CHEVRON REFINERY Historic Resource Evaluation Standard Oil Administration Building

Richmond, California

Final Report January 4, 2012 WJE No. 2011.4544

Prepared for: Perkins + Will 185 Berry St., Lobby One, Suite 5100, San Francisco, CA 94107

Prepared by: Michael R. Corbett, Architectural Historian 2161 Shattuck Avenue #203 Berkeley, California 94704

Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1650 Emeryville, California 94608 510.428.2907 tel | 510.428.0456 fax

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ...... 1 Summary of Findings ...... 1 Methodology ...... 1 DESCRIPTION...... 2 Setting ...... 2 Building ...... 2 Plan ...... 2 Structure, Materials, and Infrastructure ...... 4 Architecture ...... 5 DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY ...... 7 Historical Background ...... 7 The Company ...... 7 Richmond Refinery ...... 8 Administration Building ...... 10 Historical Context ...... 11 Development of Richmond ...... 11 Impact on Richmond ...... 14 Architecture of the Standard Oil Company ...... 14 Designers ...... 16 G.W. Kelham, Architect ...... 17 H.J. Brunnier, Engineer ...... 18 EVALUATION...... 18 Summary of Findings ...... 18 City of Richmond Historic Resource ...... 19 California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) ...... 20 National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) ...... 22 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 24

CHEVRON REFINERY Historic Resource Evaluation Standard Oil Administration Building

Richmond, California

INTRODUCTION At the request of Perkins + Will, on behalf of Chevron Products Company, Wiss Janney Elstner Associates Inc. (WJE), in conjunction with Michael Corbett, Architectural Historian has prepared a Historic Resource Evaluation of the Standard Oil Administration Building, located on the grounds of the Richmond Refinery, Richmond, California. This Historic Resource Evaluation has been developed in accordance with the requirements of the City of Richmond, and is intended to determine whether the structure qualifies as a historic resource under the criteria of Richmond‟s Historic Resource Code, and whether it may be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), and the National Register of Historic Places (NRHR).

Summary of Findings The Administration Building at the Richmond Refinery represents the transformation of the refinery from the old horse and railroad era to the new automobile era. It is significant in the architecture of the Standard Oil Company, presenting a powerful image of the role of the refinery in relation to the larger company.

The Administration Building at the Richmond Refinery is eligible for the California Register at the state level under CRHR criteria 1 and 3. Similarly, it appears to be eligible for the National Register under criteria A and C of the NRHP at the state level. The Administration Building at the Richmond Refinery is eligible as a historic resource under Richmond‟s historic resource code, and by its eligibility for listing on both the CRHR and the NRHP.

Methodology Site visits were made on the 7th and 23rd of November 2011. The current condition of the building was documented through field notes and photographs, and comparisons were made with the original plans to evaluate changes to the building over time.

Research on the property has included journals and other sources at the Environmental Design Library of the University of California, architectural and engineering plans of the building, online newspapers and other sources, Standard Oil publications and photographs at the Richmond Museum of History, and photographs and clipping files at the Richmond Public Library. Efforts were made to see the building permit file at the city building department but the material could not be located.

Research on the historical context has included research on the history of Richmond and the Standard Oil Company at the Richmond Public Library and the Richmond Museum of History; and research on the architect, the engineer, and the building type at the Environmental Design Library at the University of California. Information on the architect was also located at San Francisco Architectural Heritage. Gary Goss provided research in San Francisco newspapers and the Building and Engineering News. Chevron Refinery Historic Resource Evaluation Standard Oil Administration Building December 13, 2011 Page 2

DESCRIPTION Setting The Administration Building is located in the Chevron Refinery, formerly the Standard Oil Company, in Richmond. It is located at 841 Chevron Way within the fenced grounds of the refinery as part of a complex of three matching structures in a landscaped setting. The Administration Building sits next to the Laboratory Building, with a third building set back between them.

The buildings are located just west of a curve in the road and all are oriented to the northeast, facing the flat area that was the location of the utilitarian structures of the refinery when it was first built. Most or all of those earliest structures are gone and today the Administration group faces a large parking lot.

The Administration group is built on a raised terrace that slopes down to the street. The buildings are surrounded by a green lawn. A concrete sidewalk borders the street and a wide concrete stairway rises from the sidewalk to the front entrance of the Administration Building in two flights. The top flight is framed by granite pedestals with a bronze electrolier on each one.

Building Plan The Administration Building occupies a rectangular footprint measuring 118 feet across the front and rear and 85 feet 9 inches on the sides. Although it would ordinarily be described as a three-story building — there are three principal floors above ground — there is also a full basement, partially dug into the sloping site, and an attic floor with offices and work spaces. In addition, there is a small elevator machinery floor in the penthouse.

The basement and ground or first floor occupy the full rectangular dimensions of the footprint. The second and third floors are each in a U-plan with a central light court at the rear, measuring about 42 by 44 feet, exposing a section of the ground floor roof where large skylights originally lit the space below. The light court is off center so that the east wing (39 feet wide) is slightly larger than the west wing (37 feet wide). This asymmetry better accommodates an arrangement of the second and third floors with double-loaded corridors for a mix of private offices and special-use spaces in the east wing, and open, well-lit open floor spaces in the west wing.

The attic floor is also in a U-plan but because of the slope of the roof, the useable area is less than the full floor plate.

Ground Floor. The principal entrance to the building is along a central axis, up an exterior flight of stairs to an entrance lobby. The space expands from a smaller rectangle housing the entry stair inside the door to a larger square beyond. The square part of the lobby is intersected by a cross corridor that provides access to ground floor offices and serves as the entry point to the elevator and stairway to other floors. The cross corridor terminates in a secondary lobby at the west end of the building, where there is a secondary entrance from the outside. This double loaded corridor leads directly and indirectly to a mix of private offices, large work areas, and service spaces whose activities originally had a high volume of visitors and deliveries.

Chevron Refinery Historic Resource Evaluation Standard Oil Administration Building December 13, 2011 Page 3

At the east end of the floor was the Chief Shipping Clerk in a private office at the corner and the Shipping Department in an open office stretching to the rear of the building. Today, the Shipping Department space is partitioned into smaller offices. On the west side of the main lobby was the Information Office, with a window into the lobby. And at the west end, with a window into the secondary lobby, was the Refinery Cashier, apparently where refinery employees were paid. In between, across the front of the building were offices for stenographers and others. Stenographers were mostly women who took dictation or recorded meetings in shorthand or on stenotype machines and then transcribed their notes in complete language on typewriters.

Behind the cashier along the west side were connecting offices for the Adding Machine Room, Pay Roll Clerks, and for Mr. H. Fuller, perhaps the Chief Pay Roll Clerk.

At the center of the rear of the ground floor was a large open skylit area labeled Main Office, part of which is partitioned today.

In addition to these principal spaces on the ground floor there were toilets, a storage room, janitor‟s spaces, and two large vaults: one adjacent to the Refinery Cashier and one off the Main Office.

Second Floor. The second floor is the principal location of refinery executives. From the central vertical circulation core, a double-loaded corridor provides access to offices and spaces on this U-plan floor. Many of the offices along the front and east side were labeled for their first occupants, with Mr. John Brooks, Manager of the Richmond Refinery, at the northeast corner. Across the front were private offices for Mr. R.W. Hanna, Superintendent of the refinery, next to Brooks; Mr. D.W. Mason, Assistant Superintendent in the center; shared offices for Mr. Osborn and Mr. O‟Connor next to Mr. Mason and in the northwest corner, for Dr. Mann and J.B. Terry, chemist. There were also two offices for stenographers.

The second floor plan remains today largely as it was designed with two principal exceptions. The Marine Department at the rear of the east wing was subdivided into two roughly equal spaces. The biggest change has been the replacement of the open space of the Yield Department in the west wing with a double-loaded corridor and office.

Along the east side were private offices for Mr. Brooks‟ secretary, for Mr. Ivory and Mr. Dicely, and for Mr. E.D. Gray and two stenographers. At the rear of the west corridor was the Marine Department and Marine Superintendent.

On the west end of the floor, the west corridor originally ran only a few feet to a large open space for the Yield Department. Today, a corridor extends toward the rear with offices on either side where the Yield Department used to be. On the inside of the corridor were three spaces labeled Spare Office, two vaults, toilets, showers, and janitor‟s facilities.

Third Floor. The third floor provided supportive services and facilities to the offices and the refinery. The plan is similar to that of the second floor, except that there are fewer private offices and more group offices. At the front, the Mapping Room at the northeast corner ran more than half way to the rear of the east side, and the Engineering Clerks at the northwest corner were part of a series of unpartitioned spaces along the west side including File Clerks and a large Draughting Room at the rear. In between the corners along the front were three private offices, the label for only one of which is legible, for Mr. Zeitfuchs. At the rear of the east corridor was originally the library on the outside, the Kitchen on the inside, and the

Chevron Refinery Historic Resource Evaluation Standard Oil Administration Building December 13, 2011 Page 4

Officers Dining Room at the end of the corridor. A dumbwaiter adjacent to the Kitchen ran to all floors. Other interior spaces on this floor were two vaults, a storage room, toilets, janitor‟s facilities, and a Private Draughting Room.

The third floor plan today retains its original corridor. However, behind the doors that open off the corridor, most spaces have been subdivided into smaller offices. Only the three original private offices along the front remain as original spaces. The biggest change is the subdivision of the formerly open drafting room at the rear of the west wing with a double-loaded corridor and small offices.

Attic Floor Plan. The attic floor provided employee accommodations and technical facilities. The U-plan of the attic floor includes unfinished space along the exterior perimeter that is not usable because of the slope of the roof. There is also an irregular configuration of finished spaces along the interior court that extended to a dormer in the center of the west side.

As on the lower floors, the elevator and stairway open onto a corridor parallel with the front of the building. However, except for a storeroom on the outside, the corridor leads directly only to spaces clustered around the court. At the east end were a Women‟s Locker Room, Women‟s Toilet and large Rest Room for women. At the west end were rooms for Blue Printing and photographic processing including developing, Dark Rooms, and an Enlarging Room, and a Draughtsman‟s Locker Room.

Basement. The basement provided spaces for utilities and mechanical systems as well as a mix of other uses. As above, the spaces of the basement are organized along a corridor in a U-plan with an extension of the segment parallel to the front of the building to an exterior entrance and staircase at the west end. Outside spaces along the front and sides are exposed to light and air through windows on area ways. The rear is below grade and lacks natural light.

Utilities and building systems include Telephone Exchanges, a Telegraph Room adjacent to a Mail Room, a Fan Room, and a Battery Room, a separate room with “forced ventilation by means of exhaust fans” to minimize the potential for fires and explosions (Lord 1957: 1904), from “Primary Batteries” which “are used to a large extent as sources of electricity for telegraphing, signals, telephones, call-bell systems, and other purposes where very small amounts of power are required.” (Farmer 1930: 405). For employees there are men‟s and women‟s toilets and a Clerk‟s Locker Room. There are storage rooms, a vault, janitor‟s facilities, and a large Storage Vault at the rear. Related to the work upstairs were a Surveyor‟s Room at the front and a large Stationery Room along the east side. In the northeast corner was a small apartment with a bedroom and bath.

Structure, Materials, and Infrastructure The Administration Building was designed as a highly fire resistant structure of materials mostly considered “fire proof” at the time: foundations and structural frame of reinforced concrete, exterior walls of granite at the base and brick with terra cotta trim above, a tile roof, hollow clay tile interior partitions, interior walls of plaster and limited amounts of marble with wood trim, glazed wood doors and transoms, a bronze front door frame, Kalamine doors (wood stile and rail with a sheet metal panel) at dumbwaiter openings, wood windows, original floors of marble and terrazzo, and ceilings of plaster with decorative plaster in the lobby. Only the wood trim, doors, and windows were flammable materials.

Chevron Refinery Historic Resource Evaluation Standard Oil Administration Building December 13, 2011 Page 5

The reinforced concrete foundations, as shown in the original plans, consist of concrete columns, beams, girders, and floor slabs reinforced with steel bars and stirrups. Instead of a simple grid of footings and columns, there is a complex pattern of overlapping grids of footings and columns of different sizes. These grids are organized around the off-center vertical circulation core, a vertical stack of concrete vaults of varying sizes on each side of the building, the off-center light court, and the uneven widths of the east and west wings of the building.

The concrete frame is enclosed by a brick exterior wall over a granite-enclosed basement. This red brick wall of variable hues is laid in Flemish bond on the front and sides and in common bond on the rear and in the light court. The brick walls are embellished with terra cotta trim around the main entrance in belt courses, the eaves or cornices of the main building and penthouse, around second story windows, and in the third story and penthouse walls.

The building was heated by steam radiators with steam coming from elsewhere at the refinery. Ventilation was provided by a combination of a passive system — from windows on all sides and transoms over office doors — and a mechanical system that included a basement fan room and a main “fresh air duct” rising through all floors to an exhaust chimney on the roof. The building was also equipped with a centralized vacuum cleaner system and with a system of pneumatic tubes for delivery of documents within the building.

Architecture The appearance of the Administration Building can be described in terms of its composition, stylistic references, and materials. The front and sides of the building are each designed in the same two-part composition. Like a classical order, the granite-clad base and the two brick-clad stories above it that terminate in a terra cotta belt course are a design unit that constitute the lower part of the composition. The upper part of the composition is the brick clad attic story above the belt course. In the lower part, large windows are paired in two-story recessed panels. In the upper part smaller, single windows are spaced evenly across the facades. The windows are all wood double hung with single lites. The composition is topped by a hip roof with a central elevator penthouse that echoes the design of the building below.

The treatment of the two parts reflects the function of the interior. In the lower two floors, most pairs of windows correspond to single offices occupied by officers of the company and their assistants. The chief officer‟s offices are on the second floor behind pairs of windows embellished with terra cotta columns that reflect the status of the officers. At the ground floor, in addition to single offices, there are public spaces (the lobbies and corridor, information office and window, and Refinery Cashier and window) whose higher ceilings are reflected in the taller window openings that include transom windows above the double hung windows. The majority of these transoms have been covered with metal panels and, in some cases, penetrated by metal vents. In the upper part of the composition, the third story single, smaller windows both reflect the lower hierarchical position of workers on that floor and also provide better light to the dominant work done there, by draftsmen and clerks. The composition is completed in the attic beneath the hip roof that houses a space with extensive facilities for women workers and for technicians and equipment for blue printing and photography, workers occupying the lowest position in the hierarchy.

Stylistic references in the design come primarily from Renaissance Europe. These references are made in details — moldings, belt courses, columns between second story windows, the cornice, the columned entrance portico, and the details of the bronze door frame. The use of materials reinforces the larger

Chevron Refinery Historic Resource Evaluation Standard Oil Administration Building December 13, 2011 Page 6 frameworks of composition and style. The masonry exterior walls consist of a granite base and upper walls of brick with terra cotta trim, capped by a roof of terra cotta tile. The brick walls in particular exhibit skilled craftsmanship in a rich display of patterned and ornamental brick work. All of these patterns are characterized by prominent mortar joints that contribute to the visual effect.

In the lower part of the composition, the principal wall surfaces are in Flemish bond resting on a soldier course at the base. Each two-story recessed panel of paired windows is framed in a border of paired headers and bull courses in the same plane as the main wall. The spandrels between the paired windows on each floor included a soldier course along the bottom, an ornamental course of alternately projecting bull headers along the top, and a panel with a central diamond motif in the center. In the upper part of the composition, the top and bottom of the horizontal zone of the third floor is bordered by a band consisting of a soldier course and a bull course. Between each window a herringbone panel around a terra cotta diamond is framed by a border of stacked stretchers.

The terra cotta details also exhibit fine craftsmanship. In this case the skilled work that produced it was largely performed elsewhere at the industrial site where clay molds were made and pieces were manufactured. The terra cotta in this building is unusual in its good condition and lack of chipping.

Altogether, the design presents an image that expresses both its everyday functions and its symbolic role at the Richmond Refinery and within the Standard Oil Company. The composition reflects the general organization of workspace inside and the hierarchical relationships of those who work there. Its symmetrical, unified facades project an image of control over complex work requirements. Its Renaissance style, for the small administrative center of a plant with thousands of workers reflects the importance of the officials in this building and also the larger importance of the company in California. The very fine brickwork reflects the skill and contributions of anonymous workers to the collective effort of the company. The variety and intricacy of the brickwork reflects the complex and precise work of the refinery at large.

Inside, finishes are comparable to those of a Class-A downtown San Francisco office building of the period -- not ornate or lavish, but by virtue of its high quality of materials, establishing an atmosphere for business gentlemen. The corridors in particular retain terrazzo floors with marble banding, marble wainscoting, glazed windows and transoms with oak doors and trim at the first through third floor levels. Many original baseboards, chair rails, and picture rails in offices and work spaces have been removed. The stairway is marble with a wood rail, and marble wainscoting and up to the third floor.

In addition to the handsome but understated finishes of the stairs, corridors, and offices, there were also ornamental spaces and details. The most important of these is the entrance lobby on the ground floor, with multicolored travertine floors and wainscoting, a plaster ceiling with hexagonal coffers, an elevator (doors replaced) with ornate bronze trim in a trabeated travertine doorway, and a bronze plaque in honor of the president of the company at the time construction of the building was approved.

In the corridor on the second floor, there is another ornamental commemorative bronze plaque. This was placed by the Standard Oil Company, dedicated to employees of the refinery in recognition of work during World War II that earned a prestigious Army-Navy E Award. The artist or foundry is named on the plaque: Chambellan SC.

Chevron Refinery Historic Resource Evaluation Standard Oil Administration Building December 13, 2011 Page 7

DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY Historical Background The Company The Administration Building was built by the Standard Oil Company (California), a company with a complex history. The earliest ancestor of the company in California is always described as the Pacific Coast Oil Company, founded in 1879 by D.G. Scofield. Scofield had been involved in various capacities in an intense period of oil prospecting in the nation‟s first oil region in Pennsylvania in 1864-1865. In that period, 62 petroleum companies were also incorporated in California. Despite this activity, when Scofield came to California in 1870 as a dealer in kerosene and other petroleum-based products manufactured in the eastern United States, the production of commercially viable oil in California was negligible. (McPhee 1937:4-5; Kirk 2000: 5-7)

Scofield was a partner in the formation of the California Star Oil Works Company in 1876, which built two small refineries, in Newhall and Ventura, for oil from Pico Canyon. When this floundered, Scofield joined others with substantially more capital in the incorporation of another company, The Pacific Coast Oil Company, on 10 September 1879, taking over the previous company. In 1880, the Pacific Coast Oil Company built a much larger new refinery in Alameda with good rail and water connections. From this time, the Pacific Coast Oil Company grew steadily, swallowing competition and soon emerging as the largest producer and refiner of petroleum in California.

While the Pacific Coast Oil Company invested in expensive facilities for production, at first it relied on outside agents to sell its products. Then, in 1884, a branch of John D. Rockefeller‟s Standard Oil Company came to California and opened an office in San Francisco, to market and distribute its products, mostly from its refineries in Cleveland. Standard Oil already dominated the oil industry in the United States and Europe. By 1889, Standard Oil had sales offices in a dozen cities in California, Oregon, and Washington. But while Standard sold its products from eastern refineries, it had no west coast supplies or means of production.

Standard Oil was a vertically integrated corporation that controlled every aspect of its oil business, including exploration and production of oil, storage and transportation, marketing and distribution. Sales and distribution were carried out by delivery of products from the refinery to main stations by ship and rail; main stations supplied substations, and substations delivered to local markets, both on regular routes and in emergencies. The company operated vast networks of pipelines, a fleet of oil tankers, hundreds of railroad tank cars, thousands of tank trucks, and large numbers of retail and wholesale outlets in the United States and abroad.

Thus, in 1890 Pacific Coast Oil “entered into an agreement to sell its refined products to the Standard Oil Company,” two companies with complementary strengths joining together for mutual benefit. Ten years later, in 1900, Standard Oil bought Pacific Coast Oil which continued to operate under its old name until 1906. Beginning at that time, the Pacific Coast Oil Company was called Standard Oil Company, identifying it as a subsidiary of Rockefeller‟s Standard Oil of New Jersey with offices in New York. (Standard Oil Bulletin September 1929, p. 3)

The connection with Standard Oil of New Jersey lasted for only eleven years. In 1911, a U.S. Supreme Court decision broke up Standard Oil, creating a new, separate company, Standard Oil Company

Chevron Refinery Historic Resource Evaluation Standard Oil Administration Building December 13, 2011 Page 8

(California). Following another merger which acquired Southern Pacific oil lands, in 1926 it became Standard Oil Company of California. In 1984, the company name was changed to Chevron.

Richmond Refinery As soon as the Pacific Coast Oil Company was purchased by Standard Oil in 1900, the company embarked on “a campaign of expansion in every phase of the oil industry.” (Standard Oil Bulletin 1929: 3) To solve problems of transportation, supply, and production capacity, the company bought a site for a new refinery, much larger than Alameda, and with room to expand. At the same time, plans were developed for a pipeline from Southern California oil fields in Kern County and elsewhere to the new refinery.

In decisions directed from the company headquarters in New York, on 14 September 1901 Pacific Coast Oil bought 118 acres of hills, “a little flat ground,” tidelands, and marshlands along the Potrero (sic) of San Pablo in western Contra Costa County. The site was near a whistle stop called East Yards, the new Santa Fe Railway ferry terminal. New property was soon purchased, expanding the site eventually to 1,750 acres which would include filled marsh and tidelands. The site was mostly on the east side of the Portrero with an arm across the hills to a deep water site on the bay.

On 28 October 1901, three men arrived from the company to begin work on the new refinery, at first living and working out of the only building on the site, a vacant farm house. The refinery began operation 3 July 1902 with crude oil brought by ship from Southern California. The new pipeline — 8 inches in diameter and 280 miles long — began delivering oil on 18 July 1903. To alleviate congestion at the refinery, a separate location was quickly established to store the incoming oil about five miles northeast at a 164-acre site called the San Pablo Tank Farm.

Once the operational structures of the refinery were in place — the rail line connections, stills, warehouses, pipelines, tank farm, wharf, and an electric trolley between the refinery and the wharf — an office and adjacent laboratory were built. As soon as it began operation, the Richmond Refinery was the “largest refining plant on the Pacific Coast” (Independent 1955). By the end of 1906, it was “one of the largest refineries in the world” (White 1962: 276).

The refinery has been in a continuous state of development and expansion since it was built. In 1905, a 30-acre site was purchased and developed at nearby Point Orient for a new wharf for exporting products across the Pacific. By the end of 1905, two-story brick structures for a can factory and a box factory were under construction. In 1906, work began on a major expansion of the productive capacity of the plant, doubling the number of stills. In 1910, a second major expansion of Richmond‟s capacity was begun, as well as construction of a second refinery at El Segundo, followed by a third in Bakersfield.

The period after the separation of the company from Standard of New Jersey in 1911 saw big changes at the refinery due to revolutionary changes inside and outside of the company. Working conditions improved after the establishment of a company Bureau of Employment in 1913, with a Richmond branch in 1917. A hospital was built at the refinery, adjacent to the old office building, in 1915: “Personnel policy advanced farther at Richmond, the site of the largest concentration of employees, than at any other company installation.” (White 1962: 522)

But the biggest change had to do with the products of the company. Since the founding of Pacific Coast Oil Company, the principal product was kerosene, used mostly for lighting. However, with the

Chevron Refinery Historic Resource Evaluation Standard Oil Administration Building December 13, 2011 Page 9 widespread and increasing availability of electric light, the future of kerosene sales was declining. Secondary products of axle grease and harness oil for horse powered transportation were also in decline with the rise of automobile transportation. Lubricating oils for machinery including railroads were a growing business.

As the demand for kerosene dropped, the need for gasoline increased. The change was gradual at first, following the arrival of the first automobile on the Pacific Coast in 1905. The Standard Oil Company (California) bought its first automobile in 1907, a controversial purchase at the time, and opened its first “service station” in 1907. At that time, most automobile owners were wealthy and automobiles were more for recreation and hobbyists than a dependable form of regular transportation. After the Model T Ford came out, beginning in September 1908, relatively inexpensive and marketed to the middle class, gasoline sales began to grow. This placed new strains of two types on the company — on maintaining an adequate supply of oil to refineries and on the methods of refining. Until this time, gasoline had been a relatively minor by-product of the refining of other products. With an important new use, there was a new necessity of producing adequate quantities of the required quality of gasoline.

The issue of supply was a company-level problem related to oil fields and pipelines. However, the problems of the quality and quantity would be solved at the refinery, based on work in the laboratory. Addressing these problems required a transformation not only of the principal products of the company, but also of the kinds of people in the company who could solve them. According to the principal company historian, Gerald T. White, these conditions “helped strengthen the position of the technically trained, particularly the chemists, within the Manufacturing Department, for the urgent demand for products frequently called for greater skill in developing new processes than many of the older practical refiners possessed.” (White 1962: 460-461) At this point, “The basic physical equipment of the refineries had been built. The problem that remained was how to get more of the products most desired from each barrel of crude. Its solution required systematic research and then development of a refining technology that was beyond the skills of most of the older practical refiners.” (White 1962: 485)

With a severe shortage of gasoline imminent, the company formed a Gasoline Production Committee in late 1919. Among its nine members were three chemists, including Frederick W. Mann, trained in Germany, and John B. Terry, trained at the University of California, who was the head chemist at Richmond and an innovative researcher in a job where testing of materials had been the main activity before he was appointed. The Gasoline Production Committee supported “experiments at cracking to be carried on at each refinery under the general supervision of the young and able William D. Mason.” Two weeks later “another of the committee members, Richard W. Hanna, was appointed superintendent at Richmond, where he led a vigorous assault on the problem of finding a suitable cracking process.” (White 1962: 485)

All four of these men — Mann, Terry, Mason, and Hanna — would occupy offices in the new Administration Building whose plans were in preparation at that time, together with those for the laboratory. Their offices were labeled on the plans of the Administration Building, and their laboratories were next door. The work of this group represented “the main line of growth from here on for the Manufacturing Department. In the Manufacturing Department, as elsewhere in the company, especially in producing, men of greater technical training were rising in status. Before long, they would begin to take over for an older generation.” (White 1962: 485)

In 1921, the year after the Administration and Laboratory buildings were complete, the Standard Oil Bulletin took a comprehensive look at the Richmond Refinery, at that time “one of the largest in the

Chevron Refinery Historic Resource Evaluation Standard Oil Administration Building December 13, 2011 Page 10 world, noted in the oil world for the magnitude of its daily output of products manufactured from California crude oil and for its achievement on the scientific side in taking from the crude new and better products, and more of them.” Scientific research in Richmond‟s laboratories had solved serious problems so that Richmond‟s products were “equal to the best.” The role of the laboratory will continue: “Richmond now has a new research laboratory, one of the most complete in the country.” In summary, the article put the whole refinery in a larger context. “The history of Richmond Refinery is the history of the oil industry in California. As the industry has expanded, the refinery has kept pace, often leading the way.” (Standard Oil Bulletin March 1921, p. 5, 7)

In 1923, the American Petroleum Institute led a four-day tour of California oil industry facilities including Southern California oil fields and the Richmond Refinery for California‟s ten-member congressional delegation and officials from major oil companies. The tour represented the importance of the oil industry — and of the Richmond Refinery — at a time when California had become the leading oil producing state. (Standard Oil Bulletin October 1923, p. 2)

The problems identified by the Gasoline Production Committee in 1919, were addressed over the next several years: “supported by the most dynamic of the younger refiners, Richard W. Hanna, the department grew rapidly in size and prestige as the values of centralized and systematic research over the older haphazard methods of practical men were more clearly recognized.” (White 1962: 560) In 1926, when the problems of 1919 were solved, a summary of the progress of the laboratory noted that over 400 petroleum products were made at the Richmond Refinery. (Standard Oil Bulletin May 1926, p. 12)

Administration Building Planning for the Administration Building began early in 1919 as part of a pair with a new laboratory building. In March 1919, a local architectural and construction newsletter reported plans in preparation by George W. Kelham, architect for the two buildings: “Both buildings will be three stories in height with concrete frame, brick and terra cotta exteriors. One building will be an office structure, costing $250,000 and the other a laboratory to cost $175,000.” Building was to start immediately by P.J. Walker & Company: “The Standard Oil Company is commencing construction at this time, feeling it is their duty to help stimulate activities to assist in absorbing the excessive labor.” (Building and Engineering News 1919) The plans of the architect, Kelham, are mostly dated July, October, and November 1919, with the last revisions in February and March 1920. The plans of the engineer, Brunnier are dated August, September, and November 1919 with revisions in February 1920.

In August 1919, a newspaper article including a presentation drawing of an elevation of the two buildings reflected development of the plans. The two buildings were described as “magnificent and commodious office and laboratory structures of the same general appearance.” The office building will have all heads of departments and clerical forces of the 3,500-man refinery and the various ancillary plants and also the marine and engineering departments. It is planned to house 500 employees”; “The general office, with accommodation for 200 employees, will be on the first floor and the refinery heads and the marine department on the second. On the third will be the engineering department. Provision is made for twenty men in the draughting room alone.” (San Francisco Examiner 1919)

Construction began first on the laboratory building so that it could serve temporarily as the office building: “When it is finished the present office force will move into it temporarily, the existing brick office building close by will be wrecked and the modern office structure will rise in its place.” By this

Chevron Refinery Historic Resource Evaluation Standard Oil Administration Building December 13, 2011 Page 11 time the cost estimate for the two buildings had risen to $500,000, plus $250,000 for equipment. (San Francisco Examiner 1919)

In addition to the architect, Kelham, and the engineer, H.J. Brunnier, others who may have been involved in the design were Edward G. Garden, an architect in the company‟s engineering department, and John C. Black, Manager of Development and Research, who visited “several eastern research laboratories, including the Mellon Institute in Pittsburgh, and thereafter designed a well-equipped three-story laboratory building for Richmond.” (White 1962: 560) (The research laboratories at the Mellon Institute were probably Allen Hall, built in 1915 as the Mellon Institute of Industrial Research with laboratories for industrial and chemical research. This was a well-publicized six-story building in the Classical Revival Style, with the most advanced equipment and technologies designed by architect J.H. Giesey.). Although Black‟s reported involvement was specifically for the laboratory, because it was similar in appearance and integrated in function, it is likely that he influenced the Administration Building as well.

Contracts for work on the laboratory building were reported in August 1919. (Building and Engineering News 13 and 20 August 1919) The work was expected to be finished on both by 1 December 1920. An annual review of the company‟s work for the year 1920 reported that “a new brick office building [was] completed at Richmond.” (Standard Oil Bulletin February 1921: 3) Apart from undated photographs that show the laboratory under construction next to the old office building and the new office building under construction next to the new laboratory, no other documentation has been identified on the history of the planning and construction of the Administration Building.

Historical Context Development of Richmond When the Europeans first passed through the area in the late 18th century, the area was occupied by the Huchian people, a subgroup of the Ohlone. (Bastin 2003: 7) The best-known creation of the Huchian was a shell mound “at what is now the foot of Eleventh Street” about a mile and a half east of the refinery; this was “One of the largest of the more than 400 shell mounds or kitchen middens that existed in the San Francisco Bay region when the first white men came to its shores.” (Scott 1959: 51)

The native people had largely dispersed or died by 1823 when Francisco Maria Castro was granted “four leagues of land bordered on the west and north by the bays of San Francisco and San Pablo, and on the east by low verdant hills” (Hoover, et al. 1990: 53); this consisted of 17,939 acres and included the land on which Richmond, San Pablo, and El Cerrito would later be built. The grant was first called Rancho Cochiyumes and later Rancho San Pablo. Castro ran cattle on the land and lived in a house where El Cerrito Plaza shopping center was later built.

When the area was mapped by the Board of Tide Land Commissioners in 1872, the Potrero of San Pablo was a long, narrow “island” of rocky hills west of the mainland. Its north and east points and its long west side fronted on water, but its east side was bordered by a marsh so that access by land from the mainland was not possible.

Castro‟s heirs subdivided, sold, and lost (by both legal and questionable means) most of his grant after the American annexation of California, but little development took place until after 1894 when the courts settled the title to Rancho San Pablo. A map of the area in 1894 showed the area of the future city of Richmond was divided into farm and ranch land ranging generally from 20 to 500 acres; individual

Chevron Refinery Historic Resource Evaluation Standard Oil Administration Building December 13, 2011 Page 12 properties were labeled with the names of owners — no Hispanic names, one Italian name, and many northern European names. (Bastin 2003: 24)

In the western portion of the future City of Richmond, including the future community of Point Richmond in that area known as the Potrero of San Pablo, which was separated from the mainland by marshes, there were six principle landowners who benefitted from the 1894 court decision: A. Marashi (501.03 acres), Richard O‟Neil trustee (507.83 acres), E.S. Tewksbury (392.12 acres), G.H. Barrett, Henry F. Emeric (236.49 acres), and John S. Nicholl (152.8 acres). (Bastin 2003: 24)

In 1895, Augustin S. MacDonald, an Oakland “real-estate promoter,” observed that Point Richmond on the Potrero of San Pablo was “the only point on the east side of the bay shore where land and navigable deep water meet,” (quoted in Scott 1959: 88) making it an ideal site for a rail head. MacDonald persuaded the Valley Road, a short-lived precursor of the Santa Fe Railway, of its potential. In 1898, the Santa Fe made “a major commitment . . . to extend its railway system to San Francisco” via Ferry Point on the west side of the Potrero of San Pablo (Anderson 1995: 1), an effort that involved creation of a land bridge across the marsh.

In the meantime, anticipating the development of a city for rail workers and other industries that would follow, MacDonald bought the closest large piece of flat land to Ferry Point, the 500-acre ranch of George H. Barrett on the mainland. (Scott 1959: 88-89) MacDonald surveyed the property into a standard grid of city lots and on 3 June 1899, filed his plan with the County.

With the beginning of rail service to Ferry Point in 1900 and opening of the Standard Oil refinery on the east slope of the Potrero of San Pablo in 1902, the potential for Richmond‟s development rose, evidenced by a photograph of a crowd at the “First Sale of Lots in the New City of Richmond” in 1902. (Scott 1959: 89) The first settlement was all near the new industrial jobs at Point Richmond in the constrained area of irregular streets around the tunnel to Ferry Point, but MacDonald‟s “New City” on flat land had room to grow.

Around the time the town was incorporated in 1905, new development was increasing in the new grid and an electric streetcar was operating on MacDonald Avenue. The October 1905 Sanborn maps showed commercial development concentrated on MacDonald west of 6th Street. Thus, the period when Point Richmond was the principle area of settlement was very brief — little more than five years.

Between the earthquake of 1906 which caused residents and businesses to move out of San Francisco, and 1912, “cheap fuel, light and power, convenient transportation, and other favorable conditions” (Scott 1959: 136-137) attracted major industries to Richmond including Winehaven, the Pullman Car Shops, Western Pipe and Steel Company, Pacific Porcelain Works, Berkeley Steel Works, the Standard Oil Company Can factory, the Arctic Oil Company, the California Cap Company, the U.S. Briquette Company, the Stauffer Company, and the Metropolitan Company. These were in addition to the expansion of the Standard Oil Company refinery and growth in the lines and facilities of the Santa Fe and Southern Pacific Railroads.

Point Richmond grew quickly as the principle place of residence for workers at the Santa Fe Railway facilities and the Standard Oil Refinery. It was built with a mix of modest houses for families, and boarding houses and hotels for single working men. Photographs taken in the first few years of the operation of the refinery show Point Richmond houses clustered near the edge of the refinery property. Many of these houses were removed when the access road to the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge opened

Chevron Refinery Historic Resource Evaluation Standard Oil Administration Building December 13, 2011 Page 13 during its construction in the early 1950s. Today, Interstate 580 runs through the former residential area next to the refinery.

The development had an explosive effect on real estate speculation, and on population growth and commercial development as well. An official county map of 1911 showed MacDonald‟s original grid expanded in every direction and increased in size by at least three times. (Contra Costa County 1911) According to Donald Bastin, “By 1915 the city of Richmond had passed through a period of rapid, youthful growth and entered into a period of early maturity.” (Bastin 2003: 42) In other words, by this time Richmond looked less like a field that was being built into a city and more like a settled small city. The Sanborn maps of June 1916 confirm this, showing downtown Richmond stretching along MacDonald Avenue from 1st to 13th streets. Bastin said that in 1917 MacDonald Avenue between 5th and 6th streets was “the center of the business district” and by the late teens MacDonald Avenue had become the place in which to do business and to have fun.” (Bastin 2003: 45, 42)

With the growth of the main part of Richmond, Point Richmond was left behind. In 1915, Point San Pablo was still virtually an island, connected to the mainland by a land bridge and with little of the adjacent marsh land filled. (U.S. Geological Survey 1915) Richmond continued to prosper and grow in the 1920s, driven by development of the port, by expansion of the Standard Oil Refinery, and by the commitment of Ford Motor Company to build a plant (opened in 1931). In this period substantial areas of marsh land east of Point San Pablo and also tidelands along Richmond‟s shore were filled.

The population grew stimulated by the city‟s industries. Like other industrial areas in a difficult period for labor, the city attracted a disproportionate share of immigrants and others who were discriminated against and had fewer choices in housing and employment. According to Bastin, by 1930 “Italians constituted the largest single group in Richmond. (Bastin 2003: 61) Richmond survived the Depression better than many places: “all the major businesses . . . and many of the smaller ones continued to operate.” (Bastin 2003: 61) From 1926 when the population was less than 20,000 it grew to 23,642 in 1940. (Bastin 2003: 68; Scott 1959: 250)

More than almost anywhere else, the beginning of World War II in December 1941 marked the end of an era in Richmond and the beginning of a new one: “the war boom hit Richmond like no other town in the United States.” (Bastin 2003: 77) An established industrial city with an underused harbor, four huge shipyards were rapidly built and 55 additional “major war industries” were established in new or converted plants, producing gasoline, jeeps, tanks, troop cars, munitions, etc. In two years the population increased more than fourfold, generating severe crises in housing, transportation, community facilities, and business services. (Scott 1959: 250-251) The existing population was outnumbered over night by newcomers who didn‟t know the locals and didn‟t know each other.

When the war was over, it was soon clear that among Bay Area cities, Richmond was “one of the most dramatically affected.” The jobs that attracted the huge population growth disappeared as quickly as they had come; the population substantially declined from its peak (from 110,000 to 73,000 in 1960. Richmond was troubled for reasons specific to Richmond as well as for reasons common to almost all pre-war cities after World War II. Richmond‟s citizens had less money to spend and businesses and business owners had less money to maintain and improve their buildings. Automobile use was on the rise and streetcars and other forms of public transportation were in decline, enabling shoppers to go elsewhere. During the troubled period after World War II, Point Richmond survived as an early 20th century enclave.

Chevron Refinery Historic Resource Evaluation Standard Oil Administration Building December 13, 2011 Page 14

Impact on Richmond Locally, the establishment and growth of the refinery “brought great changes” in Richmond. No more than 200 people lived in the area when development began in 1901. In 1913, the city‟s population was 17,000 and 1,700 worked at the Standard Oil refinery. From the beginning, “The refinery‟s payroll meant much to the community in population, prestige, and prosperity” (McPhee 1937: 14; Standard Oil Bulletin May 1926: 1)

An incomplete chronology of the impact of the refinery on Richmond includes a building boom reported in the newspapers in 1919-1920 (San Francisco Chronicle 30 October 1920; Oakland Tribune 6 April 1919) In 1951, R.K. Rowell, the refinery manager spoke to the Chamber of Commerce about the effects on the city of a daily payroll of $60,000, the efforts of the company to make “as many purchases as possible in local markets… a very large amount annually,” and property taxes. (“Importance of S.O. Plant to City Cited 1951”) A 1965 article called attention to more than $5,000,000 in property taxes that year “for general countywide purposes, and for the support of the Richmond Unified School District, Contra Costa Junior College, West Contra Costa Hospital, East Bay Municipal Utilities District and the City of Richmond.” (Independent 1965)

Architecture of the Standard Oil Company In the early days of the Standard Oil Company in California, the company put its energy and resources into building structures that were directly related to production — oil field structures, pipelines and transportation facilities, and refineries. While the complete story of the company‟s buildings and structures of this period is not known, the experience of the Richmond Refinery was probably representative of the larger story. According to White‟s history, the first structures at the Richmond Refinery in 1901-1902 were a one-story brick storehouse, a two-story brick stable, “a long one-story building for boiler, machine, and pipe shops,” a boiler house, brick foundations for stills and condensers, and receiving houses. “Last in priority were the barrel house, the acid recovery works, and apparently least necessary, the office and laboratory buildings.” (White 1962: 247) Everything that came before the office and laboratory building was strictly utilitarian in purpose and, judging from old photographs, in appearance as well.

The only opportunity for architectural embellishment at the early refinery was the office building, or as White wrote, “The office and laboratory building,” indicating a single structure for both purposes. Early photographs show a pair of matching structures in much the same relationship as the Administration and Laboratory buildings today. The larger and more prominent of these buildings on the site of the current Administration Building was an ordinary two-story brick structure with a raised basement and a high attic with dormers. Its most prominent feature was a two-story wood veranda across the front. The building was symmetrical in design with modest ornamentation derived from Renaissance sources, including flat arches and a cornice under the eaves.

Meanwhile, the San Francisco offices of the company were in rented spaces. The first location of the Pacific Coast Oil Company in 1878 was in two rooms of a one-story building at Front and California streets. (Standard Oil Bulletin January 1923, p. 5) In 1884, Standard Oil had offices on California Street. When the Rialto Building was completed on New Montgomery Street in 1903, the company moved there, remaining until the earthquake and fire of 1906. The Rialto Building was a distinguished work of architecture by the prominent firm of Meyer & O‟Brien, but it was also occupied by many other businesses and was not owned by Standard Oil or identified with them.

Chevron Refinery Historic Resource Evaluation Standard Oil Administration Building December 13, 2011 Page 15

By this time the company also had sales agencies and distributing stations all over California, Oregon, and Washington. These were in buildings where there was greater interaction with the public than the production facilities. Still, from incomplete evidence of photographs, sales agencies were in ordinary commercial structures and distributing stations were typically in corrugated metal structures next to railroad tracks.

A turning point in the company‟s approach to architecture was the first headquarters built by and for the company, at 200 Bush Street in San Francisco. It was built in 1912 immediately after the separation from Standard of New Jersey. This was a ten-story building with Renaissance and Baroque ornament, enlarged in the same style and materials in 1916 by the same architect, Benjamin McDougall, a member of a family of prominent and successful architects. At the time of the enlargement, the Architect & Engineer wrote “It expresses to a nicety the princely character of one of the world‟s wealthiest corporations and it impresses the visitor most profoundly with the importance, the perfection, and the power of this most efficient and most successful of all America‟s business organizations.” (quoted in Corbett 1979, p. 191).

Like other large corporations, Standard Oil came to see that good architecture was good for public relations and good for business. In the 1910s-1920s the company newsletter proudly illustrated a number of buildings distinguished by good design. It described Southern California‟s Producing Headquarters as “Dignified and Substantial.” “If you ever chance to motor through Whittier, Cal., you can ask the neighbors how they feel about it, or view the building and decide for yourself as to its merits. Architecturally it echoes the old Missions, and is honest masonry from the ground to the baked clay tiles that form its roof.” (Standard Oil Bulletin March 1916, p. 7)

Near the Southern California Producing Headquarters, “on the summit of the Coyote Hills, in the Whittier-Fullerton field”, the company built the Murphy-Coyote Recreation Hall, a craftsman bungalow in style with “a spacious veranda . . . supported by brick columns” and “a huge fireplace.” Employees thanked the company for “its generosity in erecting so beautiful a structure for their pleasure and comfort.” (Standard Oil Bulletin June 1917, p. 11) In Colfax, near Grass Valley in Nevada County, the company built a sanitarium “for the care of employees afflicted with tuberculosis.” This was a complex of bungalow style structures on a hilltop in a setting “of great natural beauty.” It was described as having “a homelike atmosphere” designed “for freedom from worry, for a peaceful state of mind.” (Standard Oil Bulletin March 1921, p. 3)

In 1923, an article titled “For Beauty‟s Sake” expressed the policy of the company toward architecture and landscaping in all branches of the company. The public knows the company‟s gas stations best: “The gleam of red, white, and blue, a slope of emerald lawn, and a frame of close clipped hedge have come to be accepted by motorists of the Pacific Coast as the typical setting for the service station of the Standard Oil Company (California). . . the well-kept appearance and beautiful surroundings of the Standard Oil Service Stations are symbolical of the attentive service rendered by the corps of young men who man these stations.” The same policy applied to other branches of the company, illustrating a “beautiful court, about which are grouped the bunkhouses and other buildings of our Baldwin Camp,” the hospital at the El Segundo refinery which “shows satisfying architectural lines as well as beautiful grounds, and the tile roof and palm trees [that] suggest the Mission spirit,” and “The Emerald Pumping Station, located in Stanislaus County, [which] stands as an excellent example of what can be accomplished in improving and beautifying buildings and grounds.” (Standard Oil Bulletin May 1923, p. 7-9)

In this context, the designs of the Administration and Laboratory buildings at the Richmond Refinery and the new San Francisco headquarters building in 1919-1922, and the Los Angeles office building in 1924,

Chevron Refinery Historic Resource Evaluation Standard Oil Administration Building December 13, 2011 Page 16 are the largest and most substantial expressions of the company‟s approach. Designed by the same architect, George W. Kelham who was a specialist in the architecture of office buildings, these buildings reflect not only on their immediate surroundings, but on the company as a whole.

Only ten years after its previous highly praised headquarters building which the company quickly outgrew, the new San Francisco headquarters building at 225 Bush Street was called “easily the finest office building on the Pacific Coast, and perhaps the finest outside of New York.” According to an extensive article in the San Francisco Call quoted in the Standard Oil Bulletin, “The new building is remarkable in two ways — as an architectural triumph for George W. Kelham, and as a symbol of the majesty and might of California oil.” The design inspired by “a Florentine castle” has decorative elements from both late medieval and early Renaissance architecture. (Standard Oil Bulletin January 1923, p. 3)

The eight-story Los Angeles headquarters of 1924 is in a matching style to the San Francisco headquarters. “The prosperity and growth of the entire region „south of the Tehachapi,‟ including the city of Los Angeles, as well of that of the Company, are reflected in this structure. (Standard Oil Bulletin May 1926)

Designers The Administration Building was designed by George W. Kelham, architect, and Henry J. Brunnier, engineer, two of the leaders in their respective fields in San Francisco in the period after the 1906 earthquake. The two collaborated on many prominent buildings in California for twenty years until Kelham‟s death in 1936. According to Stephen Tobriner‟s history of earthquake-resistant architecture and engineering in San Francisco, the collaboration began in 1912 when Kelham hired Brunnier “to do the engineering for the Sharon Building,” a nine-story office and commercial building on New Montgomery Street opposite the Palace Hotel; “and the two worked together for the remainder of their professional careers.” (Tobriner 2006: 244)

Both have been recognized for their particular attention to designing for earthquake resistance during a period when many others in their professions paid insufficient attention to the problem. Among the best known of their collaborations were several that largely defined the San Francisco skyline during the formative period of the 1920s-1930s — the Balfour Building of 1920, the Standard Oil Building of 1922, the California Commercial Union Building of 1923, the Federal Reserve Bank of 1924, the Russ Buildings of 1927, and the Shell Building of 1929. (Working with others, each of them designed several more downtown skyscrapers of the period.)

As an architect, Kelham was generally in the position of hiring his own engineer, but Brunnier appears to have steered work to Kelham as well. For example, Kelham was hired as architect of the California State Automobile Association building on Van Ness Avenue when Brunnier was president of that organization. Among other significant collaborations were the San Francisco Public Library, numerous buildings on the Berkeley and Los Angeles campuses of the University of California about which Brunnier wrote an article in the Architect and Engineer (Brunnier 1930), Hills Brothers Coffee, and the San Francisco- Oakland Bay Bridge where both consulted as part of a larger team.

Kelham and Brunnier maintained separate offices in the Sharon Building but were so often associated that they were sometimes mistaken as part of the same firm. Both tended to work for large clients — large corporations, institutions, and government bodies.

Chevron Refinery Historic Resource Evaluation Standard Oil Administration Building December 13, 2011 Page 17

G.W. Kelham, Architect The architect of the Administration Building was George W. Kelham (1871-1936), one of the leading architects in California from 1906 to 1936. Kelham was born in Massachusetts and studied at Harvard before going to Paris where he studied in the preparatory atelier of Marcel Perouse de Monclos, possibly overlapping with Julia Morgan, and later at the Ecoles des Beaux Arts. After Paris he traveled in Europe and studied in Rome.

From 1898 to 1906, he worked in New York, for the prominent firm of Trowbridge and Livingston. During these years the firm designed some of its best-known buildings including the Knickerbocker and St. Regis hotels and the B. Altman & Company department store on Fifth Avenue. After the 1906 earthquake and fire, Trowbridge and Livingston designed the new Palace Hotel and sent Kelham to San Francisco to supervise construction. When the Palace was finished in 1909, Kelham left the firm and opened his own office in San Francisco.

From the beginning, Kelham‟s practice was dominated by major projects for prestigious clients. In 1912 he designed the Sharon Building across the street from the Palace, both owned by the Ralston estate. In that same year he designed the Bohemian Club whose elite membership included men who could make decisions about hiring architects for big commercial and institutional clients. From 1912 to 1915, he was chairman of the architectural committee of the Panama-Pacific International Exposition, contributed to the overall plan and designed the Court of Flowers and the Court of Palms. In 1916, he designed the YMCA in San Diego. In 1916, he won a prestigious competition to design the San Francisco Public Library. In 1918 he designed Roble Hall, a women‟s dormitory at Stanford.

Thus, in 1919 when he was hired by Standard Oil to build its new headquarters building in San Francisco and its new Administration and Laboratory complex in Richmond, Kelham was at the top of his profession in San Francisco. In the 1920s, Kelham designed more of the new skyscrapers, all office buildings, that reshaped the look of the city than any other architect: the Balfour Building (1920), the American National Bank (1922), the Standard Oil Company Building (1922), the California Commercial Union Building (1923), the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (1924), the Medico-Dental Building (1925), the Russ Building (1927), and the Shell Building (1929). Kelham‟s tall buildings dominated the San Francisco skyline from the time they were built in the 1920s until they were finally obscured by a building boom that began in the 1960s.

In 1925, Kelham prepared the campus plan for the new UCLA campus, designed several major buildings, and functioned as supervising architect for several more. At UCLA he designed the Library, Education Building, Chemistry Building, and the Men‟s Gymnasium. In 1927, he became Supervising Architect for the University of California — both Berkeley and UCLA. At Berkeley, Kelham designed the Life Sciences Building, Bowles Hall, Moses Hall, Harmon Gymnasium, and International House.

Other major projects were the Bay Terrace housing development of 1918 at Mare Island, banks in Stockton, Oakland, and Salt Lake City, and the Claremont Country Club in Oakland. In Los Angeles he designed the California Club and another large office building for Standard Oil in 1924. When he died, Kelham was serving as Chairman of the architectural commission planning the 1939 world‟s fair at Treasure Island. He was a long-time member of the Pacific Union Club where he must have made important business contacts. He designed an addition to the club.

Chevron Refinery Historic Resource Evaluation Standard Oil Administration Building December 13, 2011 Page 18

H.J. Brunnier, Engineer The structure of the Administration Building was designed by H.J. Brunnier, engineer of San Francisco. Brunnier was one of the leading structural engineers of his day in California and was active in public and professional activities.

Brunnier was born in Iowa in 1882. He graduated from Iowa State College in 1904, and arrived in San Francisco 4 May 1906, two weeks after the great earthquake and fire, and opened an engineering office in San Francisco in 1908. He was the structural engineer for many of the major office buildings in downtown San Francisco in the 1920s and 1930s, including the Russ, Shell, Hunter-Dulin, Standard Oil, Commercial Union, Balfour, Hills Brothers, and Federal Reserve buildings. For the Board of State Harbor Commissioners, he was involved in designing the first concrete piers along San Francisco‟s waterfront. He designed harbor structures throughout California and in Hawaii. In Los Angeles, he designed the Examiner, Standard Oil, and California Club buildings, and many buildings at UCLA. In Oakland, he designed the Pacific Coast Shredded Wheat Company and the Durant Motor Company factories. In Humboldt County in 1920, he designed “The World‟s Longest Concrete Girder Bridge.” (Architect and Engineer 1920)

Brunnier was described by Tobriner as one of “the three most influential engineers in San Francisco in the 1920s and 1930s.” (Tobriner 2006: 270) In 1956 he was recognized as the Outstanding Bay Area Engineer of the year. (“Brunnier Named Top Bay Engineer”) Brunnier was in charge of the construction of concrete ships in Washington, D.C., a $60,000,000 effort, during World War I and engaged in the design of defenses during World War II. He also served on the first State Board of Registration of Civil Engineers in 1929. He was president of the Engineer‟s Club of San Francisco in 1933. In 1944, he was elected president of the Automobile Association of America. In 1952 he was president of Rotary International.

While much of Brunnier‟s work consisted of the invisible structural features of buildings given finished appearance by others, a few designs with which he was associated, such as the Pacific Coast Shredded Wheat Company and the Durant Motor Company in Oakland, Ryerson Steel in Emeryville, and the Owens-Illinois Pacific Building in Los Angeles, where the structural and architectural designs were inseparable, indicate a long-standing sympathy with the ideas of modern architecture. These buildings are contemporary with similar designs by Albert Kahn, for instance, and exhibit similar characteristics of structural expression and undisguised use of industrial materials.

EVALUATION Summary of Findings The Administration Building at the Richmond Refinery is eligible as a historic resource under Richmond‟s historic resource code, and by its eligibility for listing on both the CRHR and the NRHP.

It appears to meet five of the six criteria for designation as a historic resource in Richmond. Summarizing, these are (by Richmond criteria number) 1) economic significance as a symbol of the Richmond Refinery, 2) significance for association with significant persons — William D. Mason, Frederick W. Mann, Richard W. Hanna, and John B. Terry, 4) an example of a corporate office building, an example of a modified Renaissance style, fire resistant construction, and fine brick work, 5) a representative of the work of George W. Kelham, architect, and Henry J. Brunnier, engineer, leaders in their respective professions in California, and 6) a symbol of one of Richmond‟s seminal industries, the Richmond Refinery.

Chevron Refinery Historic Resource Evaluation Standard Oil Administration Building December 13, 2011 Page 19

It appears to be eligible under criteria 1 and 3 of the CRHR at the state level. Under criterion 1, it represents the transformation of the refinery from the old horse and railroad era to the new automobile era. Under criterion 3, it is significant in the architecture of the Standard Oil Company, presenting a powerful image of the role of the refinery in relation to the larger Standard Oil Company.

Similarly, it appears to be eligible under criteria A and C of the NRHP at the state level. Under criterion A, it represents the transformation of the refinery from the old horse and railroad era to the new automobile era. Under criterion C, it is significant in the architecture of the Standard Oil Company, presenting a powerful image of the role of the refinery in relation to the larger Standard Oil Company.

Under both CRHR and NRHP, the period of significance is 1920 to 1926. The building possesses integrity for this period.

City of Richmond Historic Resource The Standard Oil Administration Building would appear to meet several of the criteria in the city‟s Historic Structures Code (Chapter 6.06.060 Historic resource designation criteria) for designation as a historic resource, discussed below:

1) It exemplifies or reflects valued elements of the City’s cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering, archeological, or architectural history. The Administration Building reflects the economic history of Richmond as a symbol of the Richmond Refinery of the Standard Oil Company. The Richmond Refinery along with the Santa Fe Railway was the original reason for the development of Point Richmond. As the largest employer in the city over many years, it was a major factor in the emergence and growth of the City of Richmond as a whole. The Administration Building has been a prominent symbol of the whole refinery since its completion in 1920. 2) It is identified with persons or events important in local, state, or national history. The Administration Building is identified with a number of individuals prominent in an important period in the history of the Richmond Refinery and the Standard Oil Company, including William D. Mason, Frederick W. Mann, Richard W. Hanna, and John B. Terry. These individuals were key to the transformation of the refinery from the old horse and railroad era to the new automobile era. 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. While the refinery as a whole represents this criterion, the Administration Building by itself does not reflect significant geographical patterns. 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 Administration Building embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a corporate office building of its day, a type that played an important role in the development of Richmond and of California. Its modified Renaissance style and its two-part composition convey its importance in

Chevron Refinery Historic Resource Evaluation Standard Oil Administration Building December 13, 2011 Page 20

the context of the refinery and in the larger context of the Standard Oil Company. Its fire resistant construction, its materials, and its very fine brickwork reflect a high level of craftsmanship. 5) It is representative of the notable work of a builder, designer, or architect whose style influenced the city’s architectural development. The Administration Building was designed by architect George W. Kelham and his frequent collaborator Henry J. Brunnier. Kelham and Brunnier were leaders in their respective professions in California. Kelham came to San Francisco from New York with the firm of Trowbridge & Livingston to supervise construction of the new Palace Hotel after the 1906 earthquake. Subsequently he had his own practice in San Francisco until his death in 1936. He is best-known for his many downtown San Francisco skyscrapers including the Standard Oil, Russ, and Shell Buildings, and as the Supervising Architect for the University of California with responsibility for the plan of UCLA and many buildings on the Berkeley and Los Angeles campuses. Brunnier also came to San Francisco immediately after the earthquake and opened his own office in 1908. He built the first reinforced concrete structures at the Port of San Francisco. He prepared the structural designs of many of the major office skyscrapers in San Francisco in the 1910s to 1930s including several with Kelham. Brunnier‟s best-known buildings include the Standard Oil, Russ, and Shell buildings with Kelham. He was described as one of “the three most influential engineers in San Francisco in the 1920s and 1930s,” with a particular expertise in designing to resist earthquakes. 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 an outstanding historical resource. Among all buildings at the Richmond Refinery, the Administration Building (and its adjacent Laboratory buildings) represents the prominent role of the refinery in the history of Richmond. Only an early still or other structure directly involved in the refining process would have as much importance. The loss of the Administration Building would be a major loss to the city. The Administration Building qualifies as an outstanding historical resource. California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) Properties may qualify for the CRHR in several ways. Properties listed in or formally determined eligible for the National Register and California Registered Historical Landmarks from No. 770 onward are automatically listed in the CRHR. Some properties may qualify if they have been “identified as significant in an historic resource survey” if the survey meets certain standards and if the survey is not more than five years old. Similarly, some properties designated under municipal or county ordinances may qualify.

The most common way to qualify for the CRHR is to meet the criteria which are similar to those of the National Register. Like the National Register, eligible properties must first be shown to meet one or more of the criteria and then be shown to possess integrity.

The criteria of the CRHR are as follows:

a) Criteria for evaluating the significance of historical resources. An historical resource must be significant at the local, state or national level, under one or more of the following four criteria:

Chevron Refinery Historic Resource Evaluation Standard Oil Administration Building December 13, 2011 Page 21

1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States; 2. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history; 3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values; or 4. It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, important information to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation. A property that meets the criteria is then subject to assessment of its integrity, as follows: b) Integrity. Integrity is the authenticity of an historical resource‟s physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource‟s period of significance. Historical resources eligible for listing in the California Register must meet one of the criteria of significance described in section 4852 (b) of this chapter and retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and to convey the reasons for their significance. Historical resources that have been rehabilitated or restored may be evaluated for listing. Integrity is evaluated with regard to the retention of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. It must also be judged with reference to the particular criteria under which a resource is proposed for eligibility. Alterations over time to a resource or historic changes in its use may themselves have historical, cultural, or architectural significance. It is possible that historical resources may not retain sufficient integrity to meet the criteria for listing in the National Register, but they may still be eligible for listing in the California Register. A resource that has lost its historic character or appearance may still have sufficient integrity for the California Register if it maintains the potential to yield significant scientific or historical information or specific data. The Administration Building at the Richmond Refinery is eligible for the California Register at the state level under criteria 1 and 3.

Under criterion 1, it represents the ascendency within the Standard Oil Company (California) of university-trained scientists and others with specialized technical expertise over the generalists of earlier times, and as such marks a significant point in the re-orientation of the company for the emerging era of the automobile. Company chemists and other experts solved critical problems in the efforts that led to improved methods of refining petroleum. Because Standard Oil was the largest oil company in California, and because the automobile would have a fundamental effect on the state as a whole, this development reflects social and economic changes far beyond the boundaries of the Richmond Refinery.

Under criterion 3, the Administration Building is significant in the architecture of the Standard Oil Company, a company that gave great consideration to the design of its buildings and took great pride in what they represented. It was designed by architect George W. Kelham and engineer Henry J. Brunnier, among the leaders in their respective fields in California. The Administration Building presents a powerful image of the role of the Refinery in relation to the larger Standard Oil Company. The composition conveys an image of control over complex work requirements. The modified Renaissance style reflects the importance of the work done in the building and the people who work there, as well as

Chevron Refinery Historic Resource Evaluation Standard Oil Administration Building December 13, 2011 Page 22 the larger importance of the company in California. The very fine brickwork represents the skill and contributions of the thousands of workers at the plant and the complexity of the work of the refinery.

The building possesses integrity of design, location, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Elements of its setting have changed since it was built, including the demolition of the nearby hospital building and the changing refinery structures across the street — now a parking lot. The modest houses of Point Richmond that once stood behind it were long ago removed for the roadway that is now Interstate 580. But the most important element of setting, the main Laboratory Building next door to the west and the smaller building between them — in matching styles — are still standing. Overall, the Administration Building retains integrity.

Based on the research completed for this report, the period of significance under criterion 1 is from 1920 when the building was opened to 1926 when the initial research goals of the laboratory were achieved. Additional identification of the history of the Refinery from the 1930s to 1962, including its role in World War II (for which it won an Army-Navy E Award) and laboratory research throughout that period could be expected to result in an expanded period of significance.

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) The criteria of the NRHP are similar to those of the CRHR:

Criteria for Evaluation

The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and:

A) That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or That are associated with the lives of significant persons in or past; or

B) That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or

C) That possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or

D) That have yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory. .

The Administration Building at the Richmond Refinery is eligible for the National Register at the state level under criteria A and C.

Under criterion A, it represents the ascendency within the Standard Oil Company (California) of university-trained scientists and others with specialized technical expertise over the generalists of earlier times, and as such marks a significant point in the re-orientation of the company for the emerging era of the automobile. Company chemists and other experts solved critical problems in the efforts that led to improved methods of refining petroleum. Because Standard Oil was the largest oil company in California,

Chevron Refinery Historic Resource Evaluation Standard Oil Administration Building December 13, 2011 Page 23 and because the automobile would have a fundamental effect on the state as a whole, this development reflects social and economic changes far beyond the boundaries of the Richmond Refinery.

Under criterion C, the Administration Building is significant in the architecture of the Standard Oil Company, a company that gave great consideration to the design of its buildings and took great pride in what they represented. Designed by architect George W. Kelham and engineer Henry J. Brunnier, among the leaders in their respective fields in California. The Administration Building presents a powerful image of the role of the Refinery in relation to the larger Standard Oil Company. The composition conveys an image of control over complex work requirements. The modified Renaissance style reflects the importance of the work done in the building and the people who work there, as well as the larger importance of the company in California. The very fine brickwork represents the skill and contributions of the thousands of workers at the plant and the complexity of the work of the refinery.

The building possesses integrity of design, location, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Elements of its setting have changed since it was built, including the demolition of the nearby hospital building and the changing refinery structures across the street — now a parking lot. The modest houses of Point Richmond that once stood behind it were long ago removed for the roadway that is now Interstate 580. But the most important element of setting, the main Laboratory Building next door to the west and the smaller building between them — in matching styles — are still standing. Overall, the Administration Building retains integrity.

Based on the research completed for this report, the period of significance under criterion A is from 1920 when the building was opened to 1926 when the initial research goals of the laboratory were achieved. Additional identification of the history of the Refinery from the 1930s to 1962, including its role in World War II (for which it won an Army-Navy E Award) and laboratory research throughout that period could be expected to result in an expanded period of significance.

Chevron Refinery Historic Resource Evaluation Standard Oil Administration Building December 13, 2011 Page 24

BIBLIOGRAPHY Allardt, G.F. 1872. Soil Map No. 11 Salt Marsh and Tide Lands, Counties of Alameda and Contra Costa. San Francisco: Board of Tide Land Commissioners. David Rumsey collection online. American Architect. 1937. George W. Kelham obituary. vol. 150 (January 1937), 14. Anderson, Robert Bruce. 1995. Historic Resource Evaluation of Ferry Point Pier and Ferry Point Terminal; Point Richmond, California. Prepared for Planning/Stewardship Department, East Bay Regional Park District. Andreini, Donald. 1997. “From Palace to Skyscraper: The San Francisco Career of George Kelham.” Heritage Newsletter. vol. 25:2 (March-April 1997), 5-8. Architect and Engineer. 1919-1921. passim. Architect and Engineer. 1920. “Reopens San Francisco Office.” vol. 61:2 (May 1920), 126. Architect and Engineer. 1920. “The World‟s Longest Concrete Girder Bridge.” vol. 62:1 (July 1920), 90- 92. Architect and Engineer. 1930. “H.J. Brunnier.” vol. 103:1 (October 1930), 24. Bastin, Donald. 2003. Richmond, series: Images of America. San Francisco: Arcadia Publishing. Brunnier, Henry J. 1930. “Structural Aspects of University Buildings.” vol. 103:1 (October 1930), 49-56. “Brunnier Named Top Bay Engineer.” 1956. newspaper clipping from files of Mrs. G. Bland Platt. 24 February 1956. Building and Engineering News. 1919. “Advance News.” vol. 19:16 (16 April 1919), 5. Building and Engineering News. 1919. “Among the Architects.” vol. 19:11 (12 March 1919), 4, 8, 13. California State Automobile Association. Bureau of News. 1944. “Henry J. Brunnier,” press release. 21 November 1944. California State Library. 1904-1959. “H.J. Brunnier.” Index to San Francisco Chronicle, available on microfiche at Bancroft Library of the University of California. California. Assembly. 1992. Assembly Bill 2881 (Statutes of 1992, Chapter 1075): California Register of Historical Resources. 28 September. California. Office of Historic Preservation. 1992. California Points of Historical Interest. Sacramento: California Department of Parks and Recreation. California. Office of Historic Preservation. 1996. California Historical Landmarks. Sacramento: California State Parks. California. Office of Historic Preservation. 1997. Instructions for Nominating Historical Resources to the California Register of Historical Resources. Sacramento: California State Parks. California. Secretary of State. 1947. Index to Architects. California State Archives, Sacramento.

Chevron Refinery Historic Resource Evaluation Standard Oil Administration Building December 13, 2011 Page 25

Carroll, Jonathan. 1969. “East Bay” in The Suburbs of San Francisco. San Francisco: Chronicle Books. Chapman, H.D. 1930. City of Richmond; Contra Costa County, California: map. Richmond. Cleland, Robert Glass and Osgood Hardy. 1929. March of Industry, California series. Los Angeles: Powell Publishing Company. Cole, Susan, D. 1980. Richmond – Windows to the Past. Richmond: Wildcat Canyon Books. Contra Costa County. 1911. Official Map of City of Richmond and Vicinity. Compiled by J. George Smith, surveyor and publisher. Oakland. Corbett, Michael R. 1979. Splendid Survivors: San Francisco’s Downtown Architectural Heritage. Prepared by Charles Hall Page & Associates for the Foundation for San Francisco‟s Architectural Heritage. San Francisco: California Living Books. Emanuels, George. 1990. California’s Contra Costa County: An Illustrated History. Walnut Creek: Diablo Books. Farmer, F. Malcolm. 1930. “Section 5: Electrical Engineering” in American Civil Engineers’ Handbook, Fifth Edition, Thaddeus Merriman, Editor in Chief. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Franks, Kenny A. and Paul F. Lambert. 1985. Early California Oil: A Photographic History, 1865-1940. College Station: Texas A&M University Press. Gebhard, David and Robert Winter. 1985. Architecture in Los Angeles: A Compleat Guide. Salt Lake City: Gibbs Smith, Inc. Peregrine Smith Books. Gebhard, David, Roger Montgomery, Robert Winter, John Woodbridge, and Sally Woodbridge. 1973. A Guide to Architecture in San Francisco and Northern California. Santa Barbara and Salt Lake City: Peregrine Smith Goss, Gary A., compiler. 1982. Index to the Architect and Engineer, Volume 1-95, 1905-1928. San Francisco: California Historical Society. Gowans, Alan. 1992. Styles and Types of North American Architecture. New York: Harper Collins Icon Editions. Hart, James D. 1987. A Companion to California, New Edition, Revised and Expanded. Berkeley: University of California Press. Historic Record Company. 1926. History of Contra Costa County California. Los Angeles. Hoover, Mildred Brooke, Hero Eugene Rensch, Ethel Grace Rensch, and William N. Abeloe. 1990. Historic Spots in California. 4th ed. Revised by Douglas E. Kyle. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Hulaniski, F.J., editor. 1917. History of Contra Costa County, California. Berkeley: Elms Publishing Company. Independent. 1955. “Refinery Work Launched With Little Fanfare.” 3 October 1955, p. 20. Independent. 1965. “SO Delivers Tax Check to County.” 11 December 1965, p. 8.

Chevron Refinery Historic Resource Evaluation Standard Oil Administration Building December 13, 2011 Page 26

Kidder, Frank E. and Thomas Nolan, editors. 1921. The Architects’ and Builders’ Handbook, 17th edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Kirk, Anthony. 2000. A Flier in Oil: Adolph B. Spreckels and the Rise of the California Petroleum Industry. San Francisco: California Historical Society. Lord, Edward L. 1957. “Section 21: Batteries” in Standard Handbook for Electrical Engineers, Ninth Edition, Archer E. Knowlton, Editor in Chief. New York: McGraw Hill Book Company. Lowell, Waverly B., Mary Hardy, and Lynn A. Downey. 1988. Architectural Records in the San Francisco Bay Area, a Guide to Research. New York: Garland Publishing. Lowndes, William, B. 1926. Brick, Stone, and Plaster. International Library of Technology 31F. Scranton: International Textbook Company. McLaughlin, R.P. and C.A. Waring. 1914. Petroleum Industry of California, Bulletin No. 69. San Francisco: California State Mining Bureau. McPhee, Douglas G. 1937. The Story of Standard Oil Company of California. n.p. Reprinted from series in California Oil World. Los Angeles: Petroleum Publishers. Millard, Bailey. 1924. History of the San Francisco Bay Region. 2 vols. Chicago: American Historical Society. New York Times. 1928-1952. “H.J. Brunnier.” Personal Name Index. Oakland Tribune. 1901. “Electric Road Wanted in Town of Richmond.” 8 October 1901. Oakland Tribune. 1902. “Contra Costa Manufacturing.” 27 December 1902. Purcell, Mae Fisher. 1940. History of Contra Costa County. Berkeley: Gillick Press. Richmond Public Library. 2011. Photograph collection and archive of clippings. Richmond. 2006. Chapter 6.06 Historic Structures Code. Roselius, Donna, Teresa Albro, Michell Brown, and Rosemary Corbin, editors. 1980. This Point in Time: An Historic View of Point Richmond, California. Point Richmond History Association. San Francisco Architectural Heritage. 2011. Files on buildings, engineers, and architects. San Francisco Examiner. 1919. “Office Building and Laboratory Structure Now Being Erected at Richmond by the Standard Oil Company.” 17 August 1919, p. 7N. San Francisco Examiner. 1971. “H.J. Brunnier, Architectural Engineer, 85.” 12 December 1971, section B p. 14. Sanborn Map Company. 1903. Richmond. New York. Sanborn Map Company. 1905. Richmond. New York. Sanborn Map Company. 1909. Richmond. New York. Sanborn Map Company. 1916. Richmond. New York.

Chevron Refinery Historic Resource Evaluation Standard Oil Administration Building December 13, 2011 Page 27

Sanborn Map Company. 1930. Richmond, Contra Costa County, Cal., volume 1. New York. Sanborn Map Company. 1951. Richmond, Contra Costa County, Cal., volume 1. New York: 1930; updated to 1951. Scott, Mel. 1959. The San Francisco Bay Area, a Metropolis in Perspective. Berkeley: University of California Press. Standard Oil Bulletin. 1913. “Richmond Refinery.” vol. 1:8 (December 1913), 6-9. Standard Oil Bulletin. 1913-1930. passim. Standard Oil Bulletin. 1918. “Fire Protection. — Reducing Hazards.” vol. 6:1 (May 1918), 3-5. Standard Oil Bulletin. 1921. “Annual Statement 1920.” vol. 8:10 (February 1921), 1-5. Standard Oil Bulletin. 1921. “The Richmond Refinery.” vol. 8:11 (March 1921), 5-9. Standard Oil Bulletin. 1923. “Distinguished Visitors.” vol. 11:6 (October 1923), 2. Standard Oil Bulletin. 1923. “For Beauty‟s Sake.” vol. 11:1 (May 1923), 7-10. Standard Oil Bulletin. 1923. “Our New Home.” vol. 10:9 (January 1923), 3-6. Standard Oil Bulletin. 1926. “Science in the Petroleum Industry.” vol. 14:6 (October 1926), 3-9, 16. Standard Oil Bulletin. 1926. “The New Company.” vol 14:1 (May 1926), 1-12. Standard Oil Company (California). Employees 1921-1922. Among Ourselves, published for and by the Employees of the Standard Oil Company (California). vol. 1:2 (April 1921) to vol. 2:10 (December 1922), passim. Standard Oil Company of California. 1979. One Hundred Years Helping to Create the Future: 1879- 1979. San Francisco: Standard Oil Company of California. Thomas Brothers. 1927. Thomas Bros. Block Book of Richmond, Business District Volume 1. Oakland and San Francisco. Tobriner, Stephen. 2006. Bracing for Disaster: Earthquake Resistant Architecture and Engineering in San Francisco, 1838-1933. Berkeley: The Bancroft Library of the University of California and Heyday Books. U.S. Geological Survey. 1915. San Francisco and Vicinity, California. Washington: U.S. Geological Survey. United States Department of the Interior. National Park Service. Interagency Resources Division. 1991. National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Washington, D.C. University of California. 2011. Melvyl, The Catalog of the University of California Libraries, online catalog. Vance, James. 1964. Geography and Urban Evolution in the San Francisco Bay Area. Berkeley: Institute of Governmental Studies, University of California.

Chevron Refinery Historic Resource Evaluation Standard Oil Administration Building December 13, 2011 Page 28

White, Gerald T. 1962. Formative Years in the Far West: A History of Standard Oil Company of California and Predecessors Through 1919. New York: Appleton-Century-Croft. Whitener, Theresa. 2008. A Tradition of Fellowship and Service: The Rotary Club of San Francisco at 100. San Francisco: The Rotary Club of San Francisco. Whitnah, Joseph C. 1944. A History of Richmond, California. Richmond: Richmond Chamber of Commerce. Whitney, Joseph C. 1944. A History of Richmond, California: The City that Grew from a Rancho. Richmond: Chamber of Commerce. Williams, James C. 1997. Energy and the Making of Modern California. Akron: University of Akron Press. Withey, Henry F. and Elsie Rathburn Withey. 1970. Biographical Dictionary of American Architects (Deceased). Originally published 1956. Reprint Los Angeles: Hennessey & Ingalls. Wollenberg, Charles. 1985. Golden Gate Metropolis, Perspectives on Bay Area History. Berkeley: Institute of Governmental Studies. Woodbridge, Sally B., John M. Woodbridge, and Chuck Byrne. 2005. San Francisco Architecture: An Illustrated Guide to the Outstanding Buildings, Public Artworks, and Parks in the Bay Area of California. Berkeley: Ten Speed Press.