Because of the slope, the eastern, uphill, section reads as one story. This currently contains three non-period doors, the center one with glass sidelights. The presence of pilaster caps on the wall and visible patches in the stucco indicate that there were most likely three garage entrances at this level that were later infilled. (Figure D52 shows the east side of the Faculty Annex, where garage doors have been most likely infilled. Figures D55 and D56 show the west side, two story downhill elevation of the Faculty Annex with the original garage door opening infilled with wooden storefronts. Figure D57 shows the north end.) The western, lower, side of the building has a symmetrical arrangement of three arched garage entrances at the bottom level, and three symmetrically placed windows above. The center window is twice the length of the end windows and has a fixed central picture window flanked by openable casements. The end windows have two casements each. The garage entrances have later infills of of-fice storefronts. There is a utilitarian non-period light fixture mounted above the central garage entrance. On the south end of the building is a low, one story, shed-roofed extension par-tially built into the hillside, with a window on the west side and a window in the second floor gable above. The north end of the building has a window on the second floor below the gable, and a lower level window slightly offset to the west. A flat-topped buttress ex-tends west from the northwest corner of the ground floor, and a concrete stair-case descends adjacent to the building, connecting the upper and lower drive-ways. Landscape Elements: Beginning on the south, the masonry courtyard enclosed on three sides by the house connects to the “Great Lawn” to the south, forming a large garden room extension of the courtyard and house. At its southern end the lawn meets a symmetrical stone terrace, reached by two shallow steps flanked by low masonry walls. The terrace is paved with flagstone and bordered by stonewalls and clipped hedges. A simple wooden cross is centered above a bench at the extreme southern end. (Figures D53 and D44 show the “great lawn, looking, respectively, north and south. Figure D44 also shows the raised stone terrace with enclosing hedges and stone bench at the south end of the “Great Lawn”.)


Page 30 of 160

31

The stone paved courtyard by the house north of the “Great Lawn” contains one large California live oak tree and a number of smaller shrubs and foundation plantings. South and southwest of the west wing of the house and west of the “Great Lawn”, the landscape descends through clipped formal hedges and stone steps to an informal lawn area. The stone steps are natural but edged with paint or whitewash, presumably as a safety measure. There are also a series of planter levels framed with low, mossy, fieldstone walls descending the hillside. At the top of this slope, on the edge of the “Great Lawn”, are two small California Live Oak saplings. On the western slope belong the house are a number of trees and large shrubs that may be original to the plantings, but are not individually described. They include hawthornes and conifers that appear to be of an age and type consistent with a Thomas Church mid-century landscape. (Figures D48, D49, D50, and D51 show the sloping landscape with stone steps and walls southwest and west of the house. Figure D49 and D50 show what ap-pear to be original hawthorne trees.) On the west side of the house there are vines climbing the wooden porch next to the portico; they were dormant when the description was written, so their spe-cies could not be determined. Southeast of the house (and south of the “kitchen wing”, there is a rectangular landscape area bordered by clipped boxwood hedges, and containing a lawn area, bisected by a stone pathway, and planted with three coastal redwoods. Each redwood has a wooden marker adjacent indicating it was planted by a dif-ferent Seminary dignitary; the plantings are dated to 1959 and 1960. (Figures D45, D46, and D47 show this area, with the redwoods in full perspec-tive, then the ground plane, then the pathway and tree trunks with adjacent wooden dedication plaques.) The walled courtyard on the east (outer) side of the “kitchen wing” contains a number of informal plantings, including two small trees, one of them a pitto-sporum. On the northeast corner of the house there is a raised flagstone terrace with hori-zontally laid flagstone walls, and two staircases facing the house, flanking a stone bench. The perimeter of the terrace is planted with white birches, and there is a stone bench on the north end of the terrace and a simple wooden cross at the


Page 31 of 160

32

south end. A third stone stair descends the east side of the terrace and connects to a flagstone path that leads away from the house. (Figures D52 and D52 show details of this terrace. Also see Figure D23 for a view of the top of the terrace looking south towards the house.) Chapel of the Cross Terminology The PSR structure is not a church but a chapel. It does not serve a single congre-gation but, rather, the population of a seminary. Both chapels and churches are places of worship. Architectural Context The Chapel of the Cross at the Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary campus was inspired by, and is based on, a major work of 20th century architecture, the chapel at Notre Dame du Haut at Ronchamp, near Paris, designed by Le Corbus-ier and completed in 1954. The Ronchamp chapel is an icon of modern and eccle-siastical architecture and the Berkeley chapel was consciously modeled on it. To introduce the general architectural theme of the Berkeley chapel, here are some descriptions of the Notre Dame du Haut chapel. “Notre Dame du Haut is one of the most famous—many would say the most famous—churches of the twentieth century…Ronchamp looks like no previous church, and when it was first built, it shocked or mystified almost everyone: local villagers, church tradition-alists, and even admirers of Le Corbusier, its architect, the most influential European ar-chitect of the twentieth century. Once the strangeness had worn off, however, Ronchamp was increasingly loved by almost everyone, even those who normally do not like Modern architecture, much less the architecture of Le Corbusier.” “Notre Dame du Haut (Our Lady of the Heights) is a free-form building; that is, its shapes cannot be described using conventional geometrical terms of mathematical formu-las. Visitors find multiple meanings for its forms. To some, the sharp ‘prow’ of the south-east corner conjures images of a ship; others are reminded of praying hands. An appar-ently random pattern of rectangular openings with slanting sides punctures the curving, sloping south wall and suggests to yet other visitors a World War II bunker. The earth-colored concrete roof that dramatically overhangs the wall and curves upward has been variously seen as a nun’s headdress or a monk’s cowl.


Page 32 of 160

33

Like the south wall, the east facade (the backdrop for the pilgrimage masses) is curved and shaded by the great roof. An outside altar and a pulpit stand in front of the wall…Le Corbusier shaped the wall and roof to create an effective acoustical shell…the west facade is blank, interrupted only by a bulge representing the confessional within the church and by a gargoyle (rain spout) that, looking like the end of a double-barreled shotgun, thrusts over the edge of a roof parapet and hangs to spill rainwater into a collection basin…the roof is actually help up by a series of reinforced concrete piers embedded in the walls. These composite walls were sprayed with concrete and whitewashed with lime. They glow white, making the church a beacon both during the day and in moonlight.” (Pages 209-211) Architecture of France, David A. Hanser, Greenwood Press, Westport Connecti-cut, 2006. “It is considered one of the most important buildings of the 20th century, and represents a key shift away from the sparse, functionalist form of Modernism that Le Corbusier dis-played in his earlier projects. The main structure consists of thick masonry walls, which are curved to improve stability and provide structural support. Three thick white walls curl inwards from the outside to create smaller chapels at the sides of the main space. Two sit on either side of the north entrance and one in the south-east corner next to the main entrance. The monumental curved concrete roof is a shell structure supported by columns hidden in the walls. A gap underneath allows a sliver of light to filter into the interior. Although its external appearance suggests a complicated layout, the interior is fairly simple in plan.” https://www.dezeen.com/2016/07/24/le-corbusier-notre-dame-du-haut-ronchamp-chapel-france-unesco-world-heritage-list/ (accessed February, 2017) “The main part of the structure consists of two concrete membranes separated by a space of 2.26 meters forming a shell which constitutes the roof of the building. This roof, both insulating and water-tight, rests on top of short struts which form part of a vertical sur-face of concrete covered with "gunnite" and which, in addition, brace the walls of old Vosges stone provided by the former Chapel which was destroyed by the war-time bomb-ings. These walls which are without buttresses follow, in plan, the curvilinear forms cal-culated to provide stability to this rough masonry. A space of several centimeters between the shell of the roof and the vertical envelope of the walls furnishes a significant entry for daylight. The floor of the Chapel follows the natural slope of the hill clown towards the altar. This floor is constructed of a cement paving poured in place between battens, the design of which is dictated by the Modulor. Certain parts, in particular those upon which the interior and exterior altars rest, are of beautiful white stones from Bourgogne, as are the altars themselves. The towers are constructed of stone masonry and are capped by


Page 33 of 160

34

cement domes. The vertical elements of the Chapel are surfaced with mortar sprayed on with a cement gun and then white washed-both on the interior and exterior. The concrete shell of the roof is left rough, just as it comes from the formwork. Water tightness is effected by a built-up roofing with an exterior cladding of aluminum. On the interior the walls are white; the ceiling gray, of unfinished concrete; the flooring of cement and stone; the benches of African wood created by Savina; the communion bench is of cast iron made by the Foundries of the Lure. Daylighting is furnished by a system of openings covered with clear glass, and, in places, with colored glass. This has no connection to stained glass; Le Corbusier considers that this form of illumination is too closely bound to old architectural notions, particularly to Romanesque and Gothic art. Therefore here there is no stained glass, but glazing through which one can see the clouds, or the movements of the foliage and even passers-by.” Excerpt from Le Corbusier, Oeuvre complete, volume 5, 1946-1952. Retrieved February, 2017. http://www.fondationlecorbusier.fr/corbuweb/morpheus.aspx?sysId=13&IrisObjectId=5147&sysLanguage=en-en&itemPos=3&itemCount=5&sysParentName=Home&sysParentId=11 The Berkeley Chapel is an interpretation, not an exact copy, of the Corbusier de-sign. Close similarities between the two buildings include: • overall form, massing, and architectural character. • curving white exterior walls. • dramatic upturned roof. • pointed “prow”. • cylindrical towers / drums on the exterior. • roof “suspended” or “floating” over walls by the insertion of thin clerestory

windows to separate the two. • use of colored glass windows. • roof drain scupper and sculptural rain water collector. • exterior worship space in sheltered alcove beneath eaves. Differences include: • the Corbusier chapel has numerous small windows, mostly square or rectan-

gular, asymmetrically set in the main walls. The Berkeley church has no win-


Page 34 of 160

35

dows in the sanctuary other than clerestories and the two vertical stained glass panels;

• the Corbusier chapel has drum-like protrusions on the exterior which serve as secondary chapels; in Berkeley, the drum-like structures serve utilitarian pur-poses are are not used for public worship.

• the roof of the Corbusier chapel extends a great distance out and up from the walls. The Berkeley chapel roof has a large overhang but still terminates closer to the wall, creating a smaller eave.

• the Corbusier chapel is entered through a narrow slit in the walls between two towers. The Berkeley chapel has a wide, glassy, entrance wall for both the sanctuary and the classrooms.

• the Corbusier chapel stands on a rise, approached by a steep path; the Ber-keley Chapel sits on a gentle hillside slope, and is approached from above, not below.

• there is no tower on the Berkeley church as there is on the Corbusier church; instead, the tower element is recalled by a huge freestanding metal cross.

• the projecting cylinders / drums on the Berkeley chapel are flat topped cylin-ders; the Corbusier chapel has domed tower elements.

Architectural Description: Exterior Like the Ronchamp building, the Berkeley chapel building cannot be conven-tionally or easily described by elevations alone, since the perimeter is irregular with curving and arcing elements. Figure C1 and Figure C2 show the building from above (Google Earth, February 2017) to give an overall sense of its shape and placement. From the exterior the building is almost ship like, with massive, largely window-less walls, and a swooping, canted, roof that combines with the walls to form a monumental “prow” facing southwest. The exterior walls are all painted white, including the underside of the roof eaves. The roof is a brick red and, because of its curved, sloping, form and the topography, prominently visible from the northeast. The roof lies on top of the building like a curling piece of paper, with upturned eaves on east and west that rise and turn in one smooth, curved, motion from horizontal soffits into vertical parapets. (Figure C23, C24, C25, and C27 show roof details including the upturned eaves, and red painted north end of the roof.) Although the building is somewhat trapezoidal in plan, the northern end is narrower and lower than the south, giving it an almost triangular appearance


Page 35 of 160

36

when viewed from certain angles. From above, however, the roof form appears somewhat rectangular. (Refer to Figures C1 and C2, aerials). The main entrances are on the northeast. From here the description will proceed clockwise around the building. On the northeast the roof extends outward then curls up over the inner half of a wide, deep, entrance patio or portico on the east side of the building (Figure C3). The roof is upheld by a uniform row of five thick, cylindrical, concrete columns, perhaps three feet in diameter, white painted, unadorned, but with “sonotube” markings (Figure C4 and Figure C5). Each column is flanked by two cylindrical metal bollards containing landscape lighting fixtures; it is unclear if these are original. There are additional circular recessed light fixtures in the roof of the portico in an arc close to the building. The patio / portico is surfaced with red brick laid in a herringbone pattern. This same pattern continues into the building where the floor is also a herringbone red brick at the same level as the exterior patio. The exterior patio bricks, however, appear to be more recent than the interior bricks and perhaps represent a re-laying or repairing of the patio. (The brick surface of the large eastern patio narrows and wraps around the northern end and northwestern corner of the building. At other points lawn ad-joins the building wall.) The eastern wall of the sanctuary space is windowless except for the clerestory and is deeply inset under the roof eaves. A cross is mounted on the building wall. This space faces a large lawn area and may have been intended to reflect the outdoor worship space of the Ronchamp chapel and, like it, provide a facility for outdoor services (Figure C6). At the southeastern corner of the building the exterior wall turns west and con-tinues in two sections to the southwestern “prow”. The eastern, lower, portion of this south wall is set a few feet south of the western, higher, portion, with the two sections connected by a concave element (Figure C10). Outboard of the southwestern corner but connected to the southern wall is a par-tially cylindrical structure or drum, windowless, but with a door concealed where it approaches the southern wall. This drum contains the sacristy (see inte-rior description) (Figure C7 and Figure C8. Figure C9 shows the “hidden” exte-rior doorway to the sacristy).


Page 36 of 160

37

The southern wall continues southwest to join the western wall. Where the two meet, a slab wall extends southwest, forming a prominent “point” to the main structure of the building. Above this wall the upturned roof eave projects higher. The west end of the south wall has a seam composed of a vertical colored glass window rising almost the entire height of the wall. (Figure C11, C15 and C16 show “prow” element. Figures C12, C13, C14 show southern colored glass win-dow placement and detail.) The west wall of the building is windowless (except for the clerestory) for the southern half of its length. At midpoint it curves outward and connects to an-other exterior drum-like structure. The vertical seam between wall and drum is formed by an exit door below a second vertical colored glass window. The drum encloses a room within the building, use unknown. (Figures C20, C21, C22). Beyond this western drum there is a low stretch of wall containing a second exit door from the classroom portion of the building. A concrete path with a utilitar-ian railing connects to this door to form a handicapped entrance from the adja-cent asphalt driveway. A clear glass vertical window is located above this door. At the northwest corner of the building the roof descends to its lowest point, and is upheld by a single freestanding concrete column with sonotube markings; the roof creates a covered porch on the north end of the building. (Figures C23, C24). The building wall turns east in a tight curve to meet first a door, then a short wall, then a window wall which looks into the south end of the classroom space (Figure C25). Immediately to the east along this wall is a large cylindrical element which pierces the roof and contains two bathrooms accessed from the exterior of the building. (Figure C29, Figure C30). This is the third drum like structure on the exterior of the building and forms a prominent element at the low end of the building, especially when seen from a distance. It is also the only one of the three perimeter drums that extends above the roof. Above this section of the terrace rainwater drains north and east across the roof to a single metal scupper or downspout on the north eave that projects the water into the air, rather than into an enclosed drain line. The water falls into a monu-mental freestanding raised concrete cylinder, sliced at an angle and vertically striated with board form marks, and partially filled with river cobbles. From there it drains into a storm sewer or cistern through a metal grate. The drainage cylinder forms a sculptural element on the north side of the building, and recalls the Ronchamp roof drainage. (Figures C26, C28). The end of the roof and the scupper are both painted red, giving the impression that the red roof is hanging over the lowest end of the building. (Figure C26, Fig-ure C27).


Page 37 of 160

38

The blank “rear” wall of the bathroom drum forms a northeast corner to the building structure. (Figure C30). Curving around it the brick patio widens to the eastern approach terrace of the building. As noted earlier, the roof above the wide terrace is upheld by five thick, un-adorned, concrete pillars placed at regular intervals. The covered portion of the terrace is deepest between the restroom drum and the entrance to the sanctuary. Along this wall there are from right (north) to left (south), these elements. First, a large expanse of plate glass window, rising from the patio to a crossbar with a transom above. The main window is divided into five panes—two large at middle, and three smaller below, in the position of a bulkhead—and the transom is a single piece of glass above the windows. Adja-cent (left) of this window are two solid, white painted, doors to the classroom units. The transom continues above these doors. A thick vertical wooden bar di-vides the doors and rises to the ceiling, crossing a similar thick bar between win-dow and clerestory; the overall subtle effect is a massive abstract wooden cross, laid on its side. (Figure C31 shows the Classroom “storefront” ensemble.) Beyond the classroom doors there is a flat stretch of wall, with a horizontal board mounted on it, bearing in raised letters the inscription “Chapel of the Cross 1965”. (Figure C32). To the left (south) of the sign there is a projecting, angled, window wall which contains the entrance doors to the sanctuary. Perpendicular to the wall of the building a floor to ceiling glass wall extends, divided horizontally by a single wooden element. This connects, by a vertical corner post, to a longer wall that ex-tends at a 45 degree angle southwest. This second wall section contains the entry doors—four solid wooden panels with a natural finish—below a single plate glass transom or clerestory. There is a narrow sidelight at the left (east) end of this wall, next to the entrance doors. (Figures C36, C33 and C36 show the main sanctuary entrance.) This brings the description back to the southeast corner of the building. The exterior walls are uniformly white, apparently stuccoed, with faint vertical structural divisions at regular intervals. The soffits and eaves are also white, ex-cept on the north where the end of the roof is painted red. Architectural Description: Interior While privately owned interiors are not subject to the Berkeley Landmarks Pres-ervation Ordinance, a description of the interior is important to an understand-ing of the chapel. The interior description also includes detailed descriptions of


Page 38 of 160

39

the colored glass windows which are part of the exterior walls, but are best seen from inside. In general form the building has one main enclosed space, divided by moveable walls into three parts: a main sanctuary, and two classrooms that can be com-bined. There are additional smaller spaces, including a sacristy and restrooms. The main space of the interior, encompassing more than half of the floor space and situated beneath the highest portion of the roof / ceiling, is the sanctuary at the south end of the building. Parishioners enter the sanctuary through a bank of four wooden doors in a glass wall. The brick flooring on the interior is level with the brick exterior patio and laid in the same herringbone pattern, forming an almost seamless “indoor / out-door” transition. (Figure C33. Figure C34 and Figure C35 show the indoor / out-door brick floor transition.) The first interior space is a small narthex that is completely open ahead to the main sanctuary space, but has a floor to ceiling curved wall on the right (east) to create some sense of separation. (Figure C39 looks east across the rear of the sanctuary towards the entrance.) The sanctuary generally follows what is sometimes called a lecture-hall floor plan, without formal symmetry or distinctly separate spaces for each function. In the southwest corner of the room the chancel is expressed as a low raised plat-form of two quarter circles each forming one step. Instead of standing in a con-ventional apse, the altar is placed on the top step in front of the angle where the two “prow” walls of the building meet, with the south facing colored glass win-dow behind it. The altar is a simple rectangular table, apparently made of stone. (Figure C37 shows the chancel / altar area). A cylindrical wooden ambo (combining functions of pulpit and lectern) stands to the east (right) of the chancel. It has a curved front made of vertical wooden slats with a natural finish. Mid century modern wooden armchairs are used in the place of pews and can be arranged in various configurations. The left (south) wall of the chancel has a curved, built in wooden seat attached to the wall for the use of officiants. Two crosses, one large, one small, are to the left (south) of the alter, and what appears to be a red glass eternal flame mounted on a simple sconce projects from the right (west) wall behind the ambo. There are two organs on the east wall of the main sanctuary. Both are ornate, one with elaborate gilt ornamentation. They are a Hupalo and Repasky Pipe Organ,


Page 39 of 160

40

originally built by Woodberry & Harris in 1889, and restored in 2008, and a Greg Harold Organbuilders Opus 11 organ, built in 1988. (database.organsociety.org, accessed February, 2017) A low angled wooden wall creates an enclosure for the larger organ. (Figure C40 shows the organ area and east wall of the sanctuary.) In the southeast corner of the building, on the south wall, there is an unobtrusive door into what appears to be the sacristy, which is expressed on the exterior of the building as one of the projecting cylinders. The interior wall is set back a few feet south of the chancel wall and there is a beam above that may once have sup-ported a curtain or screen to create an alcove in front of the sacristy. The possible alcove space is now largely filled by one of the organs. Natural light enters the sanctuary through the clerestory and the colored glass windows. There are also recessed lights in the ceiling placed at somewhat irregu-lar intervals. Various simple pieces of ecclesiastical furniture including a baptismal font, communion table, and small lectern are placed on the perimeter of the sanctuary. The font is a memorial gift by the Havlik family. To the left (east) side of the narthex, near the main doors, is a figurative metal and wood sculpture “New Life”, by Norman H. Grag, a gift of the Class of 1966. The sculpture probably of cast bronze, depicts an aesthetic male figure, arms out-stretched and clad in a loincloth, presumably a figure or Christ or a prophet. The sculpture is placed on a wooden stand, with a carved wooden plaque behind it bearing the inscription “I Am The Lord Your God”. (Figure C42 shows the sculp-ture and the view from the narthex.) Opposite the sculpture is an abstract freestanding pedestal of white stone or con-crete, formed of two cones joined tip to tip. Attached to the right (west) wall of the narthex is a small wooden writing table projecting from the wall, below a highly abstract carved wooden sculpture mounted to the wall. The floor of the sanctuary is a dark rectangular red brick laid in a herringbone pattern and possibly waxed or sealed with a clear sealant. In the northwest corner of the sanctuary there is a door in the west wall that serves as an emergency exit, located below the western colored glass window. (Figure C38 shows the northwest corner.)


Page 40 of 160

41

Windows: There are three window elements in the sanctuary. The first is a narrow horizon-tal clerestory, of clear glass, that runs almost entirely around the eastern, south-ern, and western perimeters of the room; the only solid area is above the sacristy. The clerestory is punctuated at regular intervals by small cylindrical concrete columns. Even on a cloudy day the clerestory brings natural light into the room, but not direct sun (except perhaps in early morning or very late afternoon) since it is located under the wide eave of the roof. The clerestory appears to make the heavy roof lift and “float” above the room and creates an ever present band of light / brightness above the walls; this is a primary architectural element directly borrowed from Notre Dame du Haut. The same feature is also found in Berkeley in the Roman Catholic Newman Hall Par-ish sanctuary at Dwight and College Avenue (designed by Mario Ciampi). There are two colored glass windows in the sanctuary. The largest is found in the south wall, immediately adjacent to the west wall. It rises from near ground level to ceiling where the building is highest. Interestingly, however, the inner wall of the sanctuary blocks a direct view of this window from much of the room. Instead, it brings light indirectly into the room manifested as a glowing vertical slot behind the altar. The images on the glass can only be clearly seen from a position along the right (west) wall of the sanctuary, but in bright sun pat-terns of color are cast on the west wall of the sanctuary. Both windows are made in the dalle de verre technique. They are not, properly speaking, “stained glass” which is usually mounted in leaded cames, but thick colored glass mounted in a matrix. “Dalle de verre, from French: "glass slab", is a glass art technique that uses pieces of coloured glass set in a matrix of concrete and epoxy resin or other supporting material. The technique was developed by Jean Gaudin in Paris in the 1930s. Slabs of coloured glass, 20 centimetres (7.9 in) to 30 centimetres (12 in) square or rectangular and typi-cally up to 3 centimetres (1.2 in) thick, are shaped by breaking with a hammer or cutting with a saw. The edges of the resulting pieces may be chipped or faceted to increase the refraction and reflection effects.

The pieces are laid out to a design, similar to traditional stained-glass work. The pieces are laid on a bed of sand, bounded by a wooden casting frame. A matrix material, sand and cement or epoxy resin, is poured between the glass pieces and allowed to dry, typi-cally requiring 24 hours to harden. The visible glass faces are then cleaned and the result-ing solid panel can be relocated, embedded or hung as required. Th use of thicker glass produces deeper colour effects than traditional lead came stained-glass, especially when illuminated by bright natural or artificial light. The technique achieved prominence in the stained glass literature of the 1950s and 1960s.”


Page 41 of 160

42

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalle_de_verre (accessed February, 2017) “One inch thick slabs of glass measuring 8 by 12 inches and called Dalles are broken with a carbide hammer or sawn with a water cooled diamond blade saw into shapes for de-signs. The edges of the glass are chipped, or faceted, so that light will be refracted through the facets. After completing the cutting, the pieces of the glass design are placed in a mold. Special epoxy formulated for the technique is poured in to the gaps between the glass. When the epoxy hardens and cures, the finished piece can be hung by hooks embedded in the epoxy or framed in to a wall opening. Since the glass used in this technique is much thicker than standard glass (usually 1/8”), the resulting colors are much richer and deeper by comparison. Dalle-de-verre glass is preferably displayed in strong and direct sunlight which allows the facets in the glass to sparkle.” http://osvaldsstainedglass.com/portfolio/dalle-de-verre-technique/ (accessed February, 2017) The southern window contains eleven vertical panels, each appearing about three feet tall and about a foot wide. On the exterior, the glass chips in the panels are raised above the matrix surface, and the interstices are covered with a veneer of a large grained gold sand; it is unclear if this was a by-product of the casting process, or an intentional veneer added to the panels. Both windows are framed in painted wood strips on the exterior. (Figures C43, C44, C45, C46 show interior details of the south window. Return to Figures C12 and C13 to see exterior de-tails.) The western window has the same basic composition as the southern, but instead of rectangles appears to be composed of four diagonal elements. The lower, larg-est, panel is a trapezoid as is the smallest top panel, while the two intermediate ones are diamond shaped. The southern window depicts what appears to be an allegorical natural land-scape touched by the Divine. At the bottom are ripe wheat stalks, entwined with a fruiting branch of purple grapes. The grape vine twines upward and becomes a flowering vine with large, white petaled, blossoms being visited by a purple and gold butterfly. A second butterfly rises, flying, below large drops of water spilling from a golden brown open hand, possibly the hand of God. Above the hand what appear to be purple flames rise to mingle with multicolored rays of light radiating from a white star or sun with three points visible. The west window is more abstracted. The bottom is a riot of green foliage inter-spersed with red, blue, and yellow jewel like elements (perhaps blossoms) on


Page 42 of 160

43

several twined branches that appear to form a single shrub; above are large flame-like elements in light and dark blue, white, and burgundy, interrupting di-agonal bars made up of small pieces of rectangular blue, purple, and white glass. At the top there is a suggestion of curved white clouds. (Figure C47 and C48 show the interior of the west window. Return to Figure C21 for an exterior view of this window.) Research did not identify the artist / creator of these stained glass panels, al-though this information presumably exists in seminary records. The windows are among the largest modern compositions of colored glass in an ecclesiastical setting in Berkeley, and large and impressive works of art in their own right, re-gardless of setting. Robert Pinart, an important mid-century American glass artist of French ances-try, did work in this style and was accomplished in the dalle de verre technique. At mid-century he created monumental abstract dalle de verre windows for the Tilden Meditation Room in the Martin Luther King, Jr. Student Union and the lobby of Hertz Hall, both at UC Berkeley, and for at least one private home in Berkeley. Pinart executed many religious commissions in the United States. Intriguingly, Pinart also created stained glass windows expressing biblical themes in the Shepherd of the Hills Lutheran Church at 401 Grizzly Peak Boulevard in Ber-keley, north of the PSR campus. This congregation grew out of the establishment of the Pacific School of Religion on the Marin Avenue site, and its sanctuary was dedicated in 1960, five years before the Chapel was built at PSR. However, without further research, any direct connection of the PSR chapel win-dows and Pinart is conjectural. The north interior wall of the sanctuary appears to be composed of moveable vertical partitions, painted white, although it is unclear if these are currently openable. On the north side of this wall are two classroom spaces. The classrooms form one unit, but can be divided east / west by a moveable wall. The classrooms are car-peted, and furnished with tables, chairs, and a built in counter / cabinet element along the west wall. (Figure C49 shows the Classroom interior.) Landscaping and Exterior Elements: Aside from a small conifer sapling (perhaps a volunteer) growing out of the base of the steel cross, some small California live oaks northeast of the entrance ter-race, and some shrub plantings near the rain collector, the landscape is largely grass up to the walls of the building. This is not inconsistent with Notre Dame du


Page 43 of 160

44

Haut, where the Corbusier chapel is surrounded by lawn. An asphalt driveway to a rear parking area passes close to the west side of the building. The northeast portion of the eastern entrance terrace is edged with a low field-stone wall two stones high. There is one modern bench, made of curved metal straps, freestanding on the patio. It bears a memorial inscription to Margaret Monroe, a former PSR student, who died in 2007. The terrace also contains a modernistic freestanding bell hang-ing in a metal hoop. Southwest of the building there is a monumental steel Latin cross implanted in the ground. The cross is freestanding and appears constructed of welded I-beams. To achieve sufficient height in relation to the building, the base of the cross is considerably elongated so it resembles a gigantic processional cross (a cross mounted on a staff and carried in a religious ritual). The cross has a rusty patina resembling corten steel. Starting several feet above the ground there are small projecting metal steps or spurs similar to the steps used by maintenance workers to climb utility poles. (Figures C16, C17, and C18 show the freestanding cross in general perspective and detail.) Setting: The Chapel of the Cross is situated at the southwestern corner of the PSR cam-pus, downhill from the knoll containing the Nash House. A curving flagstone pathway descends a grassy slope from the Nash House to the entrance terrace of the Chapel. (Figure C3 shows this approach). Some writers have questioned the siting of the Chapel noting that, unlike Notre Dame du Haut, the prominent architectural “prow” of the building is not easily visible. Visitors must walk around the “rear” of the chapel to see this element, although the lawn and parking lot in this area provide ample space to stand back and see it from a distance. It should be noted, however, that architecture alone does not define ecclesiastical structures. As or more important are the spiritual meanings and components of the structure, and the architecture must be responsive to these in order to fulfill its purpose. The Chapel of the Cross is a religious structure, not simply an archi-tectural design, and the design follows accordingly. Two features of particular importance in Christian religious structures may be mentioned. First, there is the interior progression of spaces. A worshiper enters the building usually through some sort of vestibule space (the narthex), that then opens up into a larger interior (the sanctuary), which may be subdivided into sections with special functions (nave, chancel, apse, transepts). At the far end of


Page 44 of 160

45

the sanctuary from the entrance is the altar, typically backed or flanked by relig-ious iconography—including, in Lutheran practice, one or more crosses signaling the presence of God—and often situated at the highest elevation. Second, light is extremely important in Christian (and many other) religious structures. In the western world, many churches are positioned so sun will fall directly on stained glass windows and dramatically illuminate the interior, par-ticularly during typical worship hours. Both these factors seem to have influenced the setting of the Chapel of the Cross. The highest part of the sanctuary and all of the sanctuary windows face east, south, or west to acquire sunlight. This positioning in turn may have dictated the position of the altar at the southwestern corner. The location of the altar then dic-tates the processional experience across the sanctuary and the placement of the main entrance doors at the northern end of the sanctuary. If the building had been sited “turned around” so the dramatic architectural “prow” faced north and was most visible from the rest of the campus, worship-ers would have had to walk around the building to enter and receive the proper interior processional experience, and the windows in the most important parts of the sanctuary would have been in shade much of the day.


Page 45 of 160

15. History:

The Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary is situated at the crest of the Berkeley Hills. Before California statehood was granted in 1848, the boundaries of three great ranchos, Rancho San Antonio, Rancho San Pablo, and Rancho El Sobrante met near this site.With the advent of statehood, and the establishment of county lines, the twelve acres became part of an unincorporated area of Contra Costa County. A subdivision map of the area, signed Harold Havens and Co Inc. Subdividers, is dated January 12, 1927. The area is therein named North Cragmont and Berkeley Woods,, although this area was not yet part of the city of Berkeley. In early 1959, Berkeley Woods was annexed to the city of Berkeley, by a vote of the Berkeley Woods residents, adding 75 acres and 102 homes to the city. This Berkeley expansion necessitated moving the county line, to make Berkeley Woods and the PLTS campus part of Alameda County

The Nash House.

John Henry Nash purchased his property, 2770 Marin Avenue in Berkeley Woods, after the 1927 subdivision. He hired the prominent Berkeley architect Mark Daniels to design a grand Spanish Colonial Revival mansion as a showcase for his collection of rare books. In 1944, his collection was donated to the University of California. The University Librarian stated, “The collection of books was hailed by university Librarian Harold L. Leupp as the best in 500 years of typography and binding. There are 2,417 rare books, numerous examples of Nash’s own printing, furniture, medals, and paintings included in the collection.” Nash was a printer and collector of fine books, and the house was designed with twelve rooms, including a large library with antique English mantelpiece and four stained glass windows depicting the invention of moveable type, imported from Berlin. To supply the extensive woodworking, three different wood carving firms were employed. Throughout the house, materials of the finest workmanship were used, many imported from Europe, and many purchased from William Randolph Hearst, one of Nash’s patrons.

John Henry Nash (1871-1947) was one of the founders of the Californian tradition of fine press printing. Here are some reminisces on Nash by Ward Ritchie, from My Life in Printing, an interview for the Library at UCLA, 1969.In 1929,

“the two best printers on the Pacific Coast were in San Francisco- John Henry Nash and the Grabhorn Brothers.” In early 1930, “ I next went to see John Henry Nash. John Henry Nash was the father of fine printing in San Francisco. He made fine printing popular. He was a rather pompous man who enjoyed knowing the wealthy people of San Francisco. He had not only made fine printing well-known, but he had been able to sell it to the Hearsts, the Clarks, and other well-to do and prominent people. He appeared to be


Page 46 of 160

quite well-off. He arrived in his great Cadillac each morning which was chauffeur driven. He had built a fine and beautiful house. He had a magnificent library of examples of the work of all the great printers from early times.”

(Ritchie was a master printer who considered Nash a mentor, and the long-time companion of Gloria Stuart, the actress who played the much older Rose DeWitt in the movie Titanic. According to Peter E. Hanff, deputy director of the UC Berkeley Bancroft Library, he took the two, at their request, to visit the Nash house in the early 1990’’s. “They posed in front of the house just to the southeast of it so that I could capture the roof line behind them.”

Nash was born in Woodbridge, Ontario Canada. At sixteen, he became an apprentice in the shop of James Murray, one of the leading printers in Toronto. He came to San Francisco in 1895, where he found employment as a printer. After several years, he established his own companies, and until 1937,” he produced books, pamphlets, broadsides and job printing which embodied the technical perfection he demanded.” (From the guide to the John Henry Nash Collection, UC Berkeley Bancroft Library)We know that the Nash house was completed before March 12, 1931, as the Archbishop Hanna of San Francisco blessed the Cornerstone of The Nash Place on that date, at 12:30 PM. See the program from the benediction and the article from the Oakland Tribune. The cornerstone, still found near the home’s front door, is in Latin, and roughly translates: “This house designed by the architect Mark Daniels is built by me, John Henry Nash, master of arts, doctor of literature in the year of our Lord MCXXX. (A mistake; it should read MCMXXX., 1930)

A victim of the economic devastation of the great depression, Nash was forced to sell the house several years later., between 1936 and 1940. See the sale brochure from the Mason-McDuffie Company, printed by Nash himself. The house was bought by Herbert Watson Clark, a highly-accomplished San Francisco attorney who was later chairman of the State Bar of California. Clark and Nash were co-members of the Bohemian club. Clark sold the house to the Lutheran Seminary in 1950.

John Henry Nash and Mark Daniels (1881-1952) were friends and also co-members of the Bohemian Club. Nash hired Mark Daniels as the architect for his grand mansion. Daniels contributed to a booklet called Hillside Homes and Gardens, in which he praised the virtues of living on the crest of a hill, such as the one on which 2770 Marin is built. “If we wish to develop within ourselves the capacity for inspiration, ambition and a sense of the bigness of things, there is no better way than to seek an environment of inspiring view, where may be seen a portion of the world of sufficient magnitude to give us better perspective and a better sense of the relative importance of things.”Mark Daniels was born in Spring Arbor, Michigan, He graduated from UC Berkeley in 1905 with a B.S. degree in civil engineering. He started his career as


Page 47 of 160

a civil engineer, became a planner and landscape architect, and later came to be an architect.

In 1909, Daniels was hired by John Hopkins Spring, the developer of the Thousand Oaks subdivision, to lay out the roads and lots of what would become Berkeley’s Thousand Oaks neighborhood. Daniels was responsible for contouring the streets to follow the natural terrain. He had a house built for himself and his wife at 1864 Yosemite Road, Berkeley, near the Great Stone Face. Daniels distinguished himself as the landscape engineer for Yosemite National Park (1914), laying out Sea Cliff and Crocker-Amazon in San Francisco, and in the development of the 17-Mile Drive and Pebble Beach in Monterey County. He was one of the chief architects of the Golden Gate International Exposition of 1939-1940., and a key designer in the development of Bel-Air and Wilshire Boulevard in Los Angeles.

Mark Daniels designed a home for John Henry Nash whose exterior surfaces are relatively plain but imposing, and whose interior is full of art, including a frescoed ceiling, ornate carving, hand-painted tile, and stained glass.

The Dobbins House

The Presbyterian Minister Hugh Trowbridge Dobbins (1866-1943) and his wife Roberta Lloyd Dobbins (1871-1959), purchased this property in the late 1920’s. I was fortunate to speak with their grandniece, Judith Laws, on January 29, 2017. Judith was born in Berkeley in 1940, and spent many happy hours and days with her great aunt at the Dobbins House. The house was often filled with children, family, musicians , and actors.

She stated that the Dobbins started to build the house before the depression, and were able to finish it by early 1931. A note from Reverend Dobbins in the Princeton Alumni Weekly of July 2, 1931 stating that they have recently completed their home , corroborates this date. Roberta (called Aunt Robin by her grandniece) came from a pioneering family. Her father, Lewis Marshall Lloyd, from Virginia, discovered oil on his land near Ventura, California: when out riding, a cigar he was lighting blew up: there was methane coming from the ground, oil was discoverd, and the family became very wealthy. The oil wells are still producing: Judith is one of 200 family members sharing the profits to this day.

With their family money, the Dobbins took many trips to Europe, where Judith says they fell in love with the Italian Villa style. They wanted an Italian Villa, and with the family resources, were able to create one of Berkeley’s great houses.Judith said,”The depression came, but it didn’t affect them: oil money is oil money.”


Page 48 of 160

Judith speaking:

“ The house was furnished with 16th century Italian furniture, antique rugs from Armenian dealers, and beautiful original art. The family was deeply musical, and the house was built to host musical and theatrical events.Aunt Robin played the piano for us children. She was a graduate of UC Berkeley, and Uncle Hugh had graduated from Princeton, as had his father,Hugh Hillis Dobbins. Dobbins the father was a pioneering Presbyterian missionary, a prominent member of the 19th century Presbyterian community of Berkeley, pastor of the West Berkeley Presbyterian Church.”

Dobbins the son held many positions of leadership in the Presbyterian Synod and Theological Seminary. Hugh T. Dobbins died unexpectedly after a 2 week illness in 1943.

One of Judith’s favorite memories is playing in the bell tower or belvedere, a striking feature of the home’s architecture. She loved to turn around and around, enjoying the 360 degree view.

The Dobbins hired the architect James H. Mitchell to design their dwelling, and the landscape architect Thomas D. Church to design the gardens.With the family in residence, it was a showcase estate. According to Charles Hinger,”There were formal gardens, a large garden lawn with lawn borders and outdoor stage, an arbor walkway and greenhouse; rose terraces overlooking the bay, a birch terrace and a “woodland walk”-- an area carefully maintained to look like a pleasant walk in the forest.”

James H. Mitchell (1889-1964) , architect, was also a Presbyterian, and this may have been the connection between the Dobbins and Mr. Mitchell. He was born in 1889 in St, Helena California, and educated at UC Berkeley, where he received his Bachelor of Science in 1911. He then trained as a draftsman under the important Berkeley architect John Galen Howard. From 1925 he was in independent practice of architecture in San Francisco.

Thomas D. Church (1902-1978) , landscape architect was in his late 20’s when the Dobbins hired him to design their estate grounds. He was born in Bostonand spent his childhood in California. He received his Bachelor of Arts degree in Landscape Architecture from UC Berkeley in 1922. He studied design at Harvard, where he received his Master’s degree in 1926. He then traveled through Europe, and was fascinated by gardens of the Italian, Iberian and Moorish Renaissance, whose plants were adapted to the Mediterranean Climate and would thrive in California’s similar climate.

Thomas Church is considered the founder of the Modern California Landscape


Page 49 of 160

school, a true pioneer of 20th century landscape architecture. His four principles of design include unity, function, simplicity and scale. His work was informed by and complemented the work of such modernist architects as William Wurster and Joseph Escherick. He built gardens to live in. One of his innovations is the “outdoor room”, areas in the garden which invite a flow between interior and exterior dwelling spaces. He was a key designer in the landscapes of Stanford University, UC Berkeley, and UC Santa Cruz and designed Park Merced in San Francisco. His most famous garden is the Donnell Garden in Sonoma, California.

The Dobbins family enjoyed their home until 1950, when their estate, along with the adjoining Clark estate, was sold to the Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary.

The Seminary Years and the Chapel of the CrossThe Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary ‘s mission is to train Lutheran clergy and lay leaders. The Seminary is affiliated with the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America. It was established in Portland, Oregon in 1910. The Seminary then moved to Seattle, and closed in 1934. The funds for that Seminary were put in trust, and were used to purchase the current campus grounds in 1950. According to Anthony Bruce, the founders of the Seminary looked at several sites in the East Bay, including the Spring Mansion property on San Antonio in Berkeley before choosing and purchasing the contiguous Clark (formerly Nash) and Dobbins estates in 1950. The first theological classes were held here in 1952.

Berkeley was chosen as the site for the Seminary because of its central location on the West coast, because it is a major educational center, and because it was already home to several other seminaries. The Lutheran community hoped to establish cooperation between the religious educational schools of Berkeley. In 1962 PLTS helped found the Graduate Theological Union, which now boasts nine theological seminaries and eleven academic centers; it is the largest theological community in the United States.

The Seminary adapted the existing buildings, the Nash House and the Dobbins House, to serve the needs of an educational and religious institution. The Nash House was renamed Founders Hall. The north wing of Founders Hall became the President’s residence: The home’s original living room, 24’ x 36’, was renamed the Great Hall, and used for faculty meetings, staff meetings, special gatherings of the Seminary, and sometimes small group discussions. Other rooms are used for reception, and faculty offices.

Phyllis Anderson served as president of PLTS from 2005-2013 ; the first woman to serve as president of a Lutheran seminary in the United States. While she was in residence in the President’s wing of Founders Hall, she hosted an annual


Page 50 of 160

Christmas party in the Great Hall for all of the neighbors, complete with refreshments, music , and a visit from Santa. As one of the neighbors enjoying her hospitality, we were very impressed by the generosity and warmth of the Lutheran community.

The Dobbins house was renamed Sawyer Hall, after the Rev. Dr. John Lester Sawyer, the first president of the PLTS Board of Directors. The Hall has been used historically as classrooms, offices, a student lounge, and to house the campus hospitality directors. The building also housed the Seminary’s Center for Multi-Cultural Ministry.

The growing Seminary added three major buildings to the campus. The first, Beasom Hall, was named for the Reverend Dr. James Prince Beasom, a primary mover in establishing PLTS. It was built in the mid-1950’s, and designed by architect Okie Johnson.

Giesy Hall, added to the campus in 1959, was designed by the architect Robert Ratcliff, 40 year leader of the distinguished three-generational firm Ratcliff Architects. A 1937 graduate of UC Berkeley’s Architecture School, he was educated in classic techniques, but was inspired by Mies, Gropius and Le Corbusier to adopt the new Bauhaus style of architecture. His design emphasized a Modernist aesthetic, looking at form and light in new ways. Robert Ratcliff’’s accomplishments include the design of the charming Berkeley Art Center at Live Oak Park, several Berkeley Public Schools, buildings on many UC campuses, the Berkeley Baptist Divinity School, and numerous commercial buildings and residences throughout the Bay Area.

The Chapel of the Cross was built for Lutheran worship and classroom space in 1965. It is the last building added to the campus. It was designed by San Francisco architect James Morrision Leefe (1921-2004) of the San Francisco firm Leefe and Ehrenkrantz. Leefe was born in New York City, and received his Bachelor of Architecture degree from Columbia University in 1950.

The chapel is an homage to Le Corbusier’s Notre Dame du Haut in Ronchamp France, built in 1955. Le Corbusier designed curving and sinous walls, and gave his church the shape of a ship, with a prow, and hollow, swooping concrete roof.Leefe has utilized these same features, reinterpreting what had become an international icon just 10 years earlier, in a local context.


Page 51 of 160

16. Significance

Consistent with section 3.24.110 A of the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance, the property and buildings at 2770 and 2750 Marin Avenue are significant for:

(1) Architectural Merit:

All four buildings are “examples of the more notable works of the best surviving work in a region of an architect, designer or master builder.”Nash House: The Nash House was designed by Mark Daniels, who was a prominent architect in Berkeley and Los Angeles. Important in Berkeley history, he graduated from UC Berkeley in 1905, and laid out the tract that became the Thousand Oaks neighborhood. The house is a prime example of the Spanish Colonial revival style, a style which Daniels utilized extensively in creating the gracious and opulent feel of Bel-Air in Los Angeles. The house is exceptional in its craftsmanship and detailing. Dobbins House: The Dobbins house was designed by James H. Mitchell, a graduate of UC Berkeley with the class of 1911. He trained as a draftsman with the designer of many of UC Berkeley’s campus buildings: John Galen Howard.The collaboration between Mitchell and the internationally famed landscape architect Thomas D. Church is noteworthy. As with the Nash House, the fact that the designed landscape context survives with the architecture is exceptional.The broad terrace on the south facade of the house, connected to the house by sets of French doors, shows Church’s innovative indoor-outdoor flow, and the creation of living space in the outdoors.An architecture student would notice the leaded windows, the wooden and stucco columns with exceptional and varied capital designs and the fine wrought iron gates.Chapel of the Cross: This church is one of the more notable works of James M. Leefe, a prominent San Francisco architect. He was also an artist, and this church shows him at his most artistic. The church is built with curving lines: there are no right angles. It is an homage to an international icon, Notre Dame du Haut by the very influential architect, Le Corbusier. Among Berkeley’s churches,it is closest in feel to Newman Hall, and exemplifies the Modernist style of the mid-century.

Giesy Hall: Robert Ratcliff, who lead the three generational firm, The Ratcliff Architects, for 40 years, designed Giesy Hall. Walter Ratcliff, Robert Ratcliff and Kit Ratcliff represent the three generations of architects that helped shape the UC campus, Berkeley’s public schools, and many of our most significant public, commercial and residential buildings. The firm is rooted in the humanist tradition; Robert Ratcliff’s work is informed by that of his father, Walter Ratcliff; he went on to help found the Bay Area


Page 52 of 160

modernist tradition. Giesy Hall is a library-office building which is a prototype of Robert Ratcliff’s Modern style. (2) Cultural Value:The site is “associated with the movement or evolution of religious ...developments of the City.” As the home of the only Lutheran seminary in the western half of the United States for over fifty-five years, it has been an important religious institution. The PLTS helped found, and has remained an active member, of the Graduate Theological Union, the largest theological community in the United States. With the presidency of Phyllis Anderson in 2005, PLTS became the first Lutheran Seminary to be led by a woman. Hundreds of Lutheran clergy and lay leaders have been trained at the Seminary.

The Nash House is “associated with the movement or evolution of ..cultural developments of the City.” According to Peter E. Hanff, deputy director of Cal’s Bancroft Library, “The historic structures there that were the home of John Henry Nash, one of Northern California’s finest printers and designers of books, have long been important to visitors interested in the history of the book and fine printing. ...For years I have happily guided vistors to the former Nash property. Of course the place means a great deal to printers, book collectors, and book historians, but it is a significant jewel in the history of Berkeley and its cultural impact in California.”

The Dobbins House is “associated with the movement or evolution of religious, cultural, and social developments of the City.” The Dobbins family were prominent pioneers of the Presbyterian community of Berkeley, having been resident in the City since 1886. Hugh T. Dobbins’ father Hugh H. Dobbins came across the U.S. in a prairie schooner; founded many churches throughout the West, and became pastor of the West Berkeley Presbyterian Church upon taking up residence in Berkeley. Hugh T. was also a Presbyterian Minister, and continued his leadership in the Presbyterian synod and seminaries during his tenure at 2750 Marin Avenue.Hugh T. and Roberta Dobbins encouraged the growth of the arts in Berkeley: their home was built to host musical and theatrical performances and many artistic careers were launched and nurtured by the Dobbins.

The twelve-acre site is a cultural resource for the citizens of Berkeley. Historically, since at least 1952, it has been open to the public for walking and appreciation of the open space, magnificent views, and history.

(3) Educational Value: The structures and landscape are “worth preserving for their usefulness as an educational force,” to show an early stage in the development of the Berkeley Hills. Much of the campus has been preserved in its 1930 form, the last area on


Page 53 of 160

the crest of the Berkeley Hills to remain relatively undeveloped with open space and sweeping 360 degree views.The Chapel of the Cross brings architecture students to study its architectural form , use of poured concrete technology and stained glass windows technique.

(4) Historic ValueThe four buildings and their grounds should be preserved since they “embody and express the history of Berkeley/Alameda County”. All four are designed by leading and significant Berkeley architects.The Nash House is an important site for the history of printing in Berkeley, with influence on the history of the book and printing throughout California.“We at the Bancroft Library of the University of California in Berkeley, preserve the John Henry Nash’s archives and some of his printing equipment. Bancroft offers two courses per semester on modern fine printing with the letter-press(the type of printing invented by Gutenerg). The Nash equipment and parts of his collection are in continual use here.” Peter E. Hanff, Deputy DirectorThe Dobbins House gives us a feel for the life of the well -to-do in 1930-1950’s California: the wealthy Dobbins traveled extensively in Europe, imitated the Italian Villas they saw there in building their home, patronized the arts and city clubs, and were active leaders in their religious community.The Chapel of the Cross gives us a feel for the excitement felt in the architectural community with the influence of such contemporary architects as Le Corbusier in France, Oscar Niemeyer and Lucio Costa in Brazilia, and Jorn Utzon with his soaring Sydney Opera House. The chapel was built at a cost of $400,000 in 1965 according to the state historic register. In today’s dollars that is $3,023,898. A great deal of time and care was used in the poured concrete technology used in the building of this spectacularly sited church.Giesy Hall shows the work of a leading Berkeley citizen, Robert Ratcliff, and exemplifies the Bay Area modernist trend gaining influence in the late 1950’s.

Historic Value:National: Yes State: Yes County: Yes City: Yes Neighborhood: Yes

Architectural Value:National : No State: Yes County: Yes City: Yes Neighborhood: Yes

17. Is the property endangered?Unknown. The property is for sale.


Page 54 of 160

18: P

HO

TO

GR

AP

HS

ARCHITECTURAL IMAGES

AND HISTORICAL IMAGES


Page 55 of 160

ARCHITECTURALImages

The following photographs were taken by Steve Finacomin February 2017.

Some photographs from Google Earth, 2017, as noted in captions.


Page 56 of 160

18. Architectural Pictures

Figure numbers below correspond to Figure numbers in the text of #14, Architectural Description.

Nash House Figures:

Figure N1. (above)


Page 57 of 160

Figure N2 (above). Looking northeast. Figure N3 (below). Looking west.


Page 58 of 160

Figure N4 (above). Looking southwest, with Chapel of the Cross in back.Figure N5 (below). Looking east.


Page 59 of 160

Figure N6 (above). Figure N7 (below).


Page 60 of 160



Page 61 of 160

Figure N10 (above, left). Figure N11 (above, right). Figure N12 (below).


Page 62 of 160

Figure N13 (above, left). Figure N14 (above, right). Figure N15 (below).


Page 63 of 160

Figure N16 (above, left). Figure N17 (top, right).Figure N18 (below). Figure N19 (right).


Page 64 of 160

Figure N20 (above).


Page 65 of 160

Figure N23 (left). Figure N24 (above, right)Figure N25 (below).


Page 66 of 160



Page 67 of 160



Page 68 of 160



Page 69 of 160

Figure N32 (above)

Figure N35 (top right).

Figure N34 (center, right).

Figure N33. (right)


Page 70 of 160

Figure N36 (above). Figure N38 (lower left). Figure N39 (lower right).


Page 71 of 160



Page 72 of 160

Figure N41 (above). Figure N42 (below right).


Page 73 of 160



Page 74 of 160



Page 75 of 160

Figure N47 (above).Figure N48 (left).


Page 76 of 160

Figure N49 (left).

Figure N50 (below)


Page 77 of 160



Page 78 of 160

Figure N53 (above). Figure N 54 (below).


Page 79 of 160

Figure N55 (above). Figure N56 (below right).


Page 80 of 160

Documents

Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary 2750 and 2770 Marin … · 2017-03-31 · 1. Street Address: 2770 and 2750 Marin Avenue County: Alameda City: Berkeley Zip: 94708 2. Assessor’s