Richmond City Council
March 17, 2026

street a year or two later. Lee also designed a multi -unit housing project in Richmond for Basic Home Industries in 1956; however, the location and status of that work are unknown. (UC Berkeley Environmental Design Archives).

Criterion 6. A structure, site, or other improvement which meets any of the above criteria at the highest level, and whose loss would be a major loss to the City, may be designated a Richmond Historic Landmark.

Supporting Statements of Fact: The property at 771 Ocean Avenue meets criteria 1, 2, 4, and 5. It represents the place where an influential artist lived and produced his significant work for nearly 60 years; contributes to a rich history of intellectual and creative community in Point Richmond; and embodies the characteristics of a distinctive regional architectural style as designed by a prominent and pioneering Bay Area architect. Therefore, its loss would constitute the loss of a cultural and architectural element of the Point Richmond neighborhood and the city as a whole.

Because the building also relates strongly to the near -identical building next door (775 Ocean Avenue) and the two have a shared history, the loss of one or the other would mean the loss of that relationship, which would further exacerbate loss to the neighborhood and city.

SECTION 3. The City Council approves a rezoning to amend the Zoning Map to add a -L, Landmark Overlay District at 771 Ocean Avenue, also known as the John Haley Studio/House, for the purpose of listing the property on the Richmond Hist oric Register and determines that this project meets the following findings required by RMC Section 15.04.814.050:

A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan.

Supporting Statements of Fact : The proposed project -L Landmark Overlay Distr ict Designation complies with the goals and policies of the City of Richmond General Plan, specifically under “Historic Resource Preservation Policy HR1.1: Preservation of Diverse Resources” which encourages the protection, preservation and enhancement of the diverse range of historic, cultural and archaeological sites and resources in the City for the benefit of current and future residents and visitors.

B. The proposed amendment is necessary for public health, safety, and general welfare or will be of benefit to the public.

Supporting Statements of Fact: The proposed rezoning is suitable for the project site because it will be of historic and cultural benefit to the public to preserve the history and the residence of a significant and influential figure, John Haley, in the Richmond, Bay Area and California art worlds and their respective built environments.

C. The proposed amendment has been reviewed in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.

Supporting Statements o f Fact: The -L Landmark Overlay District Designation of the John Haley Studio/House is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA guidelines Section 15308, Class 8, Actions by Regulatory Agencies for the Protection of the Environment as the project proposes to preserve the John Haley Studio/House. 1009

D. For a change to the Zoning Maps, that the subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed zone in terms of access, size of parcel, relationship to similar or related uses, and other relevant considerations, and that the proposed change of zoning district is not detrimental to the use of adjacent properties.

Supporting Statements of Fact : The subject site is located in an area already served by community facilities, utilities and transportation systems and poses no expansion of uses in terms of access, size of parcel, relationship to similar or related uses, and other relevant considerations, nor will it be detrimental to the use of adjacent properties.

SECTION 4. This ordinance shall be effective thirty (30) days after its passage and adoption.

******************************

1010

First introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Richmond held March 3, 2026, and finally passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Richmond at a regular meeting thereof held______________ by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTENTIONS:

ABSENT:

___________________________________

CLERK OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
(SEAL)

Approved:

______________________
Mayor

Approved as to Form:

_____________________
City Attorney

1011
Existing Zoning for 771 Ocean Avenue
City of Richmond
This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable.
2,509
© City of Richmond

0.1 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION
Miles0.10
Legend

0.04 1:

Notes
Parcel
Parcel Labels
Historic Resource
Historic Resource
Pt. Richmond Historic District Boundary
Water Bodies
Zoning District
RH Single-Family Hillside Residential
RL1 Single-Family Very Low Density Residential
RL2 Single-Family Low Density Residential
RM1 Multifamily Residential
RM2 Multifamily High Density Residential
CM-1 Commercial Mixed-Use, Residential
CM-2 Commercial Mixed-Use, Neighborhood
CM-3 Commercial Mixed-Use, Commercial Emphasis
CM-4 Commercial Mixed-Use, Gateway/Node
CM-5 Commercial Mixed-Use, Activity Center
LW Live/Work
CG Commercial, General
CR Commercial, Regional
CC Commercial, Coastal
IB Industrial, Business
ILL Industrial, Limited Light
IL Industrial, Light
IG Industrial, General
IW Industrial, Water-Related
PCI Public, Cultural, and Institutional
PR Parks and Recreation
OS Open Space
OS-H Hillside Open Space
SC Shoreline Conservation
Exhibit B - Proposed Zoning Map Amendment
1012
�- 7
,\�

0.1 0 0.04
© City of Richmond
Proposed Landmark Overlay District for
771 Ocean Avenue
IG

0.1 Miles
601
65·1
,567
66,!'
644
"
619
\. 613
6:l4
62§
6(0
V
'sc,s
S-43 •
I
SJ$
/
540. ,52()1 ' '
SJ 4 52)
I�- 524/�i
5'35 • 518 :>,_
/� · 483
511 5 05. 4�
Legend
0 Parcel
U Parcel Labels
Historic Resource
(ZJ HISb� Ruouoe
□ Pt R�•mo1d HISbOO OIJtr�aon
Water Bodies
Zoning District
• ■ ■ ■ •
• ■ ■
• •
RH s1,91e-fan '" HIISbe Ru� It
Rl1 Sllg►.-faU/VU/ Loo oust
RL2Sllg►.-fan I., Loll.I DUSI\' Re:

Rl.l1 u, tran ._, Rtiuml Rt.12 u,
tran ._, H�• Dtun,t Rtn Cll-1
COOlmtroblUktd-Ust, Ru cu�
Canmtrobl Uktd-Ult. ·� �
Cll..J Canmtrobl Uktd-Ust. com
CU-4 Canmtrobl Uktd-Ust, Galt
CU-6 COOlm
trobl Uktd-Ust, AcQ.

LW LlltN\lolk
CG comm t Cbl, Gt U 131
CR Can mt robl, Rtg bl al
cc can mt robl. coasu I
111,dutrBI. au1,us
ILL 1,d,nbl, Unltd L�U
IL i.dutral, Lgu
IG i.dutnal Gt ltl31
--• HO! hOUDBI Imn f:Bthta
1 2,509
0 :======:::::::

This map is
a user generated static output from an htemet mapping site and I
N Otes
is for reference only. Data la\@rsthat appear on 1his map mayor may not be acc:or at»? , w rrent, or otherwise re liable.

THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NA\/1GATIO N �-----------� Exhibit B - Proposed Zoning Map Amendment1013

STATEMENT
The property at 771 Ocean Avenue, in Point Richmond, is herein referred to as the John Haley Studio-House. It has commonly and historically been known by its street address, 771 Ocean Avenue, and was sometimes referred to as Haley Studio by its original owners.

John and Monica Haley were the original owners. The property was initially used as an art studio by John Haley, a professional artist and art professor, but within a few years of construction became both an art studio and home for the Haleys.

The Studio-House was built in 1932. No architect was involved with original design and construction of the house, as it was a Depression-era project, built inexpensively and based on John Haley's experience with the design of art studios in Europe. In 1949, a living room addition was made to the south side of the studio-house, which was designed by notable Midcentury modern architect Roger Lee. Although built in 1932 and 1949, respectively, both portions of the studio-house can be described as Second Bay Tradition style and exhibit characteristic features and philosophies of that design movement.

The studio-house is in good condition, currently being used as a residence, and sits on a 0.077 acre (3,361 square foot) parcel in the Point Richmond neighborhood of Richmond, California.

The John Haley Studio-House is being nominated to the Richmond Historic Register because it was owned and occupied by John Haley, who was a significant and influential figure in the Richmond, Bay Area, and California art world. Haley is credited with originating and proliferating the “Berkeley School” style.

Having trained with Hans Hoffman, a seminal figure in European Modern art, Haley brought revolutionary new artistic concepts and practice to U.C Berkeley and the Bay Area. His work is pioneering and distinctive in its break from traditional Beaux-Arts style painting, its exploration of regionalist subject matter, its later shift toward abstraction, and the more sedate and representational approach that differentiated it from the New York School of Modern art. Haley not only practiced his ground-breaking genre prolifically, but as a professor of art at U.C. Berkeley, he helped make that academic program one of the strongest art departments in the nation. He was a gifted teacher, who taught and disseminated Berkeley School style and philosophies to countless students, who then went on to have their own art careers, proliferating the Berkeley School style. Haley's career spanned over sixty years and he was well recognized by his representation in solo and group shows nationally and internationally, complimentary critical review, and a number of awards given to him by prestigious art institutions. His name and works remain well represented in Modern art circles, proving the longevity of his influence on Modern art locally and regionally, as well as extending to the national level. The property at 771 Ocean Avenue served as the studio where he practiced art and produced his extensive body of work. Because of this, and because the studio-house and its Point Richmond environs often factored into that work as subject matter, the property can be recognized as an embodiment of the City's cultural values, especially in relation to art, and has significance for association with a person of historical importance.

The Studio-House is also nominated for its architectural merit and association with an influential architect. It is a good local example of the Second Bay Tradition style of architecture, both in its original 1930s design and in the design of the living room addition madein 1949. The Studio-House embodies many physical characteristics of the Second Bay Tradition style, such as a simple form, use of basic affordable materials with a rustic aesthetic, a broadly sloped side-gable roof form with reverse shed dormer, lack of eves, banked fenestration and fenestration integrated into the roofline, and minimal decorative trim. It also demonstrates strong response to the design philosophies of the Second Bay Tradition style in its unusual angled siting, plan, and hillside integration, which followed the Second Bay Tradition tenant of design cooperating with site topography. The style also emphasized public versus private space, which is seen in the building's orientation away from the public realm, a non-interactive street facade, minimization of the primary entrance, and contrasting openness to the private patio and shoreline to the south. The openness to the private realm to the 1014
south is facilitated by ample glazing in the living room, which also responds to the Second Bay Tradition concept of interaction between indoor-outdoor space.

Some of the characteristics described above can be attributed to the later living room addition, as well.

The Second Bay Tradition style continued until 1960 (later evolving into the Third Bay Tradition style) and the addition also falls within the style's period of significance and was designed by pioneering Chinese-American Modernist architect Roger Lee. Lee was responsible for designing over 100 buildings in the Bay Area and is credited with designing innovative and high-style houses affordably for middle-class clients. This made him one of the most prolific and financially successful of the Midcentury Modernists and put him at the fore of promoting and proliferating the Second Bay Tradition style. While the living room addition at 771 Ocean Avenue represents the modification of an existing structure that was not of Lee's design, it is strongly representational of Lee's design philosophies and shows innovation in his integration of an earlier Second Bay Tradition building with his new Second Bay Tradition addition. Therefore, the John Haley Studio-House represents the work of an architect who contributed the development of the Bay Tradition style over time and can be regarded as a good example of the Second Bay Tradition style at two different times during the style's period of popularity.

It also contributes to a notable concentration of Modernist architecture in Point Richmond and was one of the earliest Second Bay Tradition or Modernist buildings to be constructed within that neighborhood context.

Ultimately, this historic resource nomination finds that the John Haley Studio-House at 771 Ocean Avenue meets five of the six criteria for listing on the Richmond Historic Register (criteria 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6). It represents the place where an influential artist lived and produced his significant work for nearly sixty years; contributes to a rich history of intellectual and creative community in Point Richmond; and embodies the characteristics of a distinctive regional architectural style as designed by a prominent and pioneering Bay Area architect. Its designation as a historic resource in the City of Richmond would recognize important local history and encourage the continued preservation of a valuable cultural and architectural element of the Point Richmond neighborhood and the city as a whole.
1015
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date

P1. Other Identifier: 771 Ocean Avenue
*P2. Location:  Not for Publication  Unrestricted *a. County: Contra Costa and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5' Quad: San Quentin Date: 1995 rev 1999 T ; R ; ¼ of ¼ of Sec ; M.D. B.M. c. Address: 771 Ocean Avenue City: Richmond Zip: 94801 d. UTM: Zone: 10 ; mE/ mN (G.P.S.)
e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate) Elevation:

APN: 558-223-012-3
*P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) Site
The property is located in a residential neighborhood on the Richmond shoreline of San Francisco Bay. The house sits at an angle on its lot; facing due north, while the long axis of the lot is oriented to the northeast. Topography in the area slopes down toward the water. The house is set in close proximity to neighboring buildings (to east and west) and to the street (to the north), but has a patio at the rear (south) that descends steeply to the water in a series of stone masonry terraces. At the west side of the house is a noteworthy site wall, which is constructed of hollow-clay tile and clad with stucco. The wall is slightly less than one-story high. It spans (east-west) between the subject building and its neighbor to the west, separating the entry area of the subject property from its patio to the south. The wall also extends to the southwest, creating physical separation between the patios of the two properties. The wall is structurally integrated with the subject building, as well, with the section spanning between the properties continuing into the interior, forming a partition that creates an entry vestibule. (Continued) *P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP2. Single-family property, HP39. Other (art studio) *P4. Resources Present: Building oStructure oObject oSite oDistrict oElement of District oOther (Isolates, etc.) P5b. Description of Photo: (View,
date, accession #)
Primary and west facades, looking
southeast; September 2024
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and
Sources: Historic
oPrehistoric oBoth
1932; County Assessor and other
*P7. Owner and Address:

David Ruddell & Joy Tahan Ruddell
771 Ocean Avenue
Richmond, CA. 94801
*P8. Recorded by: (Name,
affiliation, and address)
Left Coast Architectural History
PO Box 70415
Richmond, CA. 94807
*P9. Date Recorded: Oct. 2024
P10. Survey Type: Intensive
*P11. Report Citation: None
*Attachments: oNONE oLocation Map oSketch Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record oArchaeological Record oDistrict Record oLinear Feature Record oMilling Station Record oRock Art Record oArtifact Record oPhotograph Record o Other (List):

DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
P5a. Photo or Drawing (Photo required for buildings, structures, and objects.) 1016
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD

*Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) John Haley Studio-House B1. Historic Name: 771 Ocean Avenue, Haley Studio
B2. Common Name: 771 Ocean Avenue
B3. Original Use: art studio/residential B4. Present Use: residential *B5. Architectural Style: Second Bay Tradition
*B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) Constructed 1932. Sleeping porch addition, 1938. Living room addition, 1949. (See alterations chart on Continuation Sheets for additional construction history.)
*B7. Moved? No oYes oUnknown Date: n/a Original Location: n/a *B8. Related Features: None
B9a. Architect: None (original), Roger Lee (addition) b. Builder: Unknown *B10. Significance: Theme: Art and Artists Area: Point Richmond Period of Significance: 1932-1991 Property Type: Studio/Residential Applicable Criteria: 1,2,4,5,6 (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.) Local Context: Point Richmond & the City of Richmond
Point Richmond is a neighborhood within the larger City of Richmond, in Contra Costa County, California, and is the place where the city originated. Prior to European settlement, the area was inhabited by the native Huchiun (Ohlone) people. During the Spanish period, the Huchiun were displaced and relegated into the Catholic Mission system, and in the succeeding Mexican period the Richmond area became part of Rancho San Pablo, granted to Don Francisco Castro. American control of California resulted in prolonged land disputes and the rancho eventually being divided among numerous landowners. The Point Richmond area remained generally unsettled and undeveloped until the turn of the twentieth century. (City of Richmond 2012) Point Richmond was originally an island, separated from the mainland by swampy unusable land that could not be sold to private owners. Jacob Tewksbury, formerly a physician, owned land to the north of Point Richmond and took it upon himself to build a system of levies that controlled water flow to silt up the marshland, thus creating solid ground. He then petitioned the government to declare the reclaimed waterway as dry land so that it could be purchased and developed. (Roselius 1985) The former island of Point Richmond and the newly-dry land to its northeast were recognized and promoted by Augustin MacDonald in 1895, when he noticed the pleasant environs and a deep water channel to the south that would be an ideal place for a rail terminus and ferry landing. It only took five years for the Santa Fe Railroad to build the facilities needed to begin operating ferry service, including the transport of rail cars, across San Francisco Bay. That industry was quickly followed, in 1901, by the establishment of the Standard Oil refinery, north of Point Richmond proper. A number of smaller industrial plants, like a couple of brick works, a winery, and a whaling station, were established around Point Richmond, generating a local population of workers and families. (Continued)
B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP2. Single-family property, HP39. Other (art studio)
*B12. References:
(See parenthetical citations within text and on Continuation Sheet) B13. Remarks:
*B14. Evaluator: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date of Evaluation: October 2024
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
(This space reserved for official comments.)
1017
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
P3a. Description: (continued)
Exterior
The house is constructed of hollow clay tile and wood framing. It has an irregular plan and varied height; consisting of a rectangular two-story mass, with a one-story former-garage extending to the east, and a one-story trapezoidal living room addition extending to the south. The two-story portion of the house is topped by an asymmetrical side-gable roof, while the former-garage is topped by a shed roof, and the southern living room addition is topped by a flat roof. Exterior cladding consists of smooth stucco at the first story level and southern portion of the second story, and wood board-and-batten siding on the north half of the second story level. Smooth wood paneling clads the lower walls of the southern addition, which are almost entirely glazed above.

Due to the slope of the lot, the first story of the primary facade is situated partially below-grade, with a retaining wall creating a narrow well at its base. This makes the facade essentially one-and-a-half stories high at street level. The first story is clad with smooth stucco and is fenestrated with three regularly spaced window openings. The left and center windows have multi-lite, steel, casement sashes, while the right window is leaded art glass depicting Adam and Eve in an aluminum casement sash that was made by John Haley. The second story of the primary facade is clad with wood board-and-batten and features a large centered window opening that is more than than half the width of the facade. This opening is located about half-way up the second story wall and continues past the eaveline, angling back into a reverse shed dormer. The window itself is a multi-lite steel sash with operable horizontal pivot sections. The roofline is eaveless and, as noted, includes a reverse shed dormer that integrates the upper portion of the large centered window. A one-story former-garage extends from the left (east) side of the primary facade. It has an unfenestrated, smooth stucco-clad wall plane and an eaveless shed roofline. The mass of the former- garage projects forward slightly from the plane of the main facade and there is a small double-hung vinyl sash window on the narrow west-facing section of wall at the juncture.

The west facade is separated by only a narrow margin from the neighboring property and is the location of the primary entrance, which is located at the right (south) side of the first story and accessed by a flight of exterior stairs that descending from the street. The first story of the west facade is clad with smooth stucco and the entry area is recessed slightly, with the aforementioned site wall to its immediate right, creating an exterior entry vestibule. The entry door is a flush wood door with a transom lite above and sidelight to its right. On the right (south) side of the site wall, the first story features a fully-glazed wood door to the patio that is topped with a transom, and a bank of wood dado panels with plate glass glazing above. Representing the side of the southern living room addition, the patio door and plate glass windows are overhung by the broad, deeply boxed eaves of the addition's flat roof. The second story of the west facade is largely clad with wood board-and-batten siding, although the far right (south) side is clad with stucco. It is unfenestrated, but for a pair of narrow, horizontal, wood sash windows with flat wood trim that are located on the lower right side of the board-and-batten section of wall. The roofline has an asymmetrical gable end, shorter on the left (north) than the right (south), and is eaveless.

The first story of the rear (south) facade consists of a 1949 Roger Lee-designed living room addition, which projects forward from the main mass of the building. It features a number of angles in the wall plane, which consists of smooth wood dado panels and plate glass fenestration above. The plate glass glazing is separated at regular intervals by thick wood mullions and overhung by the broad, deeply boxed eaves of the flat roof. The second story of the south facade is located on the main mass of the building and is clad with stucco. Two wide horizontally oriented windows are located toward the left (west) side, while a smaller window it located to the right (east). The leftmost window has a sliding wood sash, while the window to its right is slightly wider and has a three-part sliding wood sash. The rightmost window is a much narrower casement sash of the same material.

The east facade faces a neighboring property. The side of the living room addition creates a long plane that is angled to the southeast and continues the wood dado panels, plate glass glazing, and broad boxed eaves from the south facade. Where the addition meets the main mass of the house, it is clad with wood board-and-batten siding and has two horizontal fixed windows fitted with reeded glass set high on the wall, at a corner. The roolfine has both eaveless and boxed eave sections in this location.

To the right (north), is the stucco-clad south-facing wall of the former-garage, which has an angled wall plane and features two double-hung, vinyl sash windows and an eaveless shed roofline. The east-facing wall of the former-garage is also clad with stucco and features a partially-glazed, flush wood door at the center and an eaveless roofline. The second story of the east facade is clad with stucco on the left (south) and wood board-and-batten on the right (north). It has an asymmetrical gable end, shorter on the right (north) than the left (south), with an exterior brick chimney rising up the center.

Interior
The first floor includes a large living room, a kitchen/dining area, and a bathroom. The living room has terracotta tile floors. Plate glass windows span the east, south, and west sides of the space, with built-in banquets, shelving, and storage cabinets original to the 1949 Roger Lee addition lining the lower walls. A portion of the southeast wall is solid and finished with sheet rock. The ceiling is sheet rocked and spanned by one large exposed beams supported by metal and boxed posts.

The kitchen/dining area has a floor made of hollow clay tile laid flat. The walls and ceiling are finished with sheet rock. The floor level steps up into a small bathroom, which also features hollow clay tile floor, and has stucco plaster walls and ceiling, and original ceramic tiles and fixtures. The Haley-designed art glass window on the primary facade corresponds to the bathroom and is located within the shower.
1018
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
P3a. Description: (continued)
Between floor levels (above the first floor and a few steps down from the second floor level) is a garage, which has been converted to a bedroom with bathroom and laundry facilities. It features modern finishes.

A wood quarter-turn stair ascends from the west side of the kitchen/dining area to the second story. It has simple wood railings.

The second floor contains a large open space, a sleeping porch area, and a bathroom. The main space and sleeping porch are separated only minimally by a wide opening. The bathroom is located off the east end of the sleeping porch. The spaces have wood board flooring, sheet rocked walls and the ceilings are the vaulted underside of the gable roof finished with wood boards and beams. On the east wall of the main space is a small fireplace with a raised, depressed arch opening. It has a flat terra cotta tile hearth and lacks a mantel, but is surrounded by exposed plaster that bears a partially-restored John Haley fresco.

Documented Alterations
Records on file at the City of Richmond Building Division, as well as other archival sources, document some changes that have been made to the property over time:

Date Permit #/Source Description of Work
1932 SF Chronicle (Tanner 1950) House constructed.
1935? Riquelme & Levick Possible improvements to first floor living space.* 1938-39 SF Chronicle, Ghent 2024,
historic photos
Addition of sleeping porch [south side, second story] and guest room (conversion of former garage) [east side, first story]. 5/19/1949 28079
SF Chronicle
Living room addition to cottage. [South side, first story.] Addition designed by architect Roger Lee; included jacking up parts of house for plumbness, re-wiring, etc.
7/1/1949 18931 Electrical; wire cottage addition, 6 plugs. 9/7/1949 28708 Certificate of Occupancy for living room addition. 1960 Riquelme & Levick Renovated to create gallery space for Haley's personal art collection. 4/26/1960 Bldg. Div. records Unspecified paving work.
9/16/1964 64493 Reroof studio and shop [garage] with tar and gravel. 8/16/1966 54122 Electrical work to install 100 amp service. 11/21/1969 75642 Reroof dwelling with asbestos and gravel. 7/16/1979 94136 Reroof with felt and crushed granite gravel. 5/14/1993 S9300507 Repairs related to shower.
recent Visual observation Garage entrance infilled.
* Riquelme and Levick (2003) state that the house was built in 1930, which appears to be erroneous as all other sources state 1932, and notes that five years after construction, living quarters were added to the downstairs of the studio. Any “addition” of living quarters to the first floor at that time would have been entirely interior (no physical expansion of the structure) and may have more accurately consisted of kitchen/dining/bathroom room improvements within a space that other sources (Tanner 1950) state were original to the building.
1019
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
B10. Significance: (continued)
A small community of houses and commercial establishments sprang up between the refinery and rail lines and, in 1905, Richmond was incorporated as a city. Churches, a school, theaters, hotels, a beach resort/bandstand, a swimming pool, and other community amenities eventually created the complete neighborhood now known as Point Richmond. (Roselius 1985) By 1915, development had expanded to the east of Point Richmond and a new commercial core along McDonald Avenue supplanted Point Richmond as the heart of the growing city. Point Richmond became a neighborhood within the larger municipality, although it still supported important industrial facilities for rail and oil refining operations, as well as other business, and was a vital neighborhood of residential and other uses. (City of Richmond 2012) As part of the larger city, which fared well during the Great Depression and World War II in large part due to local industry, Point Richmond rode the upheavals of war and economic downturn. During the Depression, Standard Oil and the railroad kept many residents of Point Richmond employed and in relatively good financial health. World War II, brought immense change to Richmond as a whole. The Kaiser Shipyards were established at present-day Marina Bay and wartime industry brought an influx of workers and their families to the area, all needing housing and services. The population boom was, of course, absorbed by the entire city, but Point Richmond played its role by providing some housing, often tucking newcomers into subdivided apartments in existing homes, while more housing was quickly built near industrial areas to the south of Point Richmond. The neighborhood elementary school, Washington School, began to offer classes in shifts to accommodate all of the children that war workers brought with them to the area. Local businesses prospered. (Roselius 1985) The end of the war was almost as dramatic. Many war workers left Richmond to return home, though just as many stayed. With a sudden lack of war industry jobs and government supported housing, many were left unemployed and homeless, plunging Richmond into a depressed state that lasted into the 1960s and beyond. (City of Richmond 2012) Although the population and activity of Point Richmond settled to more normal levels after the war, it felt like stagnation in comparison to the bustle of the war years. As with the rest of the city, the neighborhood took on a downtrodden and unkempt character in the decades following the war. It was somewhat forgotten as the rest of the Bay Area grew around it. Local small industries languished and closed, but the railroad and oil refinery remained active and, ultimately, kept the area alive. The slightly seedy environs attracted a population of bohemians, artists, and intellectuals to Point Richmond, adding to a creative community that had gotten its foothold as early as the 1930s. This gave the town an increasingly eclectic reputation that has grown into the present day. Some development, such as new housing tracts near the water, the establishment of a regional park, and the designation of Point Richmond proper as a National Register Historic District, raised the profile and esteem of the area, putting some polish on the Point from the 1970s onward. The neighborhood now supports a robust population of artists, intellectuals, and professionals that trend older and more affluent. They inhabit a collection of homes dating to all periods of Point Richmond's history and come together in a small enclave of restaurants and shops at the neighborhood's core. (Roselius 1985) Property History: 771 Ocean Avenue
At its start, Point Richmond was a small commercial town center surrounded by residential properties that was located on the inland, northeast, side of a hill separating it from San Francisco Bay. Because of this topographical barrier, development on the bay side (southwest) of the hill was sparse for decades after the town was established. Sanborn Fire Insurance Company maps do not illustrate the bay side of the hill until 1930, indicating that there was very little in the way of physical development in that area. Even in 1930, only a few modest houses – some mere one-room cottages – dotted the shoreline and bay-facing slope of the hill.

In 1932, artists, friends, and fellow U.C. Berkeley art professors John Haley and Worth Ryder purchased two adjacent parcels along the shoreline in Point Richmond, where they often came to paint en plein air and had admired the site. Confirming the information found on Sanborn maps, Haley later remembered to a friend how the Point Richmond shoreline was almost totally undeveloped, with only some scattered fishing shacks present. Although Point Richmond would come to have a rich and eclectic community of creatives and academics, Haley and Ryder were probably among the first artists to establish themselves and their studios in Point Richmond. (Ghent 2024)
They built side-by-side studios; 771 Ocean Avenue belonging to Haley and 775 Ocean Avenue belonging to Ryder. (Riquelme and Levick 2003, 44) No architect was employed in the design of the buildings. Instead, the two artists, modeled the design – particularly the traditional north-facing studio windows – after the numerous artists' studios they had seen while traveling and studying in Europe. They then built the designs “on the cheap.” (Ghent 2024) Despite the European influence and vernacular construction, the buildings have distinctively local architectural character and can be classified as Second Bay Tradition style.

Although John Haley taught at U.C. Berkeley and likely spent a good deal of time on campus, he conducted his own personal art practice in his studio at 771 Ocean Avenue. Being a regionalist with a strong practice of painting local scenery, he made the studio his home base for working out of doors around Point Richmond and further afield. Haley's compact studio originally featured only a dining room, kitchen, and bathroom on the first floor and an art studio and small sleeping area on the second floor. In 1938 or 1938, however; Haley, and his wife Monica, improved the building so that it was a more suitable home for them both (continued) 1020
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
B10. Significance: (continued)
and moved there permanently from Berkeley. The improvements consisted of an added sleeping porch off the south side of the second floor studio and a small room – a converted former garage – to be used as a guest room, particularly when Monica's mother came to visit. (Ghent 2024)
Worth Ryder's neighboring studio at 775 Ocean Avenue remained strictly a working studio and Ryder continued to live in Berkeley, but Haley's studio became both a place of artistic practice and a family home. (Riquelme and Levick 2003, 44.) Monica Haley was an arts administrator for the Richmond Unified School District, who wrote and published on the topic of children's art. During World War II into the 1970s, she began amassing and documenting an extensive collection of art and related materials made by children in Richmond's child care centers, which represents possibly the largest collection of children's art in the country and yields important insights into the history, culture, sociology, and psychology of children during wartime and other historical periods. (Treadway 2016. The collection of children's art is held by the Richmond Museum of History & Culture.) The Haleys, thus, shared a common passion for art, art instruction, and art's deeper influences on culture and people.

The studio-house at 771 Ocean Avenue and its environs factored into Haley's and fellow Berkeley School artists' work. In 1932 and 1933, he produced watercolors showing two views of “Point Richmond Studios on SF Bay. ”He depicted “770 Ocean Avenue,” showing the studio though the titular address was slightly different, in a 1936 painting that won the San Francisco Art Association Purchase Prize at the first annual watercolor exhibition at the San Francisco Museum of Art. In 1940, Haley's colleague Karl Kasten painted “Hillside Homes,” showing Ryder's and Haley's studios in Point Richmond. Haley and other artists also produced a number of depictions of scenes in and around Point Richmond that suggests that they all spent time at Haley and Ryder's studios and working in the area. Such works include Chiura Obata's sumi ink painting depicting the “View of Mount Tamalpais Across San Francisco Bay” and Haley's own painting of the “Richmond/San Rafael Ferry Slip.” In addition to the studio-house serving as subject matter, it was – at least in one instance – Haley's canvas. Around 1935, he practiced his fresco technique by painting a mural around the fireplace in the second floor studio. Likely a practice run for the frescos he painted at the U.S. Coast Guard Administration Building on Alameda in 1937, it depicted workmen building the wall structure around the fireplace and reflected the popular New Deal aesthetic of the time. Haley later painted over the mural with acrylic paint. It was discovered by a later owner and restoration was attempted, but the obscuring acrylic whitewash could only be partially removed. (Ghent 2022)
Just as Haley derived so much of his artistic inspiration from the local landscape, he and Monica were responsible for shaping some of it around their home. In 1941, as World War II loomed, a winery in Napa Valley requested that patrons take and plant cork oak saplings in an effort to preempt an anticipated European cork shortage. The Haleys did just that and planted six cork oaks in a vacant area near their home. In the 1980s, only three of three of the trees remained and it is unclear how many stand today, although there are a number of cork oaks along the Point Richmond shoreline. (Gautraud 1984) The Haleys are also associated with a significant Japanese Black Pine tree that is located on the property's rear patio, where it began as a diminutive bonsai and has grown into a mature tree. The tree was originally grown by Japanese American artist Chiura Obata, who was an associate of Haley's at U.C. Berkeley and a personal friend. (Obata was friends with Worth Ryder and one of the group that often toured the Sierras with Ryder and others, like Ansel Adams. Obata later became a faculty member in the Art Department at Berkeley, from 1932-1941 and from 1945-1953. Obata and Haley were thus acquainted through mutual friendship with Ryder and employment at U.C. Berkeley.) When Obata and his family were interned during World War II, they asked friends to salvage the plants from the garden they were forced to abandon. The Haleys replanted the pine at their own home, overlooking the Bay. (Hill 2000, 17) It is purported that Obata later painted the tree, in situ, after he had returned from the internment camps; yet more evidence that Haley's colleagues spent meaningful time practicing art at 771 Ocean Avenue and in Point Richmond.

In 1949, the studio-house was expanded yet again when the Haleys hired architect Roger Lee to design the rear addition that would house a large living room. The studio-house had been built at an angle on the lot in an effort to gain the most northern light for the studio. The angular plan of the addition was a response to this unusual siting and to avoid conflicting with the lot boundaries. It also achieved excellent views to the southwest. Lee designed the addition as an art gallery as much as a living room, ensuring good light from a continuous bank of windows, a flat white eastern gallery wall for hanging art, and built-in banquet seating that lent itself to salon-like gathering. Monica Haley specified a “cozy corner” for reading. (Tanner 1950) Worth Ryder died in 1960 and the Haleys purchased his studio at 775 Ocean Avenue from his widow, so that the twin buildings came under common ownership. John Haley began to use Ryder's studio as his own, while 771 remained the Haleys' residence.

At that time, they remodeled the studio-house to create additional gallery space for their collection of African, Oceanic, and indigenous American art. (Riquelme and Levick 2003, 44) John Haley died of a stroke in 1991, followed by Monica in 1997. The studio-house at 771 Ocean Avenue and its contents were left, in trust, to Gregory Ghent, along with the studio at 775 Ocean Avenue. Ghent was the owner of a San Francisco art gallery and a long-time personal friend of the Haleys. He had worked with them to inventory both John Haley's works and the Haleys' personal art collection, and later assisted Monica in seeing Haley family ephemera donated to worthy repositories (continued) 1021
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
B10. Significance: (continued)
after John's death. A few years after John Haley's death, Ghent wrote “John Haley, a Retrospective;” a biographical essay and catalog for a solo retrospective show at the Richmond Art Center. Ghent continued to use the two properties much as the Haleys had. He used 775 Ocean Avenue as his studio, working in ceramics, while living at 771 Ocean Avenue. He is known to have also used the studio to host receptions and exhibitions of both he and Haley's art and art collections. In the late 1990s, Ghent let space on the second floor of 775 Ocean Avenue to Xtopher Seldon, a contractor, architecture student, and artist, who assisted Ghent as a caretaker for the properties. (Riquelme and Levick 2003, 44) Ghent continued to live at 771 Ocean Avenue and work in the lower studio of 775 Ocean Avenue until 2012. The properties had been entailed to the Nature Conservancy, but the organization agreed to divest of them, and Ghent ensured that they were purchased by an ownership consortium that included his friends Robin and Guillermina Emy LaFever. (Ghent 2024) Robin LaFever was an engineer, whose professional work evolved and adapted into an artistic practice involving 3D modeling and tech- related assemblages. He often hosted “The Gang of Five,” or “The Art Squad,” a small group of Point Richmond artists, at his studio on the second floor of 775 Ocean Avenue; a quirky community art practice indicative of the vibrant artistic community Point Richmond has supported since the early twentieth century. (Casas and Wei 2016) Emy LeFever, a local shop owner, was and continues to be the proprietor of Guillermina Asian Art & Antiques located in Point Richmond's commercial hub. She lives at 775 Ocean Avenue, while in 2022, she and the ownership consortium sold the property at 771 Ocean Avenue to the current owners, David Ruddell and Joy Tahan Ruddell. The Ruddells are, themselves, an artist and a museum collections specialist, ensuring the property's ongoing stewardship by those who value art and the legacy of John Haley.

Chain of Title & Occupancy
Date Owners/Occupants
1932 - 1997 John & Monica Haley (1960 – purchased neighboring 775 Ocean Avenue) 1997 - 2017 Gregory Ghent (owned both properties in trust) 2017-2022 Ownership consortium including residents Robin and Guillermina Emy LeFever (owned both properties)
2022 - present David & Joy Tahan Ruddell (purchased 771 Ocean Avenue. 775 Ocean Avenue was purchased by one member of the ownership consortium and rented to Emy LeFever.) Significant Person: John Haley
John Haley (1905-1991) was born in 1905 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. As early as high school, he showed a talent for drawing in illustrations he created for the school newspaper. After graduating, he attended the Minneapolis School of Art (now the Minneapolis College of Art & Design). The school taught mainly in the traditional Beaux Arts genre, which Haley mastered. In his senior year, he was commissioned to paint a portrait of T.B. Walker, a local lumber tycoon, which was hung in Minneapolis City Hall. This recognition made Haley's talent public and seems to have ensured some future in art. However, his interest and skill were developed beyond traditional portraiture. While at the Minneapolis School of Art, Haley took instruction from artist Cameron Booth, who had brought his own interest in European Modernism to the school's otherwise traditional curriculum. Haley thus discovered a passion for Modernist art and a lasting comradery with Booth. (Ghent 1993. Spake 2023.) Earning a one-year study-abroad scholarship in 1927, Haley traveled to Europe with Booth where they studied at the summer art school of Hans Hoffman on the Italian Isle of Carpi. Hoffman was one of the early twentieth century's most influential art teachers, having been influenced himself by the likes of Picasso and Matisse. In addition to his summer program on Capri, he ran a regular school in Munich, which Haley attended in the fall, after Booth had returned to the States. (Haley, 1982) Hoffman was a major player in the European avant-garde movement, furthering the genres of Symbolism, Neo-impressionism, Fauvism, and Cubism.

His school is cited by some historians as the first school of modern art and both his practice and teaching was seminal to twentieth century modern art. (Wikipedia)
Haley attended Hoffman's school for the 1927-1928 academic year, learning Hoffman's techniques of colorful expressionistic cubism and enthusiastically breaking away from his early Beaux Arts training. He returned to the United States in the summer of 1928 and traveled to the West Coast to see his fiancee, Monica, who was studying at the University of Southern California, and to visit a Minneapolis School of Art colleague who was then teaching at the University of California, Berkeley. This trip introduced Haley to California, U.C. Berkeley, and artists who would be influential in his career and life, like Worth Ryder, a U.C. Berkeley art department professor and former Hoffman student. (Ghent 1993) In 1930, Hans Hoffman was invited to teach a summer art course at U.C. Berkeley and, while there, recommended Haley for a lecturer position in the school's art department. Haley, who had returned to Minnesota to teach at his alma mater, collaborate on Modernist department store window displays with Cameron Booth, do newspaper illustrations, and create stained glass church windows for the Mayo Clinic, eagerly took the job. He and Monica relocated to Berkeley for the start of the 1930-1931 academic year. (Ghent 1993. Deutsch.) (continued)
1022
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
B10. Significance: (continued)
At Berkeley, Haley was quick to find success and promoted the avant-garde style that he had learned from Hoffman and developed to his personal practice in intervening years and through collaborations with colleagues. He was known for his good rapport with students, and his clear methods of teaching and conveying new and radical ideas in art. He staunchly promoted Moderism whenever academic debate arose about its merits in relation to traditional art, saying “Modern art... is tradition expressing itself in a new way.” (Ghent 1993)
Haley's art and teaching generated a style that became known as the “Berkeley School,” which was characterized by a unique treatment of space and the use of colors in varied tones delineated with different and multi-colored lines. The style essentially softened the contours and colors of Hoffman's style and embraced on-site, plein air painting. Haley worked primarily in gouache (opaque watercolor) on paper (especially from 1935 to 1941), although he also painted in oil and watercolor; sculpted in stone, wood, and bronze; and did lithography and etching, photography, mosaic, stained glass, and fresco. He depicted architecture in landscape, often urban and industrial, as well as western subjects like ghost towns and mining camps. This fit well with a new enthusiasm for regionalism and American subject matter that was the result of a Depression-era rejection of European abstract art. The Depression also resulted in government-funded art programs, which Haley participated in and subsequently influenced the style of; as in his 1937 frescoes at the U.S. Coast Guard Administration Building on Coast Guard Island, Alameda. It embodies the New Deal aesthetic, while at the same time employing Haley's personal interest and experimentation in both Renaissance fresco techniques and contemporary Regionalist subject mater.

Developing the Berkeley School aesthetic along with Hoffman disciples, Minneapolis School of Art alumni, and fellow U.C.

Berkeley art professors Worth Ryder, Glenn Wessels, Erle Loran, Karl Kasten, and philosopher and art department chairman Stephen C. Pepper, the U.C. Berkeley art department was established as the most progressive and innovative in academia during the mid-twentieth century. It was the first national university to support a studio-practice program, had a rigorous program of guest- artist/instructors, and espoused the philosophies of aesthetics, practice, and the study of art history. Haley was instrumental in introducing countless students, as well as visiting artists, to the “Berkeley School” and the philosophies of Modern art.

Haley's teaching job at Berkeley supported him well financially and gave him the ability to pursue and develop his personal art practice. The faculty at Berkeley coalesced around him, sharing common training and employment, but also personal artistic philosophies. This strong connection resulted in Haley and Worth Ryder embarking on travels together to paint the California landscape, and ultimately buying land and building side-by-side studios in Point Richmond.

In 1935, Haley was honored with his first solo exhibition at the Art Center in San Francisco, which was devoted to showing the works of local modern artists. Reviews were complimentary. The following year, the San Francisco Museum of Art hosted a second annual watercolor exhibition and a related review written by art critic John Frankenstein coined the moniker “Berkeley School.” Frankenstein's review stated that the Berkeley School were “ a group that practices an art of coloured drawing with watercolour and gouache. Theirs is an essentially graphic way of looking at things…. The old master of this Berkeley school which delights in odd and slightly naïve aspects of the local scene is John Haley, whose contributions to any exhibition are always outstanding.’ (Spake 2023)
In 1936, Haley also won his first award; a San Francisco Art Association Purchase Prize at the first annual watercolor exhibition at the San Francisco Museum of Art. The prize was given to a gouache painting titled “770 Ocean Avenue,” a depiction of Haley's Point Richmond studio-house. (John Haley Biographical Data) In 1938, he was awarded the Anne Bremmer Memorial Prize. His work featured in a number of other publications, exhibitions, and museums in the pre-war years, culminating with multiple pieces, including dioramas, displayed in the Pacific House at the Golden Gate International Exhibition on Treasure Island; a celebration of modernism and progress. (Krevsky Fine Art)
During World War II, Haley served in the Navy as a combat-intelligence officer, where he was able to implement his artistic skills.

In 1943 and 1944, he assisted in model making and creating detailed relief maps of the various theaters of war to aid in invasion strategizing. Later, he was an air photographer for the Pacific Fleet and also taught a course in camouflage for architects and engineers at U.C. Berkeley. (Krevsky Fine Art)
Returning from his wartime hiatus, Haley was granted a full professorship at U.C. Berkeley. He also responded, in the classroom and in his own work, to evolving philosophies in Modern art precipitated by the upheaval of war. By the mid-twentieth century, Modernism had been fully embraced in the art world and had spun off the genres of Surrealism and Abstraction. Haley took to the latter and shifted to the use of oil paint over gouache or watercolor. He continued to garner inspiration from regional landscapes and subject mater, but depicted them in a much more abstracted and bolder way. By the 1950s, he had fully embraced abstraction in the media of painting, drawing, and collage. (Ghent 1993) In the late 1940s and early 1950s, exhibit of Haley's work went national when a piece of his was shown and later purchased for the permanent collection of the prestigious Phillips Collection in Washington, DC; had work selected by jury and exhibited at the Metropolitan Museum of Art; and was given solo shows at New York City's Mortimer Levitt Gallery. Critical review of these exhibits lauded Haley's work. (continued)
1023
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information B10. Significance: (continued)
In the early 1950s, John and Monica Haley spent months in New York, in part due to Haley's work being exhibit there, but also in absorbing the local art scene; the abstract “New York School” to Haley's “Berkeley School.” This was also when the Haleys became interested in and began their collection of African, Oceanic, and indigenous American art. This collection would come to grace the Haley home at 771 Ocean Avenue in Point Richmond – the 1949 living room addition being designed around it to some extent – although it is noted that the art itself did not have a great influence on Haley's own work. (Ghent 1993) In the 1950s, Haley took a foray into sculpting that lasted into the 1970s. He often took prolonged breaks from painting to explore other media. This occurred again in 1959 and 1960, when he studied photography with Ansel Adams. Ultimately, however, he continued his work in large-scale, colorful, abstract impressionist painting that continued to loosely depict figural or landscape subjects through color and rhythm, but also went beyond the literal to evoke mood. In contrast to the New York School of intense, frenetic, and completely abstract works, Haley and the Berkeley School embraced calmer expression and retained some sense of subject matter. In the early 1960s, Haley's work was shown in solo shows at San Francisco's De Young Museum and at the Worth Ryder Gallery at U.C. Berkeley to great praise. (Ghent 1993) Haley continued his abstract work for some time, creating works that often had loose, blurred margins that concentrated into distinct patches of color toward the center; loosely depicting skylines and landscape formations. He continued to teach at U.C Berkeley until becoming a Professor Emeritus in 1972, and then in retirement continued to make art in his Point Richmond studio.

He did not pursue the Post Modern trends that art followed going into the 1980s, however. He continued the work he had been doing and, in fact, returned to his more representative and less abstract subjects, using watercolor and pen-and-ink. (Ghent 1993) Whether one event influenced the other, or not, California Regionalism experienced renewed appreciation in the later years of the twentieth century, just as Haley revisited his retro style. At that time, Haley's older work was shown in solo exhibitions at the Jan Holloway Gallery in San Francisco titled “John Haley: Regional Watercolors of the '30s and '40s;” at the Richmond Art Center, titled “John Haley's Richmond;” and at the Santa Barbara Museum of Art. His work of the 1930s and 1940s was also published in a number of books. (Ghent 1993)
John Haley died of a stroke in November 1991. (University of California Academic Senate) His Point Richmond studio-house was filled with over 400 artworks at the time, in addition to those he had sold throughout his career. Monica Haley continued to live at 771 Ocean Avenue until her death in 1997, paying tribute to her husband's artistic legacy by carefully curating and promoting his works, alongside the Haleys' friend Gregory Ghent.

Architectural Style: Second Bay Tradition
The studio-house at 771 Ocean Avenue can be classified stylistically as Second Bay Tradition. The Bay Tradition was an ongoing regional architectural trend spanning from around 1910 through the 1960s. Buildings of the Bay Tradition can be classified within three different periods, but the designs of all of those periods tended to be small-scale, picturesque, somewhat rustic, and blend into the surrounding landscape. The aesthetic embodied the common characteristics of modest, straightforward, distinctive design that responded to the Bay Area's climate, geography, and relatively informal cultural attitudes. Of the three periods, the First Bay Tradition was a derivation of the East Coast's shingle style and was influenced by the Craftsman style, while the Second Bay Tradition style was inspired by the International and Ranch styles. The Third Bay Tradition style was a synthesis of the earlier two that combined rustic materials with strikingly modern forms.

Advent of the Second Bay Tradition is generally attributed to architects William W. Wurster and Gardner Dailey, while their Bay Area contemporaries Mario Corbett, John C. Funk, Francis Joseph McCarthy, and others played a significant role in perpetuating and interpreting the style. These architects referenced historical precedents and used rustic, natural materials, but applied them in uniquely modern ways. They employed new concepts of space planning, siting, and the interaction of indoor/outdoor space and structure/landscape. In so doing, they were Modernists, but separate from mainstream or high Modernism, which upheld machine- age materials and production, sleek lines, and dramatic forms.

The Second Bay Tradition style, represented by 771 Ocean Avenue, was prevalent between 1930 and 1960. It is described as “a unique combination of the 'less is more' dictum of the International style and the local vernacular architecture of ranches, barns, and low-cost homes.” (Walker 1996, 193) This resulted in small-scale, low-profile houses featuring simple cubistic forms, large expanses of glass, and open plans, which were rendered in redwood board siding, exposed interior roof structures, interior redwood paneling, and low pitched roofs. However, “although they have certain common characteristics like redwood walls, openness of plan, and a tendency to low, sloping roofs, every good Bay Region house is unique in design. This is because each one, unlike most U.S. homes, represents a tailor-made solution to the particular living problems of the owner.” ( Life Magazine 1949)
Even as early as the 1930s, the California lifestyle was notably more informal and unpretentious than the prevailing culture of the East Coast. Temperate climate allowed people to embrace outdoor living and a certain lack of traditional sentimentality meant that people did not want to live in or maintain monumental houses. The time period in which the style was popular, during the Depression and World War II, also dictated economic frugality. For both these reasons, Second Bay Tradition designs (continued) 1024
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
B10. Significance: (continued)
were simple, not ostentatious, and used inexpensive materials. They drew on the existing architectural traditions of California; that is, ranch houses and Spanish Colonial influences; which harmonized with the environment and used simple, local materials.

Ultimately, these design concepts resulted in modest houses with the quality and livability of a larger house by using siting to to create privacy, separation from the public realm, and divert focus toward the landscape; using windows and indoor/outdoor space, as well as avoiding interior structural members that interrupted sight lines, to capture views and visually increase the size of a room; designing rooms for multiple purposes, thus increasing efficiency and minimizing circulation areas; and using simple materials and minimal detailing to eliminate visual distraction and allow the eye to travel away from confining walls and toward open outdoor views. (Hille 1994)
The studio-house at 771 Ocean Avenue embodies Second Bay Tradition philosophies both in its original 1930s design and later Midcentury addition by presenting a Modernist design that is simple in form and made of basic affordable materials like hollow clay tile and wood. Its form, which is actually two-stories high, melds with the waterfront hillside to minimize the building's profile at the street and respond to the sloped geography of its site, as it descends to the shoreline. The building's primary (north) facade appeals to the concept of privacy by presenting a high ratio of solid wall to fenestration, with the expansive studio window set high on the wall and incorporated into the roofline, so that its perspective angles up and out, and is related to the capture of light, rather than focusing on view and interaction with the public realm. The primary entrance is minimized, located on the side of the building and down a long flight of steps from the street, with no porch and little ornament to mark its location. Meanwhile the rear (south) side of the building opens up to the environment and view through large expanses of glazing and a sense of the living room blending with the outdoor patio. Small details that emphasize indoor-outdoor interaction are noted in a 1950 article about the Roger Lee-designed addition and states that “'Bringing the outdoors indoors' in this otherwise 'interior living' house was accomplished by extending a high stucco wall into the entry and continuing the planting inside.” The building's broadly sloped side-gable roof with reverse shed dormer, lack of eves, banked fenestration and fenestration integrated into the roofline, rustic hollow clay tile and wood board-and-batten siding, unusual angled siting and plan, and minimal decorative trim also characterize it as Second Bay Tradition style.

Built in 1932, the studio-house at 771 Ocean Avenue is an early example of the Second Bay Tradition style, which was popular from the 1930s to 1960. Being so early, it appears to have set a precedent for Modernist design in Point Richmond, which became an enclave of architect-designed Modern architecture in following decades. Roger Lee's influence came to the property itself in 1949, and he later designed another house nearby. Meanwhile the likes of William Wurster, John Funk, R.M. Schindler, Donald Olsen and other Midcentury masters all brought their design prowess to Point Richmond.

Architect: Roger Lee
No building permit or other archival information was found to identify an architect or design professional responsible for the original 1932 design or construction of the studio-house at 771 Ocean Avenue. The building's modest character, 1930s construction date, and location outside of a major city suggests that it was either not architect designed or that the original design and construction were not formally documented.

The designer of the 1949 living room addition was architect Roger Lee (1920-1981). Lee was a pioneering Chinese-American architect, who designed in the Modernist idiom, primarily in the Bay Area, from the late 1940s to the early 1960s. He received his architectural training at U.C. Berkeley, graduating with top honors in 1941. Graduating at the outset of World War II, Lee immediately went to work for the government, designing post offices, bunkers, and military installations for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. After the war, he worked in Los Angeles for a short time before returning to the Bay Area and working in the office of Frank Langhorst. In 1948, he established his own practice – Roger Lee, Architect – which he operated with a staff of about six architects, in Berkeley and then San Francisco, until relocating to Hawaii in 1964.

Roger Lee is called one of the “forgotten Midcentury Modernist architects,” and is not often mentioned in the echelon of other Midcentury Modernists like William Wurster, Joseph Esherick, and Gardner Daily. Nevertheless, Lee exercised great skill in designing innovative and high-style houses affordably for middle-class clients. This made him one of the most prolific and financially successful of the Midcentury Modernists and put him at the fore of promoting and proliferating the post-war Second Bay Tradition style.

In addition to the Second Bay Tradition's typical features, Lee's designs are recognizable for their internally visible post-and-beam construction, which created a harmonious visual rhythm internally and sometimes extended to the exterior as trellises; flat roofs; long, low massing; inconspicuous entries; open plans; ribbon windows; walls of glazing; and structural features employed for visual interest over the use of ornament. His houses often included internal atria that that responded to the indoor-outdoor interaction so important to the Second Bay Tradition style.

His post-and-beam construction later evolved into modular designs that included windows and wall panels of identical size, which could be installed within the post-and-beam structure depending on the preferences of the client. This he called the “Modflux” system and it lent greater flexibility and, thus, affordability to his projects. His emphasis on affordable design also (continued) 1025
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
B10. Significance: (continued)
meant that he often designed very modest houses, but provided plans for later additions, and readily used inexpensive materials like plywood.

Lee's portfolio includes over 100 houses, primarily in the East Bay, but throughout Northern California, with more in Nevada and Hawaii. He sometimes designed small groupings of houses, as well as apartments, housing projects, recreational facilities, and churches. His work was published in magazines like Sunset, Better Homes & Gardens , and Architectural Forum ; the latter of which published a three page article in 1949 (the same year Lee designed the living room addition at 771 Ocean Avenue) about a grouping of houses Lee designed in El Cerrito, titled “Modern Design: Out West the Customer is Starting to Demand It,” highlighting Lee's focus on designing custom houses for the middle-class. Lee was also honored with a number of industry awards, including “America's Best Small Houses, 1949,” an AIA Honor Awards Program Award of Merit in 1955, and First Honor in the AIA's “Homes for Better Living” program in 1956. (Online Archive of California. Weinstein 2006, 98-105. Weinstein “8 Great Modern Masters.”)
Evaluation: Richmond Historic Register
The City of Richmond Historic Structures Code defines a historic resource as any building, structure, sign, feature, site, place, area, or other improvement of scientific, aesthetic, educational, cultural, archaeological, architectural, or historical value to citizens of the City and designated as such by the Richmond City Council. Historic resources also include historic landmarks and contributing structures in historic districts. The list of designated historic resources in Richmond is known as the Richmond Historic Register. (City of Richmond, Richmond Historic Register.) A building, structure, object, site, or area may be eligible for Landmark designation, and listing on the Richmond Historic Register, if it is found to meet any of the following criteria:

1. It exemplifies or reflects valued elements of the City's cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering, archaeological, or architectural history;

2. It is identified with persons or events important in local, state, or national history;

3. It reflects significant geographical patterns, including those associated with different eras of settlement and growth, particular transportation modes, or distinctive examples of park or community planning;

4. It embodies distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style, type, period, or method of construction, or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship;

5. It is representative of the notable work of a builder, designer, or architect whose style influenced the City's architectural development;

6. It is a structure, site, or other improvement which meets any of the above criteria at the highest level, and whose loss would be a major loss to the City. (City of Richmond Municipal Code) The property at 771 Ocean Avenue appears to be eligible for individual listing in the Richmond Historic Register under five of the above criteria. A full evaluation follows:

1. It exemplifies or reflects valued elements of the City's cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering, archaeological, or architectural history;
For most of its history (1932 to 1991), the property at 771 Ocean Avenue was owned and occupied by John Haley, who was a significant and influential figure in the Richmond, Bay Area, and California art world (see criterion 2, below, for an explanation of Haley's significance). Because the property served as the studio where he practiced art and produced his extensive body of work, and because the studio-house and its Point Richmond environs often factored into that work as subject matter, the property can be recognized as an embodiment of the City's cultural values, especially in relation to art. The neighborhood of Point Richmond, in particular, has been an enclave of artists, writers, intellectuals, and other creatives – many faculty of U.C. Berkeley – since the early twentieth century, and continues to be today. Haley's studio-house, thus contributes significantly to the built environment that makes up a neighborhood long-inhabited by an intellectual and creative community with high creative and artistic history and values.

The property appears to be significant under criterion 1.

2. It is identified with persons or events important in local, state, or national history; For most of its history (1932 to 1991), the property at 771 Ocean Avenue was owned and occupied by John Haley (continued) 1026
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
B10. Significance: (continued)
who used it as both his home and art studio. Haley was a significant and influential figure in Bay Area and California art, who is credited with originating and proliferating the “Berkeley School” style. Having trained with Hans Hoffman, a seminal figure in European Modern art, Haley brought revolutionary new artistic concepts and practice to U.C Berkeley and the Bay Area. His work is pioneering and distinctive in its break from traditional Beaux-Arts style painting, its exploration of regionalist subject matter, its later shift toward abstraction, and the more sedate and representational approach that differentiated it from the New York School of Modern art. Haley not only practiced his ground-breaking genre prolifically, but as a professor of art at U.C. Berkeley, helped make that academic program one of the strongest art departments in the nation. He was a gifted teacher, who taught and disseminated Berkeley School style and philosophies to countless students, who then went on to have their own art careers, proliferating the Berkeley School style. Haley's career spanned over sixty years and he was well recognized by his representation in solo and group shows nationally and internationally, complimentary critical review, and a number of awards given to him by prestigious art institutions. His name and works remain well represented in Modern art circles, proving the longevity of his influence on Modern art locally and regionally, as well as extending to the national level.

The property appears to be significant under criterion 2.

3. It reflects significant geographical patterns, including those associated with different eras of settlement and growth, particular transportation modes, or distinctive examples of park or community planning; The property at 771 Ocean Avenue is not strongly reflective of, or significant within, geographical patterns or eras of settlement in Richmond. Built in the early 1930s, it represents a relatively early development of property along the shoreline of the Point Richmond neighborhood, but was not the first property to be developed in that area and became one of numerous residential properties of various ages and styles that expanded the Point Richmond neighborhood in a natural growth pattern toward the water.

The property does not appear to be significant under criterion 3.

4. It embodies distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style, type, period, or method of construction, or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship; The studio-house at 771 Ocean Avenue can be classified as Second Bay Tradition style (popular from 1930-1960) and embodies many physical characteristics of that style, such as a simple form, use of basic affordable materials with a rustic aesthetic like hollow clay tile and wood board-and-batten siding, a broadly sloped side-gable roof form with reverse shed dormer, lack of eves, banked fenestration and fenestration integrated into the roofline, and minimal decorative trim. It also demonstrates strong response to the design philosophies of the Second Bay Tradition style in its unusual angled siting, plan, and hillside integration, which followed the Second Bay Tradition tenant of design cooperating with site topography. The style also emphasized public versus private space, which is seen in the building's orientation away from the public realm and contrasting openness to the private patio and shoreline to the south, a non-interactive street facade, and minimization of the primary entrance. The openness to the private realm to the south is facilitated by ample glazing, which also responds to the Second Bay Tradition concept of interaction between indoor-outdoor space.

Some of the characteristics described above can be attributed to the living room addition, made in 1949, meaning that they are not original to the 1932 design. However, as the Second Bay Tradition style continued until 1960 (and later evolving into the Third Bay Tradition style), the addition falls within the style's period of significance and was designed by an architect who's body of work contributed the development of the Bay Tradition style over time. Therefore, the property can be regarded as a good example of the Second Bay Tradition style at two different time during the style's period of popularity. It also contributes to a notable concentration of Modernist architecture in Point Richmond and was one of the earliest Second Bay Tradition or Modernist buildings to be constructed within that neighborhood context.

The property appears to be significant under criterion 4.

5. It is representative of the notable work of a builder, designer, or architect whose style influenced the City's architectural development;
The original designer and/or builder of the studio-house is unknown. The living room addition, made in 1949, was designed by pioneering Chinese-American Modernist architect Roger Lee. Lee was responsible for designing over 100 buildings in the Bay Area, and although he tends not to be included in many discussions of Midcentury architecture in the Bay Area, he is credited with designing innovative and high-style houses affordably for middle-class clients. This made him one of the most prolific and financially successful of the Midcentury Modernists and put him at the fore of promoting and proliferating the Second Bay Tradition style.

While the living room addition at 771 Ocean Avenue represents the modification of an existing structure that was not (continued) 1027
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
B10. Significance: (continued)
of Lee's design, it is strongly representational of Lee's design philosophies and shows innovation in his integration of an earlier Second Bay Tradition building with his new Second Bay Tradition addition. It is also one of few buildings in Richmond known to have been designed by Lee. Another is located nearby at 664 Ocean Avenue and was built for Josephine Miles in 1951. Miles was a poet and professor at U.C. Berkeley; another of Point Richmond's artistic academics. It seems likely that she and Haley were acquainted and that Roger Lee's work at 771 Ocean Avenue may have given him entree to designing Miles' house down the street a year or two later. Lee also designed a multi-unit housing project in Richmond for Basic Home Industries in 1956; however the location and status of that work are unknown. (U.C. Berkeley Environmental Design Archives) The property appears to be significant under criterion 5.

6. It is a structure, site, or other improvement which meets any of the above criteria at the highest level, and whose loss would be a major loss to the City
The property at 771 Ocean Avenue meets criteria 1, 2, 4, and 5. It represents the place where an influential artist lived and produced his significant work for nearly 60 years; contributes to a rich history of intellectual and creative community in Point Richmond; and embodies the characteristics of a distinctive regional architectural style as designed by a prominent and pioneering Bay Area architect. Therefore, its loss would constitute the loss of a cultural and architectural element of the Point Richmond neighborhood and the city as a whole.

Because the building also relates strongly to the near-identical building next door (775 Ocean Avenue) and the two have a shared history, the loss of one or the other would mean the loss of that relationship, which would further exacerbate loss to the neighborhood and city.

The property appears to be significant under criterion 6.

Integrity
Although integrity is not a qualifying factor for listing in the Richmond Historical Register, the property's retention of historic integrity is important to its ability to convey its historic significance. Therefore, it is noted that the property retains integrity of location and setting, the studio-house having never been relocated from or re-situated on its bay-side site in the residential neighborhood of Point Richmond. It continues to exhibit its original design, including the significant 1949 addition that supports and enhances its Second Bay Tradition architectural style, and has undergone few additional alterations. This contributes to retention of original materials and features, and expression of workmanship, in that the treatment and application of materials to the specifications of the intended design is still extant. Ultimately, the studio-house has integrity of feeling as a 1930s Second Bay Tradition building and is capable of expressing its significant associations with John Haley, his artistic work, its role in the Paint Richmond creative community, and the significant architectural character that references associations with a notable architect and contributes to the character of the surrounding environment.

Conclusion
The property at 771 Ocean Avenue was built in 1932 to serve as an art studio for John Haley, a U.C Berkeley art professor, influential Modern artist, and originator of the “Berkeley School” style of art. It was also the home of Haley and his wife, Monica. No original architect is known, but the building was designed in the Second Bay Tradition style, and was later enhanced with a living room addition in the same style designed by significant Midcentury Modernist architect Roger Lee. The studio-house is significant primarily for its associations with John Haley and his significant artwork, but also has connections to the broader Bay Area art world, other notable artists and their work, art education, and the rich creative and intellectual community that has historically been present in Point Richmond. Along with the physical character of the studio-house, itself; its association with a prominent Bay Area Modernist architect; and contribution to a neighborhood context of architect-designed Modernist architecture, the property is eligible for listing in the Richmond Historic Register and, subsequently, qualifies as a historical resource for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Sources
Casas, Angelic M. and Katherine Wei, 8 February 2016. “Five men, one town, four decades of art,” Richmond Confidential; https://richmondconfidential.org/2016/02/08/five-men-one-town-four-decades-of-art/ City of Richmond Municipal Code, 15.04.303.060
City of Richmond, 2012. “Richmond General Plan 2023: Chapter 14, Historical Resources.” City of Richmond. “Richmond Historic Register,” https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/2959/Richmond-Register.

California Digital Newspaper Collection; https://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc. (continued) B10. Significance: (continued) B10. Significance: (continued) 1028
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
B10. Significance: (continued)
Deutsch, Monroe V., Vice President, U.C. Berkeley to John C. Haley (telegram), 4 September 1930; Bancroft Library, U.C.

Berkeley, BANCMSS93/117, c.

Gautraud, Alexandra A., October 1984. “Cork Trees of Point Richmond,” This Point (Point Richmond History Association newsletter), vol. 3, no.3.

Ghent, Gregory 1993. Haley: A Retrospective, Richmond, CA: Richmond Art Center.

Ghent, Gregory 2022. to Emy Lafever (email), “Haley mural around fireplace.” Ghent, Gregory 20224. Interview by author, 27 August 2024, Richmond, CA. by telephone.

Google Maps/Google Street View. Google.com.

Haley, John C. 1982. To Glenn [Wessels] (letter), 2 December 1982; Bancroft Library, U.C. Berkeley, BANCMSS93/117, c.

Hill, Kimi Kodani 2000. Topaz Moon: Chiura Obata's Art of the Internment. Berkeley, CA: Heyday Books.

Hille, R. Thomas 1994. Inside the Large Small House: The Residential Design Legacy of William W. Wurster. New York:

Princeton Architectural Press.

John Haley Biographical Data (binder), Bancroft Library, BANCMSS93/117c, 2:2.

Krevsky Fine Art 2024. “John Haley Bio.” https://krevskyfineart.com/artists/john-haley/john-haley-bio/ Life Magazine 1949. “San Francisco Houses: They embody a new U.S. Regional architecture,” 5 September 1949.

NETR Online. “Historic Aerials.” https://www.historicaerials.com/ NewspaperArchive.com.

Newspapers.com
Online Archive of California, U.C. Berkeley Environmental Design Archives, Roger Lee Collection: Biographical Note; https://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/tf6t1nb2j4/admin/.

Riquelme, Kathleen and Melba Levick 2003. The Studio Book. United States: Universe.

Roselius, Donna 1985. “A Brief Unofficial History of Point Richmond.” Point Richmond, CA: Point Richmond History Association; https://www.pointrichmondhistory.org/history.html
Spake, Pierre 2023. “The Unrecorded Photographic Archive of John C. Haley: 'Berkeley School' artist, teacher, and photographer.”
Tanner, Ogden 1950. "How Living Space was Added on to a Studio House at Point Richmond," San Francisco Chronicle, 21 May 1950.

Treadway, Chris 2016. “A Child's View of War: Paintings produced by shipyard care program youths give a unique glimpse into Richmond history,” East Bay Times, 15 August 2016.

United States Federal Census records.

University of California Academic Senate 1991, “University of California: In Memoriam; John C. Haley, Art: Berkeley.” http://texts.cdlib.org/view?docId=hb4t1nb2bd&brand=oac4&chunk.id=meta University of California, Berkeley, Environmental Design Archives. Roger Lee Collection: 1949-1968; project index.

University of California, Santa Barbara, Library. Aerial Photographs collection; https://www.library.ucsb.edu/src/airphotos.

Walker, Lester 1996. American Shelter. New York: The Overlook Press. (continued) B10. Significance: (continued)
1029
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
B10. Significance: (continued)
Weinstein, Dave. “8 Great Modern Masters,” EichlerNetwork.com; https://www.eichlernetwork.com/article/8-great-modern- masters?page=0,5.

Weinstein, Dave 2006. Signature Architects of the San Francisco Bay Area. Lyton, UT: Gibbs-Smith Publisher.

Wikipedia, “Hans Hofman,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Hofmann. 1030
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information(con
Historic Images
John Haley, artist and owner/occupant of 771 Ocean Avenue. (Ghent 1993) View of rear facade of 771 Ocean Ave., early 1930s. Hollow clay tile wall separating 771 and 775 Ocean Ave. is still unstuccoed.

John Haley seated on top of wall. (Haley collection, Richmond Museum of History) 1031
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
Monica and John Haley at rear facade of 771 Ocean Avenue, early 1930s. Practice frescos visible on wall . (Haley collection, Richmond Museum of History)
Monica, John, and Hazel Haley on rear patio of 771 Ocean Ave., early 1930s. (Haley collection, Richmond Museum of History) 1032
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
Two paintings of 771 and 775 Ocean Avenue by John Haley.

Top: “Point Richmond Studios on SF Bay,” 1933.

Bottom: “Old Garage with New Studio,” 1932.
(MutualArt.com)
1033
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information

Rear facade of 771 Ocean Ave., 1934. (Haley collection, Richmond Museum of History) Looking south down entry stair/walk at 771 Ocean Ave., 1934. (Haley collection, Richmond Museum of History) 1034
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information

Fresco around fireplace at 771 Ocean Ave. (prior to being covered), ca. 1935. (Ghent 2022) “770 Ocean Avenue,” by John Haley, 1936. (Ghent 1993)
1035
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information

“Our renters while we were in Europe” and Monica Haley (right), in front of fireplace mural, 1937. (Haley collection, Richmond Museum of History)
Interior of first floor living area (before the 1949 addition), 1938. (Haley collection, Richmond Museum of History) 1036
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information

View into guest room, as added/improved in 1938. (Haley collection, Richmond Museum of History) Interior of studio, rear sleeping porch, as added in 1938. (Haley collection, Richmond Museum of History) 1037
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information

1949 Roger Lee-designed living room addition to south facade, looking east. (Bancroft Library, U.C. Berkeley) 1949 Roger Lee-designed living room addition to south facade, looking southwest. (Bancroft Library, U.C. Berkeley) 1038
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information

Interior of 1949 Roger Lee-designed living room addition to south facade, looking west. (Bancroft Library, U.C. Berkeley) Interior of 1949 Roger Lee-designed living room addition to south facade, looking northwest at entry area.

Kitchen and bathroom (with Adam and Eve window) visible beyond. (Bancroft Library, U.C. Berkeley) 1039
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information

Interior of 1949 Roger Lee-designed living room addition to south facade, looking south.

Chiura Obata's Japanese Black Pine visible outside window. (Bancroft Library, U.C. Berkeley) John and Monica Haley and some of their art collection, sitting in the “cozy corner” with the eastern gallery wall beyond; northeast corner of the 1949 living room addition, 1956. (Haley collection, Richmond Museum of History) 1040
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information

John and Monica Haley seated on the rear patio of 771 Ocean Avenue, 1956. (Haley collection, Richmond Museum of History) Rear patio at west side of living room addition, 1956 (Haley collection, Richmond Museum of History) 1041
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information

Monica Haley seated on original banquette along south wall of living room addition, 1957. (Haley collection, Richmond Museum of History)
Monica and John Haley seated in front of eastern wall of living room addition, 1962. (Haley collection, Richmond Museum of History)
1042
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information

“No. 29, Point Richmond, California,”by Henry Wessel, Jr., 1972. (771 Ocean Avenue, looking west) (MoMA.org)
Interior of second floor studio space, looking east, 1975. (Los Angeles Times “Home” magazine, 7 September 1975)
1043
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information

View west along Ocean Avenue, ca. 1975. 775 Ocean Avenue visible at left. (Haley collection, Richmond Museum of History)
Rear facades of 775 (left) and 771 (right) Ocean Avenue from the water, looking northeast, ca. 1980. (Haley collection, Richmond Museum of History)
1044
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information

Marker sketch of 771 and 775 Ocean Avenue by John Haley, 1982. (Haley collection, Richmond Museum of History)
View of 771 and 775 Ocean Ave., looking south from lot on north side of Ocean Avenue, 1987. (Haley collection, Richmond Museum of History)
1045
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information

View of portion of living room addition, looking up from lower terrace or shore at southwest side of property, ca. 1990. (Haley collection, Richmond Museum of History)
Current Images
Front (north) facades of 771 (left) and 775 (right) Ocean Ave. looking southwest. 1046
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information

Rear (south) facades of 775 (left) and 771 (right) Ocean Ave. looking northeast.

Rear (south) facade of 771 (right) Ocean Ave., looking northeast. 1047
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information

Primary (north) facade of 771 Ocean Ave., looking southeast. 775 Ocean Ave. at right.

Primary (north) facade of 771 Ocean Ave., looking south. 1048
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information

View east along primary (south) facade of 771 Ocean Ave.

View south along west facade, down entry steps/walkway. 1049
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information

Detail of primary entrance on west facade.

Wall at right is hollow clay tile wall that extends into entry and extends south to separate 771 from 775 Ocean Ave.

West facade of 1949 living room addition, looking east. 1050
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information

Patio at west side of living room addition. Primary entrance is beyond wall at center.

Wall at left/center is hollow clay tile wall that extends into entry and extends south to separate 771 from 775 Ocean Ave.

West facade of living room addition and Chiura Obata's Japanese Black Pine at right. 1051
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information

South facade of 1949 living room addition.

View from lower rear terrace looking up (north) at rear of 775 (left) and 771 (right) Ocean Ave. 1052
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information

View northeast along east side of 771 Ocean Ave.; living room addition left foreground, garage/guest room projecting beyond.

East side of living room addition, looking southeast.
1053
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information

South facade of projecting garage/guest room, looking north from east side yard.

East facade of garage/guest room, looking west.
1054
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information

View west along front facade, from northeast corner of property; garage/guest room closest.

Interior of living room, looking west. Patio door center, primary entrance door on right. 1055
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information

Interior of living room, looking south.

Interior of living room, looking northeast at “cozy corner” and eastern gallery wall at right, opening to kitchen at left. 1056
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information

Eastern gallery wall of living room, looking south.

Interior of first floor bathroom, looking north. John Haley's Adam and Eve stained glass window above tub. 1057
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information

Stairs to second floor, west side of kitchen space. Opening to living room at left, doorway to bathroom at right.

Interior of second floor studio space, looking east.
1058
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information

I
Interior of second floor studio space, looking north.

Interior of second floor studio space, looking west.
1059
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information

Fireplace at east end of studio space, showing partially-restored John Haley fresco.

Interior of second floor studio space looking southwest. Wide opening denotes 1938 sleeping porch addition. 1060
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information

Interior of second floor studio space, looking west. Sleeping porch addition at left.

View southeast into sleeping porch addition from studio space. 1061
RESOLUTION No. 26-01

RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND

RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A ZONING MAP AMENDMENT

TO ADD A -L, LANDMARK OVERLAY DISTRICT TO THE JOHN HALEY STUDIO/HOUSE AT 771 OCEAN AVENUE FOR THE PURPOSE OF LISTING ON THE RICHMOND

HISTORIC REGISTER
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richmond recognizes the importance of preserving and enhancing the City's historical and cultural background; and WHEREAS, Richmond Municipal Code (RMC) Section 15.04.303.070 Procedure for Designating Property sets forth the requirements and procedures for the designation of a site as a historic resource using the -L, Landmark Overlay District designation; and WHEREAS, on August 4, 2025, the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the proposed -L, Landmark Overlay District designation pursuant to Richmond Municipal Code Section 15.04.303.060 of the John Haley Studio/House at771 Ocean Avenue, Richmond, 94801 for the purpose of listing on the Richmond Historic Register; and
WHEREAS, on August 4, 2025, the HPC voted (3-0-2) to recommend to the Planning Commission and City Council to approve the designation of the John Haley Studio/House as a -L, Landmark Overlay District and finding that the project meets five of the six criteria of RMC Section 15.04.303.060; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the proposed project for conformance with Sections 15.04.303.060 and Article 15.04.814 of the Richmond Zoning Ordinance related to the proposed Rezoning; and
WHEREAS, on January 15, 2026, the Planning Commission conducted a properly noticed public hearing pursuant to California Government Code Section 65090, and has duly considered all written and verbal testimony presented before or during the hearing, including the agenda report; and
WHEREAS, based on the project application, materials, and testimony submitted prior to and at the public hearing, including the agenda report, the Planning Commission makes the following findings required by RMC Section 15.04.303.060 for a recommendation to the City Council of a -L, Landmark Overlay District designation for the John Haley Studio/House located at 771 Ocean Avenue:

Criterion 1. It exemplifies or reflects valued elements of the City's cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering, archaeological, or architectural history; Supporting Statements of Fact: The property contributes significantly to the built environment that makes up a neighborhood long inhabited by an intellectual and creative community with high creative and artistic history and values.

1062
Criterion 2. It is identified with persons or events important in local, state, or national history;
Supporting Statements of Fact: John Haley's name and works remain well represented in Modern art circles, proving the longevity of his influence on Modern art locally and regionally, as well as extending to the national level.

Criterion 4. It embodies distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style, type, period, or method of construction, or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship; or
Supporting Statements of Fact: The property can be regarded as a good example of the Second Bay Tradition style and also contributes to a notable concentration of Modernist architecture in Point Richmond and was one of the earliest Second Bay Tradition or Modernist buildings to be constructed within that neighborhood context.

Criterion 5. It is representative of the notable work of a builder, designer, or architect whose style influenced the City's architectural development; Supporting Statements of Fact: The 1949 living room addition was designed by pioneering Chinese-American Modernist architect Roger Lee, one of the most prolific and financially successful of the Midcentury Modernists and promoter of the Second Bay Tradition style.

Criterion 6. A structure, site, or other improvement which meets any of the above criteria at the highest level, and whose toss would be a major loss to the City, may be designated a Richmond Historic Landmark.

Supportinci Statements of Fact: By meeting criteria 1,2,4, and 5 for landmark designation, the John Haley Studio/House may be designated a Richmond Historic Landmark as set forth in RMC Section 15.04.303.060, -H and -L Overlay District Designation Criteria.

WHEREAS, based on the project application, materials and testimony submitted at the public hearing, including the agenda report, the Planning Commission makes the following findings required by RMC Section 15.04.814.050 for a recommendation to the City Council to approve a Rezoning:

A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan.

Supporting Statements of Fact: The proposed project -L Landmark Overlay District Designation complies with the goals and policies of the City of Richmond General Plan, specifically under "Historic Resource Preservation Policy HR1.1: Preservation of Diverse Resources" which encourages the protection, preservation and enhancement of the diverse range of historic, cultural and archaeological sites and resources in the City for the benefit of current and future residents and visitors.

6. The proposed amendment is necessary for public health, safety, and general welfare or will be of benefit to the public.

Supporting Statements of Fact: The proposed rezoning is suitable for the project site because it will be of historic and cultural benefit to the public to preserve the history and the residence

1063
of a significant and influential figure, John Haley, in the Richmond, Bay Area and California art worlds and their respective built environments.

C. The proposed amendment has been reviewed in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.

Supporting Statements of Fact: The -L Landmark Overlay District Designation of the John Haley Studio/House is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA guidelines Section 15308, Class 8, Actions by Regulatory Agencies for the Protection of the Environment as the project proposes to preserve the John Haley Studio/House.

D. For a change to the Zoning Maps, that the subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed zone in terms of access, size of parcel, relationship to similar or related uses, and other relevant considerations, and that the proposed change of zoning district is not detrimental to the use of adjacent properties.

Supporting Statements of Fact: The subject site is located in an area already served by community facilities, utilities and transportation systems and poses no expansion of uses in terms of access, size of parcel, relationship to similar or related uses, and other relevant considerations, nor will be detrimental to the use of adjacent properties.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Richmond hereby recommends to the City Council approval of a rezoning to amend the zoning map to add a -L, Landmark Overlay District to the base RL1 zoning district to the John Haley Studio/House located at 771 Ocean Avenue for the purpose of listing the property on the Richmond Historic Register.

Attachments:

A. DPR 523 Form and Project Statement
B. Zoning Map Amendment

1064
I certif/ that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Richmond at a regular meeting held January 15,2026,by the following vote:

AYES: Chair Jonathan Harrison, Vice-Chair Bruce Brubaker, Commissioner Gay Timmons
NOES: None
ABSTENTIONS: None
ABSENT: Alexander Golovets, Rachel Lockett
Approved:

Chair qfthe PlanhFrig Commission
/
Approved as to form:

C^^y^'u^
Assistant City Attorney

1065
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date

P1. Other Identifier: 771 Ocean Avenue
*P2. Location:  Not for Publication  Unrestricted *a. County: Contra Costa and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5' Quad: San Quentin Date: 1995 rev 1999 T ; R ; ¼ of ¼ of Sec ; M.D. B.M. c. Address: 771 Ocean Avenue City: Richmond Zip: 94801 d. UTM: Zone: 10 ; mE/ mN (G.P.S.)
e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate) Elevation:

APN: 558-223-012-3
*P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) Site
The property is located in a residential neighborhood on the Richmond shoreline of San Francisco Bay. The house sits at an angle on its lot; facing due north, while the long axis of the lot is oriented to the northeast. Topography in the area slopes down toward the water. The house is set in close proximity to neighboring buildings (to east and west) and to the street (to the north), but has a patio at the rear (south) that descends steeply to the water in a series of stone masonry terraces. At the west side of the house is a noteworthy site wall, which is constructed of hollow-clay tile and clad with stucco. The wall is slightly less than one-story high. It spans (east-west) between the subject building and its neighbor to the west, separating the entry area of the subject property from its patio to the south. The wall also extends to the southwest, creating physical separation between the patios of the two properties. The wall is structurally integrated with the subject building, as well, with the section spanning between the properties continuing into the interior, forming a partition that creates an entry vestibule. (Continued) *P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP2. Single-family property, HP39. Other (art studio) *P4. Resources Present: Building oStructure oObject oSite oDistrict oElement of District oOther (Isolates, etc.) P5b. Description of Photo: (View,
date, accession #)
Primary and west facades, looking
southeast; September 2024
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and
Sources: Historic
oPrehistoric oBoth
1932; County Assessor and other
*P7. Owner and Address:

David Ruddell & Joy Tahan Ruddell
771 Ocean Avenue
Richmond, CA. 94801
*P8. Recorded by: (Name,
affiliation, and address)
Left Coast Architectural History
PO Box 70415
Richmond, CA. 94807
*P9. Date Recorded: Oct. 2024
P10. Survey Type: Intensive
*P11. Report Citation: None
*Attachments: oNONE oLocation Map oSketch Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record oArchaeological Record oDistrict Record oLinear Feature Record oMilling Station Record oRock Art Record oArtifact Record oPhotograph Record o Other (List):

DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
P5a. Photo or Drawing (Photo required for buildings, structures, and objects.)

ATTACHMENT A
1066
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD

*Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) John Haley Studio-House B1. Historic Name: 771 Ocean Avenue, Haley Studio
B2. Common Name: 771 Ocean Avenue
B3. Original Use: art studio/residential B4. Present Use: residential *B5. Architectural Style: Second Bay Tradition
*B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) Constructed 1932. Sleeping porch addition, 1938. Living room addition, 1949. (See alterations chart on Continuation Sheets for additional construction history.)
*B7. Moved? No oYes oUnknown Date: n/a Original Location: n/a *B8. Related Features: None
B9a. Architect: None (original), Roger Lee (addition) b. Builder: Unknown *B10. Significance: Theme: Art and Artists Area: Point Richmond Period of Significance: 1932-1991 Property Type: Studio/Residential Applicable Criteria: 1,2,4,5,6 (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.) Local Context: Point Richmond & the City of Richmond
Point Richmond is a neighborhood within the larger City of Richmond, in Contra Costa County, California, and is the place where the city originated. Prior to European settlement, the area was inhabited by the native Huchiun (Ohlone) people. During the Spanish period, the Huchiun were displaced and relegated into the Catholic Mission system, and in the succeeding Mexican period the Richmond area became part of Rancho San Pablo, granted to Don Francisco Castro. American control of California resulted in prolonged land disputes and the rancho eventually being divided among numerous landowners. The Point Richmond area remained generally unsettled and undeveloped until the turn of the twentieth century. (City of Richmond 2012) Point Richmond was originally an island, separated from the mainland by swampy unusable land that could not be sold to private owners. Jacob Tewksbury, formerly a physician, owned land to the north of Point Richmond and took it upon himself to build a system of levies that controlled water flow to silt up the marshland, thus creating solid ground. He then petitioned the government to declare the reclaimed waterway as dry land so that it could be purchased and developed. (Roselius 1985) The former island of Point Richmond and the newly-dry land to its northeast were recognized and promoted by Augustin MacDonald in 1895, when he noticed the pleasant environs and a deep water channel to the south that would be an ideal place for a rail terminus and ferry landing. It only took five years for the Santa Fe Railroad to build the facilities needed to begin operating ferry service, including the transport of rail cars, across San Francisco Bay. That industry was quickly followed, in 1901, by the establishment of the Standard Oil refinery, north of Point Richmond proper. A number of smaller industrial plants, like a couple of brick works, a winery, and a whaling station, were established around Point Richmond, generating a local population of workers and families. (Continued)
B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP2. Single-family property, HP39. Other (art studio)
*B12. References:
(See parenthetical citations within text and on Continuation Sheet) B13. Remarks:
*B14. Evaluator: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date of Evaluation: October 2024
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
(This space reserved for official comments.)

ATTACHMENT A
1067
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
P3a. Description: (continued)
Exterior
The house is constructed of hollow clay tile and wood framing. It has an irregular plan and varied height; consisting of a rectangular two-story mass, with a one-story former-garage extending to the east, and a one-story trapezoidal living room addition extending to the south. The two-story portion of the house is topped by an asymmetrical side-gable roof, while the former-garage is topped by a shed roof, and the southern living room addition is topped by a flat roof. Exterior cladding consists of smooth stucco at the first story level and southern portion of the second story, and wood board-and-batten siding on the north half of the second story level. Smooth wood paneling clads the lower walls of the southern addition, which are almost entirely glazed above.

Due to the slope of the lot, the first story of the primary facade is situated partially below-grade, with a retaining wall creating a narrow well at its base. This makes the facade essentially one-and-a-half stories high at street level. The first story is clad with smooth stucco and is fenestrated with three regularly spaced window openings. The left and center windows have multi-lite, steel, casement sashes, while the right window is leaded art glass depicting Adam and Eve in an aluminum casement sash that was made by John Haley. The second story of the primary facade is clad with wood board-and-batten and features a large centered window opening that is more than than half the width of the facade. This opening is located about half-way up the second story wall and continues past the eaveline, angling back into a reverse shed dormer. The window itself is a multi-lite steel sash with operable horizontal pivot sections. The roofline is eaveless and, as noted, includes a reverse shed dormer that integrates the upper portion of the large centered window. A one-story former-garage extends from the left (east) side of the primary facade. It has an unfenestrated, smooth stucco-clad wall plane and an eaveless shed roofline. The mass of the former- garage projects forward slightly from the plane of the main facade and there is a small double-hung vinyl sash window on the narrow west-facing section of wall at the juncture.

The west facade is separated by only a narrow margin from the neighboring property and is the location of the primary entrance, which is located at the right (south) side of the first story and accessed by a flight of exterior stairs that descending from the street. The first story of the west facade is clad with smooth stucco and the entry area is recessed slightly, with the aforementioned site wall to its immediate right, creating an exterior entry vestibule. The entry door is a flush wood door with a transom lite above and sidelight to its right. On the right (south) side of the site wall, the first story features a fully-glazed wood door to the patio that is topped with a transom, and a bank of wood dado panels with plate glass glazing above. Representing the side of the southern living room addition, the patio door and plate glass windows are overhung by the broad, deeply boxed eaves of the addition's flat roof. The second story of the west facade is largely clad with wood board-and-batten siding, although the far right (south) side is clad with stucco. It is unfenestrated, but for a pair of narrow, horizontal, wood sash windows with flat wood trim that are located on the lower right side of the board-and-batten section of wall. The roofline has an asymmetrical gable end, shorter on the left (north) than the right (south), and is eaveless.

The first story of the rear (south) facade consists of a 1949 Roger Lee-designed living room addition, which projects forward from the main mass of the building. It features a number of angles in the wall plane, which consists of smooth wood dado panels and plate glass fenestration above. The plate glass glazing is separated at regular intervals by thick wood mullions and overhung by the broad, deeply boxed eaves of the flat roof. The second story of the south facade is located on the main mass of the building and is clad with stucco. Two wide horizontally oriented windows are located toward the left (west) side, while a smaller window it located to the right (east). The leftmost window has a sliding wood sash, while the window to its right is slightly wider and has a three-part sliding wood sash. The rightmost window is a much narrower casement sash of the same material.

The east facade faces a neighboring property. The side of the living room addition creates a long plane that is angled to the southeast and continues the wood dado panels, plate glass glazing, and broad boxed eaves from the south facade. Where the addition meets the main mass of the house, it is clad with wood board-and-batten siding and has two horizontal fixed windows fitted with reeded glass set high on the wall, at a corner. The roolfine has both eaveless and boxed eave sections in this location.

To the right (north), is the stucco-clad south-facing wall of the former-garage, which has an angled wall plane and features two double-hung, vinyl sash windows and an eaveless shed roofline. The east-facing wall of the former-garage is also clad with stucco and features a partially-glazed, flush wood door at the center and an eaveless roofline. The second story of the east facade is clad with stucco on the left (south) and wood board-and-batten on the right (north). It has an asymmetrical gable end, shorter on the right (north) than the left (south), with an exterior brick chimney rising up the center.

Interior
The first floor includes a large living room, a kitchen/dining area, and a bathroom. The living room has terracotta tile floors. Plate glass windows span the east, south, and west sides of the space, with built-in banquets, shelving, and storage cabinets original to the 1949 Roger Lee addition lining the lower walls. A portion of the southeast wall is solid and finished with sheet rock. The ceiling is sheet rocked and spanned by one large exposed beams supported by metal and boxed posts.

The kitchen/dining area has a floor made of hollow clay tile laid flat. The walls and ceiling are finished with sheet rock. The floor level steps up into a small bathroom, which also features hollow clay tile floor, and has stucco plaster walls and ceiling, and original ceramic tiles and fixtures. The Haley-designed art glass window on the primary facade corresponds to the bathroom and is located within the shower.

ATTACHMENT A
1068
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
P3a. Description: (continued)
Between floor levels (above the first floor and a few steps down from the second floor level) is a garage, which has been converted to a bedroom with bathroom and laundry facilities. It features modern finishes.

A wood quarter-turn stair ascends from the west side of the kitchen/dining area to the second story. It has simple wood railings.

The second floor contains a large open space, a sleeping porch area, and a bathroom. The main space and sleeping porch are separated only minimally by a wide opening. The bathroom is located off the east end of the sleeping porch. The spaces have wood board flooring, sheet rocked walls and the ceilings are the vaulted underside of the gable roof finished with wood boards and beams. On the east wall of the main space is a small fireplace with a raised, depressed arch opening. It has a flat terra cotta tile hearth and lacks a mantel, but is surrounded by exposed plaster that bears a partially-restored John Haley fresco.

Documented Alterations
Records on file at the City of Richmond Building Division, as well as other archival sources, document some changes that have been made to the property over time:

Date Permit #/Source Description of Work
1932 SF Chronicle (Tanner 1950) House constructed.
1935? Riquelme & Levick Possible improvements to first floor living space.* 1938-39 SF Chronicle, Ghent 2024,
historic photos
Addition of sleeping porch [south side, second story] and guest room (conversion of former garage) [east side, first story]. 5/19/1949 28079
SF Chronicle
Living room addition to cottage. [South side, first story.] Addition designed by architect Roger Lee; included jacking up parts of house for plumbness, re-wiring, etc.
7/1/1949 18931 Electrical; wire cottage addition, 6 plugs. 9/7/1949 28708 Certificate of Occupancy for living room addition. 1960 Riquelme & Levick Renovated to create gallery space for Haley's personal art collection. 4/26/1960 Bldg. Div. records Unspecified paving work.
9/16/1964 64493 Reroof studio and shop [garage] with tar and gravel. 8/16/1966 54122 Electrical work to install 100 amp service. 11/21/1969 75642 Reroof dwelling with asbestos and gravel. 7/16/1979 94136 Reroof with felt and crushed granite gravel. 5/14/1993 S9300507 Repairs related to shower.
recent Visual observation Garage entrance infilled.
* Riquelme and Levick (2003) state that the house was built in 1930, which appears to be erroneous as all other sources state 1932, and notes that five years after construction, living quarters were added to the downstairs of the studio. Any “addition” of living quarters to the first floor at that time would have been entirely interior (no physical expansion of the structure) and may have more accurately consisted of kitchen/dining/bathroom room improvements within a space that other sources (Tanner 1950) state were original to the building.

ATTACHMENT A
1069
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
B10. Significance: (continued)
A small community of houses and commercial establishments sprang up between the refinery and rail lines and, in 1905, Richmond was incorporated as a city. Churches, a school, theaters, hotels, a beach resort/bandstand, a swimming pool, and other community amenities eventually created the complete neighborhood now known as Point Richmond. (Roselius 1985) By 1915, development had expanded to the east of Point Richmond and a new commercial core along McDonald Avenue supplanted Point Richmond as the heart of the growing city. Point Richmond became a neighborhood within the larger municipality, although it still supported important industrial facilities for rail and oil refining operations, as well as other business, and was a vital neighborhood of residential and other uses. (City of Richmond 2012) As part of the larger city, which fared well during the Great Depression and World War II in large part due to local industry, Point Richmond rode the upheavals of war and economic downturn. During the Depression, Standard Oil and the railroad kept many residents of Point Richmond employed and in relatively good financial health. World War II, brought immense change to Richmond as a whole. The Kaiser Shipyards were established at present-day Marina Bay and wartime industry brought an influx of workers and their families to the area, all needing housing and services. The population boom was, of course, absorbed by the entire city, but Point Richmond played its role by providing some housing, often tucking newcomers into subdivided apartments in existing homes, while more housing was quickly built near industrial areas to the south of Point Richmond. The neighborhood elementary school, Washington School, began to offer classes in shifts to accommodate all of the children that war workers brought with them to the area. Local businesses prospered. (Roselius 1985) The end of the war was almost as dramatic. Many war workers left Richmond to return home, though just as many stayed. With a sudden lack of war industry jobs and government supported housing, many were left unemployed and homeless, plunging Richmond into a depressed state that lasted into the 1960s and beyond. (City of Richmond 2012) Although the population and activity of Point Richmond settled to more normal levels after the war, it felt like stagnation in comparison to the bustle of the war years. As with the rest of the city, the neighborhood took on a downtrodden and unkempt character in the decades following the war. It was somewhat forgotten as the rest of the Bay Area grew around it. Local small industries languished and closed, but the railroad and oil refinery remained active and, ultimately, kept the area alive. The slightly seedy environs attracted a population of bohemians, artists, and intellectuals to Point Richmond, adding to a creative community that had gotten its foothold as early as the 1930s. This gave the town an increasingly eclectic reputation that has grown into the present day. Some development, such as new housing tracts near the water, the establishment of a regional park, and the designation of Point Richmond proper as a National Register Historic District, raised the profile and esteem of the area, putting some polish on the Point from the 1970s onward. The neighborhood now supports a robust population of artists, intellectuals, and professionals that trend older and more affluent. They inhabit a collection of homes dating to all periods of Point Richmond's history and come together in a small enclave of restaurants and shops at the neighborhood's core. (Roselius 1985) Property History: 771 Ocean Avenue
At its start, Point Richmond was a small commercial town center surrounded by residential properties that was located on the inland, northeast, side of a hill separating it from San Francisco Bay. Because of this topographical barrier, development on the bay side (southwest) of the hill was sparse for decades after the town was established. Sanborn Fire Insurance Company maps do not illustrate the bay side of the hill until 1930, indicating that there was very little in the way of physical development in that area. Even in 1930, only a few modest houses – some mere one-room cottages – dotted the shoreline and bay-facing slope of the hill.

In 1932, artists, friends, and fellow U.C. Berkeley art professors John Haley and Worth Ryder purchased two adjacent parcels along the shoreline in Point Richmond, where they often came to paint en plein air and had admired the site. Confirming the information found on Sanborn maps, Haley later remembered to a friend how the Point Richmond shoreline was almost totally undeveloped, with only some scattered fishing shacks present. Although Point Richmond would come to have a rich and eclectic community of creatives and academics, Haley and Ryder were probably among the first artists to establish themselves and their studios in Point Richmond. (Ghent 2024)
They built side-by-side studios; 771 Ocean Avenue belonging to Haley and 775 Ocean Avenue belonging to Ryder. (Riquelme and Levick 2003, 44) No architect was employed in the design of the buildings. Instead, the two artists, modeled the design – particularly the traditional north-facing studio windows – after the numerous artists' studios they had seen while traveling and studying in Europe. They then built the designs “on the cheap.” (Ghent 2024) Despite the European influence and vernacular construction, the buildings have distinctively local architectural character and can be classified as Second Bay Tradition style.

Although John Haley taught at U.C. Berkeley and likely spent a good deal of time on campus, he conducted his own personal art practice in his studio at 771 Ocean Avenue. Being a regionalist with a strong practice of painting local scenery, he made the studio his home base for working out of doors around Point Richmond and further afield. Haley's compact studio originally featured only a dining room, kitchen, and bathroom on the first floor and an art studio and small sleeping area on the second floor. In 1938 or 1938, however; Haley, and his wife Monica, improved the building so that it was a more suitable home for them both (continued)

ATTACHMENT A
1070
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
B10. Significance: (continued)
and moved there permanently from Berkeley. The improvements consisted of an added sleeping porch off the south side of the second floor studio and a small room – a converted former garage – to be used as a guest room, particularly when Monica's mother came to visit. (Ghent 2024)
Worth Ryder's neighboring studio at 775 Ocean Avenue remained strictly a working studio and Ryder continued to live in Berkeley, but Haley's studio became both a place of artistic practice and a family home. (Riquelme and Levick 2003, 44.) Monica Haley was an arts administrator for the Richmond Unified School District, who wrote and published on the topic of children's art. During World War II into the 1970s, she began amassing and documenting an extensive collection of art and related materials made by children in Richmond's child care centers, which represents possibly the largest collection of children's art in the country and yields important insights into the history, culture, sociology, and psychology of children during wartime and other historical periods. (Treadway 2016. The collection of children's art is held by the Richmond Museum of History & Culture.) The Haleys, thus, shared a common passion for art, art instruction, and art's deeper influences on culture and people.

The studio-house at 771 Ocean Avenue and its environs factored into Haley's and fellow Berkeley School artists' work. In 1932 and 1933, he produced watercolors showing two views of “Point Richmond Studios on SF Bay. ”He depicted “770 Ocean Avenue,” showing the studio though the titular address was slightly different, in a 1936 painting that won the San Francisco Art Association Purchase Prize at the first annual watercolor exhibition at the San Francisco Museum of Art. In 1940, Haley's colleague Karl Kasten painted “Hillside Homes,” showing Ryder's and Haley's studios in Point Richmond. Haley and other artists also produced a number of depictions of scenes in and around Point Richmond that suggests that they all spent time at Haley and Ryder's studios and working in the area. Such works include Chiura Obata's sumi ink painting depicting the “View of Mount Tamalpais Across San Francisco Bay” and Haley's own painting of the “Richmond/San Rafael Ferry Slip.” In addition to the studio-house serving as subject matter, it was – at least in one instance – Haley's canvas. Around 1935, he practiced his fresco technique by painting a mural around the fireplace in the second floor studio. Likely a practice run for the frescos he painted at the U.S. Coast Guard Administration Building on Alameda in 1937, it depicted workmen building the wall structure around the fireplace and reflected the popular New Deal aesthetic of the time. Haley later painted over the mural with acrylic paint. It was discovered by a later owner and restoration was attempted, but the obscuring acrylic whitewash could only be partially removed. (Ghent 2022)
Just as Haley derived so much of his artistic inspiration from the local landscape, he and Monica were responsible for shaping some of it around their home. In 1941, as World War II loomed, a winery in Napa Valley requested that patrons take and plant cork oak saplings in an effort to preempt an anticipated European cork shortage. The Haleys did just that and planted six cork oaks in a vacant area near their home. In the 1980s, only three of three of the trees remained and it is unclear how many stand today, although there are a number of cork oaks along the Point Richmond shoreline. (Gautraud 1984) The Haleys are also associated with a significant Japanese Black Pine tree that is located on the property's rear patio, where it began as a diminutive bonsai and has grown into a mature tree. The tree was originally grown by Japanese American artist Chiura Obata, who was an associate of Haley's at U.C. Berkeley and a personal friend. (Obata was friends with Worth Ryder and one of the group that often toured the Sierras with Ryder and others, like Ansel Adams. Obata later became a faculty member in the Art Department at Berkeley, from 1932-1941 and from 1945-1953. Obata and Haley were thus acquainted through mutual friendship with Ryder and employment at U.C. Berkeley.) When Obata and his family were interned during World War II, they asked friends to salvage the plants from the garden they were forced to abandon. The Haleys replanted the pine at their own home, overlooking the Bay. (Hill 2000, 17) It is purported that Obata later painted the tree, in situ, after he had returned from the internment camps; yet more evidence that Haley's colleagues spent meaningful time practicing art at 771 Ocean Avenue and in Point Richmond.

In 1949, the studio-house was expanded yet again when the Haleys hired architect Roger Lee to design the rear addition that would house a large living room. The studio-house had been built at an angle on the lot in an effort to gain the most northern light for the studio. The angular plan of the addition was a response to this unusual siting and to avoid conflicting with the lot boundaries. It also achieved excellent views to the southwest. Lee designed the addition as an art gallery as much as a living room, ensuring good light from a continuous bank of windows, a flat white eastern gallery wall for hanging art, and built-in banquet seating that lent itself to salon-like gathering. Monica Haley specified a “cozy corner” for reading. (Tanner 1950) Worth Ryder died in 1960 and the Haleys purchased his studio at 775 Ocean Avenue from his widow, so that the twin buildings came under common ownership. John Haley began to use Ryder's studio as his own, while 771 remained the Haleys' residence.

At that time, they remodeled the studio-house to create additional gallery space for their collection of African, Oceanic, and indigenous American art. (Riquelme and Levick 2003, 44) John Haley died of a stroke in 1991, followed by Monica in 1997. The studio-house at 771 Ocean Avenue and its contents were left, in trust, to Gregory Ghent, along with the studio at 775 Ocean Avenue. Ghent was the owner of a San Francisco art gallery and a long-time personal friend of the Haleys. He had worked with them to inventory both John Haley's works and the Haleys' personal art collection, and later assisted Monica in seeing Haley family ephemera donated to worthy repositories (continued)

ATTACHMENT A
1071
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
B10. Significance: (continued)
after John's death. A few years after John Haley's death, Ghent wrote “John Haley, a Retrospective;” a biographical essay and catalog for a solo retrospective show at the Richmond Art Center. Ghent continued to use the two properties much as the Haleys had. He used 775 Ocean Avenue as his studio, working in ceramics, while living at 771 Ocean Avenue. He is known to have also used the studio to host receptions and exhibitions of both he and Haley's art and art collections. In the late 1990s, Ghent let space on the second floor of 775 Ocean Avenue to Xtopher Seldon, a contractor, architecture student, and artist, who assisted Ghent as a caretaker for the properties. (Riquelme and Levick 2003, 44) Ghent continued to live at 771 Ocean Avenue and work in the lower studio of 775 Ocean Avenue until 2012. The properties had been entailed to the Nature Conservancy, but the organization agreed to divest of them, and Ghent ensured that they were purchased by an ownership consortium that included his friends Robin and Guillermina Emy LaFever. (Ghent 2024) Robin LaFever was an engineer, whose professional work evolved and adapted into an artistic practice involving 3D modeling and tech- related assemblages. He often hosted “The Gang of Five,” or “The Art Squad,” a small group of Point Richmond artists, at his studio on the second floor of 775 Ocean Avenue; a quirky community art practice indicative of the vibrant artistic community Point Richmond has supported since the early twentieth century. (Casas and Wei 2016) Emy LeFever, a local shop owner, was and continues to be the proprietor of Guillermina Asian Art & Antiques located in Point Richmond's commercial hub. She lives at 775 Ocean Avenue, while in 2022, she and the ownership consortium sold the property at 771 Ocean Avenue to the current owners, David Ruddell and Joy Tahan Ruddell. The Ruddells are, themselves, an artist and a museum collections specialist, ensuring the property's ongoing stewardship by those who value art and the legacy of John Haley.

Chain of Title & Occupancy
Date Owners/Occupants
1932 - 1997 John & Monica Haley (1960 – purchased neighboring 775 Ocean Avenue) 1997 - 2017 Gregory Ghent (owned both properties in trust) 2017-2022 Ownership consortium including residents Robin and Guillermina Emy LeFever (owned both properties)
2022 - present David & Joy Tahan Ruddell (purchased 771 Ocean Avenue. 775 Ocean Avenue was purchased by one member of the ownership consortium and rented to Emy LeFever.) Significant Person: John Haley
John Haley (1905-1991) was born in 1905 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. As early as high school, he showed a talent for drawing in illustrations he created for the school newspaper. After graduating, he attended the Minneapolis School of Art (now the Minneapolis College of Art & Design). The school taught mainly in the traditional Beaux Arts genre, which Haley mastered. In his senior year, he was commissioned to paint a portrait of T.B. Walker, a local lumber tycoon, which was hung in Minneapolis City Hall. This recognition made Haley's talent public and seems to have ensured some future in art. However, his interest and skill were developed beyond traditional portraiture. While at the Minneapolis School of Art, Haley took instruction from artist Cameron Booth, who had brought his own interest in European Modernism to the school's otherwise traditional curriculum. Haley thus discovered a passion for Modernist art and a lasting comradery with Booth. (Ghent 1993. Spake 2023.) Earning a one-year study-abroad scholarship in 1927, Haley traveled to Europe with Booth where they studied at the summer art school of Hans Hoffman on the Italian Isle of Carpi. Hoffman was one of the early twentieth century's most influential art teachers, having been influenced himself by the likes of Picasso and Matisse. In addition to his summer program on Capri, he ran a regular school in Munich, which Haley attended in the fall, after Booth had returned to the States. (Haley, 1982) Hoffman was a major player in the European avant-garde movement, furthering the genres of Symbolism, Neo-impressionism, Fauvism, and Cubism.

His school is cited by some historians as the first school of modern art and both his practice and teaching was seminal to twentieth century modern art. (Wikipedia)
Haley attended Hoffman's school for the 1927-1928 academic year, learning Hoffman's techniques of colorful expressionistic cubism and enthusiastically breaking away from his early Beaux Arts training. He returned to the United States in the summer of 1928 and traveled to the West Coast to see his fiancee, Monica, who was studying at the University of Southern California, and to visit a Minneapolis School of Art colleague who was then teaching at the University of California, Berkeley. This trip introduced Haley to California, U.C. Berkeley, and artists who would be influential in his career and life, like Worth Ryder, a U.C. Berkeley art department professor and former Hoffman student. (Ghent 1993) In 1930, Hans Hoffman was invited to teach a summer art course at U.C. Berkeley and, while there, recommended Haley for a lecturer position in the school's art department. Haley, who had returned to Minnesota to teach at his alma mater, collaborate on Modernist department store window displays with Cameron Booth, do newspaper illustrations, and create stained glass church windows for the Mayo Clinic, eagerly took the job. He and Monica relocated to Berkeley for the start of the 1930-1931 academic year. (Ghent 1993. Deutsch.) (continued)

ATTACHMENT A
1072
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
B10. Significance: (continued)
At Berkeley, Haley was quick to find success and promoted the avant-garde style that he had learned from Hoffman and developed to his personal practice in intervening years and through collaborations with colleagues. He was known for his good rapport with students, and his clear methods of teaching and conveying new and radical ideas in art. He staunchly promoted Moderism whenever academic debate arose about its merits in relation to traditional art, saying “Modern art... is tradition expressing itself in a new way.” (Ghent 1993)
Haley's art and teaching generated a style that became known as the “Berkeley School,” which was characterized by a unique treatment of space and the use of colors in varied tones delineated with different and multi-colored lines. The style essentially softened the contours and colors of Hoffman's style and embraced on-site, plein air painting. Haley worked primarily in gouache (opaque watercolor) on paper (especially from 1935 to 1941), although he also painted in oil and watercolor; sculpted in stone, wood, and bronze; and did lithography and etching, photography, mosaic, stained glass, and fresco. He depicted architecture in landscape, often urban and industrial, as well as western subjects like ghost towns and mining camps. This fit well with a new enthusiasm for regionalism and American subject matter that was the result of a Depression-era rejection of European abstract art. The Depression also resulted in government-funded art programs, which Haley participated in and subsequently influenced the style of; as in his 1937 frescoes at the U.S. Coast Guard Administration Building on Coast Guard Island, Alameda. It embodies the New Deal aesthetic, while at the same time employing Haley's personal interest and experimentation in both Renaissance fresco techniques and contemporary Regionalist subject mater.

Developing the Berkeley School aesthetic along with Hoffman disciples, Minneapolis School of Art alumni, and fellow U.C.

Berkeley art professors Worth Ryder, Glenn Wessels, Erle Loran, Karl Kasten, and philosopher and art department chairman Stephen C. Pepper, the U.C. Berkeley art department was established as the most progressive and innovative in academia during the mid-twentieth century. It was the first national university to support a studio-practice program, had a rigorous program of guest- artist/instructors, and espoused the philosophies of aesthetics, practice, and the study of art history. Haley was instrumental in introducing countless students, as well as visiting artists, to the “Berkeley School” and the philosophies of Modern art.

Haley's teaching job at Berkeley supported him well financially and gave him the ability to pursue and develop his personal art practice. The faculty at Berkeley coalesced around him, sharing common training and employment, but also personal artistic philosophies. This strong connection resulted in Haley and Worth Ryder embarking on travels together to paint the California landscape, and ultimately buying land and building side-by-side studios in Point Richmond.

In 1935, Haley was honored with his first solo exhibition at the Art Center in San Francisco, which was devoted to showing the works of local modern artists. Reviews were complimentary. The following year, the San Francisco Museum of Art hosted a second annual watercolor exhibition and a related review written by art critic John Frankenstein coined the moniker “Berkeley School.” Frankenstein's review stated that the Berkeley School were “a group that practices an art of coloured drawing with watercolour and gouache. Theirs is an essentially graphic way of looking at things…. The old master of this Berkeley school which delights in odd and slightly naïve aspects of the local scene is John Haley, whose contributions to any exhibition are always outstanding.’ (Spake 2023)
In 1936, Haley also won his first award; a San Francisco Art Association Purchase Prize at the first annual watercolor exhibition at the San Francisco Museum of Art. The prize was given to a gouache painting titled “770 Ocean Avenue,” a depiction of Haley's Point Richmond studio-house. (John Haley Biographical Data) In 1938, he was awarded the Anne Bremmer Memorial Prize. His work featured in a number of other publications, exhibitions, and museums in the pre-war years, culminating with multiple pieces, including dioramas, displayed in the Pacific House at the Golden Gate International Exhibition on Treasure Island; a celebration of modernism and progress. (Krevsky Fine Art)
During World War II, Haley served in the Navy as a combat-intelligence officer, where he was able to implement his artistic skills.

In 1943 and 1944, he assisted in model making and creating detailed relief maps of the various theaters of war to aid in invasion strategizing. Later, he was an air photographer for the Pacific Fleet and also taught a course in camouflage for architects and engineers at U.C. Berkeley. (Krevsky Fine Art)
Returning from his wartime hiatus, Haley was granted a full professorship at U.C. Berkeley. He also responded, in the classroom and in his own work, to evolving philosophies in Modern art precipitated by the upheaval of war. By the mid-twentieth century, Modernism had been fully embraced in the art world and had spun off the genres of Surrealism and Abstraction. Haley took to the latter and shifted to the use of oil paint over gouache or watercolor. He continued to garner inspiration from regional landscapes and subject mater, but depicted them in a much more abstracted and bolder way. By the 1950s, he had fully embraced abstraction in the media of painting, drawing, and collage. (Ghent 1993) In the late 1940s and early 1950s, exhibit of Haley's work went national when a piece of his was shown and later purchased for the permanent collection of the prestigious Phillips Collection in Washington, DC; had work selected by jury and exhibited at the Metropolitan Museum of Art; and was given solo shows at New York City's Mortimer Levitt Gallery. Critical review of these exhibits lauded Haley's work. (continued)

ATTACHMENT A
1073
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information B10. Significance: (continued)
In the early 1950s, John and Monica Haley spent months in New York, in part due to Haley's work being exhibit there, but also in absorbing the local art scene; the abstract “New York School” to Haley's “Berkeley School.” This was also when the Haleys became interested in and began their collection of African, Oceanic, and indigenous American art. This collection would come to grace the Haley home at 771 Ocean Avenue in Point Richmond – the 1949 living room addition being designed around it to some extent – although it is noted that the art itself did not have a great influence on Haley's own work. (Ghent 1993) In the 1950s, Haley took a foray into sculpting that lasted into the 1970s. He often took prolonged breaks from painting to explore other media. This occurred again in 1959 and 1960, when he studied photography with Ansel Adams. Ultimately, however, he continued his work in large-scale, colorful, abstract impressionist painting that continued to loosely depict figural or landscape subjects through color and rhythm, but also went beyond the literal to evoke mood. In contrast to the New York School of intense, frenetic, and completely abstract works, Haley and the Berkeley School embraced calmer expression and retained some sense of subject matter. In the early 1960s, Haley's work was shown in solo shows at San Francisco's De Young Museum and at the Worth Ryder Gallery at U.C. Berkeley to great praise. (Ghent 1993) Haley continued his abstract work for some time, creating works that often had loose, blurred margins that concentrated into distinct patches of color toward the center; loosely depicting skylines and landscape formations. He continued to teach at U.C Berkeley until becoming a Professor Emeritus in 1972, and then in retirement continued to make art in his Point Richmond studio.

He did not pursue the Post Modern trends that art followed going into the 1980s, however. He continued the work he had been doing and, in fact, returned to his more representative and less abstract subjects, using watercolor and pen-and-ink. (Ghent 1993) Whether one event influenced the other, or not, California Regionalism experienced renewed appreciation in the later years of the twentieth century, just as Haley revisited his retro style. At that time, Haley's older work was shown in solo exhibitions at the Jan Holloway Gallery in San Francisco titled “John Haley: Regional Watercolors of the '30s and '40s;” at the Richmond Art Center, titled “John Haley's Richmond;” and at the Santa Barbara Museum of Art. His work of the 1930s and 1940s was also published in a number of books. (Ghent 1993)
John Haley died of a stroke in November 1991. (University of California Academic Senate) His Point Richmond studio-house was filled with over 400 artworks at the time, in addition to those he had sold throughout his career. Monica Haley continued to live at 771 Ocean Avenue until her death in 1997, paying tribute to her husband's artistic legacy by carefully curating and promoting his works, alongside the Haleys' friend Gregory Ghent.

Architectural Style: Second Bay Tradition
The studio-house at 771 Ocean Avenue can be classified stylistically as Second Bay Tradition. The Bay Tradition was an ongoing regional architectural trend spanning from around 1910 through the 1960s. Buildings of the Bay Tradition can be classified within three different periods, but the designs of all of those periods tended to be small-scale, picturesque, somewhat rustic, and blend into the surrounding landscape. The aesthetic embodied the common characteristics of modest, straightforward, distinctive design that responded to the Bay Area's climate, geography, and relatively informal cultural attitudes. Of the three periods, the First Bay Tradition was a derivation of the East Coast's shingle style and was influenced by the Craftsman style, while the Second Bay Tradition style was inspired by the International and Ranch styles. The Third Bay Tradition style was a synthesis of the earlier two that combined rustic materials with strikingly modern forms.

Advent of the Second Bay Tradition is generally attributed to architects William W. Wurster and Gardner Dailey, while their Bay Area contemporaries Mario Corbett, John C. Funk, Francis Joseph McCarthy, and others played a significant role in perpetuating and interpreting the style. These architects referenced historical precedents and used rustic, natural materials, but applied them in uniquely modern ways. They employed new concepts of space planning, siting, and the interaction of indoor/outdoor space and structure/landscape. In so doing, they were Modernists, but separate from mainstream or high Modernism, which upheld machine- age materials and production, sleek lines, and dramatic forms.

The Second Bay Tradition style, represented by 771 Ocean Avenue, was prevalent between 1930 and 1960. It is described as “a unique combination of the 'less is more' dictum of the International style and the local vernacular architecture of ranches, barns, and low-cost homes.” (Walker 1996, 193) This resulted in small-scale, low-profile houses featuring simple cubistic forms, large expanses of glass, and open plans, which were rendered in redwood board siding, exposed interior roof structures, interior redwood paneling, and low pitched roofs. However, “although they have certain common characteristics like redwood walls, openness of plan, and a tendency to low, sloping roofs, every good Bay Region house is unique in design. This is because each one, unlike most U.S. homes, represents a tailor-made solution to the particular living problems of the owner.” ( Life Magazine 1949)
Even as early as the 1930s, the California lifestyle was notably more informal and unpretentious than the prevailing culture of the East Coast. Temperate climate allowed people to embrace outdoor living and a certain lack of traditional sentimentality meant that people did not want to live in or maintain monumental houses. The time period in which the style was popular, during the Depression and World War II, also dictated economic frugality. For both these reasons, Second Bay Tradition designs (continued)

ATTACHMENT A
1074
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
B10. Significance: (continued)
were simple, not ostentatious, and used inexpensive materials. They drew on the existing architectural traditions of California; that is, ranch houses and Spanish Colonial influences; which harmonized with the environment and used simple, local materials.

Ultimately, these design concepts resulted in modest houses with the quality and livability of a larger house by using siting to to create privacy, separation from the public realm, and divert focus toward the landscape; using windows and indoor/outdoor space, as well as avoiding interior structural members that interrupted sight lines, to capture views and visually increase the size of a room; designing rooms for multiple purposes, thus increasing efficiency and minimizing circulation areas; and using simple materials and minimal detailing to eliminate visual distraction and allow the eye to travel away from confining walls and toward open outdoor views. (Hille 1994)
The studio-house at 771 Ocean Avenue embodies Second Bay Tradition philosophies both in its original 1930s design and later Midcentury addition by presenting a Modernist design that is simple in form and made of basic affordable materials like hollow clay tile and wood. Its form, which is actually two-stories high, melds with the waterfront hillside to minimize the building's profile at the street and respond to the sloped geography of its site, as it descends to the shoreline. The building's primary (north) facade appeals to the concept of privacy by presenting a high ratio of solid wall to fenestration, with the expansive studio window set high on the wall and incorporated into the roofline, so that its perspective angles up and out, and is related to the capture of light, rather than focusing on view and interaction with the public realm. The primary entrance is minimized, located on the side of the building and down a long flight of steps from the street, with no porch and little ornament to mark its location. Meanwhile the rear (south) side of the building opens up to the environment and view through large expanses of glazing and a sense of the living room blending with the outdoor patio. Small details that emphasize indoor-outdoor interaction are noted in a 1950 article about the Roger Lee-designed addition and states that “'Bringing the outdoors indoors' in this otherwise 'interior living' house was accomplished by extending a high stucco wall into the entry and continuing the planting inside.” The building's broadly sloped side-gable roof with reverse shed dormer, lack of eves, banked fenestration and fenestration integrated into the roofline, rustic hollow clay tile and wood board-and-batten siding, unusual angled siting and plan, and minimal decorative trim also characterize it as Second Bay Tradition style.

Built in 1932, the studio-house at 771 Ocean Avenue is an early example of the Second Bay Tradition style, which was popular from the 1930s to 1960. Being so early, it appears to have set a precedent for Modernist design in Point Richmond, which became an enclave of architect-designed Modern architecture in following decades. Roger Lee's influence came to the property itself in 1949, and he later designed another house nearby. Meanwhile the likes of William Wurster, John Funk, R.M. Schindler, Donald Olsen and other Midcentury masters all brought their design prowess to Point Richmond.

Architect: Roger Lee
No building permit or other archival information was found to identify an architect or design professional responsible for the original 1932 design or construction of the studio-house at 771 Ocean Avenue. The building's modest character, 1930s construction date, and location outside of a major city suggests that it was either not architect designed or that the original design and construction were not formally documented.

The designer of the 1949 living room addition was architect Roger Lee (1920-1981). Lee was a pioneering Chinese-American architect, who designed in the Modernist idiom, primarily in the Bay Area, from the late 1940s to the early 1960s. He received his architectural training at U.C. Berkeley, graduating with top honors in 1941. Graduating at the outset of World War II, Lee immediately went to work for the government, designing post offices, bunkers, and military installations for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. After the war, he worked in Los Angeles for a short time before returning to the Bay Area and working in the office of Frank Langhorst. In 1948, he established his own practice – Roger Lee, Architect – which he operated with a staff of about six architects, in Berkeley and then San Francisco, until relocating to Hawaii in 1964.

Roger Lee is called one of the “forgotten Midcentury Modernist architects,” and is not often mentioned in the echelon of other Midcentury Modernists like William Wurster, Joseph Esherick, and Gardner Daily. Nevertheless, Lee exercised great skill in designing innovative and high-style houses affordably for middle-class clients. This made him one of the most prolific and financially successful of the Midcentury Modernists and put him at the fore of promoting and proliferating the post-war Second Bay Tradition style.

In addition to the Second Bay Tradition's typical features, Lee's designs are recognizable for their internally visible post-and-beam construction, which created a harmonious visual rhythm internally and sometimes extended to the exterior as trellises; flat roofs; long, low massing; inconspicuous entries; open plans; ribbon windows; walls of glazing; and structural features employed for visual interest over the use of ornament. His houses often included internal atria that that responded to the indoor-outdoor interaction so important to the Second Bay Tradition style.

His post-and-beam construction later evolved into modular designs that included windows and wall panels of identical size, which could be installed within the post-and-beam structure depending on the preferences of the client. This he called the “Modflux” system and it lent greater flexibility and, thus, affordability to his projects. His emphasis on affordable design also (continued)

ATTACHMENT A
1075
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
B10. Significance: (continued)
meant that he often designed very modest houses, but provided plans for later additions, and readily used inexpensive materials like plywood.

Lee's portfolio includes over 100 houses, primarily in the East Bay, but throughout Northern California, with more in Nevada and Hawaii. He sometimes designed small groupings of houses, as well as apartments, housing projects, recreational facilities, and churches. His work was published in magazines like Sunset, Better Homes & Gardens , and Architectural Forum ; the latter of which published a three page article in 1949 (the same year Lee designed the living room addition at 771 Ocean Avenue) about a grouping of houses Lee designed in El Cerrito, titled “Modern Design: Out West the Customer is Starting to Demand It,” highlighting Lee's focus on designing custom houses for the middle-class. Lee was also honored with a number of industry awards, including “America's Best Small Houses, 1949,” an AIA Honor Awards Program Award of Merit in 1955, and First Honor in the AIA's “Homes for Better Living” program in 1956. (Online Archive of California. Weinstein 2006, 98-105. Weinstein “8 Great Modern Masters.”)
Evaluation: Richmond Historic Register
The City of Richmond Historic Structures Code defines a historic resource as any building, structure, sign, feature, site, place, area, or other improvement of scientific, aesthetic, educational, cultural, archaeological, architectural, or historical value to citizens of the City and designated as such by the Richmond City Council. Historic resources also include historic landmarks and contributing structures in historic districts. The list of designated historic resources in Richmond is known as the Richmond Historic Register. (City of Richmond, Richmond Historic Register.) A building, structure, object, site, or area may be eligible for Landmark designation, and listing on the Richmond Historic Register, if it is found to meet any of the following criteria:

1. It exemplifies or reflects valued elements of the City's cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering, archaeological, or architectural history;

2. It is identified with persons or events important in local, state, or national history;

3. It reflects significant geographical patterns, including those associated with different eras of settlement and growth, particular transportation modes, or distinctive examples of park or community planning;

4. It embodies distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style, type, period, or method of construction, or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship;

5. It is representative of the notable work of a builder, designer, or architect whose style influenced the City's architectural development;

6. It is a structure, site, or other improvement which meets any of the above criteria at the highest level, and whose loss would be a major loss to the City. (City of Richmond Municipal Code) The property at 771 Ocean Avenue appears to be eligible for individual listing in the Richmond Historic Register under five of the above criteria. A full evaluation follows:

1. It exemplifies or reflects valued elements of the City's cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering, archaeological, or architectural history;
For most of its history (1932 to 1991), the property at 771 Ocean Avenue was owned and occupied by John Haley, who was a significant and influential figure in the Richmond, Bay Area, and California art world (see criterion 2, below, for an explanation of Haley's significance). Because the property served as the studio where he practiced art and produced his extensive body of work, and because the studio-house and its Point Richmond environs often factored into that work as subject matter, the property can be recognized as an embodiment of the City's cultural values, especially in relation to art. The neighborhood of Point Richmond, in particular, has been an enclave of artists, writers, intellectuals, and other creatives – many faculty of U.C. Berkeley – since the early twentieth century, and continues to be today. Haley's studio-house, thus contributes significantly to the built environment that makes up a neighborhood long-inhabited by an intellectual and creative community with high creative and artistic history and values.

The property appears to be significant under criterion 1.

2. It is identified with persons or events important in local, state, or national history; For most of its history (1932 to 1991), the property at 771 Ocean Avenue was owned and occupied by John Haley (continued)

ATTACHMENT A
1076
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
B10. Significance: (continued)
who used it as both his home and art studio. Haley was a significant and influential figure in Bay Area and California art, who is credited with originating and proliferating the “Berkeley School” style. Having trained with Hans Hoffman, a seminal figure in European Modern art, Haley brought revolutionary new artistic concepts and practice to U.C Berkeley and the Bay Area. His work is pioneering and distinctive in its break from traditional Beaux-Arts style painting, its exploration of regionalist subject matter, its later shift toward abstraction, and the more sedate and representational approach that differentiated it from the New York School of Modern art. Haley not only practiced his ground-breaking genre prolifically, but as a professor of art at U.C. Berkeley, helped make that academic program one of the strongest art departments in the nation. He was a gifted teacher, who taught and disseminated Berkeley School style and philosophies to countless students, who then went on to have their own art careers, proliferating the Berkeley School style. Haley's career spanned over sixty years and he was well recognized by his representation in solo and group shows nationally and internationally, complimentary critical review, and a number of awards given to him by prestigious art institutions. His name and works remain well represented in Modern art circles, proving the longevity of his influence on Modern art locally and regionally, as well as extending to the national level.

The property appears to be significant under criterion 2.

3. It reflects significant geographical patterns, including those associated with different eras of settlement and growth, particular transportation modes, or distinctive examples of park or community planning; The property at 771 Ocean Avenue is not strongly reflective of, or significant within, geographical patterns or eras of settlement in Richmond. Built in the early 1930s, it represents a relatively early development of property along the shoreline of the Point Richmond neighborhood, but was not the first property to be developed in that area and became one of numerous residential properties of various ages and styles that expanded the Point Richmond neighborhood in a natural growth pattern toward the water.

The property does not appear to be significant under criterion 3.

4. It embodies distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style, type, period, or method of construction, or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship; The studio-house at 771 Ocean Avenue can be classified as Second Bay Tradition style (popular from 1930-1960) and embodies many physical characteristics of that style, such as a simple form, use of basic affordable materials with a rustic aesthetic like hollow clay tile and wood board-and-batten siding, a broadly sloped side-gable roof form with reverse shed dormer, lack of eves, banked fenestration and fenestration integrated into the roofline, and minimal decorative trim. It also demonstrates strong response to the design philosophies of the Second Bay Tradition style in its unusual angled siting, plan, and hillside integration, which followed the Second Bay Tradition tenant of design cooperating with site topography. The style also emphasized public versus private space, which is seen in the building's orientation away from the public realm and contrasting openness to the private patio and shoreline to the south, a non-interactive street facade, and minimization of the primary entrance. The openness to the private realm to the south is facilitated by ample glazing, which also responds to the Second Bay Tradition concept of interaction between indoor-outdoor space.

Some of the characteristics described above can be attributed to the living room addition, made in 1949, meaning that they are not original to the 1932 design. However, as the Second Bay Tradition style continued until 1960 (and later evolving into the Third Bay Tradition style), the addition falls within the style's period of significance and was designed by an architect who's body of work contributed the development of the Bay Tradition style over time. Therefore, the property can be regarded as a good example of the Second Bay Tradition style at two different time during the style's period of popularity. It also contributes to a notable concentration of Modernist architecture in Point Richmond and was one of the earliest Second Bay Tradition or Modernist buildings to be constructed within that neighborhood context.

The property appears to be significant under criterion 4.

5. It is representative of the notable work of a builder, designer, or architect whose style influenced the City's architectural development;
The original designer and/or builder of the studio-house is unknown. The living room addition, made in 1949, was designed by pioneering Chinese-American Modernist architect Roger Lee. Lee was responsible for designing over 100 buildings in the Bay Area, and although he tends not to be included in many discussions of Midcentury architecture in the Bay Area, he is credited with designing innovative and high-style houses affordably for middle-class clients. This made him one of the most prolific and financially successful of the Midcentury Modernists and put him at the fore of promoting and proliferating the Second Bay Tradition style.

While the living room addition at 771 Ocean Avenue represents the modification of an existing structure that was not (continued)

ATTACHMENT A
1077
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
B10. Significance: (continued)
of Lee's design, it is strongly representational of Lee's design philosophies and shows innovation in his integration of an earlier Second Bay Tradition building with his new Second Bay Tradition addition. It is also one of few buildings in Richmond known to have been designed by Lee. Another is located nearby at 664 Ocean Avenue and was built for Josephine Miles in 1951. Miles was a poet and professor at U.C. Berkeley; another of Point Richmond's artistic academics. It seems likely that she and Haley were acquainted and that Roger Lee's work at 771 Ocean Avenue may have given him entree to designing Miles' house down the street a year or two later. Lee also designed a multi-unit housing project in Richmond for Basic Home Industries in 1956; however the location and status of that work are unknown. (U.C. Berkeley Environmental Design Archives) The property appears to be significant under criterion 5.

6. It is a structure, site, or other improvement which meets any of the above criteria at the highest level, and whose loss would be a major loss to the City
The property at 771 Ocean Avenue meets criteria 1, 2, 4, and 5. It represents the place where an influential artist lived and produced his significant work for nearly 60 years; contributes to a rich history of intellectual and creative community in Point Richmond; and embodies the characteristics of a distinctive regional architectural style as designed by a prominent and pioneering Bay Area architect. Therefore, its loss would constitute the loss of a cultural and architectural element of the Point Richmond neighborhood and the city as a whole.

Because the building also relates strongly to the near-identical building next door (775 Ocean Avenue) and the two have a shared history, the loss of one or the other would mean the loss of that relationship, which would further exacerbate loss to the neighborhood and city.

The property appears to be significant under criterion 6.

Integrity
Although integrity is not a qualifying factor for listing in the Richmond Historical Register, the property's retention of historic integrity is important to its ability to convey its historic significance. Therefore, it is noted that the property retains integrity of location and setting, the studio-house having never been relocated from or re-situated on its bay-side site in the residential neighborhood of Point Richmond. It continues to exhibit its original design, including the significant 1949 addition that supports and enhances its Second Bay Tradition architectural style, and has undergone few additional alterations. This contributes to retention of original materials and features, and expression of workmanship, in that the treatment and application of materials to the specifications of the intended design is still extant. Ultimately, the studio-house has integrity of feeling as a 1930s Second Bay Tradition building and is capable of expressing its significant associations with John Haley, his artistic work, its role in the Paint Richmond creative community, and the significant architectural character that references associations with a notable architect and contributes to the character of the surrounding environment.

Conclusion
The property at 771 Ocean Avenue was built in 1932 to serve as an art studio for John Haley, a U.C Berkeley art professor, influential Modern artist, and originator of the “Berkeley School” style of art. It was also the home of Haley and his wife, Monica. No original architect is known, but the building was designed in the Second Bay Tradition style, and was later enhanced with a living room addition in the same style designed by significant Midcentury Modernist architect Roger Lee. The studio-house is significant primarily for its associations with John Haley and his significant artwork, but also has connections to the broader Bay Area art world, other notable artists and their work, art education, and the rich creative and intellectual community that has historically been present in Point Richmond. Along with the physical character of the studio-house, itself; its association with a prominent Bay Area Modernist architect; and contribution to a neighborhood context of architect-designed Modernist architecture, the property is eligible for listing in the Richmond Historic Register and, subsequently, qualifies as a historical resource for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Sources
Casas, Angelic M. and Katherine Wei, 8 February 2016. “Five men, one town, four decades of art,” Richmond Confidential; https://richmondconfidential.org/2016/02/08/five-men-one-town-four-decades-of-art/ City of Richmond Municipal Code, 15.04.303.060
City of Richmond, 2012. “Richmond General Plan 2023: Chapter 14, Historical Resources.” City of Richmond. “Richmond Historic Register,” https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/2959/Richmond-Register.

California Digital Newspaper Collection; https://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc. (continued) B10. Significance: (continued) B10. Significance: (continued)

ATTACHMENT A
1078
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
B10. Significance: (continued)
Deutsch, Monroe V., Vice President, U.C. Berkeley to John C. Haley (telegram), 4 September 1930; Bancroft Library, U.C.

Berkeley, BANCMSS93/117, c.

Gautraud, Alexandra A., October 1984. “Cork Trees of Point Richmond,” This Point (Point Richmond History Association newsletter), vol. 3, no.3.

Ghent, Gregory 1993. Haley: A Retrospective, Richmond, CA: Richmond Art Center.

Ghent, Gregory 2022. to Emy Lafever (email), “Haley mural around fireplace.” Ghent, Gregory 20224. Interview by author, 27 August 2024, Richmond, CA. by telephone.

Google Maps/Google Street View. Google.com.

Haley, John C. 1982. To Glenn [Wessels] (letter), 2 December 1982; Bancroft Library, U.C. Berkeley, BANCMSS93/117, c.

Hill, Kimi Kodani 2000. Topaz Moon: Chiura Obata's Art of the Internment. Berkeley, CA: Heyday Books.

Hille, R. Thomas 1994. Inside the Large Small House: The Residential Design Legacy of William W. Wurster. New York:

Princeton Architectural Press.

John Haley Biographical Data (binder), Bancroft Library, BANCMSS93/117c, 2:2.

Krevsky Fine Art 2024. “John Haley Bio.” https://krevskyfineart.com/artists/john-haley/john-haley-bio/ Life Magazine 1949. “San Francisco Houses: They embody a new U.S. Regional architecture,” 5 September 1949.

NETR Online. “Historic Aerials.” https://www.historicaerials.com/ NewspaperArchive.com.

Newspapers.com
Online Archive of California, U.C. Berkeley Environmental Design Archives, Roger Lee Collection: Biographical Note; https://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/tf6t1nb2j4/admin/.

Riquelme, Kathleen and Melba Levick 2003. The Studio Book. United States: Universe.

Roselius, Donna 1985. “A Brief Unofficial History of Point Richmond.” Point Richmond, CA: Point Richmond History Association; https://www.pointrichmondhistory.org/history.html
Spake, Pierre 2023. “The Unrecorded Photographic Archive of John C. Haley: 'Berkeley School' artist, teacher, and photographer.”
Tanner, Ogden 1950. "How Living Space was Added on to a Studio House at Point Richmond," San Francisco Chronicle, 21 May 1950.

Treadway, Chris 2016. “A Child's View of War: Paintings produced by shipyard care program youths give a unique glimpse into Richmond history,” East Bay Times, 15 August 2016.

United States Federal Census records.

University of California Academic Senate 1991, “University of California: In Memoriam; John C. Haley, Art: Berkeley.” http://texts.cdlib.org/view?docId=hb4t1nb2bd&brand=oac4&chunk.id=meta University of California, Berkeley, Environmental Design Archives. Roger Lee Collection: 1949-1968; project index.

University of California, Santa Barbara, Library. Aerial Photographs collection; https://www.library.ucsb.edu/src/airphotos.

Walker, Lester 1996. American Shelter. New York: The Overlook Press. (continued) B10. Significance: (continued)

ATTACHMENT A
1079
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
B10. Significance: (continued)
Weinstein, Dave. “8 Great Modern Masters,” EichlerNetwork.com; https://www.eichlernetwork.com/article/8-great-modern- masters?page=0,5.

Weinstein, Dave 2006. Signature Architects of the San Francisco Bay Area. Lyton, UT: Gibbs-Smith Publisher.

Wikipedia, “Hans Hofman,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Hofmann.

ATTACHMENT A
1080
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information(con
Historic Images
John Haley, artist and owner/occupant of 771 Ocean Avenue. (Ghent 1993) View of rear facade of 771 Ocean Ave., early 1930s. Hollow clay tile wall separating 771 and 775 Ocean Ave. is still unstuccoed.

John Haley seated on top of wall. (Haley collection, Richmond Museum of History)

ATTACHMENT A
1081
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
Monica and John Haley at rear facade of 771 Ocean Avenue, early 1930s. Practice frescos visible on wall . (Haley collection, Richmond Museum of History)
Monica, John, and Hazel Haley on rear patio of 771 Ocean Ave., early 1930s. (Haley collection, Richmond Museum of History)

ATTACHMENT A
1082
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
Two paintings of 771 and 775 Ocean Avenue by John Haley.

Top: “Point Richmond Studios on SF Bay,” 1933.

Bottom: “Old Garage with New Studio,” 1932.
(MutualArt.com)

ATTACHMENT A
1083
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information

Rear facade of 771 Ocean Ave., 1934. (Haley collection, Richmond Museum of History) Looking south down entry stair/walk at 771 Ocean Ave., 1934. (Haley collection, Richmond Museum of History)

ATTACHMENT A
1084
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information

Fresco around fireplace at 771 Ocean Ave. (prior to being covered), ca. 1935. (Ghent 2022) “770 Ocean Avenue,” by John Haley, 1936. (Ghent 1993)

ATTACHMENT A
1085
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information

“Our renters while we were in Europe” and Monica Haley (right), in front of fireplace mural, 1937. (Haley collection, Richmond Museum of History)
Interior of first floor living area (before the 1949 addition), 1938. (Haley collection, Richmond Museum of History)

ATTACHMENT A
1086
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information

View into guest room, as added/improved in 1938. (Haley collection, Richmond Museum of History) Interior of studio, rear sleeping porch, as added in 1938. (Haley collection, Richmond Museum of History)

ATTACHMENT A
1087
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information

1949 Roger Lee-designed living room addition to south facade, looking east. (Bancroft Library, U.C. Berkeley) 1949 Roger Lee-designed living room addition to south facade, looking southwest. (Bancroft Library, U.C. Berkeley)

ATTACHMENT A
1088
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information

Interior of 1949 Roger Lee-designed living room addition to south facade, looking west. (Bancroft Library, U.C. Berkeley) Interior of 1949 Roger Lee-designed living room addition to south facade, looking northwest at entry area.

Kitchen and bathroom (with Adam and Eve window) visible beyond. (Bancroft Library, U.C. Berkeley)

ATTACHMENT A
1089
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information

Interior of 1949 Roger Lee-designed living room addition to south facade, looking south.

Chiura Obata's Japanese Black Pine visible outside window. (Bancroft Library, U.C. Berkeley) John and Monica Haley and some of their art collection, sitting in the “cozy corner” with the eastern gallery wall beyond; northeast corner of the 1949 living room addition, 1956. (Haley collection, Richmond Museum of History)

ATTACHMENT A
1090
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information

John and Monica Haley seated on the rear patio of 771 Ocean Avenue, 1956. (Haley collection, Richmond Museum of History) Rear patio at west side of living room addition, 1956 (Haley collection, Richmond Museum of History)

ATTACHMENT A
1091
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information

Monica Haley seated on original banquette along south wall of living room addition, 1957. (Haley collection, Richmond Museum of History)
Monica and John Haley seated in front of eastern wall of living room addition, 1962. (Haley collection, Richmond Museum of History)

ATTACHMENT A
1092
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information

“No. 29, Point Richmond, California,”by Henry Wessel, Jr., 1972. (771 Ocean Avenue, looking west) (MoMA.org)
Interior of second floor studio space, looking east, 1975. (Los Angeles Times “Home” magazine, 7 September 1975)

ATTACHMENT A
1093
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information

View west along Ocean Avenue, ca. 1975. 775 Ocean Avenue visible at left. (Haley collection, Richmond Museum of History)
Rear facades of 775 (left) and 771 (right) Ocean Avenue from the water, looking northeast, ca. 1980. (Haley collection, Richmond Museum of History)

ATTACHMENT A
1094
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information

Marker sketch of 771 and 775 Ocean Avenue by John Haley, 1982. (Haley collection, Richmond Museum of History)
View of 771 and 775 Ocean Ave., looking south from lot on north side of Ocean Avenue, 1987. (Haley collection, Richmond Museum of History)

ATTACHMENT A
1095
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information

View of portion of living room addition, looking up from lower terrace or shore at southwest side of property, ca. 1990. (Haley collection, Richmond Museum of History)
Current Images
Front (north) facades of 771 (left) and 775 (right) Ocean Ave. looking southwest.

ATTACHMENT A
1096
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information

Rear (south) facades of 775 (left) and 771 (right) Ocean Ave. looking northeast.

Rear (south) facade of 771 (right) Ocean Ave., looking northeast.

ATTACHMENT A
1097
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information

Primary (north) facade of 771 Ocean Ave., looking southeast. 775 Ocean Ave. at right.

Primary (north) facade of 771 Ocean Ave., looking south.

ATTACHMENT A
1098
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information

View east along primary (south) facade of 771 Ocean Ave.

View south along west facade, down entry steps/walkway.

ATTACHMENT A
1099
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information

Detail of primary entrance on west facade.

Wall at right is hollow clay tile wall that extends into entry and extends south to separate 771 from 775 Ocean Ave.

West facade of 1949 living room addition, looking east.

ATTACHMENT A
1100
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information

Patio at west side of living room addition. Primary entrance is beyond wall at center.

Wall at left/center is hollow clay tile wall that extends into entry and extends south to separate 771 from 775 Ocean Ave.

West facade of living room addition and Chiura Obata's Japanese Black Pine at right.

ATTACHMENT A
1101
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information

South facade of 1949 living room addition.

View from lower rear terrace looking up (north) at rear of 775 (left) and 771 (right) Ocean Ave.

ATTACHMENT A
1102
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information

View northeast along east side of 771 Ocean Ave.; living room addition left foreground, garage/guest room projecting beyond.

East side of living room addition, looking southeast.

ATTACHMENT A
1103
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information

South facade of projecting garage/guest room, looking north from east side yard.

East facade of garage/guest room, looking west.

ATTACHMENT A
1104
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information

View west along front facade, from northeast corner of property; garage/guest room closest.

Interior of living room, looking west. Patio door center, primary entrance door on right.

ATTACHMENT A
1105
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information

Interior of living room, looking south.

Interior of living room, looking northeast at “cozy corner” and eastern gallery wall at right, opening to kitchen at left.

ATTACHMENT A
1106
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information

Eastern gallery wall of living room, looking south.

Interior of first floor bathroom, looking north. John Haley's Adam and Eve stained glass window above tub.

ATTACHMENT A
1107
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information

Stairs to second floor, west side of kitchen space. Opening to living room at left, doorway to bathroom at right.

Interior of second floor studio space, looking east.

ATTACHMENT A
1108
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information

I
Interior of second floor studio space, looking north.

Interior of second floor studio space, looking west.

ATTACHMENT A
1109
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information

Fireplace at east end of studio space, showing partially-restored John Haley fresco.

Interior of second floor studio space looking southwest. Wide opening denotes 1938 sleeping porch addition.

ATTACHMENT A
1110
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Caitlin Hibma/Left Coast Architectural History *Date: October 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information

Interior of second floor studio space, looking west. Sleeping porch addition at left.

View southeast into sleeping porch addition from studio space.

ATTACHMENT A
1111

STATEMENT
The property at 771 Ocean Avenue, in Point Richmond, is herein referred to as the John Haley Studio-House. It has commonly and historically been known by its street address, 771 Ocean Avenue, and was sometimes referred to as Haley Studio by its original owners.

John and Monica Haley were the original owners. The property was initially used as an art studio by John Haley, a professional artist and art professor, but within a few years of construction became both an art studio and home for the Haleys.

The Studio-House was built in 1932. No architect was involved with original design and construction of the house, as it was a Depression-era project, built inexpensively and based on John Haley's experience with the design of art studios in Europe. In 1949, a living room addition was made to the south side of the studio-house, which was designed by notable Midcentury modern architect Roger Lee. Although built in 1932 and 1949, respectively, both portions of the studio-house can be described as Second Bay Tradition style and exhibit characteristic features and philosophies of that design movement.

The studio-house is in good condition, currently being used as a residence, and sits on a 0.077 acre (3,361 square foot) parcel in the Point Richmond neighborhood of Richmond, California.

The John Haley Studio-House is being nominated to the Richmond Historic Register because it was owned and occupied by John Haley, who was a significant and influential figure in the Richmond, Bay Area, and California art world. Haley is credited with originating and proliferating the “Berkeley School” style.

Having trained with Hans Hoffman, a seminal figure in European Modern art, Haley brought revolutionary new artistic concepts and practice to U.C Berkeley and the Bay Area. His work is pioneering and distinctive in its break from traditional Beaux-Arts style painting, its exploration of regionalist subject matter, its later shift toward abstraction, and the more sedate and representational approach that differentiated it from the New York School of Modern art. Haley not only practiced his ground-breaking genre prolifically, but as a professor of art at U.C. Berkeley, he helped make that academic program one of the strongest art departments in the nation. He was a gifted teacher, who taught and disseminated Berkeley School style and philosophies to countless students, who then went on to have their own art careers, proliferating the Berkeley School style. Haley's career spanned over sixty years and he was well recognized by his representation in solo and group shows nationally and internationally, complimentary critical review, and a number of awards given to him by prestigious art institutions. His name and works remain well represented in Modern art circles, proving the longevity of his influence on Modern art locally and regionally, as well as extending to the national level. The property at 771 Ocean Avenue served as the studio where he practiced art and produced his extensive body of work. Because of this, and because the studio-house and its Point Richmond environs often factored into that work as subject matter, the property can be recognized as an embodiment of the City's cultural values, especially in relation to art, and has significance for association with a person of historical importance.

The Studio-House is also nominated for its architectural merit and association with an influential architect. It is a good local example of the Second Bay Tradition style of architecture, both in its original 1930s design and in the design of the living room addition madein 1949. The Studio-House embodies many physical characteristics of the Second Bay Tradition style, such as a simple form, use of basic affordable materials with a rustic aesthetic, a broadly sloped side-gable roof form with reverse shed dormer, lack of eves, banked fenestration and fenestration integrated into the roofline, and minimal decorative trim. It also demonstrates strong response to the design philosophies of the Second Bay Tradition style in its unusual angled siting, plan, and hillside integration, which followed the Second Bay Tradition tenant of design cooperating with site topography. The style also emphasized public versus private space, which is seen in the building's orientation away from the public realm, a non-interactive street facade, minimization of the primary entrance, and contrasting openness to the private patio and shoreline to the south. The openness to the private realm to the

ATTACHMENT A
1112
south is facilitated by ample glazing in the living room, which also responds to the Second Bay Tradition concept of interaction between indoor-outdoor space.

Some of the characteristics described above can be attributed to the later living room addition, as well.

The Second Bay Tradition style continued until 1960 (later evolving into the Third Bay Tradition style) and the addition also falls within the style's period of significance and was designed by pioneering Chinese-American Modernist architect Roger Lee. Lee was responsible for designing over 100 buildings in the Bay Area and is credited with designing innovative and high-style houses affordably for middle-class clients. This made him one of the most prolific and financially successful of the Midcentury Modernists and put him at the fore of promoting and proliferating the Second Bay Tradition style. While the living room addition at 771 Ocean Avenue represents the modification of an existing structure that was not of Lee's design, it is strongly representational of Lee's design philosophies and shows innovation in his integration of an earlier Second Bay Tradition building with his new Second Bay Tradition addition. Therefore, the John Haley Studio-House represents the work of an architect who contributed the development of the Bay Tradition style over time and can be regarded as a good example of the Second Bay Tradition style at two different times during the style's period of popularity.

It also contributes to a notable concentration of Modernist architecture in Point Richmond and was one of the earliest Second Bay Tradition or Modernist buildings to be constructed within that neighborhood context.

Ultimately, this historic resource nomination finds that the John Haley Studio-House at 771 Ocean Avenue meets five of the six criteria for listing on the Richmond Historic Register (criteria 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6). It represents the place where an influential artist lived and produced his significant work for nearly sixty years; contributes to a rich history of intellectual and creative community in Point Richmond; and embodies the characteristics of a distinctive regional architectural style as designed by a prominent and pioneering Bay Area architect. Its designation as a historic resource in the City of Richmond would recognize important local history and encourage the continued preservation of a valuable cultural and architectural element of the Point Richmond neighborhood and the city as a whole.

ATTACHMENT A
1113
Existing Zoning for 771 Ocean Avenue
City of Richmond
This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable.
2,509
© City of Richmond

0.1 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION
Miles0.10
Legend

0.04 1:

Notes
Parcel
Parcel Labels
Historic Resource
Historic Resource
Pt. Richmond Historic District Boundary
Water Bodies
Zoning District
RH Single-Family Hillside Residential
RL1 Single-Family Very Low Density Residential
RL2 Single-Family Low Density Residential
RM1 Multifamily Residential
RM2 Multifamily High Density Residential
CM-1 Commercial Mixed-Use, Residential
CM-2 Commercial Mixed-Use, Neighborhood
CM-3 Commercial Mixed-Use, Commercial Emphasis
CM-4 Commercial Mixed-Use, Gateway/Node
CM-5 Commercial Mixed-Use, Activity Center
LW Live/Work
CG Commercial, General
CR Commercial, Regional
CC Commercial, Coastal
IB Industrial, Business
ILL Industrial, Limited Light
IL Industrial, Light
IG Industrial, General
IW Industrial, Water-Related
PCI Public, Cultural, and Institutional
PR Parks and Recreation
OS Open Space
OS-H Hillside Open Space
SC Shoreline Conservation
ATTACHMENT B - Proposed Zoning Map Amendment
1114
�- 7
,\�

0.1 0 0.04
© City of Richmond
Proposed Landmark Overlay District for
771 Ocean Avenue
IG

0.1 Miles
601
65·1
,567
66,!'
644
"
619
\. 613
6:l4
62§
6(0
V
'sc,s
S-43 •
I
SJ$
/
540. ,52()1 ' '
SJ 4 52)
I�- 524/�i
5'35 • 518 :>,_
/� · 483
511 5 05. 4�
Legend
0 Parcel
U Parcel Labels
Historic Resource
(ZJ HISb� Ruouoe
□ Pt R�•mo1d HISbOO OIJtr�aon
Water Bodies
Zoning District
• ■ ■ ■ •
• ■ ■
• •
RH s1,91e-fan '" HIISbe Ru� It
Rl1 Sllg►.-faU/VU/ Loo oust
RL2Sllg►.-fan I., Loll.I DUSI\' Re:

Rl.l1 u, tran ._, Rtiuml Rt.12 u,
tran ._, H�• Dtun,t Rtn Cll-1
COOlmtroblUktd-Ust, Ru cu�
Canmtrobl Uktd-Ult. ·� �
Cll..J Canmtrobl Uktd-Ust. com
CU-4 Canmtrobl Uktd-Ust, Galt
CU-6 COOlmtrobl Uktd-Ust, AcQ.

LW LlltN\lolk
CG comm t Cbl, Gt U 131
CR Can mt robl, Rtg bl al
cc can mt robl. coasu I
111,dutrBI. au1,us
ILL 1,d,nbl, Unltd L�U
IL i.dutral, Lgu
IG i.dutnal Gt ltl31
--• HO! hOUDBI Imn f:Bthta
1 2,509
0 :======:::::::

This map is a
user generated static output from an htemet mapping site and I
N Otes
is for reference only. Data la\@rsthat appear on 1his map mayor may not be acc:or at»? , w rrent, or otherwise re liable.

THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NA\/1GATIO N �-----------� ATTACHMENT B - Proposed Zoning Map Amendment1115

March 17, 2026

Public Works

DATE: March 17, 2026
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM:

Daniel Chavarria, P.E. Director of Public Works
Robert Armijo, P.E. Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Tawfic Halaby, P.E. Deputy Director of Public Works
Bradley Harms, Environmental Manager

Subject:

Options to Deliver Wastewater and Stormwater Services
beyond May 2027
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no immediate financial impact associated with receiving this presentation. Future fiscal impacts will depend on City Council direction, including costs related to procurement, transition, and long-term operations and maintenance for wastewater and stormwater services.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

December 3, 2024

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

In 2002, the City of Richmond entered into an exclusive agreement with Veolia Water North Americal Operating
Services to operate the City’s wastewater treatment
plant. In 2004, the agreement was amended to include
the City’s sanitary sewer collection system and
stormwater collection system. The original contract term was through 2022, and the term was extended for five
years with a new expiration date of May 15, 2027. The
City faces an urgent decision regarding how to structure wastewater and stormwater operations beyond May 15,
2027, requiring City Council direction on which service delivery pathway best balances regulatory, operational, financial, and transition risks.

AGENDA
REPORT
1116

March 17, 2026

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

RECEIVE a presentation and DIRECT City staff to initiate procurement of a new agreement through a competitive
procurement process to hire an operator to operate,
maintain, and improve the City’s: a) wastewater
treatment plant; b) wastewater collection system; and c) stormwater collection system – Public Works Department
(Daniel Chavarria 510-620-5478/Tawfic Halaby 510-620-
5482/Bradley Harms 510-307-8094).

DISCUSSION:

Background
The Richmond Wastewater Treatment Plant was constructed in the early 1950s to serve the growing population and industrial base of the City of Richmond and provides treatment for municipal sewage before discharge to San Francisco Bay.

The City of Richmond is served by three wastewater districts:
1) Richmond Municipal Sewer District serves central Richmond with its own wastewater treatment plant. West County Wastewater District and Richmond Municipal Sewer District share a deep wastewater outfall pipeline into San Francisco Bay;
2) Stege Sanitary District serves the southern portion of the City and adjacent communities and conveys wastewater to the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) for treatment and disposal; and
3) West County Wastewater District serves the northern portion of the City and adjacent communities and operates its own wastewater treatment plant.

More information on the three districts can be found on the City’s Sanitary Districts webpage: https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/174/Sanitary-Districts.

In 2002, the City entered into a long-term operations and maintenance contract with Veolia Water North America (Veolia) to operate and maintain the wastewater treatment plant and implement improvements in order to remain in compliance with the California State Water Resources Control Board regulations. In 2004, the City amended this contract to include operation and maintenance of the sanitary sewer and stormwater collection systems, placing the treatment plant, sewer collection system, and storm drainage system under a unified operations program. The original contract term was through 2022, and the term was extended for five years with a new expiration date of May 15, 2027. More information on the operations and maintenance contract with Veolia Water North America can be found on the City’s Veolia Services page:
https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/2326/Veolia-Services.

In December 2024, the City contracted with Watearth Inc. (Watearth), to perform an analysis of, and provide a recommendation for, the potential pathways for future operations and maintenance of the City’s wastewater and stormwater systems. 1117

March 17, 2026

In 2023, City Council formed the Wastewater and Stormwater Ad Hoc Committee to review wastewater and stormwater infrastructure issues and provide oversight and policy recommendations. The Ad Hoc Committee currently includes Mayor Eduardo Martinez, Vice Mayor Doria Robinson, and Councilmember Cesar Zepeda. The Watearth pathway analysis was presented to the Ad Hoc Committee in February 2026, and the committee reached a consensus to proceed with Pathway 1.

Under the current arrangement, Veolia has been responsible for operating the treatment plant (secondary treatment, disinfection, 20 million gallons per day capacity), maintaining and improving the sewer collection system (196 miles of sewer pipelines, 2,771 sewer manholes, and 15 sewer pump stations), maintaining and improving the stormwater collection system (169 miles of stormwater pipelines, 1,686 storm drain manholes, 7 storm pump stations, 188 inlets, 22 miles of drainage channels, and 117 outfalls), responding to system emergencies, providing annual reports to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board), and assisting the City with capital improvement projects designed to rehabilitate aging infrastructure and improve environmental performance.

The City is currently paying Veolia about $600,000 per year for operating and maintaining the stormwater collection system from stormwater revenues, and about $13 million per year for operating and maintaining the wastewater treatment plant and sanitary sewer collection system from wastewater enterprise fund revenues. In addition, the City also pays for stormwater collection system, wastewater treatment plant, and wastewater collection system capital improvement projects, pass-through costs, emergency projects, and fines, representing multiple categories of additional costs that vary from year to year.

Regulatory Framework
The modern framework for regulating water pollution in the United States was established by the Clean Water Act of 1972. The Act’s central goal is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. One of its primary regulatory tools is the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), a permitting program that controls the discharge of pollutants from identifiable sources—such as pipes, treatment plants, and storm drain systems—into rivers, bays, and other surface waters. Under this system, discharges are prohibited unless authorized by a permit that establishes limits, monitoring requirements, and operational standards to protect water quality.

Although the NPDES program was created by the federal government through the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Clean Water Act allows the EPA to delegate permitting authority to qualified states. In California, this authority has been delegated to the California State Water Resources Control Board and its nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards, including the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board). These agencies issue and enforce NPDES permits for 1118

March 17, 2026

municipalities, industries, and wastewater treatment facilities that discharge to surface waters within the state.

The City of Richmond must obtain and comply with NPDES permits because it operates facilities and infrastructure that discharge to local waterways and ultimately to San Francisco Bay. These permits typically regulate two primary types of municipal discharges: treated wastewater from publicly owned treatment works and stormwater runoff from municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s).

The City has three NPDES permits that are regulated by the Water Board:
• Order R2-2024-0008, NPDES Permit CA0038539 for the wastewater treatment plant • Order R2-2022-0018, NPDES Permit CAS612008 for the municipal stormwater system • Order WQ 2022-0103-DWQ Permit for the wastewater collection system

Analysis
Amending or extending the Veolia contract is not recommended at this time given the identified performance issues, significant changes in state regulations, and the need to incorporate new provisions that would enable more effective City contract oversight.

Watearth completed a planning-level comparative analysis to support informed policy decision-making by evaluating the City’s responsibilities and risk posture under each service delivery model for the wastewater and stormwater systems and identify actions needed to preserve optionality leading up to the May 2027 contract expiration. The analysis is summarized in the Technical Memorandum: “Comparative Delivery Models, Risks, and Conditions for Success” (Attachment 1).

Under the first two pathways, the City would retain non-delegable responsibilities and would be the permittee with partial or complete legal responsibility for compliance, capital planning, governing, and enforcement. Under the third pathway, some of these responsibilities could be negotiated with the Public Agency owner/operator through a complex legal process.

Evaluation Topics Considerations
1 Operational feasibility  Staffing levels needed
 Budgeting requirements
 Current contract expiration date
 Acquisition of equipment
2 Governance and regulatory
requirements
 Water Board permits
 Bay Area Air District permits
 Baykeeper Settlement Agreement

3 Transition risk and implementation
timing
 Preparation periods
 Bond Covenant
 Alignment with May 2027 contract
expiration
1119

March 17, 2026

4 Capital and operational cost
context
 Service delivery model cost
 Cost predictability
5 Long-term implications for staffing,
compliance, and risk exposure
 Other Post-Employment Benefits and
Public Employee Retirement System
responsibilities
 Regulatory accountability

The analysis evaluated three pathways for operation and maintenance of the wastewater and stormwater systems. Watearth and City staff recommend Pathway 1 as it is the best and most feasible option for the City within the current time frame.

Pathway 1 – Hybrid City Ownership and Private Maintenance

 The City retains ownership, governance, oversight, and regulatory accountability of the wastewater and stormwater infrastructure and contracts with a vendor for long-term operation and maintenance through a competitive procurement process.
 Lowest overall execution risk.
 Benefits: competitive procurement of vendor, new contract includes off-ramps, stronger City oversight mechanisms in the contract, clearer cost predictability, lower transition costs.
 Challenges: transition and startup with a new operator, new operator relationships and workflows.
 Estimated operations and maintenance costs: $15M to $25M per year  Timeline: 9-12 months.
 Feasible within current timeframe.

Pathway 2 – City Ownership and Maintenance

 City would staff, operate, and manage the wastewater and stormwater systems.  Higher execution risk.
 Benefits: full operational control.
 Challenges: creation of new labor classifications, labor negotiations, recruitment of certified operators, significant staffing increases, organizational restructuring, high transition complexity, and higher transition costs.  Estimated operations and maintenance costs: $19M to $31M per year  Timeline: 24 months or more.
 Not feasible within current timeframe.

Pathway 3 – Transfer Asset Ownership and Maintenance to Another Public Agency

 City would sell the wastewater/stormwater systems to a public agency.  Higher execution risk
 Benefits: Efficient and consolidated operation and maintenance. 1120

March 17, 2026

 Challenges: Asset conditions requiring capital projects, bond covenants, current timeframe constraints, City and new ownership governing board approvals, regulatory agency approvals, protections for rate payers, loss of City control over assets and rates.
 Estimated operations and maintenance costs: unknown.
 Timeline: Several years.
 Not feasible within current timeframe.

Recommended Path Forward
Based on the comparative analysis, staff believes that Pathway 1 emerges as the most feasible, lowest-risk option for ensuring continuity of wastewater and stormwater operations beyond 2027. Initiating procurement planning preserves the City’s flexibility, reduces execution risk, and avoids compressed timelines that could force emergency decisions.

Staff request City Council direction to receive the presentation and commence the competitive procurement process to hire an operator to operate, maintain, and improve the City’s wastewater treatment plant, sanitary sewer collection system, and stormwater collection system.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Watearth Technical Memorandum

1121

Supplemental Executive Summary
Comparative Delivery Models, Risks, and
Conditions for Success

1 Project Options to Deliver Wastewater and Stormwater Services in the City of Richmond
Watearth # 24-092.0
Subject Supplemental Executive Summary - Comparative Delivery Models, Risks, and Conditions for Success
Date March 12, 2026
Prepared by Jennifer J. Walker, PE, DWRE, ENV SP, QSD, LEED AP BD+C Jacob Guise
Introduction
The City of Richmond is approaching an important decision point regarding how wastewater and stormwater services will be delivered in the coming decade. The current service delivery arrangement reaches a decision horizon in May 2027, requiring the City to determine whether to renew, replace, or restructure its operational model for wastewater and stormwater services.

Advance planning is necessary because wastewater and stormwater utilities are complex, highly regulated systems that require substantial lead time for procurement, organizational preparation, and transition activities. This analysis provides a policy-level overview of potential service delivery pathways, the City’s ongoing responsibilities under any model, and the principal risks associated with alternative approaches.

The purpose of this summary is not to prescribe a specific outcome, but to clarify the decision framework and identify the considerations that should inform the City’s next steps.

Decision Horizon and Near-Term
Planning
The City’s decision horizon is primarily driven by the expiration of the current operational arrangement in May 2027. Any transition between service delivery models, whether toward a new contracted provider or toward expanded municipal operations, requires advance preparation to ensure continuity of service and regulatory compliance.

Operational transitions in regulated utilities involve workforce planning, procurement activities, regulatory coordination, and knowledge transfer processes. Even continuation of a contract - based model requires time to structure a procurement, solicit proposals, evaluate providers, and establish oversight mechanisms.

In addition, wastewater and stormwater systems operate within a strict regulatory framework.

Compliance obligations, infrastructure management requirements, and prior enforcement actions underscore the importance of maintaining consistent operational overs ight and institutional capacity. For these reasons, early planning is necessary to maintain viable options and avoid compressed timelines as the decision horizon approaches.

DRAFT EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY RELEASED

UNDER THE AUTHORITY
OF JENNIFER J. WALKER
PE (C77079), DWRE, CFM
ON 2026-03-12 AND

SHOULD NOT BE USED

FOR DESIGN OR
CONSTRUCTION.

1122

Supplemental Executive Summary
Comparative Delivery Models, Risks, and
Conditions for Success

2 Service Delivery Pathways Evaluated
The analysis considered three potential service delivery pathways, though only two were determined to be practicable within the City’s current planning horizon.

Pathway 1: Competitive Procurement for
Long-term Service Delivery
Under this approach, the City would retain ownership of wastewater and stormwater assets while competitively procuring an external entity to perform operations and maintenance services. Operational staffing, day-to-day system management, and maintenance activities would be performed by the selected provider, while the City would retain responsibility for governance, oversight, and regulatory accountability. At the planning level, this pathway presents lower implementation risk as operational staffing and workforce management remain the responsibility of the service provider.

Pathway 2: City-Operated (In-house) Service Delivery
Under a City-operated model, Richmond would directly manage wastewater and stormwater operations through hiring of additional municipal staff. This approach would provide greater direct operational control but would also require significant organizational development, including:

1. Recruiting and retaining certified operators and technical staff;

2. Establishing internal operational management systems;

3. Expanding supervisory and compliance oversight functions; and

4. Managing long-term workforce and labor obligations.

Because wastewater utilities require specialized expertise and continuous operational oversight, this model introduces greater staffing and implementation requirements.

Pathway 3: Asset Transfer (Screened Out)
A third pathway involving transfer of system ownership to another public agency was evaluated but screened out during the planning analysis. Legal, regulatory, and financial constraints make this option incompatible with the City’s current decision horizon.

1123

Supplemental Executive Summary
Comparative Delivery Models, Risks, and
Conditions for Success

3 Retained City Responsibilities
Regardless of the delivery model selected, the City retains several non-delegable responsibilities as the owner of the wastewater and stormwater systems and the regulated permit holder.

These responsibilities include:

1. Regulatory compliance and coordination with state and federal agencies ;

2. System oversight and performance monitoring;

3. Financial governance, rate setting, and budget management;

4. Capital planning and infrastructure investment decisions;

5. Risk management and emergency response coordination; and

6. Contract administration where services are outsourced.

While operational functions can be performed by external providers, accountability for compliance and system performance ultimately remains with the City. As a result, maintaining sufficient owner-side governance capacity is critical under any service deli very model.

Key Risk Drivers
The comparative analysis identified several factors that most significantly influence implementation feasibility and long-term operational performance.

Staffing Availability
The wastewater sector is experiencing a nationwide shortage of certified operators and technical specialists. Under a City-operated model, the City would assume responsibility for recruiting and retaining this workforce. Competitive procurement shifts this responsibility primarily to the service provider.

Governance Capacity
The City retains governance responsibilities under any model, but the nature of those responsibilities differs. Contract-based delivery requires strong contract management and performance oversight, while municipal operations require direct management of d aily operational activities.

Transition Complexity
Transitioning operational models requires careful planning to avoid disruptions to system performance. Insourcing operations generally requires longer lead times and greater organizational preparation than transitioning between contracted providers.

Regulatory Accountability
Regulatory obligations remain with the City regardless of service delivery model. Maintaining clear oversight structures and operational accountability is therefore essential to managing compliance risk.
1124

Supplemental Executive Summary
Comparative Delivery Models, Risks, and
Conditions for Success

4 Near-Term Path Forward
The analysis indicates that the City’s immediate priority is preparing for the upcoming decision horizon while preserving flexibility regarding the final delivery model. Several near-term actions can support this objective:

1. Strengthen owner-side governance capacity
Enhancing the City’s internal oversight capabilities will reduce risk under any service delivery model.

2. Maintain operational continuity and institutional knowledge Preserving system expertise during the planning period will support regulatory compliance and service reliability.

3. Prepare for potential competitive procurement
Early preparation will allow the City to develop procurement structures and performance requirements if a contracted model is pursued.

4. Conduct targeted follow-up analysis where necessary
Additional evaluation of staffing needs, governance structures, and transition planning can help refine future decision-making.

Advancing these steps will allow the City to approach the May 2027 decision horizon from a position of readiness, ensuring that essential wastewater and stormwater services continue to be delivered reliably while maintaining flexibility for future policy choices. 1125

White Paper
Comparative Delivery Methods, Risks, and
Conditions for Success

1 Project Options to Deliver Wastewater and Stormwater Services in the City of Richmond
Watearth # 24-092.0
Subject Technical Memorandum – Comparative Delivery Models, Risks, and Conditions for Success
Date March 12, 2026
Prepared by Jennifer J. Walker, PE, DWRE, ENV SP, QSD, LEED AP BD+C Jacob Guise
Executive Summary
Purpose
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide the City Council with a planning -level, comparative assessment of alternative wastewater and stormwater service delivery pathways to inform policy discussion and future decision-making. The analysis evaluates each pathway through a consistent framework that considers operational feasibility, owner -side governance and regulatory obligations, cost context, capital delivery implications, transition complexity, and execution risk.

This memorandum is intended to function as a decision-support tool, not a final recommendation or procurement action. It clarifies the City’s non-delegable responsibilities under any service delivery model, identifies key trade-offs among the evaluated pathways, and highlights areas where further refinement would be required prior to implementation. A planning- level screening indicated that Pathway 3 (asset transfer) was not technically feasible within the 2027 contract horizon due to bond covenant restraints and regulatory requirements. Based on current information and the City’s existing organizational capacity, the analysis indicates that Pathway 1 (Competitive Procurement) presents the lowest overall execution risk at this stage; however, all findings are directional, based on stated assumptions and professional judgment, and are intended to guide Council deliberation and next steps rather than establish a predetermined outcome.

Key Findings

1. The City retains non-delegable regulatory, financial, and governance responsibilities under all service delivery models. Competitive procurement can transfer day-to-day operations and staffing to a service provider, but the City remains the asset owner and permittee and must maintain robust owner-side oversight, contract administration, compliance monitoring, and enforcement functions.

2. The analysis is forward-looking and comparative in nature. Findings are based on stated assumptions, available documentation, and professional judgment and are intended to inform policy discussion and identify areas for further due diligence rather than prescribe a final course of action.

3. Competitive procurement and in-house service delivery pathways are technically feasible. Each delivery option presents materially different levels of implementation complexity, governance burden, transition risk, and organizational capacity

DRAFT MEMORANDUM

RELEASED UNDER THE

AUTHORITY OF JENNIFER
J. WALKER PE (C77079),
DWRE, CFM ON 2026-03-
12 AND SHOULD NOT BE

USED FOR DESIGN OR
CONSTRUCTION.

1126

White Paper
Comparative Delivery Methods, Risks, and
Conditions for Success

2 requirements. The asset transfer delivery pathway was screened out due to incompatibility with the 2027 timeline.

4. Differences among pathways are driven primarily by execution risk rather than service outcomes. The Decision Support Matrix indicates that relative scores are influenced by staffing availability, governance workload, transition lead times, procurement constraints, and regulatory accountability, rather than by fundamental feasibility .

5. Planning-level cost ranges are directional and reflect how responsibilities and risks are allocated, not differences in service quality. No pathway eliminates owner-side costs, and capital delivery and transition impacts vary based on management structure and risk transfer rather than efficiency alone.

6. Pathway 1 (Competitive Procurement) presents the lowest overall execution risk at this planning level, given the City’s current organizational capacity. This pathway offers shorter transition timelines, reduced near-term staffing and institutional build-out requirements, and greater alignment with existing procurement and oversight structures.

7. City-operated pathways provide increased direct control but introduce higher implementation complexity and transition risk. These options require substantial internal staffing expansion, longer lead times, and greater exposure to labor, compliance, and organizational risk during implementation.

High-Level Comparative Risk Matrix
To support consistent comparison across the primary retained-ownership pathways (Pathways 1 and 2), a scoring system was developed for each option based on the evaluation criteria established in the Study Context and Evaluation Framework Section of this memorandum.

Relative risk exposure across key dimensions is summarized in Table 1, while the following narrative risk profiles provide additional context on how those risks arise, how they are distributed between the City and external entities, and how they are influenced by governance capacity, staffing, and uncertainty. Scores are comparative and qualitative, intended to illustrate relative differences among options based on current information and industry experience. They are not additive and should not be interpreted as rankings or recommendations.

The risk designations provided in the comparative risk matrix indicate the following:
● Low: Risk is well understood, readily manageable within existing governance and staffing structures, and unlikely to materially disrupt service continuity, regulatory compliance, or cost stability.
● Medium: Risk requires active management and mitigation, involves uncertainty or external dependencies, and could affect service, compliance, or cost performance if not closely monitored.
● High: Risk is strongly influenced by staffing, governance, and transition complexity, with potential for material impacts to service continuity, regulatory compliance, schedule, or cost if not effectively managed.

1127

White Paper
Comparative Delivery Methods, Risks, and
Conditions for Success

3 Table 1: Comparative Risk Matrix
Evaluation Criteria Competitive Procurement
Service Delivery
City-Operated Service
Delivery
Staffing and Labor Market
Constraints Risk
Low High
Long-term Labor and
Retirement Obligations Risk
Low High
Governance and
Management Burden Risk
Medium High
Transition vs Steady-State
Cost Separation Risk
Low High
Compliance Exposure Risk High High
Procurement Pathway and
Decision Gates Risk
Medium High
Risk ratings reflect forward-looking assumptions based on modern, well-structured contracting and governance models, not legacy contract conditions.

Near-Term Implications for the City

1. Owner-side responsibilities require immediate and ongoing attention regardless of pathway selection. In the near term, the City must continue to resource and strengthen non-delegable governance functions, including regulatory compliance oversight, financial and rate governance, contract or operational management, and risk management, independent of any future service delivery decision.

2. Maintaining service continuity is the primary near-term priority. No immediate operational changes are required as a result of this planning-level assessment; however, sufficient staffing and institutional knowledge must be retained to ensure uninterrupted compliance, safety, and service performance during any future transition period.

3. If Council elects to further advance Pathway 1 (Competitive Procurement), early preparation will be required. Near-term actions would include confirming owner-side staffing capacity for procurement and contract administration, refining performance , and reporting requirements, and establishing governance and enforcement structures necessary to manage a competitively procured service model.

4. Advancement of City-operated pathways would require longer lead times and early organizational commitments. Near-term implications of pursuing these options include initiating workforce planning, assessing labor and classification requirements, and 1128

White Paper
Comparative Delivery Methods, Risks, and
Conditions for Success

4 evaluating management and compliance infrastructure needs well in advance of any operational transition.

5. Additional due diligence can be scoped incrementally without committing to implementation. The City may pursue targeted next-step analyses—such as staffing plans, transition sequencing, market sounding, or refined cost validation —while preserving flexibility and avoiding irreversible commitments.

6. Policy direction will shape the pace and scope of near-term actions. Clear guidance from Council regarding risk tolerance, desired level of operational control, and appetite for organizational change will be essential to determine whether near-term efforts focus on procurement readiness, internal capacity development, or maintaining optionality.

Study Context and Evaluation
Framework
City Decision Point
The City is at a critical decision point regarding how wastewater and stormwater services are delivered due to a convergence of contractual, regulatory, operational, and governance factors that affect long-term service reliability and risk exposure.

First, the City’s current wastewater and stormwater services contract is approaching a defined decision horizon, with the existing agreement expiring in 2027. Decisions regarding renewal, replacement, or transition to a different delivery model require advance planning to avoid service disruption, ensure regulatory continuity, and allow sufficient time for organizational or contractual changes. The timing of this decision is further constrained by the scale and complexity of the systems involved and the potential need for interim or transitional operating arrangements.

Second, regulatory pressure on the City’s wastewater and stormwater systems has increased over time. The City is subject to the San Francisco Baykeeper settlement agreement. This agreement imposes stringent requirements related to sanitary sewer overflow r eduction, system inspection and maintenance, reporting, and corrective action timelines. In parallel, emerging nutrient removal regulations and ongoing permit compliance obligations continue to drive capital investment, operational rigor, and enforcement risk. Regulatory obligations apply regardless of the delivery model selected and heighten the consequences of operational failures, staffing gaps, or governance weaknesses.

Third, the City faces persistent governance and oversight challenges associated with managing aging infrastructure, complex interagency arrangements, and a system that exhibits high operational and regulatory complexity relative to its size. While the City’s wastewater and stormwater systems are mid-sized in terms of population served, their age, condition uncertainty, shared facilities, and regulatory expectations place them closer to large-system complexity from a management and risk perspective. Conditions elevate the importance of staffing capacity, institutional knowledge, and clear accountability structures in any delivery model.

Taken together, these factors create a near-term need for the City to evaluate feasible service delivery models, understand the tradeoffs and risks associated with each, and identify the conditions required for successful implementation. Delaying decisions may constrain available options due to timing, staffing, or regulatory considerations. 1129

White Paper
Comparative Delivery Methods, Risks, and
Conditions for Success

5 Current Contract Background and Structure
Currently, Veolia operates and maintains the City’s wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) and collection system as well as stormwater system infrastructure. The total system managed by Veolia consists of an estimated 185 miles of sewer lines with appurtenant manholes, 13 wastewater lift stations, and an estimated 94 miles of stormwater main lines, 3,300 catch basins, 1,200 manholes, 12 miles of ditches, and 7 stormwater lift stations. The WWTP has a capac ity of 24 million gallons per day. Throughout Veolia’s contract term, the City has experienced multiple instances of infrastructure failures and limitations. City residents experienced repeated instances of noxious odors emanating from the WWTP, one of which resulted in a pollution citation.

Repeated sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) resulted in multiple lawsuits against the City and subsequent financial penalties. Some infrastructure challenges appear to be associated with maintenance delays, deferred corrective actions, and system condition issues identified over time. Any service delivery must include clear performance expectations, timely oversight, and effective escalation mechanisms to proactively address potential issues.

Under the current contract structure, operational execution and day-to-day management are delegated to Veolia, while governance, funding, and regulatory accountability remain fully with the City. The responsibilities outlined below describe execution roles under the contract and do not transfer the City’s obligations as system owner and permittee.

The City’s wastewater and stormwater services have been provided by Veolia since 2002. The most recent amendment to the original contract was enacted in 2018. As outlined in the City’s contract with Veolia, Veolia is responsible for the following for the City’s Wastewater Treatment Facility and Collection Systems:

1. Initial improvements associated with contract initiation and early facility upgrades;

2. Capital improvements (execution and construction management; funding, prioritization, and delivery risk retained by the City);

3. Long term operations;

4. Maintenance; and

5. Management of the facility, supporting compliance with local, state, and federal regulations under the City’s permits.

Additionally, Veolia is expected to provide the labor, materials, and resources required to meet the outlined responsibilities. The City is responsible for paying the service fee, providing access to facilities, and furnishing information related to the design, condition, operation, or maintenance of the facilities. All operating and capital costs are funded by the City through the Wastewater Enterprise Fund and related rate and fee revenues. The City funds routine operations through annual appropriations and finances capital improvements through planned Capital Improvement Project expenditures driven by regulatory requirements, system condition, and settlement obligations. Veolia executes the operation and management of projects but does not provide the capital funding. Financial risk associated with capital investment, long-term asset condition, and regulatory compliance remains fully with the City regardless of the operational delivery model.

While Veolia performs day-to-day operations and supports compliance activities, the City remains the named National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permittee and the legally accountable entity under state and federal law. Regulatory determin ations, enforcement response, and authority to direct corrective actions reside exclusively with the City and cannot be transferred by contract. As a result, accountability to regulators and the public 1130

White Paper
Comparative Delivery Methods, Risks, and
Conditions for Success

6 remains with the City regardless of how operational duties are delegated. This distinction between operational execution and regulatory accountability is central to understanding the City’s retained risk under the current contract and under any future service delivery model.

Under the current delivery model, Veolia executes defined operational services while the City retains the core governance role and accountability as system owner. The City remains accountable to regulators, ratepayers, and the public for system performance , compliance outcomes, and long-term infrastructure conditions. Oversight of Veolia’s performance is exercised through the Public Works Department, under the direction of the Director of Public Works, with support from City management, legal counsel, and financial staff as needed. In practice, this means the City must:

1. Set enforceable contract scope, performance expectations, and reporting requirements;

2. Review contractor outputs, documentation, operational reports, and regulatory correspondence;

3. Approve, fund, direct, and prioritize capital improvement projects through the City’s Capital Improvement Plan; and

4. Engage directly with regulators and respond to enforcement actions or settlement obligations.

Even when operational work is contracted, oversight gaps can translate into direct City exposure because compliance obligations and public accountability do not transfer with the contract. The current operation model illustrates how “contracting out operations” still requires a strong City governance and oversight function.

The current contract structure separates execution from accountability: Veolia performs defined operational tasks, while the City remains the entity accountable to regulators and the public. As a result, operational or staffing failures by a contractor can still create direct City exposure (e.g., enforcement risk, mandated corrective actions, public trust impacts) if City oversight and escalation mechanisms are not effective. This division of roles is central to the evaluation of all future delivery pathways because it clarifies where risk is truly transferred versus where it is only shifted procedurally. As a result, the effectiveness of this model depends less on the contractor’s technical capability alone and more on the City’s capacity to govern, monitor , and intervene when performance, staffing, or compliance risks emerge.

The original contract with Veolia addressed the payment procedure for the reimbursement of transaction costs, pass through costs, and a fixed service fee. The reimbursement of transaction costs was a one-time payment with a set maximum provided by the City at the initiation of the original contract period. The passthrough costs and service fee are monthly payments. The monthly service fee equals 1/12th of the total service fee for the Contract Year. The City reserves the right to adjust the service fee payment formula throughout the contract term to comply with private activity limitations and/or account for a change in the average ranges for flow and loadings. The fee terms may also be altered upon the mutual agreement of both parties in accordance with the law. The City may adjust the service fee annually. The cost section of the contract explicitly states that Veolia must actively pursue improvements in the effectiveness and efficiency of the operation, maintenance, and management of the system. Veolia’s c ontracted operations and maintenance fee is funded by the City’s enterprise revenues (e.g., wastewater and stormwater user fees).
1131

White Paper
Comparative Delivery Methods, Risks, and
Conditions for Success

7 Veolia Planning-Level Cost Context
The following information is intended to support planning-level cost evaluation of the costs incurred by the City of Richmond’s (City) contract with Veolia. The document intends to address differences between the base fees outlined in the contract and amendment documents, Watearth’s estimate of the City’s contract operations and maintenance (O&M) fees, and the payments submitted to Veolia from the City. The estimates are based on industry standards, including estimates sourced from national and California industry standards and prior Watearth and Arup planning work. Costs are represented as 2025 equivalent dollars and, as available, in the dollars of the year in which the cost was incurred. The cost tables provided indicate that the City incurs additional costs in the provisioning of Veolia’s contract beyond the costs outlined in the 2025-26 Consumer Price Index (CPI) change table due to city oversight staffing, regulatory compliance costs, settlement-driven work, and emergency response. This document does not provide a comprehensive analysis of all costs incurred by the City but instead represents a high - level overview of the kinds of costs incurred throughout Veolia’s contract term.

The tables presented provide a planning-level view of total City cost exposure under the current delivery model throughout the contract term based on known costs and industry standards.

They are not intended to represent audited expenditures or a full life-cycle cost analysis. Instead, they illustrate the categories of costs incurred by the City as system owner and permittee, many of which are not visible in contract payment summaries alone.

The approximate annual steady-state operating cost context utilizing the most recent yearly costs paid to Veolia are outlined in Table 2. The estimated total annual operating cost reflects the base O&M service fee and supplemental operating services paid to Veolia, combined with planning-level estimates of City-retained oversight and operating functions that are not embedded in the contract. Routine regulatory compliance activities are embedded within the base O&M service fee and owner-side oversight estimates and are not included as a separate line item; however, enforcement actions, settlements, and corrective capital are explicit costs the City may be responsible for in any given year. The percentages provided for owner -side oversight and other recurring operating costs are planning-level estimates intended to illustrate categories of City-retained responsibility and are not additive. They represent distinct City functions retained under the current delivery model and together comprise approximately 4-7% annually based on system scale and regulatory complexity.

1132

White Paper
Comparative Delivery Methods, Risks, and
Conditions for Success

8 Table 2: Annual Operating Cost Context (Steady-State) Cost Category Description Planning-Level
Magnitude
Source/Notes
Veolia Base
O&M Service
Fee
Contracted annual
O&M
~4.0M Veolia Contract Amendment #4
(2016)
Supplemental
Operating
Services
Pass-through O&M
services
~4.0M Richmond 2025-26 CPI Change –
Veolia
Owner-Side
Oversight
City contract
management and
compliance
~4-7% of O&M Benchmark-based
Other
Recurring City
Operating
Costs
Legal, financial,
compliance
support
~20-30% of City-
retained
operating
responsibilities
not captured in
contract fees or
owner-side
oversight
(planning-level)
Benchmark-based
Total Annual
Operating Cost
Steady-state
operations
~$13-15M -

The City retains full responsibility for funding capital improvement program (CIP) projects, which are in turn executed by Veolia. While Veolia’s labor and material costs for CIP projects are included in the contract fees, there are additional costs incurred by the City in their management and oversight. Representative CIP projects (shown in Table 3) are likely to or will incur additional costs to the City in its management and oversight of Veolia. The costs presented in the table represent the scale of capital investments for which the City retains funding responsibility and delivery risk. The values do not represent capital delivery costs themselves but illustrate the magnitude of capital programs that drive ongoing City staff time, engineering oversight, regulatory coordination, and construction management activities. Capital delivery costs are typically scaled with the size, complexity, and regulatory sensitivity of the capital program and are incurred over multiple years. Capital delivery costs are impor tant to consider because the operator executes the work, but the City bears the risk of project costs and delivery.
1133

White Paper
Comparative Delivery Methods, Risks, and
Conditions for Success

9 Table 3: Representative CIP Projects Relevant to City Capital Delivery Risk (City- Funded, Multi-Year)
Capital
Category
Example Projects Adopted CIP Magnitude
(Capital Program Value)
Delivery Responsibility
Wastewater
Treatment
Plant (WWTP)
Cogeneration,
Declorination
Sodium Bisulfite
Tank, WWTP
Seismic Retrofit -
Phase II, WWTP
Sludge Thickener
Replacement
~$107M Execution: Veolia
Funding and oversight:

City
Collection
System
Dornan Drive
Force Main, Ferry
Point Dornan Drive
Pump Station,
Marina Bay
Parkway Force
Main, Pipeline
Rehab and
Replacement,
Sanitary Sewer
Repairs
~$37M Execution: Veolia
Funding and oversight:

City
Other costs may arise throughout the contract term that are not captured by contract fees, owner-side oversight, recurring City operating costs, or capital delivery costs. Additional costs may be the result of unexpected maintenance, emergency response, or non-compliance. Table 4 illustrates two examples of extra costs incurred to the City during Veolia’s contract term.

Unexpected one-time costs cannot be eliminated completely, but insufficient operator performance combined with limited oversight will increase their likelihood. The provided examples are included to illustrate that one-time capital or corrective actions can create cost variability for the City as the system owner, regardless of the delivery structure.

1134

White Paper
Comparative Delivery Methods, Risks, and
Conditions for Success

10 Table 4: One-Time and Episodic Costs (Illustrative)
Cost Type Example Cost (dollars,
year incurred)
Equivalent
Cost (2025
dollars)
Notes
Cost Differential 2007 Pump
Station
Improvements
$4.3M ~$5.6M In 2007, Veolia
provided the City with
an estimated budget
of ~$3.3M for pump
station improvements
outlined in the capital
improvement projects
plan. At 60%
completion, the City
had paid Veolia
$5.5M for the work
performed. An
agreement was
reached between the
City and Veolia that
the City would pay no
more than an
additional $2M for
project completion.

Non-Compliance
Fees
2018 San
Francisco
Baykeeper vs
City of
Richmond
Settlement
~$505,000 ~$525,000 The 2018 San
Francisco Baykeeper
vs City of Richmond
settlement was the
result of multiple
sanitary sewer
overflow (SSO)
violations over
multiple years. Per the
Settlement, the City
was required to pay a
one-time plaintiff fee
and a recurring fee to
a monitoring fund.

Additional financial
penalties were
stipulated for
subsequent violations.

1135

White Paper
Comparative Delivery Methods, Risks, and
Conditions for Success

11 Scope and Limits of this Phase
This memorandum is intended to support near-term decision-making by providing a structured, comparative assessment of feasible wastewater and stormwater service delivery models. This memorandum builds on substantial work already completed for the City, inc luding the review and synthesis of existing plans and contracts, a risk workshop, an insourcing transition analysis, review of private providers, and review of public providers. Insights from targeted, non - procurement conversations with private providers and public agencies are also incorporated to ground the analysis in real-world operating practices. Discussions with private providers and public agencies were informational and did not constitute a procurement process or solicitation.

The scope of this memorandum focuses on:
● Comparative evaluation of delivery models;
● Identification of key risks and implementation considerations; ● Assessment of governance, staffing, and institutional capacity requirements; and ● Presentation of high-level, directional cost context using industry benchmarks and comparable experience.

This memorandum deliberately represents planning-level estimates and avoids presenting unwarranted precision where data is incomplete or where further study would be required to responsibly support detailed conclusions. As such, this memorandum:
● Is not a procurement action or provider selection;
● Is not a final recommendation of a single delivery model; ● Does not include vendor pricing, proposals, or negotiated cost terms; ● Does not rely on a new system-wide condition assessment; and ● Does not present full lifecycle economic modeling.

Cost information presented herein is directional and benchmark-based, intended to inform relative cost posture and risk exposure rather than to establish definitive budgets or rates. All planning-level cost ranges are presented in 2025 dollars (unless otherwise indicated), exclude capital program costs and contingency, and are based on industry benchmarks, prior planning studies, and senior engineer input. Costs are provided for comparative planning purposes only and are not intended to represent budget estimates or procurement pricing. Data gaps, timing constraints, and labor market conditions are explicitly acknowledged as part of the analytical context. Limitations are not deficiencies of the analysis, but reflections of what can be responsibly concluded at this stage to support informed and defensible decision-making. The analysis assumes current asset condition information is incomplete and that this uncertainty materially influences risk allocation and cost posture under all options.

Evaluation Framework
To ensure consistency and comparability across delivery models, each option evaluated in this memorandum is assessed using a common framework focused on factors that strongly influence feasibility, risk, and long-term performance. This framework reflects both industry practice and the specific conditions facing the City. Each delivery model is evaluated against the following criteria:

1. Staffing and Labor Market Constraints Risk:
1136

White Paper
Comparative Delivery Methods, Risks, and
Conditions for Success

12 The ability to recruit, retain, train, and manage a qualified workforce; exposure to labor market constraints; and reliance on internal versus external expertise.

2. Long-term Labor and Retirement Obligations Risk:

The provision and management of long-term pension, benefit, and retirement obligations; duration of obligation beyond operation-phase; and structural, long-term financial exposure.

3. Governance and Management Burden Risk:

The clarity, effectiveness, and sustainability of oversight structures, decision -making authority, enforcement mechanisms, and escalation pathways.

4. Transition vs Steady-State Cost Separation Risk:

The degree of annual cost stability, exposure to volatility, and likelihood of embedded risk premiums or long-term cost escalation; considering short-term transition costs to long- term steady-state costs; how cost uncertainties are embedded.

5. Compliance Exposure Risk:

The entity bearing legal accountability for regulatory performance (the City remains the regulated permittee under all procurement pathways); how compliance outcomes are outlined and realized; mechanisms for monitoring and managing system performance.

6. Procurement Pathway and Decision Gates Risk:

The general timeline of the procurement pathway and decision-making processes; potential pressure points; capacity to determine the staffing authorization, organizational structure, funding, and leadership required.

This evaluation framework is applied consistently across all options discussed in subsequent sections to facilitate transparent comparison and to highlight where differences in outcomes are driven by governance capacity and implementation readiness rather than by the delivery model alone.

Common Transition Considerations
Regardless of the service delivery model selected, the City will be required to undertake transition activities to ensure operational continuity and regulatory compliance. There is no practical “no-transition” option. Continuation of a procured operator requires contract restructuring and reaffirmation of regulatory processes. Transition risk differs by option in form and duration, not in presence.

Pathway 1: Competitive Procurement for
Long-term Service Delivery
Under a competitive procurement pathway, the City would retain ownership of its wastewater and stormwater systems and would remain the regulated permittee. Through contracting, the external entity would perform defined operational, maintenance, and technical services. This pathway encourages both private operators and public agencies to compete for long -term service delivery under a structured procurement process. Operational execution and workforce management are shifted to the selected provider, while the City retains responsibility for governance, oversight, and regulatory accountability. Competitive procurement is intended to preserve operational continuity and access specialized expertise while limiting the City’s exposure to direct staffing execution risk. The City retains governance, oversight, and regulatory 1137

White Paper
Comparative Delivery Methods, Risks, and
Conditions for Success

13 accountability, while day-to-day workforce management is assigned to the service provider.

Outcomes under this pathway are shaped less by the identity of the provider and more by procurement design, contract structure, and the City’s ability to sustain effective oversight and compliance management over time.

The competitive procurement pathway assumes full delegation of defined operational functions to a single contracted entity.

Staffing and Labor Market Constraints
Under the competitive procurement pathway, staffing capacity is largely dependent on the selected service provider’s ability to recruit, retain, and deploy qualified personnel. Competitive procurement shifts primary responsibility for workforce recruitment, certification, training, and day-to-day staffing management to the provider, which typically maintains established hiring pipelines and access to regional or national labor pools. This structure reduces the City’s direct involvement in workforce management and mitigates the execution risks associated with recruiting and maintaining licensed operators under a City-operated model.

Notwithstanding these advantages, broader labor market conditions continue to affect all service providers. Persistent shortages of licensed operators, competition among public agencies and private operators, and retirement-driven attrition remain sector-wide challenges.

Reported vacancy rates for certified wastewater operators at small- to mid-sized California agencies commonly range from approximately 10% to 20%, with higher vacancy pressure for senior and supervisory classifications (Grades III–V) required for regulatory compliance coverage. Recruitment timelines for licensed operators typically range from four to nine months, while senior or dual-certified positions often exceed nine to twelve months and may require multiple recruitment cycles due to limited qualified applicants.

Statewide workforce constraints further limit available supply. The State Water Resources Control Board’s Wastewater Operator Certification Program lists approximately 6,000 active certified operators (Grades I–V), and many utilities report that 30% to 50% of their operator workforce is currently eligible for retirement or will become eligible within the next five to ten years (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2020). Retirement risk is particularly concentrated among lead operators and supervisors with significant institutional knowledge, and replacement pipelines are constrained by certification requirements, training duration, and competition from larger utilities and private operators offering broader advancement opportunities.

While these system-wide labor constraints remain present, the City’s direct exposure to staffing execution risk is comparatively lower under a competitive procurement model, as recruitment, retention, and workforce management are contractually assigned to the service provider.

However, market-wide operator scarcity may still be reflected in contract pricing, depth of bench, surge capacity, and turnover rates. As a result, the City’s role shifts from direct staffing execution to ongoing oversight, including monitoring staffing adequacy, qualifications, and turnover through performance standards and contract administration to ensure service continuity and regulatory compliance. The City retains governance oversight, and regulatory accountability under this pathway even though day-to-day workforce management is assigned to the service provider.

Long-term Labor and Retirement Obligations
Competitive procurement limits the City’s direct exposure to long-term labor and retirement obligations. Wages, benefits, pensions, and retirement liabilities associated with the operational workforce remain with the service provider and are reflected indirectly through contract pricing 1138

White Paper
Comparative Delivery Methods, Risks, and
Conditions for Success

14 rather than City employment systems, including thorough contract pricing and escalation clauses, rather than being assumed directly by the City. Workforce benefit obligations are borne by the service provider and reflected through market pricing, subject to competition at re- procurement and term limits.

This structure provides greater flexibility over time, as workforce obligations do not persist beyond the contract term. While labor costs are incorporated into service rates, they do not create permanent employment commitments for the City. This distinction allows future adjustments to service delivery arrangements to occur without carrying forward long-term workforce liabilities, subject to procurement timing and market conditions.

Because the contracted workforce is not City-employed, the City does not carry unfunded pension or retiree health obligations on its balance sheet related to that workforce, preserving long-term financial flexibility. Overall, the long-term labor and retirement obligations risk to the City under a competitive procurement model is low, reflecting reduced direct exposure to long- term workforce liabilities; labor-related financial risk remains and may be realized through contract pricing changes over time.

Governance and Management Burden
City Governance Responsibilities
Under competitive procurement, the City retains ownership of the wastewater and stormwater systems and remains the regulated permittee. The City is responsible for defining service expectations, aligning contractual requirements with regulatory obligations , and ensuring that operational performance supports compliance and long-term system objectives. Unlike City- operated delivery, where management effort is continuous and operational, competitive procurement concentrates City effort on oversight, enforcement, and escalation rather than daily execution.

Competitive procurement is a shift in governance focus, not a reduction in City responsibility.

The City’s role shifts from operational command to contract performance management, regulatory compliance assurance, financial and rate oversight, enforcement a nd dispute resolution, and strategic direction and capital governance. While day -to-day operational supervision is externalized, the City retains the ultimate decision authority, permit compliance responsibility, regulator interface and enforcement exposure, and the obligation to intervene if the contractor performance degrades.

Management and Oversight workload
While day-to-day operations are performed by the service provider, competitive procurement requires sustained City capacity for contract administration, technical review, compliance oversight, and financial monitoring. Oversight responsibilities include re viewing reports, validating compliance activities, tracking performance metrics, and enforcing contractual requirements when deficiencies arise. The best practices described for management and oversight serve to identify actions for ensuring effective operation and are not meant to characterize the City's current oversight practices.

A competitive procurement model shifts the City’s role from direct operational control to continuous oversight and accountability management. While operational staffing is largely externalized under this model, City staffing demands shift toward contract m anagement, compliance review, technical validation, and enforcement rather than direct operations. The effectiveness of the pathway depends on the City’s ability to maintain disciplined, proactive oversight rather than relying on reactive intervention. 1139

White Paper
Comparative Delivery Methods, Risks, and
Conditions for Success

15 Non-delegable functions
Regulatory and permit compliance accountability remains with the City regardless of contractual arrangements. Permits, inspections, enforcement actions, and regulatory correspondence are issued to the City as the permittee. While operational tasks may be c arried out by the provider, the City remains responsible for ensuring that corrective actions are taken and that regulatory expectations are met. The corrective actions may be carried out by the provider under the direction of the City.

Ongoing compliance and reporting obligations
Compliance under competitive procurement depends on clear alignment between contractual roles and permit requirements. The City must retain sufficient internal expertise to review monitoring data, assess compliance documentation, coordinate with regulators , and respond to inspections or enforcement actions. In some cases, the City may need to perform inspections, collect samples, or analyze data in addition to provider monitoring. Independent monitoring and verification are more likely to be necessary if a provider does not fulfill the standards outlined in the contract. However, independent monitoring or verification serves as a useful risk- management tool within contract administration under all performance conditions and does not necessarily imply provider non-performance. Clearly documented standards, defined response authority, and effective escalation mechanisms are central to managing compliance obligations over time and preventing additional labor from City staff.

Competitive procurement shifts the City’s role from operational execution to contract governance, making oversight discipline rather than provider capability the key determinant of success. Success under competitive procurement depends less on operator sel ection and more on the City’s ability to write, manage, and enforce a strong contract. Still, both operator capability and contract structure influence outcomes, with contract design and governance serving as key determinants of long-term performance.

Overall, the governance and management burden risk to the City under a competitive procurement model is medium.

Transition vs Steady-State Cost Separation Risk
One-time and transition costs
The transition costs for a competitive procurement model will vary depending on procurement results, as different providers will have various needs and demands. Generally, transition costs will be associated with the procurement process, contractor mobilization, and operational ramp-up activities. Examples of the expected costs include procurement support, contract negotiation, onboarding of the selected operator, initial staffing alignment, knowledge transfer, and establishment of reporting, compliance, and asset management systems.

The magnitude of costs will vary, but they are more readily separable from steady -state operations than under City-operated delivery. They are more discrete and time-limited, providing more certainty when compared to a City-operated model if procurement and contract terms are well defined.

The scale and duration of transition costs depend on asset condition uncertainty, the degree of operational complexity encountered during transfer, and the provider chosen (e.g., costs may vary between a small provider and a larger provider). Clear procurement requirements, defined performance expectations, and early identification of transition responsibilities are therefore critical to managing transition cost risk under a competitive procurement model. 1140

White Paper
Comparative Delivery Methods, Risks, and
Conditions for Success

16 Ongoing steady-state operating costs
Under a competitive procurement model, steady-state operating costs are primarily embedded within the contracted service fee. The service fee covers labor, routine operations and maintenance, management, and compliance support provided by the selected oper ator. Cost breakdowns and potential changes are explicitly outlined in the terms of the contract.

Compared to a City-operated delivery, a competitive procurement structure generally results in greater annual cost predictability, as staffing, training, and workforce management costs are consolidated within a single contractual framework that includes clear guidelines on how and when the costs may change. Although there may be stipulations for interim changes, costs generally remain the same throughout the Contract Year. Changes to the contract terms (including all fees and payments) are negotiated before costs are incurred.

However, long-term cost performance under this model is highly sensitive to contract design, scope definition, and governance effectiveness. Asset condition uncertainty, regulatory requirements, and labor market pressures are typically internalized within contract pricing, either through baseline service fees or through mechanisms such as escalation clauses, change orders, and contract amendments. As a result, while year-to-year expenditures may appear stable, cumulative lifecycle costs may increase if risk premiums remain embedded or if contract terms are not periodically recalibrated. Costs may be higher in a year when extensive maintenance or large capital improvement projects are present; careful contract management will ensure that projects are completed efficiently and that the contract terms are appropriately modified to remove these costs once projects are complete.

The City retains financial responsibility for capital investments and regulatory compliance outcomes. Steady-state costs under competitive procurement are influenced not only by contractor efficiency, but also by the City’s ability to manage scope, verify deliverables, perform QA/QC, review compliance reporting, and enforce performance standards, and align operational execution with long-term capital planning. These functions represent a material, ongoing workload that must be realistically sized and costed, and contractually supported, rather than assumed to be absorbed within existing City staffing levels. A fully resourced City oversight function under this model would typically include roles responsible for contract administration, regulatory compliance oversight, financial review, and technical performance monitoring. Considering the complexity of the City's system, additional staff will be needed to support contract management, engineering review, and compliance coordination. Embedding clear performance outcomes and procedures in the event of non-compliance offers protection against unexpected costs. Effective contract oversight and periodic benchmarking are therefore critical to maintaining cost control and avoiding gradual cost escalation over time.

Overall, the transition and steady-state costs risk to the City under a competitive procurement model is low provided that the City maintains strong contract governance, oversight capacity, and enforcement discipline.

Compliance Exposure
The City retains full regulatory accountability under competitive procurement. Because regulatory agencies recognize only the City as the permittee, compliance exposure remains high regardless of provider’s performance. While the service provider may perform monitoring, reporting, and corrective actions on the City’s behalf, compliance outcomes depend on the clarity of contractual responsibilities and the City’s ability to oversee, verify, and certify day -to- day compliance activities performed by the contractor, and intervene when necessary.

Ultimately, regulatory agencies place full compliance responsibility on the City even if non - compliance occurs as a result of provider action/inaction. In addition to providing clarity of 1141

White Paper
Comparative Delivery Methods, Risks, and
Conditions for Success

17 contractual responsibilities and overseeing performance, the City should outline contingencies within the provider’s contract in the event of non-compliance to mitigate potential compliance exposure.

Compliance exposure is most pronounced during transition and during periods of heightened regulatory scrutiny, when coordination, documentation, and response authority are critical.

Sustained City engagement is required to maintain alignment with regulator y expectations and manage compliance risk over the contract term.

Overall, the compliance exposure risk to the City under a competitive procurement model is high.

Procurement Pathway and Decision Gates
Under this pathway, the City would pursue a competitive procurement process in which qualified service providers may submit proposals to deliver operational, maintenance, and technical services. While competitive procurement does not eliminate risk, it red istributes risk in ways that are manageable and familiar to the City, provided decisions are sequenced deliberately and governance capacity is sustained.

As reflected in Table 1 (Comparative Risk Matrix), the primary risks associated with this pathway are not staffing or long-term labor obligations, which remain largely externalized, but rather schedule sensitivity, governance discipline, and compliance exposure during transition and steady-state operations.

Procurement Approach
Under the competitive procurement pathway, the City will issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) for long-term service delivery. The procurement would define:

1. Scope of services,

2. Performance standards,

3. Staffing expectations,

4. Transition requirements, and

5. Compliance responsibilities.

Both private operators and public agencies could respond, allowing the City to assess differing organizational approaches within a single, structured process.

Importantly, procurement design functions as a risk management tool rather than a passive selection mechanism. Under this pathway, contract structure is the City’s primary tool for managing operational, financial, and compliance risk over time. The effecti veness of this pathway depends as much on contract structure and oversight capacity as on the identity of the selected provider.

Ideal Major Phases and Duration
Durations shown are “planning-level, best-case ranges.” Both pathways carry material schedule risk from approvals, labor processes, and readiness dependencies, which must be explicitly linked to the Veolia contract end date and transition continuity requirements.

1. Procurement Planning and Readiness (1–2 months)
This phase focuses on confirming the scope of services, performance expectations, and risk allocation framework to be included in the solicitation. Key activities include defining service boundaries, refining governance and oversight roles, establishing ev aluation 1142

White Paper
Comparative Delivery Methods, Risks, and
Conditions for Success

18 criteria, and aligning internal stakeholders on objectives and constraints. Early planning decisions influence the quality of proposals received and the City’s ability to manage transition and ongoing performance.

2. Solicitation Development and Release (1–2 months)
During this phase, the City prepares and issues solicitation documents, including technical scope, contractual terms, pricing structure, and performance requirements.

The solicitation establishes the framework through which operational, staffing, and compliance responsibilities are contractually defined. Market response during this phase is influenced by the clarity of expectations, risk allocation, and assumptions regarding asset condition and staffing availability.

3. Proposal Evaluation and Selection (1–2 months)
The City evaluates submitted proposals against established technical, financial, and governance criteria. Evaluation activities include review of operational approaches, staffing plans, compliance programs, cost structures, and transition strategies. This phase culminates in identification of a preferred proposer, subject to negotiation and governing body approvals.

4. Negotiation and Contract Finalization (1–2 months)
This phase involves negotiation of scope, pricing, performance standards, escalation mechanisms, and transition provisions. Contractual terms governing risk allocation, reporting, compliance support, and enforcement are finalized during this period.

Decisions made in this phase materially influence cost predictability, oversight workload, and the City’s ability to intervene if performance or compliance issues arise.

5. Transition and Mobilization (3–6 months)
Following contract award, the selected provider undertakes mobilization activities, including staffing, systems setup, data and knowledge transfer, and coordination with City staff and regulators. While day-to-day operations continue under the existing arrangement until transition is complete, oversight intensity increases during this period.

As with all delivery models, compliance and service continuity risk are most acute during transition, requiring active City involvement and monitoring.

Executive and Council Decision Points
The procurement pathway includes several decision points that vary in consequence and reversibility:

1. Authorization to initiate procurement, which preserves optionality but commits staff and resources to a defined process

2. Approval of procurement scope and risk allocation, which materially shapes outcomes and should reflect explicit City risk tolerance

3. Contract award approval, which represents a binding commitment to a service delivery approach and provider

4. Transition authorization, including acceptance of mobilization plans and compliance protocols
Clear differentiation between preparatory actions and commitment points is essential to avoid premature lock-in or compressed transitions.
1143

White Paper
Comparative Delivery Methods, Risks, and
Conditions for Success

19 Schedule and Transition Risks
Schedule risk under competitive procurement is assessed at medium: the process is well understood but time sensitive. If procurement milestones slip, the City may face reduced negotiating leverage, the need for interim contract extensions, or compressed tr ansition periods.

These conditions increase governance burden and compliance exposure during handoff, even if long-term operations remain stable.

Transition risk is highest during contract start-up, when reporting roles, response authority, and oversight protocols must be clearly established. While transition and steady -state costs are more separable under this pathway than under City operation, inadequate preparation or oversight during mobilization can undermine that advantage.

Alignment with Veolia Contract End Date
The feasibility of the procurement pathway is directly tied to the expiration of the existing Veolia contract in 2027. To avoid service disruption, regulatory gaps, or rushed transitions, procurement and transition activities must be sequenced backward from this date. Delaying initiation of procurement increases the likelihood that the City will be forced into interim extensions or constrained options, reducing flexibility and potentially increasing long -term risk.

Conversely, initiating procurement does not preclude future consideration of City -operated service delivery. It preserves continuity while allowing the City to strengthen internal capacity, improve asset condition visibility, and refine its long-term risk posture before making more consequential organizational commitments.

As summarized in the Risk Matrix, a competitive procurement model concentrates regulatory risk within the City while transforming staffing and execution risks from direct to contractual. A competitive procurement model does not eliminate risk, and the City must maintain appropriate governance and monitoring structures to ensure successful operation. Competitive procurement preserves operational continuity and reduces direct staffing execution risk but depends on disciplined governance and oversight capacity to manage compliance and long-term performance.
1144

White Paper
Comparative Delivery Methods, Risks, and
Conditions for Success

20 Pathway 2: City-Operated (In-house)
Service Delivery
Under a City-operated service delivery model, the City would directly operate the wastewater treatment plant, sanitary sewer collection system, and stormwater infrastructure and would remain the sole regulated entity under state and federal law. This model concentrates operational execution, workforce management, governance, and regulatory accountability within the City organization. While in-house delivery can offer greater transparency and alignment with City priorities, it also requires the City to assume full responsibility for staffing, compliance execution, management capacity, and long-term labor obligations. The primary risks associated with this pathway arise from labor market constraints, the permanence of workforce commitments, the intensity of management and governance demands, and the difficulty of separating transition activities from steady-state operations.

Staffing and Labor Market Constraints
Under a City-operated delivery model, the City would be responsible for recruiting, training, certifying, and retaining the full operational workforce required to manage wastewater and stormwater services. The required staffing needs include licensed operators, maintenance staff, supervisors, compliance personnel, and supporting technical and administrative roles. Staffing requirements are not limited to day-to-day operations, but extend to emergency response, regulatory reporting, asset management coordination, and continuous compliance activities.

While labor market constraints affect both delivery pathways, the risk differential arises because institutional hiring, compensation, civil service, pension, and training constraints are borne directly by the City under in-house delivery.

Labor market conditions present a material challenge to an in-house model. Statewide shortages of certified operators, competition with other public agencies, and retirement -driven attrition limit the availability of qualified personnel. Transitioning to in-house operations would require staffing build-out to occur while systems remain operational and subject to regulatory oversight. Training, licensing, and certifications require time, including achieving pre - certifications (i.e., working for a certain number of years). It is possible that the City is successful in recruiting qualified staff members, but the ability of the staff to adapt and advance includes unavoidable time commitments that may not align with the City’s timeline. As a result, the feasibility and pace of transition are closely tied to the City’s ability to recruit and onboard qualified staff within available timelines. The City would need to authorize staffing, leadership, and training investments well in advance of transition to avoid elevated compliance and service disruption risk. Under City-operated delivery, these staffing constraints translate into direct operational and compliance exposure for the City as the operator.

Overall, the risk presented to the City by staffing and labor market constraints for City -operated service delivery is high.

Long-term labor and retirement obligations
City-operated service delivery entails long-term institutional and financial commitments rather than time-limited contractual obligations. Once operational positions are established, the City assumes responsibility for wages, benefits, pensions, and retiree health (OPEB) liabilities associated with the workforce. These obligations extend well beyond the transition period and persist regardless of future changes in service delivery approach. Pension and OPEB 1145

White Paper
Comparative Delivery Methods, Risks, and
Conditions for Success

21 commitments represent legally binding, structural liabilities that are not easily reduced or restructured once assumed, distinguishing them from contractual service costs that can be modified or reprocured over time.

Sustaining an in-house operational workforce further requires ongoing succession planning, training, and retention efforts to address retirements, turnover, and certification requirements.

These workforce sustainability demands must be managed concurrently with compliance, safety, and operational reliability obligations and influence the City’s long -term financial flexibility and organizational capacity, rather than solely near-term transition costs.

Staffing feasibility therefore represents a primary constraint on City-operated delivery, particularly during the transition period when recruitment delays or unfilled positions could directly affect regulatory compliance and service reliability. Over the long term, the combined effects of permanent labor obligations, retirement exposure, and workforce availability introduce a high level of execution and financial risk relative to service delivery models that rely on external providers for staffing execution.

Governance and Management Burden
City governance responsibilities
Under an in-house delivery model, the City would directly govern all aspects of wastewater and stormwater service delivery, including:

1. Operational priorities,

2. Ensuring regulatory compliance,

3. Overseeing capital planning, and

4. Responding to enforcement actions.

Regulatory agencies recognize only the City as operator and permittee. Accountability for system performance rests entirely within the City organization. In practice, this entails both executive governance (policy direction, budgeting, and compliance accou ntability) and line- management governance (staff supervision, scheduling, incident response, and continuous operational command and control). Compared to contract-based delivery, the line- management function introduces materially higher organizational complexity, greater staffing depth requirements, and increased concentration of institutional risk within the City, including continuity and liability exposure.

Management and oversight workload
In-house delivery requires sustained internal management capacity to oversee daily operations, workforce supervision, compliance execution, emergency response, and coordination with capital and financial planning. Unlike outsourced models, where management effort is concentrated on contract oversight, City-operated delivery requires continuous operational leadership and technical supervision across all system components. The City will need dedicated senior utility leadership with authority over operations, compliance, staffing, and coordination with capital planning, rather than reliance on distributed departmental oversight.

This workload places ongoing demands on executive leadership, utility management, and specialized technical staff. The effectiveness of this pathway depends on the City’s ability to maintain sufficient management depth and institutional knowledge over time . 1146

White Paper
Comparative Delivery Methods, Risks, and
Conditions for Success

22 Non-delegable functions
Certain responsibilities cannot be delegated under any delivery model. While operational tasks may be supported by consultants or temporary assistance, regulatory accountability and approval of major operational decisions remain non-transferable. Under any operation model, all certifications, regulatory correspondence, inspections, enforcement actions, and corrective directives are issued directly to the City. The difference under an in-house model compared to other operation models lies in who carries out corrections - in the event of an in-house model, City staff directly addresses deficiencies and corrective actions.

Ongoing compliance and reporting obligations
The City must maintain internal capacity to implement and update required compliance programs, including Sewer System Management Plan and Capacity, Management, Operations, and Maintenance elements; manage monitoring and reporting; and respond to inspection s and enforcement actions. These obligations apply continuously and must be sustained through organizational change, staff turnover, and evolving regulatory requirements.

Overall, the risk presented to the City by the governance and management burden for City - operated service delivery is high.

In summary, City-operated delivery requires sustained, centralized utility leadership and management capacity. Otherwise, governance gaps are likely to compound operational and compliance risk.

Transition vs. Steady-State Cost Separation
One-time and Transition Costs
Transitioning to City-operated delivery involves one-time and near-term costs associated with staffing recruitment, training and certification, systems implementation, and knowledge transfer from the incumbent operator. These activities must be undertaken while maintaining uninterrupted service and compliance, requiring overlap between transition activities and ongoing operations.

The scale and duration of transition costs depend on staffing availability, asset condition uncertainty, and the degree of operational complexity encountered during transfer. As a result, transition costs are sensitive to timing and readiness rather than solely to the delivery model selected. An accelerated or under-resourced transition would materially increase the likelihood of operational instability and regulatory exposure.

Ongoing steady-state operating costs
Once fully implemented, steady-state costs under an in-house model reflect ongoing labor, energy, materials, compliance activities, and routine maintenance. While these costs may stabilize over time, they remain closely tied to staffing levels, regulatory requirements, and system conditions. Unlike transition costs, steady-state costs represent permanent operating commitments that the City must sustain year after year. Early decisions regarding staffing authorization, leadership structure, and transition sequencing materially influence both near- term feasibility and long-term cost stability.

Overall, the risk presented to the City by transition and steady-state costs for City-operated service delivery is high.
1147

White Paper
Comparative Delivery Methods, Risks, and
Conditions for Success

23 Compliance Exposure
Under City-operated service delivery, the City retains full regulatory accountability for wastewater and stormwater performance. While direct operation can provide clearer visibility into system conditions and regulatory interactions, it also concentrates compliance responsibility within the City organization. Compliance outcomes depend on the adequacy of staffing, management systems, documentation practices, and response capability.

Compliance exposure is most acute during transition, when organizational structures, procedures, and staffing are still being established. Over the long term, maintaining compliance requires sustained institutional capacity and disciplined management pract ices, regardless of the delivery model selected.

Overall, the risk presented to the City by compliance exposure for City-operated service delivery is high.

Internal Pathway and Decision Gates
Under a City-operated service delivery model, transition does not occur through an external procurement process with discrete contractual milestones. Instead, the pathway relies on a series of internal organizational decisions that collectively function as decision gates. These decisions are less formalized than procurement approvals but are more consequential, as they establish permanent staffing, governance, and operational structures that must be in place before the City can assume direct responsibility for wastewater and stormwater operations.

While an external O&M procurement is not required, significant internal approvals and labor, budget, and classification actions still carry schedule and feasibility risk comparable in magnitude to formal procurement milestones.

While these internal decision gates do not occur through a single governing body action, their sequencing and timing are critical. Delays or misalignment among these decisions can compress the transition window, limit readiness, and materially increase ope rational and regulatory risk as the City approaches the end of the existing contract term.

Ideal Major Phases and Duration
Durations shown are “planning-level, best-case ranges.” Both pathways carry material schedule risk from approvals, labor processes, and readiness dependencies, which must be explicitly linked to the Veolia contract end date and transition continuity requirements. In practice, several phases will occur concurrently. However, because critical tasks are constrained by approval sequencing, hiring and certification lead times, and transition dependencies, the planning-level best-case calendar remains approximately 24 months. Durations are not additive but rather represent typical ranges for discrete activities. Overall calendar time is governed by critical-path dependencies.

1. Internal Planning and Readiness (1–2 months)
This phase focuses on defining the scope and scale of services to be assumed by the City and assessing readiness requirements. Key activities include identifying governance and leadership needs, clarifying operational responsibilities, and evaluating staff ing, certification, and training requirements necessary to support direct operation.

2. Organizational Design and Authorization (2–4 months) During this phase, the City establishes the organizational structure required to support in - house operations. This includes defining reporting relationships, management authority, and accountability for operations and compliance. Formal authorization of staffing 1148

White Paper
Comparative Delivery Methods, Risks, and
Conditions for Success

24 levels, position classifications, and budget allocations occurs during this phase, creating long-term institutional commitments.

3. Workforce Recruitment and Certification (3–6 months) The City initiates recruitment of licensed operators, supervisors, maintenance personnel, and compliance staff. Certification, training, and onboarding timelines represent hard constraints that are largely outside the City’s control. Recruitment and traini ng activities must proceed while systems remain operational and subject to ongoing regulatory oversight.

4. Systems, Processes, and Compliance Readiness (3–6 months) This phase includes establishing compliance management systems, documentation protocols, reporting processes, and operational procedures. Regulatory coordination, inspection readiness, and internal controls must be implemented before operational responsibility is assumed. These activities often overlap with workforce onboarding and knowledge transfer.

5. Operational Transition and Assumption of Control (1–3 months) The transition period involves knowledge transfer from the incumbent operator, ramp -up of City staff, and gradual assumption of day-to-day operational responsibility. Oversight intensity and compliance exposure are highest during this period, as new system s, staff, and processes are tested under live operating conditions.

Executive and Council Decision Points
The internal decision pathway includes several key decision points that function as decision gates for City-operated delivery:

1. Authorization of staffing levels, classifications, and compensation frameworks

2. Approval of organizational structure and leadership authority

3. Budget authorization for transition activities and ongoing operations

4. Approval to initiate recruitment, certification, and training programs

5. Authorization to assume direct operational responsibility Unlike procurement approvals, these decisions establish long-term organizational and financial commitments. Once executed, they are difficult to reverse without operational disruption, workforce impacts, or additional cost.

Schedule and Transition Risks
Timing risk under a City-operated model is driven primarily by internal decision-making and workforce readiness. Recruitment, certification, and training timelines are fixed constraints that cannot be accelerated without increasing risk. Delays in authorizing staffing or organizational structure can compress the transition window and force overlapping activities to occur closer to the contract expiration date.

Transition activities must occur in tandem with ongoing operations, increasing the potential for operational strain and compliance exposure. As a result, schedule risk under this pathway is closely tied to the City’s ability to make coordinated decisions early enough to support readiness before assuming direct operational control.

Reversibility and Optionality
Internal decision gates under a City-operated model reduce optionality earlier than procurement-based pathways. Staffing authorizations, leadership appointments, and benefit 1149

White Paper
Comparative Delivery Methods, Risks, and
Conditions for Success

25 commitments create durable institutional structures that persist beyond the transition period.

Once operational responsibility is assumed, reversing course would require additional transition effort and introduce new operational and compliance risk. As a result, optionality decreases rapidly once internal decision gates are passed, underscoring the importance of sequencing and readiness prior to transition.

Decision Gate Implications
City-operated service delivery requires earlier and more consequential internal decisions than procurement-based pathways. While this model can provide greater operational control over time, its feasibility and risk profile are highly sensitive to decision timing, staffing availability, and organizational readiness. Failure to align internal decision gates with recruitment, certification, and compliance readiness increases the likelihood of transition instability and regulatory exposure, particularly as the City approaches the existing contract horizon.

Alignment with Veolia Contract End Date
Under a City-operated service delivery model, alignment with the 2027 expiration of the Veolia contract is impacted primarily by internal readiness rather than external procurement milestones.

Unlike competitive procurement, which allows transition activities to be structured contractually, in-house delivery requires that staffing, governance, systems, and compliance capacity be substantially in place before the City can assume direct operational responsibility.

The ability to align an in-house transition with the contract end date depends on the City completing a series of interdependent internal decision gates well in advance of 2027, including staffing authorization, recruitment and certification of operators, establishment of management and compliance systems, and knowledge transfer from the incumbent operator. Recruitment and certification timelines represent hard constraints, and delays in internal approvals or staffing can compress the transition window, increasing operational and regulatory risk.

As a result, effective alignment under a City-operated model requires earlier decision-making and sustained coordination than procurement-based pathways. If readiness milestones are not achieved in time, the City may face heightened transition risk at contract expiration or the need to pursue interim arrangements to preserve service continuity and compliance.

Pathway 3: Asset Transfer
General Risk Discussion
Communication outreach triggered a brief assessment of a third pathway that would entail the City selling its wastewater operations assets to a public entity. Under an asset transfer delivery pathway, the City would sell or transfer its wastewater enterprise to another public agency. An asset transfer delivery pathway would be subject to restrictive bond covenants securing outstanding debt and require protection of bondholders, ratings, and pledged revenues. Any proceeds attained through the sale of assets would be restricted to debt redemption or system reinvestment.

As the asset transfer delivery pathway moves wastewater operational authority outside of the City’s direct control, the same risk assessment, pathway analysis, and cost implications considered in Pathways 1 and 2 do not apply. Asset transfer would introduce high legal, financial, and schedule risk. The significant bond covenant and debt constraints introduce considerable legal and financial risks while limiting financial flexibility. The process would be dependent on regulatory, Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) approval, and public 1150

White Paper
Comparative Delivery Methods, Risks, and
Conditions for Success

26 processes, introducing political uncertainty. Benefits retained by the City rely on interest and terms offered by a public acquirer, which are uncertain.

One option explored in greater depth was an asset transfer to West County Wastewater District (WCWD). According to WCWD, the asset transfer process would not be assumed by the May 2027 contract expiration date. Although WCWD has not ruled out long-term strategic consolidation of assets over at least a five- to seven-year timeframe, any agreements would be subject to an extensive analysis of assets, revenue structure, enforcement authority, rate impacts, and governance. Additionally, WCWD has noted that an assumption of the City's assets would require WCWD to nearly double its workforce. Additional limitations would arise due to ongoing internal capital and grant-funded initiatives, as well as the scale of investment required.

WCWD has agreed to consider long-term consolidation at a future board meeting; viability of Pathway 3 is contingent on agreement from the WCWD Board.

Planning-Level Schedule and Financial Feasibility
Context
At a planning level and under best-case conditions, the asset transfer process is anticipated to take at least 42 to 84 months. Major phases would include:
• Threshold feasibility confirmation, ~3-6 months
• Policy direction and authorization to explore, ~6-12 months • Financial structuring and bond resolution, ~6-12 months • Market engagement and negotiation, ~9-18 months
• Regulatory and inter-agency approval, ~12-24 months
• Transition and implementation, ~6-12 months
Even under a best-case scenario, the timeline materially exceeds the 2027 contract horizon and would require interim operating arrangements, introducing additional cost and compliance risk.

Sale proceeds are constrained by the bond covenant arrangements and will likely be limited due to debt redemption or defeasance rather than discretionary use. The transaction, advisory, and restructuring costs would be material and incurred prior to realization of net benefit, further increasing the financial risks involved. The ultimate financial outcome depends on how acquirer terms, negotiated valuation methodology, outstanding debt structure, and regulatory conditions would limit the City’s financial flexibility. At this planning level, cost impacts are characterized by high uncertainty and risk. Anticipated planning-level cost context is provided (Table 5) but cannot be evaluated on a comparable basis to retained-ownership models due to legal and structural constraints.

Table 5: Anticipated Planning-Level Cost Context, Pathway 3 1151

White Paper
Comparative Delivery Methods, Risks, and
Conditions for Success

27 Cost Element Pathway 3 – Asset Transfer to
Public Provider
Planning-Level Range
(2025 dollars)
Pathway 3 - Asset Transfer to
Public Provider: Basis for
Range
Annual O&M Cost N/A* Rate-based costs incurred
by acquiring city post
transfer
1152

White Paper
Comparative Delivery Methods, Risks, and
Conditions for Success

28 Cost Element Pathway 3 – Asset Transfer to
Public Provider
Planning-Level Range
(2025 dollars)
Pathway 3 - Asset Transfer to
Public Provider: Basis for
Range
Owner-Side Cost Elevated during transaction
and transition
Planning level ranges are
dependent on regulatory,
legal, and service
obligations. Values require
more additional analysis
Capital Delivery Cost N/A* Capital cost assumed by
acquiring agency post
transfer
Bond Cost 2017A Bond (to 2048):

Principal: $26,955,000
Interest: $28,736,263 Total:
$55,691,263
2017A Bond (to 2048):

Principal: $22,510,000
Interest: $21,211,550 Total:
$43,721,550
2017A Bond (to 2048):

Principal: $60,975,000
Interest: $22,422,475 Total:
$83,397,475
Supplied by City of
Richmond
Primary Cost Drivers Outstanding bonded debt and covenant restrictions |Bond defeasance, redemption,
or revenue-continuity requirements |Legal,
financial, and regulatory advisory costs |
LAFCO and permit approval processes |
Negotiation leverage and terms offered by
acquiring agency | Rate harmonization
and customer transition considerations

1153

White Paper
Comparative Delivery Methods, Risks, and
Conditions for Success

29 Considering the bond restrictions and multi-layered regulatory and approval requirements involved, an asset transfer pathway would translate to limited predictability of costs and timeline. Overall, the asset transfer pathway has an execution risk designation of extremely high.

The asset transfer pathway has been screened out as infeasible within the 2027 horizon. This determination is driven by bond covenants, regulatory approval requirements, and execution risk, not by any general view on asset transfers as a concept. The remaining analysis focuses on Pathways 1 and 2.

Provider-Informed Operating Context
The purpose of this section is to ground the evaluation of the two service delivery pathways in real-world operating experience rather than theoretical models. Input from private operators and public agencies is used to illustrate how governance structures, staffing approaches, and risk allocation function in practice under both City-operated and externally delivered arrangements, including where challenges most commonly arise. This perspective helps avoid abstract or idealized assumptions and ensures that the analysis reflects practical constraints, market realities, and lessons learned from comparable systems.

Operating Experience Relevant to Competitive
Procurement
Private operators described operating environments in which outcomes are shaped not only by contractual terms, but by how governance and uncertainty are managed in practice. While contracts establish responsibilities and pricing, operators emphasized that sustained City engagement, clearly defined authority, and consistent oversight are critical to maintaining alignment over time, particularly in complex, regulated systems. Regular communication, well - understood expectations, and defined escalation pathways help maintain focus across system components and regulatory programs; where oversight is intermittent or primarily reactive, priorities can drift gradually, increasing the risk of misalignment that may not be immediately visible.

Staffing constraints were described as a persistent condition rather than a transitional issue.

Operators reported ongoing difficulty recruiting and retaining licensed and experienced personnel due to statewide labor shortages, competition with public agen cies, and retirement- driven attrition. Even large operators rely on a limited pool of qualified staff, reducing flexibility and increasing sensitivity to turnover. As a result, staffing assumptions embedded in contracts require ongoing attention, and service continuity can be affected by vacancies or turnover even under experienced operators.

Operators emphasized that asset condition uncertainty remains a significant source of operational complexity. Incomplete information related to underground assets, system configuration, and maintenance history often surfaces during inspections, cleaning, o r emergency response rather than at contract execution. While uncertainty may be addressed financially through contractual assumptions and pricing, it frequently requires operational judgment, coordination, and City involvement during execution and can inc rease workload, repeat effort, or deferred resolution over time.

Regulatory compliance execution was described as highly dependent on alignment between contractual roles and permit obligations. Operators can perform monitoring, reporting, and corrective actions on behalf of the City, but regulatory accountability remain s with the permittee. When roles, documentation standards, or response authority are unclear, 1154

White Paper
Comparative Delivery Methods, Risks, and
Conditions for Success

30 compliance risk can increase due to coordination delays or inconsistent interpretation, particularly during inspections or enforcement actions.

From a cost perspective, operators noted that uncertainty related to asset condition, staffing availability, and regulatory expectations often manifests through conservative operating approaches rather than discrete cost line items. Additional inspections, staffing redundancy, or reactive maintenance may be required to manage unknowns, even if these efforts are not immediately visible in annual budgets. Over time, these dynamics can influence cost stability, contract performance, and renewal conditions.

Operating Experience Relevant to Pathways 1 and 2
Public agency operators described governance, staffing, and risk considerations that are relevant to both City-operated and competitively procured service delivery pathways, particularly where responsibility for compliance, asset condition, and long -term investment must be aligned with authority.. From their perspective, successful arrangements require clear authority over operations, rates, capital planning, and enforcement, rather than a vendor -style contractual relationship. Public agencies emphasized that they cannot operate effectively without durable governance structures that align responsibility with authority. Attempts to lay operational responsibility onto agencies without corresponding decision-making power were described as unworkable, particularly for systems with significant infrastructure needs or compliance challenges. Past joint governance structures, such as joint pow ers authorities, were cited as administratively burdensome and difficult to sustain without strong alignment and long - term commitments.

From a staffing and risk perspective, public agencies described a fundamentally different operating posture than private providers. Staffing is viewed as a long-term institutional function rather than a contract-specific obligation, with greater emphasis on stability, training, and retention. While labor markets remain constrained, established public agencies noted relative success attracting qualified staff due to organizational stability and public -sector employment conditions. At the same time, agencies were clear that they are unwilling to absorb disproportionate operational, financial, or regulatory risk associated with another municipality’s system without strong financial protections and capital commitments.

Common points of misalignment with municipalities include expectations that public agencies can assume operational responsibility without addressing underlying asset condition, funding gaps, or enforcement limitations. Public providers emphasized that to s ucceed, City-operated or public-sector delivery requires clear governance authority, protection of ratepayers, transparency around asset condition and liabilities, and alignment on long -term investment responsibilities before any transition or consolidation can be considered.

Planning Level Cost Across Pathways 1
and 2
The planning-level ranges shown in this section are intended to support apples-to-apples comparison between service delivery pathways at a screening level. They represent order -of- magnitude, directional estimates (2025 dollars) based on available budget co ntext, contract history signals, and California utility management/oversight norms. These ranges are not bids and should be refined through the next phase (scope definition, market outreach, staffing plan development, and validation of capital delivery assumptions). The planning level cost analysis 1155

White Paper
Comparative Delivery Methods, Risks, and
Conditions for Success

31 incorporates annual O&M cost, owner-side cost, capital delivery cost, and transition cost impact.

Annual O&M Cost Description
Annual O&M costs represent the ongoing expenditures required to operate, maintain, and support the wastewater system on a day-to-day basis to meet service, regulatory, and safety requirements. These costs include routine operations staffing (or contracted service fees), maintenance activities, utilities, chemicals, routine equipment repair and replacement, compliance monitoring and reporting execution, and operational support functions directly tied to system performance. Annual O&M costs exclude owner-side governance and oversight costs, major capital rehabilitation or expansion, and one-time transition or startup expenses.

Under a competitive procurement model, annual O&M costs primarily reflect the contractor’s service fee and reimbursable operating expenses, inclusive of the contractor’s internal staffing, management, and overhead. Under a City-operated model, annual O&M costs reflect direct City labor, benefits, supervision, training, operational support, and internal service allocations necessary to deliver equivalent service levels. While the service outcomes are intended to be comparable, the cost structure and risk allocation differ by pathway, resulting in different planning-level O&M cost ranges.

Owner-Side Cost Description
Owner-side costs represent the City’s non-delegable governance, regulatory, financial, and oversight functions that exist under all service delivery models. This representation is because the City remains the asset owner and named permittee. These functions include program and contract management, procurement and contract administration, regulatory compliance oversight and regulator interface, financial/rate oversight, capital program governance, legal and audit coordination, labor relations (as applicable), safety, and risk management. Owner- side costs exclude field operations labor and contractor O&M service fees (or in -house operations labor) and exclude direct construction costs.

Capital Delivery Cost Description
Capital delivery costs represent the fully loaded costs required to plan, design, manage, construct, inspect, test, and place capital projects into service, expressed as a percentage of direct construction or rehabilitation expenditures at a planning level . These costs include program and project management, engineering and design services, construction management and inspection, contract administration, permitting and regulatory coordination, quality assurance/quality control, commissioning, documentation, and closeout activities.

Capital delivery costs do not represent the cost of physical construction itself, but rather the supporting functions necessary to successfully deliver capital work.

Capital delivery costs vary by service delivery pathway based on how responsibilities, risks, and management functions are allocated. Under competitive procurement, portions of capital delivery may be embedded within contract pricing or performed by the se rvice provider, potentially reducing direct City delivery workload but not eliminating owner accountability.

Under a City-operated model, the City retains a larger share of direct capital delivery responsibility, requiring expanded internal program management, engineering oversight, and administrative capacity. The planning-level percentages shown are intended to reflect these structural differences rather than project-specific efficiencies or performance outcomes. 1156

White Paper
Comparative Delivery Methods, Risks, and
Conditions for Success

32 Transition Cost Impact Description
Transition cost impacts represent one-time or time-limited cost effects associated with shifting from the current service delivery structure to an alternative model. These impacts may include startup or wind-down activities, recruitment and onboarding, training and certification, knowledge transfer, parallel operations during transition, procurement and contracting costs, system integration, policy or labor actions, and short-term inefficiencies that typically occur during organizational change. Transition costs are shown as a temporary uplift or offset relative to steady-state annual costs and are not recurring expenses.

Transition cost impacts vary significantly by pathway due to differences in transition complexity, staffing ramp-up requirements, institutional knowledge transfer, and risk management needs. A transition to a City-operated model generally requires greater upfront investment and lead time to establish staffing, management systems, and compliance infrastructure. A transition under competitive procurement may involve lower or offsetting short-term impacts if responsibilities shift to the contractor, but still requires City resources for procurement, contract mobilization, and oversight. The planning-level ranges presented are directional and intended to inform comparative decision-making rather than predict exact transition expenditures.

Planning-Level Cost Context Breakdown
The planning-level cost ranges summarized in Table 5 below are intended to provide a structured, comparative framework for evaluating alternative service delivery pathways rather than precise cost estimates or bid-level pricing. Each range reflects a synthesis of multiple information sources, including published industry benchmarks, comparable agency budget experience, City contract history, and professional judgment applied at a screening level. To support transparency, each cost category is tied to a defined source basis:

1. (a) published benchmarks and industry references;

2. (b) comparable agency experience, including operating and capital context from the West County Wastewater District;

3. (c) City of Richmond contract history signals, including the current Veolia agreement; and

4. (d) professional judgment assumptions used to normalize costs across differing delivery models.

As shown in Table 6, annual O&M ranges are grounded in professional judgment informed by utility budgeting norms and validated for reasonableness against peer agency expenditure scales. Owner-side cost percentages are derived from documented California utility oversight benchmarks and are applied as a percentage of O&M to reflect the City’s non -delegable governance workload under each model. Capital delivery cost percentages represent fully loaded program delivery allowances and reflect a combination of City contract history context, public-sector delivery benchmarks, and professional judgment regarding differing management and risk structures. Transition cost impacts represent one-time, directional uplifts or offsets associated with implementation complexity and are based primarily on professional judgment informed by prior transition experience and contract context.

Collectively, these ranges are intended to inform policy-level discussion and trade-off evaluation, with the understanding that actual costs would be refined through subsequent scoping, market engagement, and detailed implementation planning.

1157

White Paper
Comparative Delivery Methods, Risks, and
Conditions for Success

33 Table 6: Planning Level Cost Matrix
Cost Element Competitive
Procurement Service
Delivery:

Planning-Level
Range
(2025 dollars)

Competitive
Procurement
Service Delivery:

Basis for Range
City-Operated
Service Delivery
Planning-Level
Range
(2025 dollars)
City-Operated
Service Delivery:

Basis for Range
Annual O&M
Cost
~$15-25M Industry standard
references;

BACWA, CWEA,
APWA peer
practices
~$19-31M Comparable
agency
experience; West
County
Owner-Side
Cost %
~4% to 7% Industry standard
references; Bay-
Area
Benchmarks
~7% to 12% Industry standard
references;

BACWA, CWEA,
APWA peer
practices
Capital Delivery
Cost %
~40% Industry standard
references and
current contract
history
~65% Comparable
agency
experience; West
County
Transition Cost
Uplift %
~-5% to +10% Industry standard
references
~+15% to +35%
above baseline
Industry standard
references
Primary Cost
Drivers
Contract pricing
structure, Cost
volatility embedded
risk premiums,
operator staffing
model, contract
governance and
oversight, change
orders and renewals

- Staffing,
administrative and
compliance
overhead, asset
condition, labor
market volatility

-

1158

White Paper
Comparative Delivery Methods, Risks, and
Conditions for Success

34 Decision Support
The Decision Support Matrix is a comparative, planning-level tool designed to help frame trade- offs among alternative service delivery pathways. The matrix is not intended to produce a predetermined ranking or final recommendation. Rather, the matrix synth esizes multiple qualitative and semi-quantitative considerations into a consistent framework to support policy discussion and identify areas where further analysis may be warranted.

Scoring Scale
Matrix scores are directional and based on stated assumptions, available documentation, and professional judgment informed by utility operations experience, comparable agency practices, and an understanding of California regulatory and governance requireme nts. Where quantitative data were not available or appropriate, qualitative assessment was used to normalize differences in organizational structure and risk allocation.

Each criterion in the matrix is scored on a 1–5 scale, where scores reflect relative implementation complexity, risk exposure, and feasibility from the City’s perspective—not cost magnitude or service quality outcomes.
● 1 = Lower relative complexity / risk; higher feasibility ● 3 = Moderate complexity / risk; manageable with standard mitigation ● 5 = Higher complexity / risk; greater implementation challenge and uncertainty Scores are relative across pathways, meaning a higher score does not imply that an option is infeasible, only that it presents greater execution challenges or governance demands compared to alternatives.

Analytical Drivers for Scoring Scale
Scores for each pathway were informed by a consistent set of analytical drivers applied across all criteria. The combination and relative weighting of these drivers vary by criterion but were applied consistently across service delivery pathways to ensure comparability. These drivers include, but are not limited to:
● Staffing availability and capacity (e.g., recruitment feasibility, certification requirements, management depth)
● Governance and oversight burden (e.g., degree of City management, contract administration, compliance oversight)
● Transition lead times and execution risk (e.g., startup duration, parallel operations, institutional knowledge transfer)
● Procurement and contracting constraints (e.g., market response risk, procurement complexity, contract enforceability)
● Regulatory accountability and risk allocation (e.g., permittee responsibility, compliance exposure, enforcement authority)
Decision Support Matrix
The matrix (shown in Table 7) should be interpreted as a decision-support aid, not a definitive evaluation. In Table 7, highlights relative strengths, constraints, and risk considerations associated with each pathway to inform Council deliberation and identify where additional due diligence, 1159

White Paper
Comparative Delivery Methods, Risks, and
Conditions for Success

35 refinement, or mitigation strategies may be appropriate. The matrix is forward -looking and does not evaluate past contractor performance or historical cost variability. Any references to cost context elsewhere in the analysis are intended solely to inform planning-level assumptions and should not be interpreted as assessments of existing service providers.

Table 7: Decision Support Matrix
Evaluation Criteria Competitive Procurement
Service Delivery
City-Operated Service
Delivery
Staffing and Labor Market
Constraints Risk
1 5
Long-term Labor and
Retirement Obligations Risk
1 5
Governance and
Management Burden Risk
3 5
Transition vs Steady-State
Cost Separation Risk
1 5
Compliance Exposure Risk 5 5
Procurement Pathway and
Decision Gates Risk
3 5

Conditions for Success Across Pathways
1 and 2
Regardless of which service delivery model the City ultimately chooses, there are several foundational conditions that must be in place for wastewater and stormwater services to be delivered reliably and in compliance with regulatory requirements. While th e options discussed in this memorandum differ in how work is performed and risks are shared, none of them remove the City’s responsibility as the system owner and regulated entity. In practice, outcomes are driven less by the delivery model itself and more by whether the City has the governance, staffing, information, and oversight capacity needed to manage that model effectively. The conditions outlined below apply across all options and represent baseline requirements, not optional improvements, which must be addressed to reduce risk, control costs, and ensure long-term service reliability.
1160

White Paper
Comparative Delivery Methods, Risks, and
Conditions for Success

36 Common Requirements

1. Asset Condition Visibility
The City must have a clear and current understanding of the condition of its wastewater and stormwater assets, including treatment facilities, collection systems, pump stations, and stormwater infrastructure. Without reliable condition information, it is difficult to prioritize maintenance and capital investments, manage risk, or accurately assess costs under any delivery model. Improved visibility into asset condition reduces uncertainty, supports regulatory compliance, and allows the City to make informed decisions regardless of whether services are delivered in-house or by an external entity.

2. Clear Governance and Accountability
Effective service delivery requires clearly defined roles, decision-making authority, and accountability for performance and compliance. Whether operations are performed by City staff or through an external service provider, the City must establish who is responsible for oversight, how issues are escalated, and how performance is monitored and enforced. Ambiguity in governance increases the risk of missed maintenance, delayed response to compliance issues, and inefficient use of resources across all delivery models.

3. Adequate City Staffing and Expertise
All delivery models require the City to retain sufficient internal staffing and technical expertise to fulfill its role as system owner and regulated entity. This includes the ability to oversee operations, review reports, coordinate with regulators, manage contracts or interagency agreements, and respond to emergencies. Without adequate internal capacity, the City’s ability to manage risk, control costs, and ensure service reliability is reduced, regardless of who performs day-to-day operations.

4. Budget Predictability Mechanisms
The City must have mechanisms in place to manage cost uncertainty and maintain budget stability over time. This includes aligning budgets with service expectations, planning for labor and energy cost fluctuations, and establishing clear approaches for handling unforeseen maintenance or regulatory requirements. Budget predictability supports long-term financial planning and helps prevent reactive decision-making that can increase costs or compromise service quality under any delivery model.

No-Regret Actions
The actions below represent steps the City can support now that provide value under any future operational or governance model. They respond to recurring issues identified in the City’s planning documents and are intended to strengthen decision-making, clarity, and flexibility regardless of which option is ultimately selected. Each action improves the City’s overall position while preserving discretion over future structure, sequencing, and implementation.

1. Initiate Condition Assessment Planning
The City should initiate planning for a comprehensive condition assessment of its wastewater and stormwater assets. Establishing scope, priorities, and timing now is essential to reducing uncertainty, supporting capital planning, and enabling informed decisions under any service delivery model. Advancing this work is a necessary first step for both continued outsourcing and any form of insourcing.

2. Strengthen Contract Oversight Capacity
The City should strengthen its internal capacity for contract oversight, technical review, 1161

White Paper
Comparative Delivery Methods, Risks, and
Conditions for Success

37 and performance monitoring, including contract management where external providers are used. Regardless of who performs day-to-day operations, the City remains responsible for regulatory compliance and system outcomes. Enhancing oversight capability is critical to managing risk, enforcing accountability, and protecting the City’s interests under all delivery models.

3. Clarify City Risk Tolerance
The City should explicitly define its risk tolerance with respect to cost volatility, staffing responsibility, and operational control. Clear direction on these priorities will help align future decisions, guide sequencing of next steps, and avoid misalignment between policy objectives and operational realities.

Advancing these actions in the near-term will materially reduce risk, improve governance readiness, and position the City to make a defensible service delivery decision without prematurely committing to a specific model.

Conclusions and Recommendations
This planning-level assessment evaluated alternative service delivery pathways using a consistent analytical framework that integrates operational considerations, owner -side governance requirements, capital delivery implications, transition complexity, and cost context.

The analysis confirms that while both Pathways 1 and 2 are technically viable within the 2027 horizon, Pathway 1 (competitive procurement) presents the lowest overall execution risk. Overall, both pathways present materially different risk profiles, governance burdens, and implementation demands that must be carefully weighed in policy decision -making.

A key conclusion of this assessment effort is that the City retains non-delegable regulatory, financial, and governance accountability under all service delivery models. While competitive procurement can shift day-to-day operations and staffing responsibilities, it does not eliminate the City’s obligations for contract administration, performance verification, compliance oversight, and enforcement. Conversely, a City-operated model expands internal responsibility across operations, management, labor, safety, and compliance functions, requiring significantly greater organizational capacity and transition investment. These structural realities are reflected consistently across the planning-level cost context and the Decision Support Matrix.

The Decision Support Matrix indicates that relative differences among pathways are driven less by service feasibility and more by implementation complexity, staffing and governance demands, transition risk, and regulatory accountability. Competitive procurement pathways generally present lower near-term staffing and transition burdens but require sustained owner- side oversight and contract governance capacity. The city-operated pathway offers greater direct control but introduces higher transition complexity, longer lead times, and increased exposure to staffing availability, labor, and compliance risks during implementation.

Planning-level cost ranges further reinforce that no pathway eliminates owner-side costs, and that differences in annual O&M, capital delivery, and transition impacts are largely a function of how responsibilities and risks are allocated rather than differences in service outcomes. These cost ranges are directional and intended to support comparative evaluation; refinement would be required prior to any implementation decision.

The next phase of this project should be utilized to conduct the following exercise:

1. Refine contract structure and performance requirements;

2. Validate cost assumptions and projections;
1162

White Paper
Comparative Delivery Methods, Risks, and
Conditions for Success

38 3. Incorporate feedback from private and public providers; and

4. Revisit long-term delivery strategy as information and capacity mature.

Practical Near-Term Path Forward
The analysis in this memorandum indicates that, given the 2027 contract horizon, the City’s immediate priority is not deferring action, but rather advancing a deliberate, near -term path that preserves service continuity while reducing execution risk. While a final service delivery decision need not be made immediately, the City must begin moving forward now to maintain viable options, strengthen governance readiness, and avoid compressed timelines that could elevate operational or compliance risk.

Given current information gaps, labor market constraints, and regulatory pressures, a phased and pragmatic approach is warranted; specifically, one that prioritizes near-term actions aligned with the longest lead-time requirements. In practice, this means focusing first on activities that are necessary to keep Pathway 1 (Competitive Procurement) viable, while continuing to refine information that would be required to support any alternative pathway.

Advancing these steps does not preclude future decisions but rather ensures that the City retains flexibility and negotiating leverage as the contract horizon approaches.

If the City elects to advance Pathway 1, required services would be competitively procured. To do so responsibly and within the available timeframe, the City must complete several foundational actions in advance of issuing a solicitation, including definin g service scope and performance expectations; establishing a clear governance and risk framework; developing pricing and compensation structures; preparing legal and contractual terms; and coordinating internally across departments. In parallel, the City must develop a transparent evaluation framework, including defined criteria, scoring methodology, and proposer engagement processes to support consistent cost, risk, and capability comparisons.

Following proposal evaluation and provider selection, early coordination with the selected provider is essential to ensure a smooth transition prior to contract commencement.

Accordingly, transition requirements—including scope alignment, performance standards, governance and enforcement mechanisms, risk and cost resolution, mobilization planning, and legal and financial due diligence—should be clearly defined before the solicitation is issued, rather than deferred until after award.

Based on typical procurement and transition lead times, the following planning -level schedule reflects a realistic sequence for advancing competitive procurement while maintaining service continuity:
● Procurement Planning: January–March 2026 (confirm timeline is sufficient to complete consultant procurement, scope development, and Council authorization before issuing solicitation)
● Solicitation Development and Release: March–May 2026
● Proposal Evaluation: May–June 2026
● Negotiations: June–July 2026
● Governing Body Approvals: July–August 2026
● Transition Window: August 2026–April 2027
● Current Contract End Date: May 2027
1163

White Paper
Comparative Delivery Methods, Risks, and
Conditions for Success

39 Taken together, these near-term actions represent a necessary and time-sensitive path forward, not a premature commitment. By advancing procurement readiness, improving visibility into asset condition and maintenance needs, and strengthening internal oversi ght and compliance capacity, the City will be positioned to make a defensible, well-informed service delivery decision ahead of the 2027 contract horizon. This approach recognizes the realities of the timeline while allowing the City to move forward deliberately, manage risk, and preserve future decision-making flexibility.

What the City Can Do Moving Forward

1. Actions That Preserve Optionality while meeting the 2027 timeline To avoid foreclosing future choices while recognizing the 2027 contract horizon, the City should focus on near-term actions that maintain flexibility across service delivery pathways and support timely decision-making. Preserving optionality in this context does not mean deferring action; rather, it means advancing preparatory steps that are necessary to keep multiple pathways viable without committing prematurely to a single end state.
a. These actions include initiating planning for systemwide condition assessment, improving visibility into asset condition and maintenance backlogs, and continuing to refine staffing and oversight requirements that would apply under any delivery model. In parallel, the City should advance procurement readiness activities (such as scope definition, governance frameworks, and evaluation criteria) that are required to preserve the feasibility of a competitive procurement within the available timeframe. Taken together, these steps allow the City to adapt to new information, market conditions, and regulatory developments while avoiding compressed timelines that could increase execution risk.

2. Actions That Reduce Future Risk Regardless of Pathway Selection At the same time, the City should take proactive steps to reduce risks that will persist regardless of the service delivery model ultimately selected. These actions include strengthening internal owner-side oversight capacity, clarifying roles and accountability for regulatory compliance, and formalizing expectations for performance monitoring, reporting, and enforcement. Improving data quality related to asset condition, staffing capacity, and operational performance will further reduce regulatory, financi al, and service continuity risk.
a. By advancing these risk-reduction measures now, the City can improve readiness for transition under any pathway, support smoother implementation, and protect compliance and service reliability as the 2027 contract horizon approaches.

What Should Be Sequenced

1. Decisions That Require More Information
Certain decisions should be intentionally sequenced after the City improves visibility into system conditions and operational requirements, rather than advanced prematurely.

These include committing to long-term service delivery arrangements beyond the upcoming contract horizon, finalizing staffing models for full City-operated service delivery, and making definitive assumptions about long-term cost outcomes. Advancing these decisions without sufficient information (particularly regarding asset condition, maintenance backlogs, capital needs, and compliance drivers) would increase the likelihood of cost escalation, regulatory exposure, and service disruption. 1164

White Paper
Comparative Delivery Methods, Risks, and
Conditions for Success

40 a. Sequencing these decisions to follow completion of targeted assessments and data validation will strengthen the defensibility of future recommendations, reduce the risk of rework, and support more informed policy decisions within the constraints of the 2027 timeline.

2. Decisions That Require Capacity Building
Other decisions should be sequenced to align with the development of internal City capacity and organizational readiness. These include assuming direct operational responsibility, materially reducing reliance on external operators, or implementing delivery models that require shared responsibility. Each of these paths demands sustained technical expertise, management depth, compliance infrastructure, and governance systems within the City.
a. Building this capacity requires time, structured investment, and deliberate planning. Sequencing decisions to follow demonstrable progress in staffing, training, oversight systems, and organizational readiness will help ensure that any transition improves service reliability and regulatory performance rather than introducing new execution or compliance risks.

Closing Note and Watearth’s Path Forward
The analysis in this memorandum underscores that successful wastewater and stormwater service delivery depends less on the specific model selected and more on how effectively that model is implemented, governed, and sustained over time. Either service deli very pathway can support reliable and compliant service if the City has the necessary governance structures, staffing capacity, and oversight mechanisms in place. Conversely, even a well -suited delivery model can produce poor outcomes if these foundational elements are not addressed. Focusing on readiness, accountability, and disciplined implementation would therefore be critical to achieving the City’s long-term service, regulatory, and financial objectives, regardless of the path ultimately chosen. For clarity and decision-making, Watearth and Team has identified the following next steps of this feasibility study:

1. Conduct Market Sounding Analysis Through RFI:

Watearth and team will conduct a structured market sounding through a Request for Information to better understand how private operators and public agencies currently structure governance, staffing, risk allocation, and operating models. This step will ref ine feasibility assumptions and ground future decisions in current market conditions without initiating procurement or vendor selection.

2. Develop Specific Vendor Pricing Where Appropriate:

Based on refined delivery model definitions, Watearth will develop vendor -specific pricing information where appropriate, using consistent assumptions and scope definitions. This step would translate high-level cost posture into comparable pricing inputs while maintaining transparency around assumptions and risk allocation.

3. Coordinate Community Outreach Event with Key Stakeholders:

Watearth will incorporate feedback from the ad-hoc committee. As well as assisting the City in planning and facilitating a community outreach process to communicate the purpose of the evaluation, present delivery model tradeoffs at a high level, and gather additional stakeholder input. Outreach would be designed to inform decision -making while managing expectations and avoiding premature commitments.

1165

White Paper
Comparative Delivery Methods, Risks, and
Conditions for Success

41 4. Conduct Final Economic Modeling:

Building on market sounding information, refined staffing assumptions, and vendor pricing, Watearth and team will conduct final economic modeling. This modeling will evaluate lifecycle costs, key cost drivers, and cost sensitivity across service delivery pathways. This analysis would provide a defensible financial basis for comparing options under consistent assumptions.

5. Provide Final Recommendation of a Single Delivery Model:

With completed market input, economic analysis, and stakeholder feedback, Watearth and team will synthesize findings and support the City in identifying a recommended delivery model. The recommendation will clearly articulate the rationale, associated risk s, implementation requirements, and conditions for success to support informed decision - making.

1166

White Paper
Comparative Delivery Methods, Risks, and
Conditions for Success

42 References
American Water Works Association (AWWA). Utility Governance: Best Practices for Water Utilities. https://www.awwa.org/programs/effective-utility-management-program/.

Arup. City of Richmond Insourcing Transition Memorandum. City of Richmond, Dec. 2025.

Boyle Engineering Corporation. City of Richmond Storm Drain Master Plan. City of Richmond, Nov. 2006.

California American Water. Wastewater Operations and Regulatory Compliance. California American Water, www.amwater.com/caaw.

California State Water Resources Control Board. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Program. State of California, www.waterboards.ca.gov.

California State Water Resources Control Board. Order R2-2019-0003. State of California.

California State Water Resources Control Board. Order R2-2024-0008. State of California.

California State Water Resources Control Board. Sanitary Sewer Systems General Order. State of California, www.waterboards.ca.gov.

California State Water Resources Control Board. Wastewater Operator Certification Program.

State of California, www.waterboards.ca.gov.

California Water Boards. Wastewater Operator Certification program (WWOCP), https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/operator_certification/operato r_certification.html.

City of Richmond. CPI-Adjusted Payment Summary for Veolia Wastewater Services. City of Richmond, 2025.

City of Richmond. Richmond Wastewater Treatment Plant Facility Plan. Final Draft, Oct. 2016.

City of Richmond. Risk Workshop Findings. Sept. 2025.

City of Richmond, California. Fiscal Year 2023–24 Water Resource Recovery Operating Budget.

City of Richmond, Feb. 2024.

City of Richmond, California. Storm Drain Master Plan Update. Final Report, Mar. 2021.

City of Richmond, California. Wastewater Collection System Master Plan. Dec. 2019.

City of Richmond, California, and Veolia Water North America. Amendment One to the City of Richmond Wastewater Treatment Facility Capital Improvements, Operations, Maintenance and Management Agreement. Sept. 2004.

City of Richmond, California, and Veolia Water North America. City of Richmond Wastewater Treatment Facility Capital Improvements, Operations, Maintenance and Management Agreement. May 2002.

City of Richmond, California, and Veolia Water North America. Contract Amendments (2007– 2018). City of Richmond Public Works Department.

City of Richmond Municipal Sewer District. Force Main System Condition Assessment Report.

Prepared for Veolia Water North America, Jan. 2016.
1167

White Paper
Comparative Delivery Methods, Risks, and
Conditions for Success

43 City of Richmond Municipal Sewer District. Lift Station Master Plan. Oct. 2018.

Inframark. Water and Wastewater Operations Services. Inframark, www.inframark.com.

Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region. Waste Discharge Requirements and NPDES Permits for Municipal Wastewater and Stormwater Discharges .

California Environmental Protection Agency.

San Francisco Baykeeper. Settlement Agreements and Enforcement Actions Related to Municipal Wastewater and Stormwater Discharges. Baykeeper, www.baykeeper.org.

State Water Resources Control Board, California. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Program. California Environmental Protection Agency, www.waterboards.ca.gov.

State Water Resources Control Board, California. Sanitary Sewer Overflow Reduction Program and Sewer System Management Plan Requirements. California Environmental Protection Agency.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. America's Water Sector Workforce Initiative. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-
10/documents/americas_water_sector_workforce_initative.pdf.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. Capacity, Management, Operations, and Maintenance (CMOM) Program. EPA, www.epa.gov/npdes/npdes-capacity- management-operations-and-maintenance-program.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251–1387. U.S.

Government Publishing Office.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. Clean Water Act Compliance and Enforcement Guidance. https://www.epa.gov/compliance/clean-water-act-cwa-compliance- monitoring.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. Effective Utility Management: A Primer for Water and Wastewater Utilities. https://www.epa.gov/sustainable-water- infrastructure/effective-water-utility-management-practices.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. Financial Capability Assessment Guidance. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/02/03/2023-02288/final-updated- clean-water-act-financial-capability-assessment-guidance.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. Guide for Evaluating Capacity, Management, Operation, and Maintenance (CMOM) Programs at Sanitary Sewer Collection Systems .

EPA, Jan. 2005.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. NPDES Permit Basics. EPA, www.epa.gov/npdes.

West County Wastewater District. (2024). Annual comprehensive financial report (ACFR): Fiscal year ended June 30, 2024. https://www.wcwd.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/ACFR- FY24-Final.pdf
West County Wastewater District. (2024). Biennial budget: Fiscal years 2025–26 and 2026–27. https://wcwd.civicweb.net/document/112772/
1168

White Paper
Comparative Delivery Methods, Risks, and
Conditions for Success

44 West County Wastewater District. (2024). Budget document: Fiscal year 2024–25. https://www.wcwd.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/West-County-Wastewater-District- Budget-Document_July-2024.pdf
1169

White Paper
Comparative Delivery Methods, Risks, and
Conditions for Success

PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1170