SR 02-13-2024 11A
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: February 13, 2024
Agenda Item: 11.A
1 of 18
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Jenny Rogers, Recreation and Arts Director, Recreation and Arts Department
Subject: Approval of the Reframe: City Hall Mural Project Phase I Report
Recommendations
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Review and accept the report’s community recommendations presented by
Meztli Projects (Attachment A)
2. Direct City Staff to begin the implementation phase of the Reframe: City Hall
Mural project, starting with planning for the 9 recommendations included in the
report.
Summary
Following direction from Council to engage the community around the Stanton
McDonald Wright mural in the historic City Hall lobby, a detailed community
engagement process has taken place that included focus groups, workshops, public
surveys, and individual meetings with stakeholders, particularly the Native people who
trace their ancestry to the Santa Monica area over the past fourteen months. Phase I of
the Reframe: City Hall Mural process engaged a broad range of community members
from March 2023 to November 2023. Many participants engaged with the process more
than once, suggesting a depth of engagement over time. Consultant Meztli Projects
created a comprehensive report of the nationwide movement around civic memory
concerns, the local specifics of the City Hall Mural, and the community process used to
address the mural.
11.A
Packet Pg. 510
2 of 18
Reframe refers to the City of Santa Monica Acknowledge + Reframe Together
(Reframe) Initiative, which centers community voices with the aim of creating a more
just and equitable Santa Monica. Through a deliberative and collaborative process,
each Reframe project starts with community members who have been historically
excluded from discourse about representation in civic spaces, especially communities of
color. Reframe utilizes a combination of art, storytelling and other community
engagement strategies, and informs and shapes the City's public art collection and the
creation of new public art.
The resulting nine recommendations that emerged from this process are:
1. Commission New Artwork(s) in City Hall Lobby
New artwork should present history from different perspectives and celebrate and
reframe what is traditionally presented. The new work should create a welcoming
environment for Indigenous people, working-class people and people of color.
2. Commission New Interpretive Panels
Create interpretive panels that offer context but make clear statements against
the misrepresentations in the mural. The panels should give basic information about the
mural and must also clearly condemn the depiction of Native people, the Mission
System and white supremacy in general. The new interpretive panels should be written
by an advisory group that includes at least one Indigenous person and Black, Latine/x,
Asian American people and others who are excluded from the southwest mural panel.
3. Ensure that Santa Monica’s Public Art & Commemorative Landscape Centers
Equity and Belonging
The Reframe: City Hall Mural process should be the beginning of a series of
steps taken by the City of Santa Monica to revisit the policies and processes that govern
public artwork and civic memory. These steps should begin with developing a set of
equity and inclusion principles to govern decisions about existing works and how they
might be addressed or deaccessioned, as well as future works and how they are
commissioned. The City should review the rest of the artworks, monuments, and forms
of civic memory (such as street names) in the City of Santa Monica using the criteria
established.
4. Create additional educational materials about the mural
11.A
Packet Pg. 511
3 of 18
Many believe that the mural can serve an educational purpose in telling fuller
histories about Santa Monica, including histories of First Peoples, the Rancho period,
Black, Brown, and Asian communities, and working-class folks in Santa Monica. To do
this well, the City should partner with a qualified educational institution with substantive
partnerships and include other institutions to make this meaningful.
Beyond actions in the cultural sphere or recommendations for the City Hall
Lobby, the community felt that the City should act to materially address issues related to
the exclusions seen in the mural. The remaining recommendations echo the desires
expressed by Gabrieleno/Tongva tribe’s formal letter (see Appendix D). “Centering the
perspectives of First Peoples” and “doing something concrete, not just words” were
highly rated values consistent with these recommendations. The suggestions here are
not prescriptive for future processes, but pathways to open up opportunities for
continued work in this area as well as deal with community members’ immediate
concerns.
5. Expand DEI+ Trainings for City Staff
The City should build on actions taken since its Racial Equity Statement of 2020
and continue to go deeper to develop staff capacities around cultural exchange,
decoloniality and social justice. To be successful, future efforts should focus on
implementation strategies and tools for staff that center the overlapping experiences,
shared spaces and mutual accountability of underrepresented peoples.
6. Adopt a Citywide Land/Territory Acknowledgment Initiative
Santa Monica has an opportunity to adopt a City-wide land acknowledgment
initiative that includes the actionable practices that often have been stripped from the
original intentions of land acknowledgments. In developing this initiative, the City should
involve but not overtax local First Peoples.
7. Improve Representation on Santa Monica Committees
Many of the issues across the country relating to the misrepresentation of
peoples stems from systems that exclude marginalized communities. For Santa Monica
to remedy these issues it should add First Peoples representatives to decision -making
bodies such as the Airport, Landmarks, Arts and Planning Commissions among others
as well as the Clean Beaches & Ocean Parcel Tax Citizens Oversight Committees,
Metropolitan Water District and Urban Forest Task Force among similar bodies.
11.A
Packet Pg. 512
4 of 18
8. Facilitate Land Back in Santa Monica
In Santa Monica, there have been discussions about providing a right to return
for displaced groups, such as incarcerated Japanese Americans, African Americans
removed by urban renewal, and working-class people of all backgrounds pushed out by
gentrification. Land Back considerations have not yet been part of the discussion in
Santa Monica, but they can be brought into conversation alongside, not at the expense
of, these other considerations.
9. Facilitate Kuruvungna Springs Relationships
While it is not in the City of Santa Monica, Kuruvungna Springs is an important
site for repair and sovereignty for Santa Monica First Peoples. The Tribe named the
return of the land at Kuruvungna Springs from the Los Angeles Unified School District to
the Tribe in their letter to Santa Monica. In addition, Kuruvungna Springs is connected
to the City Hall mural in that one of the primary legends concerning the naming of the
City appears to be the encounter between Spanish settlers and the Kuruvungna
Springs—an event that many believe is centrally depicted in the mural.
Consultant Meztli Projects noted in their report that “the mural and the controversy
around it have created a rare and critical focal point of civic energy. The key is not to
squander the moment and let it further perpetuate ill-will and distrust, but rather to use it
to move towards equity, justice, and a better Santa Monica.” It is notable that this
process did not result in recommending the removal of the mural at this time. Instead,
the recommendations speak to the reparative actions community members signaled
were of utmost importance and which are possible while keeping the mural in place.
On December 12, 2023, the Arts Commission voted to approve all of the
recommendations with a focus on beginning implementation on Recommendations 1 -4.
Background
On May 11, 2021, the City Council directed staff, as “part of the City’s efforts to
eliminate and mitigate the vestiges of white supremacy and racial injustice in the City of
Santa Monica,” to address community concerns related to the display of the 1930s
Stanton McDonald Wright mural at the entrance to Santa Monica City Hall, and
11.A
Packet Pg. 513
5 of 18
specifically to “initiate a community engagement and education process around the
representations depicted in the mural,” and engage an artist to “recontextualize the
mural with artwork that…celebrates the diverse history of Santa Monica’s people”. The
motion also directed staff to install a scrim in the short-term that would cover the mural
(Attachment C). On September 28, 2021, Council appointed Councilmembers Christine
Parra and Oscar de la Torre onto an Ad-Hoc Committee to study and make
recommendations for the mural in the lobby of City Hall (Attachment D). On February
22, 2022, Council reaffirmed this action, and reversed the mandate to cover the mural,
restating that the process should engage and educate our community and result “in the
addition of artwork within the lobby to create a more inclusive and complete story of our
City's history and vision for our future to advance the City’s commitment to equity,
justice and respect for all” (Attachment E).
Civic Conversations around Representation in Public Art
Civic conversations have taken place in communities around the country about public
monuments and art that no longer reflect a contemporary understanding of history and
community. These conversations have been taking place in government, higher
education, and communities for more than a decade, increasing in frequency and
urgency since the summer of 2020. From coast to coast, communities have grappled
with this nation’s history of conquest, slavery, racialized violence and inequity, and
homophobia to reimagine these legacies in their public spaces and buildings.
These efforts have resulted in a variety of approaches to addressing problematic public
art. Some communities have moved or removed statues of individuals whose legacies
bear reexamination. Others have recontextualized the original artworks through
educational signage. And yet others have added new art that better reflects their
understanding of community and history today. When communities have chosen to
recontextualize rather than remove public art and monuments, the efforts are often
driven by a desire to avoid erasing the stains of the past and to use the process and
new artworks to educate, with the goal of acknowledging historic inequities and
committing to a more just future.
11.A
Packet Pg. 514
6 of 18
Past Council Actions
Meeting Date Description
05/11/21 (Attachment C) Item directing staff to embark on a community process
09/28/21 (Attachment D) Item appointing an Ad-Hoc Committee
02/22/22 (Attachment E) Item reiterating the direction to execute a community process
Discussion
Reframe: City Hall Mural project Phase I recommendations
When Council appointed the Mural Ad Hoc Committee in 2021, the intent was to help
navigate the divergent community perspectives that were voice d around the mural.
Council directed staff to guide a process to recontextualize the City Hall mural, including
a community process that gathered informed community input, and then return to the
full Council with a set of recommendations for consideration. This resulted in the
Reframe: City Hall Mural project and the attached community engagement Phase I
report (Attachment A). Should the City Council adopt the recommendations in the
Phase I report, this would allow for implementation and inform an RFP to engage an
artist or artist team to produce and install artistic recontextualization(s). The
implementation of the recommendations will be considered as a Phase II of Reframe
City Hall Mural project.
The City engaged Meztli Projects, an Indigenous-based arts & culture collaborative
centering Indigeneity by using arts-based strategies to highlight Native and Indigenous
Artists and systems-impacted peoples, to facilitate Phase I of the Mural project. Meztli
Projects has been successful in empowering community members, and centering
community interests, bringing in civic entities and finding ways to align goals. Meztli
Projects was selected for their novel approach and expertise in public art, qualitative
research, experience working with Indigenous communities, expansive community
engagement strategies, and most importantly, for their deep involvement in emerging
conversations around authentic and new approaches to public memory and
commemoration at a local, regional and national levels.
Meztli Projects’ approach to this project included:
11.A
Packet Pg. 515
7 of 18
• A “Working Circle” composed of individuals with strong ties to very different parts
of Santa Monica that served as an advisory body to the project team. Over six
months, the Working Circle attended public programs as well as met as a cohort.
At the end of this process, the Working Circle discussed actions that could be
taken in response to the mural. Their discussions informed the recommendations
in this report.
• A series of public programs on relevant themes including a bus tour of sites of
memory; virtual and in-person panel discussions about art, civic memory and
alternate histories of Santa Monica; a virtual tour of relevant educational
resources, a reflective listening workshop, and a screening of the documentary
Town Destroyer. Additionally, they created programming through the perspective
of First Peoples as a starting point to engage issues of equity and inclusion.
• The creation and installation of lobby displays in Historic City Hall that explained
the project and presented updates to City Hall visitors.
• A feedback activity to survey members of the public about their perceptions of
the mural and spark ideas for new public artworks.
• Interviews and small group engagements with a broad spectrum of individuals
who have a stake in the mural conversation or have voiced opinions about it,
subject matter experts, and local content experts. Meztli also visited existing
community meetings and had one-on-one conversations with targeted
constituencies, including City Hall staff.
Over the course of a year, the team produced public programs, conducted interviews
and listening sessions with key stakeholders, surveyed hundreds of people across
Santa Monica, and convened a working circle of individuals with ties to distinct
communities with diverse perspectives on Santa Monica’s art and history.
11.A
Packet Pg. 516
8 of 18
The recommendations development process was supported by and marked by its
breadth - outreach to and connection with a cross-section of people from markedly
diverse perspectives; the quality and the depth of discussion and deliberation; and the
degree of agreement found amongst these very diverse viewpoints. For instance, the
Working Circle was selected to bring together individuals with diverse perspectives,
histories, and ties to Santa Monica communities. The people who engaged through the
feedback activity, interviews, small group engagements, and public programs widened
the discussion even more. Everyone who engaged with us through all these methods
brought deep feeling, knowledge, and thoughtfulness to the issue. The
recommendations are infused with the learnings from all of the voices of those who
engaged in the Reframe: City Hall Mural process.
The Working Circle
The Working Circle was made up of 13 individuals selected to represent a broad range
of perspectives, life histories and community connections, and the model. This model
pulled in people with connections to key Santa Monica communities to democratize
knowledge and illuminate a diversity of community views. This was designed to be an
intimate community group and over the course of Phase I of the project, Working Circle
members engaged in open dialogue on civic history, representation and public art in
Santa Monica. Additionally, this group connected to one another, gained new
perspectives, and offered each one an opportunity to connect using new tools and
perspectives, so they could be open to new ideas and unlearn others.
The legitimacy of the Working Circle’s process and resulting voice in the
recommendations, stems from the breadth of the group–everyday citizens from
astonishingly diverse starting points–and the quality and the depth of their monthly
discussions. The Working Circle used a highly facilitated process similar to “Delphi
Surveying'' in which the group was given three rounds of anonymous surveys to
develop and refine their statements and recommendations. The group was able to find
extremely significant points of agreement through this process.
Larger Public Engagement
11.A
Packet Pg. 517
9 of 18
Phase I of the Reframe: City Hall Mural process engaged people approximately 1300
times from March 2023 to November 2023. The number of unique participants is likely
smaller, considering that many people engaged with the process in multiple ways.
• 123 respondents to March 2022 survey distributed to Santa Monica residents
and employees
• 100 youth participants in Summer 2022 Belonging in Santa Monica workshops
with Glenna Avila
• 13 Working Circle members selected from 32 applications
• Approximately 270 participants at 9 public events featuring 12 guest speakers or
facilitators
• 15 interview participants
• Approximately 240 participants at 14 presentations or listening sessions with
community groups
• At least 200 Feedback Activity sheets distributed at 5 additional community
events
• 337 respondents to the Reframe: City Hall Mural Feedback Activity
11.A
Packet Pg. 518
10 of 18
2023 Timeline of engagement by group/activity.
11.A
Packet Pg. 519
11 of 18
Sample Perspectives and Community Responses
The following vignettes provide a sample of the complexities of community responses to
the mural from some of the most local supporters and detractors. These responses
were gathered through interviews and the feedback activities.
Organizers of the Pico Youth and Family Center (PYFC) have been at the forefront of
getting the City to address the mural. Rooted in the Latine/x Pico neighborhood in Santa
Monica, some members of the PYFC community identify as Chicana/o and some as
part of the larger Indigenous community. Their concerns about the mural are rooted in
the depictions of Brown bodies and how they are perceived as subservient or less
human than the white figures in the mural. For the PYFC leadership and community,
these depictions are connected to larger issues that they want addressed in their
community, particularly youth issues, affordable housing, homelessness, and
gentrification. Members of the Working Circle have deep ties to the community there
and helped facilitate meetings with community members to gather feedback along the
way.
Many PYFC community members would like the mural to be removed, while others are
interested in programming and other artwork commissions to offset the settler colonial
narrative perceived as reflected in the mural.
Other respondents identified themselves as Marquez family descendants. Marquez
family descendants shared how proud they are that their ancestor is named in the
mural, along with their knowledge of the history of the Rancho period.
For the Marquez family descendants, the mural represents a sense of pride and
acknowledgment of the history of the land grant families whose time in the US predates
contemporary immigration from the Americas. For them, the mural anchors their history
in the region. The Marquez family descendants were opposed to removing, covering, or
altering the mural, but were also strongly in favor of telling the fuller history of Santa
Monica that includes the stories of people of color, such as a nuanced picture of the
Rancho period, the removal of Japanese Americans during WWII, waves of Mexican
11.A
Packet Pg. 520
12 of 18
immigration after the Mexican Revolution, and African Americans who came to Santa
Monica to work in the aerospace industry as part of the Great Migration.
The individuals who filled out the feedback activity and identified themselves as Santa
Monica First Peoples (Gabrieleno, Tongva, Chumash, Tataviam, Acjachamen) almost
all found the mural images offensive. The Gabrielino-Shoshone Nation of Southern
California’s letter (Attachment G) specifically speaks to the harms of the mural and asks
“to please reconsider your intentions to display this mural and have the common
decency to think of those who this image offends and help move us forward not
backwards.” Some people were against changing the artwork and removing a piece of
Santa Monica history but enthusiastic about new opportunities for Tongva artists.
Additionally, Santa Monica First Peoples directly linked the mural to issues of land
access and Land Back as well as other important issues Native communities in Santa
Monica face. For example, the San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians, in their letter to the
City of Santa Monica stated, “rather than focus on the mural itself we view this as an
opportunity to discuss additional education that can assist in promoting the awareness
of our Tribe, history, and culture.” They urged the City to engage in a series of actions
oriented to land acknowledgments, Land Back, affordability, historical representation,
etc. (Attachment H).
Sharing the Recommendations
Between October 2023 and January 2024, Meztli and City staff met with the Ad Hoc
Committee, the City Council, Arts Commissioners and local stakeholders for briefings
on the results of the Phase I process and to discuss the recommendations. At the open
house event at City Hall in November 2023, City leadership, Conservancy and
Landmarks-affiliated members of the public and local First Peoples met in free-flowing
conversations to share their views on the recommendations and potential future action.
Phase II – Arts Commission
The first four recommendations in the report can be led and managed by Arts
Commission with Cultural Affairs staff. The remaining recommendations are more
broadly addressing issues of equity and representation and will need to be overseen by
11.A
Packet Pg. 521
13 of 18
the Office of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (Equity) and a larger coalition of city staff
stakeholders.
1. Commission New Artwork(s) in City Hall Lobby
2. Commission New Interpretive Panels
3. Ensure that Santa Monica’s Public Art & Commemorative Landscape Centers
Equity and Belonging
4. Create additional educational materials about the mural
Phase II – Equity
The City’s Equity team is currently undertaking the development of a city-wide equity
plan that reflects the priorities of the diverse identities in Santa Monica, with an
approach that is informed by insight from every City department. To create the plan,
staff launched the process with a panel discussion featuring diverse representation to
explore the concept of strategic allyship. This has been followed by a seven -month
community engagement phase dedicated to collective issue identification, focused on
gathering information about residents’ equity priorities and challenges. These
engagement opportunities include large City community listening sessions, held both in
person and virtually, as well as smaller, community led meetings. The City offered
stipends to community groups to host these sessions, ensuring diverse voices were
heard and their insights can be incorporated into the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
(DEI) team’s analysis.
Following the community engagement process, the DEI team will present priorities and
proposed solutions and ask the City Council to identify priority areas of focus. Cultural
Affairs and Equity staff have been working together to ensure that DEI
recommendations from the Reframe Phase I engagement process are considered when
the Equity priorities are presented to Council. Specifically, these are:
5. Expand DEI+ Trainings for City Staff
6. Adopt a Citywide Land/Territory Acknowledgment Initiative
7. Improve Representation on Santa Monica Committees
8. Facilitate Land Back in Santa Monica
9. Facilitate Kuruvungna Springs Relationships
11.A
Packet Pg. 522
14 of 18
Presently, the City’s Equity team provides city staff trainings in:
• implicit bias and racial equity in local government
• interrupting microaggressions
• civility in the workplace with a focus on inclusion and equity
These trainings provide a solid foundation for the “Expand DEI+ Trainings for City Staff”
recommendation #5.
Implementation Priorities and Timeline– Arts Commission
Dependent on Council input and approval of the recommendations, per the community
input the greatest priorities for implementation are those addressing the lobby and mural
directly, specifically recommendations #1 and #2 for the creation of new artwork and
interpretive panels.
A potential proposed timeline and plan would be:
• March 2024: Begin RFP development for contracts to execute priority
recommended actions; this might include the start of the RFP development
process for new artwork commission(s), interpretive/contextualization
information-gathering on the WPA mural, and other priorities.
• June 2024: RFP released for artists or artist teams to produce further community
engagement around new artwork for the lobby, including artistic response(s) and
artwork design. RFP for contractors to manage process to synthesize input from
community stakeholders, historians and culture-bearers and create interpretive
panels for the WPA mural.
• June – August 2024: Selection and procurement process for new artwork;
convene panel to review proposals and select artist(s), which is then brought to
the Arts Commission for consideration. Comply with Landmarks and CEQA
requirements with regard to placement and alteration in the lobby as necessary.
Develop RFP for citywide civic memory and art cultural assessment.
11.A
Packet Pg. 523
15 of 18
• August 2024 – August 2025: Implementation of project(s) approved by the Arts
Commission and implementation of interpretive panel production. Selection,
procurement, and implementation process for cultural assessment.
Placement Considerations
In advance of anticipated recommendations, City staff have been meeting to determine
potential placements and understand what is possible within the historic and structural
constraints. Preliminary conversations have identified open spaces and walls that could
feature new artwork. New artwork would be fabricated and installed with sensitivity to
the historic structure and ease of cleaning, adjustment, and conservation in mind.
11.A
Packet Pg. 524
16 of 18
City staff regularly accomplishes projects in and around the lobby and is always
sensitive to the original tile, flooring, mural and other aspects of the lobby. In 1979, the
Landmarks Commission designated Santa Monica City Hall a City Landmark
(Attachment F). In 2011, the Landmarks Commission supplemented the City Hall
designation to specify additional exterior character-defining features of the landscaping
and grounds of the City Hall site. As the interior of City Hall is not included in the
designation, formal review in the form of a Certificate of Appropriateness (C of A) is not
issued by staff or the Landmarks Commission to complete alterations to the interior.
Staff has nonetheless ensured in previous projects that alterations to the interior of City
Hall, including the restoration of the mural in 2003, and alterations affecting the historic
tile, were completed in accordance with standard practice for treatment of historic
features. Because the mural is described in the original designation, should alterations
to the mural be proposed as a result of the community engagement process, any such
alterations will be subject to appropriate review under CEQA and issuance of a C of A.
There have been other changes within the lobby in recent years, including the addition
of an elevator, replacement of tiles, additions of wall monitors and public comment
kiosks. It is also notable that the present-day chandelier does not correspond to the
original design. Once a project is defined, staff will analyze it to ensure compliance with
CEQA, including whether appropriate exemptions apply.
Actions of the Arts Commission
The Commission voted unanimously, at the December 12, 2023, special meeting, to
support the adoption of the recommendations drafted by Meztli Projects as part of
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report. The Commission indicated that “Metzli
Projects conducted a successful community engagement process to assess the range
of people’s perceptions of and attitudes about the City Hall Mural.”
11.A
Packet Pg. 525
17 of 18
Next Steps
Should Council agree on this complete set of recommendations, which have been
endorsed by a broad diversity of community stakeholders, staff has identified the first
four priorities could be spearheaded by the Arts Commission and Cultural Affairs
division over a five-year program timeline.
City Staff have secured $250,000 for preliminary implementation. This budget is
sufficient to begin the process to create new artwork for the lobby and new interpretive
signage in Historic City Hall. Future funding for other aspects of this project, which
includes a city-wide assessment and city-wide responses to the civic memory
landscape, would be requested in the future budgets and from grants. The total
estimated cost for implementation of recommendations 1-4 is $1,300,000 over the next
5 years.
RECOMMENDATIONS 1-4 PROJECTS COST
Rec #1: Commission Lobby Artwork $440,000
Rec #2: Interpretive Panels $110,000
Rec #3: Educational Materials $100,000
Rec #4: Assessment + New Works $650,000
TOTAL BUDGET $1,300,000
Funding by Source
Project Source Amount Status
Commission new lobby artwork FY23-24 CIP $190,000 Included in budget
New Interpretive Panels FY23-24 CIP $60,000 Included in budget
Commission new lobby artworks CIP $250,000 FY 24-25 Request
Interpretive Panels CIP $50,000 FY 24-25 Request
Educational Materials CIP $35,000 FY 24-25 Request
Educational Materials Grants $65,000 Not Started
Assessment of City monuments and
public artwork CIP $650,000 FY 26-27 Request
Expand DEI+ Trainings for City Staff
To DEI team for
consideration
Adopt a Citywide Land/Territory
Acknowledgment Initiative
To DEI team for
consideration
Improve Representation on Santa Monica
Committees No budget impact
Facilitate Land Back in Santa Monica
To DEI team for
consideration
11.A
Packet Pg. 526
18 of 18
Facilitate Kuruvungna Springs
Relationships
No budget impact
Environmental Review
No environmental review is necessary as no action is being undertaken at this time.
Fiscal Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action as a result of approving the
recommendations in this report.
Prepared By: Sofia Klatzker, Cultural Affairs Manager
Approved
Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report
B. Executive Summary of Meztli Report and Recommendations
C. 5/11/21Council Item directing staff to embark on a community process (Web
Link)
D. 9/28/21 Council Item appointing two Councilmembers to an Ad -Hoc Committee
(Web Link)
E. 2/22/22 Council Item reiterating the direction to execute a community process
(Web Link)
F. City Hall Historic Designation documents
G. 2.25.23 Letter from Gabrielino Shoshone Tribe
H. 5.12.23 Letter from Gabrielino-Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians
I. Written Comments
J. PowerPoint Presentation
11.A
Packet Pg. 527
Reframe: City Hall Mural
Phase I Report
January 202411.A.a
Packet Pg. 528 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report
Executive Summary
Introduction
Reframe: City Hall Mural Background
Larger civic memory and public art landscape
Beginnings of the Reframe: City Hall Mural project
Preliminary work
About Our Process
The Working Circle
Selection and composition
Working CirclejJourney
Public programs
Feedback activity engagement
Interviews and small group engagements
The History of the Mural
Stanton Macdonald-Wright as WPA administrator
Some common misconceptions
Interpretations of the Mural
The southwest or “recreation” side of the mural
The northwest side of the mural
Debated figures and features
Historical context and potential sources
Are the representations in the mural objectionable?
Current Conversations and Case Studies in the Field
Monument removals and historical revisions: Los Angeles
Columbus Statue (1973) in Grand Park
Serra Statue (1930) at El Pueblo de Los Angeles Historical Monument
National monuments and artwork case studies
Early Days sculpture within the Pioneer Monument (1894) in San Francisco
Equestrian Statue of Theodore Roosevelt and Old New York diorama at the American
Museum of Natural History
Dangers of the Mail (1937) at the William Jefferson Clinton Federal Building
Life of Washington (1936) at George Washington High School
Themes in the case studies
1
11
13
13
15
17
18
21
21
22
26
27
28
31
32
33
36
37
39
40
44
46
49
49
49
50
51
52
53
55
56
57
Table of Contents
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 529 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report
Feedback Activity Responses
Sentiments about the mural in the feedback activity
Suggested actions in response to the mural in feedback activity responses
Feedback from Particular Constituencies
Santa Monica First Peoples
Larger Indigenous community
African American or Black, Asian American, and Latine/x Santa Monicans
Pico Youth and Family Center
Santa Monica historic preservation community
Marquez family descendants
City of Santa Monica employees
Recommendations
Values supporting the recommendations
Why are we not talking about removing or covering the mural
Recommendations concerning the mural and new artwork
Recommendation 1 – Commission new artwork in City Hall lobby
Recommendation 2 – Commission new interpretive panels
Recommendation 3 – Ensure that Santa Monica’s public art and commemorative
landscape centers equity and belonging
Recommendation 4 – Create additional educational materials about the mural
Recommendations for City of Santa Monica to lead beyond the mural and
new artwork
Recommendation 5 – Expand DEI+ trainings for City staff
Recommendation 6 – Adopt a Citywide land/territory acknowledgment initiative
Recommendation 7 – Improve representation on Santa Monica committees
Recommendation 8 – Facilitate Land Back in Santa Monica
Recommendation 9 – Facilitate Kuruvungna Springs relationships
Conclusion
Credits and Acknowledgements
Appendices
Appendix A: City Hall Mural Recent Historical Timeline
Appendix B: Working Circle Discussion and Development of Values, Statements,
and Recommendations
Appendix C: Engagement Details
Appendix D: Letters from Tribal Communities
58
58
60
61
61
62
62
63
64
64
65
66
66
67
68
68
69
70
71
71
71
72
73
73
74
75
76
79
80
81
93
102
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 530 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 1
The Reframe: City Hall Mural project emerged from protest and debates around
the Stanton MacDonald-Wright mural in the lobby of Historic Santa Monica City
Hall entitled History of Santa Monica and the Bay District. The mural has long
been a point of controversy, but in 2015 a renewed effort brought public criticism
for its depiction of First Peoples and settlers and its portrayal of 1930s Santa
Monica as an affluent, all-white, predominantly male, center of leisure.
Starting the Process
The City of Santa Monica began work on addressing longstanding concerns
around the WPA-era mural in the lobby of Historic City Hall with direction
from the Arts Commission in 2018. This direction informed initial planning for
the project and included a 5-point plan of committee work, programming, and
funding for new artwork commissions to address the mural. These were:
Executive Summary
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report
The City of Santa Monica Acknowledge + Reframe Together (Reframe) Initiative centers
community voices with the aim of creating a more just and equitable Santa Monica. Through
a deliberative and collaborative process, each Reframe project starts with community members
who have been historically excluded from discourse about representation in civic spaces,
especially communities of color. Reframe utilizes a combination of art, storytelling and deep
community engagement, and results in the production of public art and civic memory projects.
This report is the culmination of Phase I of Reframe: City Hall Mural, summarizing the process
of community engagement and subsequent community recommendations.
Background
The Working Circle meets at Historic Santa Monica City
Hall lobby. Photo: Kenneth Lopez, Meztli Projects
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 531 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 2
1.Form a Mural Subcommittee. The Subcommittee will inform and guide the
planning process managed by City staff (formed in November 2018).
2.Issue an Art Bank call specifically requesting artworks that respond to
Indigenous or other often overlooked histories of Santa Monica (resulting in
the Lives that Bind exhibit in City Hall East).
3.Coordinate a panel discussion series that will host open public dialogues
with experts from diverse perspectives including Indigenous Peoples,
History, and Art (executed by Meztli Projects as part of Phase I).
4.Commission a temporary participatory artwork in City Hall to collect
community voices (evolved into the Meztli Projects Phase I lobby display and
feedback activity).
5.Informed by the community engagement and panels series, commission a
permanent educational panel or other artistic interpretation at City Hall to
recontextualize the Macdonald-Wright mural (part of the recommendations
included in this report by Meztli Projects arising from the community
engagement process of Phase I).
City Council Direction
In the midst of the Arts Commission’s recontextualization work, Public Works
Department staff received additional direction from the City Council in May 2021
to install a temporary scrim to cover the mural prior to the return to City Hall for
in person, public meetings.
Simultaneously, the Arts Commission and Cultural Affairs were directed
to initiate a community engagement and education process around the
representations depicted in the mural, as well as “engaging an artist to
recontextualize the mural with artwork that does not whitewash our past but
rather celebrates the diverse history of Santa Monica’s people, culture and its
renewed commitment to acknowledging the movement for equity, justice and
respect for all.”
The Mural Ad Hoc Committee was appointed by Council on September 28,
2021 to serve as liaisons to the Landmarks and Arts Commissions to help
guide the process to recontextualize the mural. Following the community
process and informed by community input, the Ad Hoc Committee was tasked
to return to the full City Council with a set of recommendations for Council
consideration (this report). The adopted recommendations would then
inform an RFP to engage an artist or artist team to produce and install artistic
recontextualization(s). This phase was overseen by the Arts Commission under
its authority as custodians of the City’s public art collection.
In February 2022, Council directed staff to no longer install a temporary scrim
over the Stanton Macdonald-Wright mural in the lobby and instead directed staff
“to launch a process that engages and educates the community and results in
the addition of artwork within the lobby to create a more inclusive and complete
story of the City’s history and vision for the future” and directed staff to “explore
the creation of a temporary lobby display around the themes that will be
explored during the larger community education and engagement process.”
Cultural Affairs contracted with consultants Meztli Projects in 2022 to design a
City Hall Mural project Phase I to engage Santa Monica community members in
conversations both in general around representation and belonging, and with
the specific questions arising from the lobby mural.
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 532 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 3
The Meztli Projects facilitation team is composed of four artists, curators, and
researchers: Joel Garcia, Robin Garcia, Susannah Laramee Kidd and Rosten Woo.
Meztli was selected by the City for its novel approach and expertise in public
art, qualitative research, experience working with Indigenous communities,
expansive community engagement strategies, and most importantly, for its deep
involvement in emerging conversations around authentic and new approaches to
public memory and commemoration at a local, regional and national levels.
Meztli Projects’ approach to the work:
•A “Working Circle” focus group composed of 13 individuals with strong
ties to very different parts of Santa Monica that committed to attend public
programs as well as meet as a cohort to act as an advisory body and think
tank for six months. At the end of this process, the Working Circle discussed
actions that could be taken in response to the mural. Their discussions
informed the recommendations in this report.
•A series of Public Programs on relevant themes including a bus tour of
sites of memory; virtual and in-person panel discussions about art, civic
memory and alternate histories of Santa Monica; a virtual tour of relevant
educational resources; a reflective listening workshop and a screening of
the documentary Town Destroyer. Additionally, they created programming
through the perspective of First Peoples as a starting point to engage issues
of equity and inclusion.
•The creation and installation of Lobby Displays in Historic City Hall that
explained the project and presented updates to City Hall visitors.
•A Feedback Activity to survey members of the public about their perceptions
of the mural and spark ideas for new public artworks.
•Interviews and Small Group Engagements with a broad spectrum of
individuals who have a stake in the mural conversation or have voiced
opinions about it, subject matter experts, and local content experts. Meztli
also visited existing community meetings and had one-on-one conversations
with targeted constituencies.
Public Programs Working Circle
Convenes
Lobby Display &
Feedback Activity
Interviews &
Small Groups
Report
Over six months, the team produced 8+ public programs, conducted 15
interviews with key stakeholders, surveyed over 300 people across Santa Monica,
and convened a Working Circle made up of 13 individuals with ties to distinct
communities and diverse perspectives on Santa Monica’s history and public art.
The Working Circle engaged one another in an ongoing deep group process to
learn together and ultimately develop and prioritize recommendations.
Method
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 533 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 4
The Working Circle met a total of 13 times as a group – 4 of these were in person,
with the rest taking place on Zoom. Working Circle members also attended
the public programs when possible. Meetings were facilitated to create an
environment that would allow trust to grow, make sure that all members felt
that they had space to speak, and create a “brave” space where members ask
difficult questions, and bring their authentic perspective. Meztli prioritized small
group breakout discussions, as well as a “circle” format intended to make sure
everyone had equal opportunity to speak.
The public programs explored themes of Indigeneity, art history, innovative
civic memory projects, local sites of memory, alternative archives and public
history projects based in Santa Monica, reflective listening and healing through
story, and related controversies about public art and history. At each of these
events, Meztli found an audience that was fully engaged by the topic and often
eager to voice their opinions on the mural. Meztli was focused on expanding the
conversation to engage a larger landscape of questions and concerns around
inclusion, repair, civic memory and public space.
Meztli also conducted extensive research using archival materials and interviews
with content experts. The findings from each of these kinds of engagement can
be found in the following report.
History of Santa Monica and the Bay District is a “petrachrome” (similar to
terrazzo) mural installed on the interior walls of the lobby of Santa Monica’s City
Hall building, designed by Stanton Macdonald-Wright, an American artist who
spent his early years in Santa Monica. The mural was commissioned through
the Works Progress Administration’s (WPA) Federal Art Project. Macdonald-
Wright also acted as the administrator of the WPA project’s Southern California
division, supervising numerous other artists and their projects. Macdonald-
Wright’s mural was completed in 1939 along with the building itself. The City
of Santa Monica owns the mural and it is part of the City’s public art collection.
Santa Monica City Hall was landmarked in 1979 and the mural was mentioned
in the designation. In 2011, the exterior of City Hall was given a supplemental
landmark designation.
About the Mural
Detail of the mural “History of Santa Monica and the Bay
District” by Stanton Macdonald-Wright, 1939. Southwest
panel shown to the left, northwest panel shown to the right.
Photos: Kenneth Lopez, Meztli Projects
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 534 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 5
It appears Macdonald-Wright had no outside guidance or oversight over the
content, considering the complete absence of archival materials relating to
the mural. Typically, mural artists would be asked to submit drawings and
sketches before being permitted to produce and install public projects. The
City Hall mural has almost no paper trail, suggesting that Macdonald-Wright,
because he was both artist and commissioner, did not submit any concepts,
written descriptions, drawings or plans to any oversight body.
Macdonald-Wright did speak explicitly about the mural in an interview about
the objects, places, and figures in the southwest side: Will Rogers and his polo
field, automobile racing on San Vicente or Wilshire Blvd, the Douglas Building,
Harry M. Gorham, tennis players May Sutton and Tom Bundy, as well as the
artist’s own dogs.
There are no recorded descriptions of who or what Macdonald-Wright was
intending to render on the northwest side of the mural. We can only speculate
about who or what is depicted, outside of the mural’s general title: History of
Santa Monica and the Bay District.
It is mostly agreed that the northwest panel includes depictions of a Franciscan
monk (most likely Father Serra); a man with a helmet (possibly Gaspar de
Portolá); a figure on horseback (which could represent the Spanish period
or an extension of the Portolá expedition); waterfalls (perhaps Kuruvungna
Springs); and the two figures on the bottom right, who are intended to be
Indigenous people.
The largest point of interpretive contention is whether the overall scene
presented is objectionable. Throughout this process, Meztli encountered three
different major kinds of objections and three major defenses regarding the
First Peoples’ portrayal.
Objections
1.The figures are showing deference or subservience to the conquerors.
This portrayal is traumatic to survivors of generational violence because it
depicts a triumphant moment of subjugation.
2.The figures are showing collaboration and goodwill towards their soon-
to-be oppressors. This portrayal is traumatic not only because it erases a
history of extreme violence and cruelty but suggests that Native people
welcomed it.
3.The figures are generally shown as less than the other white/Spanish
figures and whether they are revered or vilified, they are not portrayed as
real humans or on the same level as one another.
Defenses
1.The figures are shown in a way that honors Native people, because they
relate to the earth, look strong, or their posture might reference East Asian
figures such as bodhisattvas.
2.The figures are helpful because they acknowledge that people lived here
before European invasion.
3.The figures are neutral and just happen to be in the higher and lower
positions they are in because it makes a dynamic composition. The figures
may or may not even be having an interaction.
These interpretations cannot be resolved definitively. While some viewers feel
no offense at seeing these images, it is beyond debate that many other viewers
most certainly do and feel very harmed by them.
Detail of the City Hall mural. Photo: Kenneth Lopez,
Meztli Projects
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 535 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 6
Through a public feedback activity, Meztli had people engage directly with
the mural images to understand not just how they interpreted the images, but
also their emotional responses and attachments to the mural. They collected
feedback activity responses from February 6, 2023, through May 10, 2023 and
received 337 responses to the feedback activity.
The mural images are offensive, disturbing, or exclusionary. A majority of the
respondents found one or both of the mural panels to be offensive, disturbing,
or exclusionary. Overall, these respondents felt that the mural represented
the hierarchies inherent in settler colonialism and white supremacy. In the
northwest panels, they noted the lower position of the Native figures and the
difference in detail in facial expressions and clothing between the European
and Native figures. They reacted to the fact that the colonizing figures are shown
facing the viewer in active positions (mid-stride). Many people read the images
as representing the Native figures in a subservient position and noted that they
appear to be faceless or turned away from the viewer.
In response to the southwest panels, respondents overwhelmingly noted the fact
all the figures represented are white and appear to be upper class. Many noted
that there is only one woman represented in either panel, and she also does not
have facial detail. Children felt they were not adequately represented either.
Many respondents found this “recreation” panel to be the more problematic
image in its representation of white elitism. Especially paired with the northwest
panel and as a representation of “Santa Monica of the 1930s/present day,” it
appears to suggest an erasure of both Indigenous people and anyone non-white
in a contemporary Santa Monica.
The mural images are beautiful or valuable, but also contain troubling aspects
that need addressing. Another, smaller group of respondents appreciated the
mural for its artistic or historical significance, but also recognized that the
images have significant flaws that require a response. Many of these respondents
found the images beautiful, particularly the natural landscape depicted and how
the images coordinate with the tile work and other architectural elements of the
City Hall lobby. These respondents often placed a value on historic preservation,
and some were aware of the New Deal origins of the artwork or other pieces by
the artist. However, the concerns articulated by these respondents mirrored the
concerns of the larger group of respondents who found the images particularly
lacking in terms of Native representation and missing large groups of Santa
Monicans.
The mural images are beautiful and there is nothing wrong with them. A roughly
similarly sized group of respondents felt that the mural is perfect, and nothing
needs to be done to address it. Many of these respondents provided less detail
in their responses, but they have mostly positive or neutral interpretations of
what is depicted in both panels. A few have negative interpretations but feel
strongly that the images are still beautiful or valuable because of their historic
significance. This group might have some minor suggestions about what is
missing or how the images could be improved, but these suggestions, if they
have them, are in the realm of “quibbles.” They are not offended by the mural.
Quite the contrary, overall, the artwork makes these respondents feel happy or
proud, and some have very strong attachments to the mural.
The mural images are neutral or negative, but as historical artifacts, they
have little bearing on the present. Another roughly similarly sized group of
respondents was somewhat indifferent about the artworks. Some of them
interpreted the images as having negative or exclusionary elements, but they
were not particularly concerned about the images. As historic images were
created in the past, some felt that these images are either unrelatable or have
Summary of
Feedback
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 536 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 7
little import for today. Some felt that because they are historic images, they
cannot or should not be changed.
The discussion about the mural is a distraction from other pressing issues
in Santa Monica. A small number of respondents felt that the process of
engagement around the mural was a waste of time and resources. They would
have preferred that Santa Monica spent those resources addressing quality-
of-life concerns and development pressures. Some of these respondents also
expressed their strong attachment to the mural. Others were more indifferent or
felt the mural had no bearing on the present.
While no group of such diverse people will ever agree on everything, there was
substantial agreement about values among the Working Circle members and the
following values helped drive the discussion about the recommendations in this
report.
The Working Circle members were unanimous in their belief that Santa Monica
should:
•Center Santa Monica First Peoples in the City’s response to the mural.
•Do something concrete, not just words.
Nearly unanimously, the group felt it was important to:
•Center working class people and other people of color in the City’s response
to the mural.
•Make sure visitors to City Hall know that the City understands the issues that
people have with the mural.
•Make sure visitors to City Hall know that the City condemns the white
supremacy worldview depicted in the mural.
•Make sure everyone who visits the Historic City Hall lobby feels welcome/
like they belong.
And about three-quarters of the group felt it was important to:
•Attend to the people who feel harmed by the mural.
• Address the material consequences of colonialism and provide considerations
including financial considerations to Santa Monica First Peoples.
• Protect future visitors to City Hall from the harm of seeing demeaning images.
•Create new opportunities for artists.
•Have the City response deal with other things in addition to the mural.
•Generate meaningful public discussion and engagement around the mural.
The harm that this mural has caused is important and considerable, and
removing or covering the mural would guard against continuing this harm.
However, removal or covering does not address the harm that has already been
done. Therefore, the immediate and urgent focus should be on actions that move
towards repair for the communities harmed, such as those we have laid out in
these recommendations.
Our Working Circle discussions supported this direction, even though some in
the Working Circle would still like to see the mural removed. Several Working
Circle members reflected at the end of the process that they believed, knowing
Shared Values
Note About Actions
to Remove or
Cover the Mural
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 537 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 8
more about the histories represented in the mural and the history of the mural,
that simply removing the mural would be letting the City “off the hook” for tacitly
endorsing the images by letting them remain unaddressed for so long. This
was a concern that was echoed by some throughout our engagement process,
including City of Santa Monica employees, feedback activity respondents, and
interviewees.
Just as the Council reversed their decision to cover the mural so that the mural
would be visible during the process of public engagement, continuing to leave
the mural up and uncovered can provide further opportunities to engage and
address the harm that mural has caused. However, leaving it up does create an
ongoing risk of continued harm if no other actions are taken. As a result, the
Working Circle members were in strong agreement that the City should NOT “do
nothing” with the mural, nor should the City sell or cover it at this time.
In addition, Santa Monica First Peoples are clearly among the most impacted by
this artwork, but the process to remove and or cover the mural was not initiated
by them. When advocacy efforts such as these are not rooted in the community
that faces the biggest impacts by any issue (in this case First Peoples), they
are burdened with uncompensated emotional, cultural, and intellectual labor
that responds to the issue raised within a frame that First Peoples did not help
construct. Not removing the mural offers an opportunity for First Peoples to
uplift these issues from their perspective so that the outcomes and futurity
of their reflections are driven by them. Many of the recommendations in this
report speak to the reparative actions community members signaled were of
utmost importance and were possible while keeping the mural in place for the
time being.
Therefore, the City should make clear commitments to addressing the mural,
including reasons for leaving the mural on display. This could include taking full
accountability for the mural and making the lobby a space to publicly and clearly
condemn the attitudes made manifest by the mural.
Recommendation 1:
Commission new artwork in City Hall lobby
This emerged as the highest priority. The art should present history from
different perspectives and celebrate and reframe what is traditionally presented
as “historically significant.” City Hall is a center of power, and the new work
needs to balance or redress the exclusions exemplified in the existing mural.
The new work should address the hierarchies in the southwest panels as well—
Black, Brown, Asian American, working-class people, unemployed people, and
poor people who were in Santa Monica in 1939 and deal with themes of ongoing
Indigenous presence in Santa Monica. The new work should create a welcoming
environment for Indigenous people, working-class people, and people of color.
Recommendation 2:
Commission new interpretive panels
The City should create interpretive panels that condemn colonization, forced
religious conversion, white supremacy generally and the mural’s portrayal of
First Peoples in particular. These panels should be written by an advisory group
including an Indigenous person and other people of color and should be at a
scale and placement that is unmissable for viewers of the mural, ideally installed
in close visual proximity.
Recommendations
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 538 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 9
Recommendation 3:
Ensure that Santa Monica’s public art and commemorative
landscape centers equity and belonging
The Reframe: City Hall Mural process should be the beginning of a series of
steps taken by the City of Santa Monica to revisit the policies and processes
that govern public artwork and civic memory, including processes to support
emerging and underrepresented artists in receiving new commissions. As part of
this, the City should conduct a survey of the existing public art, monuments and
sites of civic memory throughout Santa Monica, so that gaps and opportunities
can be identified. The City should also commission new artwork on the theme
of inclusion and representing other views of Santa Monica’s history in a location
that is much more publicly visible and meaningful.
Recommendation 4:
Create additional educational materials about the mural
Many believe that the mural can serve an educational purpose. All agreed that
this would be a deep challenge and not something to be taken on lightly. Many
felt that City staff are ill-equipped to do this work and would need substantive
partnerships with other institutions to make this meaningful. This is a good
opportunity for Santa Monica to invest in the creative and scholarly development
of underrepresented communities.
BEYOND THE MURAL AND NEW ARTWORK
There was an extremely high level of agreement amongst the Working Circle that
the City’s response should not be limited to actions related to the cultural sphere
or the City Hall Lobby and that the City should act to materially address issues
related to the exclusions seen in the mural. Centering the perspectives of First
Peoples and “doing something concrete” were highly rated values consistent
with the following recommendations. Implementation of the following
recommendations would require collaboration and resources and may be
considered in the context of developing a Citywide Equity Plan.
Recommendation 5:
Expand DEI+ trainings for City staff
City should build on actions taken since its Racial Equity Statement of 2020,
which included the formation of an Office of Equity and Inclusion and the
subsequent launch of an Equity Plan process. It should expand DEI training for
all City staff. To be successful, future efforts should focus on implementation
strategies and tools for staff, moving away from a white worldview and centering
the overlapping experiences, shared spaces and mutual accountability of
underrepresented peoples.
Recommendation 6:
Adopt a Citywide land/territory acknowledgment initiative
Land Acknowledgements, although extremely important, can become diluted
as these acknowledgments are the bare minimum of the protocols from which
they originate. Santa Monica has an opportunity to adopt a city-wide land
acknowledgment initiative that includes the actionable practices such as a new
Indigenous Advisory Council (IAC) to help advise its decision-makers on issues
similar to those raised through Reframe.
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 539 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 10
Recommendation 7:
Improve representation on Santa Monica committees
As of the writing of this report there are no First Peoples serving as part of the
Arts Commission or Landmarks Commission, among other bodies. Some of the
issues raised from the City Hall Mural could have been mitigated if members of
the communities excluded from and/or misrepresented in the mural had been
included in these kinds of decision-making bodies.
Recommendation 8:
Facilitate Land Back in Santa Monica
There is an opportunity for Santa Monica to develop creative ways for First
Peoples communities to practice sovereignty and self-determination. Santa
Monica could partner with First Peoples to create opportunities for their
members to return home.
Recommendation 9:
Facilitate Kuruvungna Springs relationships
While not in Santa Monica, Working Circle members had strong agreement that
the City of Santa Monica continue to build relationships with the Kuruvungna
Springs Foundation and support their efforts to have the land transferred back to
them.
The mural and the controversy around it have created a rare and critical focal
point of civic energy. The key is not to squander the moment and let it further
perpetuate ill-will and distrust, but rather to use it to move towards equity,
justice and a better Santa Monica. The mural has provided an incredible
opportunity to reframe the conversation.
Authors
Meztli Projects Facilitation Team: Joel Garcia, Robin Garcia,
Susannah Laramee Kidd and Rosten Woo
Reframe Working Circle Members
Tafari Alan, Brock Ramon Alvarado, Miguel Bravo, Lizette Hernandez,
Bob Knight, Ruthann Lehrer, Kimberly Marshall, Mona Morales Recalde,
Sharon Reyes, Emily Silver, Cathy Taylor, Paolo Velasco, and Zora Zajicek
Santa Monica Arts Commission Mural Subcommittee
Public Art Committee Member Francois Bar and Arts Commissioners Michael
Baroff, Kathleen Benjamin (Working Circle liaison), Janeen Jackson, Iao Katagiri
and Deepa Subramanian
Santa Monica Landmarks Commission Mural Subcommittee
Commissioners Roger Genser (Working Circle liaison), Amy Green,
and Dolores Sloan
Santa Monica City Council Mural Ad Hoc Committee
Councilmembers Christine Parra and Oscar de la Torre
Credits
Acknowledgements
from City of
Santa Monica
Reframe: City Hall Mural Project Phase I is a project of
the City of Santa Monica.
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 540 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 11
The Acknowledge + Reframe Together (Reframe) Initiative of Santa Monica
Cultural Affairs produces public art and civic memory projects that center
community voices with the aim of creating a more just and equitable Santa
Monica.1 In particular, Reframe focuses on centering the voices and experiences
of communities of color who have been historically excluded from discourse
and representation in civic spaces. Belmar History + Art (2019-2021) was a
demonstration project that inspired this initiative.2 The Reframe initiative also
aligns with other recent City of Santa Monica equity and inclusion efforts. In
2020, the Santa Monica City Council voted to advance equity and inclusion
work within the City organization, including the formation of a Racial Equity
Committee and adoption of the Racial Equity Statement developed by staff
participants in the Government Alliance on Race and Equity.3 In 2022, the
City adopted a Statement of Apology to African American Residents and their
Descendants.
With the Reframe: City Hall Mural project, the City has embarked on a public
engagement process to reconsider the WPA-era mural by Stanton Macdonald-
Wright in the Historic City Hall lobby. The City of Santa Monica engaged Meztli
Projects to create an engagement process and gather community feedback.
Meztli Projects is an Indigenous-based arts & culture collaborative centering
Indigeneity by using arts-based strategies to highlight Native and Indigenous
Artists and systems-impacted peoples. Meztli Projects has been successful in
empowering community members, centering community interests, bringing in
civic entities and finding ways to align goals.
Our facilitation team for this project is made up of four artists, curators and
researchers: Joel Garcia, Robin Garcia, Susannah Laramee Kidd and Rosten Woo.
We were selected by the City for our novel approach and expertise in public art
and qualitative research, experience working with Indigenous communities,
expansive community engagement strategies, and most importantly, because
we have been deeply involved in emerging conversations around authentic and
new approaches to public memory and commemoration at local, regional and
national levels. Additionally, Santa Monica selected our team’s proposal because
our approach flattens hierarchies, expands notions of historical and artistic
expertise and offers ways to resource community members with tools around
the values of shared leadership.
1 For more information about the Acknowledge and Reframe Together initiative, visit https://santamonica.
gov/programs/acknowledge-and-reframe-together.
2 For more information about the Belmar History + Art project, visit https://www.santamonica.gov/bel-
mar-history-art.
3 For more information about the City of Santa Monica’s Equity work, visit https://santamonica.gov/equity.
Meztli Projects
Introduction
In the last decade, the City of Santa Monica has been focused on prioritizing equity, diversity,
inclusion and justice in response to societal changes in understanding about the impact
of systemic exclusion in our communities. The intent of this work is to address the unmet
and unheard needs of marginalized community members, to center their experiences and
respond with new policies and actions to address long-term harm.
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 541 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 12
This report, written by Meztli Projects, is the summation of a six-month
engagement process commissioned by the City of Santa Monica. The report
contains specific recommendations for City staff to present to the City Council.
After delivery of this report, the Meztli team will produce bridge programming
intended to continue engagement with the themes of this project between Phase
I (public engagement and Working Circle meetings) and Phase II (actions in
response to the mural and recommendations as directed by the City Council).
Bridge programming will set the stage for Phase II and continue the important
conversations begun in Phase I.
Santa Monica
Arts Commission
Santa Monica
Landmarks
Commission
Santa Monica
City Council
City of Santa
Monica Cultural
Affairs
REFRAME
REPORT AND
RECOMMENDA-
TIONS
PHASE I:
Report and
Recommendations
• Allocates budgets
• Provides policy direction
• Appoints commissioners,
reviews appeals
• Will deliver Reframe
report and staff report
based on Reframe
Report to City Council
• Commissions and
promotes cultural
projects in Santa
Monica (including a
Phase II of Reframe)
• Approves public art
and selects artists
• Decision-making
body on any proposed
changes to designated
City Landmarks.
PHASE II:
Implementation of
Recommendations
Reframe: City Hall Mural Roles & Next Steps
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 542 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 13
Reframe: City Hall Mural Background
Larger civic
memory and
public art
landscape
This initiative is situated in a larger spectrum of projects that re-examine and
re-imagine the landscape of civic memory and public art in ways that decenter
white supremacist or settler colonial depictions of U.S. history and uplift other
stories and perspectives. At a national level, beginning in 2013, movements such as
Black Lives Matter responded to police brutality by activating a national response
to white supremacy and called for intervention in policing and the criminal
justice system. This spurred local and national efforts to reconsider, and in many
cases, remove Confederate statues and monuments across the United States. This
movement energized long-standing projects to engage portrayals of U.S. history
that valorized colonizers like Christopher Columbus and colonial institutions like
the Mission System. On the West Coast, this includes a reconsideration of figures
like Junipero Serra, whose 2015 canonization by the Catholic Church was widely
protested by Native American tribes up and down the West Coast.
This narrative change work requires new voices to lead efforts to tell their
own stories. Local and regional governments are beginning to recognize
this need and are working to provide tools, resources and support to these
communities. Organizations like Monument Lab in Philadelphia have led the
way in both creating an audit of our existing commemorative landscape as
well as prototyping new forms and structures for producing civic memory.4
Progressive local and regional governments as well as major funders like the
Mellon Foundation have invested heavily in this work; the Mellon Foundation
has funded over 1,300 projects with $250 million since 2020.
Local examples of this work include the 2018 removal of the Columbus statue
at Los Angeles’ Grand Park because of the political pressure brought on by
Indigenous communities and the Native American Indian Commission.
4 “National Monument Audit,” Monument Lab. Philadelphia, PA. 2021. https://monumentlab.com/audit
5 Ashley Dobson, Tremayne Nez, and Representatives from the Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indi-
ans, Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians, Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal
Council, San Fernando Band of Mission Indians, and San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, “‘We Are Still
Here.’ A Report on Past, Present, and Ongoing Harms Against Local Tribes” (Los Angeles City/County Native
American Indian Commission & Los Angeles County Department of Arts and Culture, January 2023).
2013
Black Lives Matter
protests
Photo: Fibonacci Blue
2018
Grand Park Columbus
statue fell
Photo: Kenneth Lopez, Meztli Projects
Local Tribes
The land that we call Santa Monica was originally and is still inhabited and cared for by the Tongva, Kizh,
and Chumash peoples, and by the Tataviam and Serrano in the larger present day Los Angeles region. “As the
Spanish expanded into Alta California, they enslaved Native peoples, forcing them to build and maintain the
missions, pueblos, and presidios for the Spanish settlers while enduring unspeakable abuse at the hands of
Spanish soldiers. Local Tribes were forced to move from their villages and give up their languages and culture.
Tribes were given new names after the missions, which is reflected in the names of many local Tribes today.”5
There are six Tribal groups in this region today:
•Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians
•Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission
Indians
•Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal
Council
•Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation
•San Fernando Band of Mission Indians
•San Manuel Band of Mission Indians
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 543 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 14
In 2020, local community activists removed the Junipero Serra statue on Olvera
Street in downtown Los Angeles, and that same year, the Columbus Statue was
taken down in San Francisco. This, along with the racial reckoning taking place
in the country, initiated a larger conversation around contested public art objects
across Southern California. After the removal, as a step towards addressing
the harm of the statue, the Los Angeles County Department of Arts and Culture
(LACDAC) partnered with Meztli Projects to produce Memory and Futurity in
Yaangna/Yaanga,6 a series of programs looking at the authentic and multi-layered
history of Yaangna/Yaanga (Downtown Los Angeles). The project explored memory
culture, public space and civic art and presented works by Tongva7 artists Mercedes
Dorame and Cindi Alvitre.
Also as part of the project, LACDAC hired a team of consultants to create a Land
Access toolkit to guide the County in thinking through how to engage questions
around land access and the various injustices done to Native communities.
The team released “ʻWe Are Still Here.’ A Report on Past, Present, and Ongoing
Harms Against Local Tribes, which shares recommendations around land
return and land access and provides some frameworks to think about the
importance of public art in that conversation.8 Concurrently, as an extension
of WE RISE 2022, the Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health and
Cause Communications in collaboration with Meztli Projects created the Oak
Tree Rehoming Project to revitalize cultural spaces important to the Gabrieleno/
Tongva community. The project will plant sacred Oak Trees as an initiative to
raise awareness about native plant life, land, and land access. These ancestor
Oaks act as an alternative form of memorialization and have the power to anchor
Gabrieleno/Tongva communities to their ancestral lands.
Simultaneously to this work at the County level, a conversation began in the City
of Los Angeles with the Mayor’s Office Civic Memory Working Group, which
convened for the first time in November 2019. In June 2020, local community
activists removed the Junipero Serra statue on Olvera Street in downtown Los
Angeles. The Civic Memory Working Group issued their report in April 2021,
which included 18 key recommendations complemented by subcommittee
reports, essays and photo essays, interviews and roundtable discussions.9 These
conversations laid the foundation for a formal apology to Los Angeles First
Peoples delivered by Mayor Eric Garcetti along with Councilman Mitch O’Farrell
(Wyandotte) at Olvera where the Serra statue was toppled and other significant
civic memory projects, such as the Memorial to the Victims of the 1871 Chinese
Massacre.
Along a similar timeline in the Los Angeles region, the Gabrieleno/Tongva San
Gabriel Band of Mission Indians Tribe accepted a small parcel of land from a
private donor and established the Tongva Taraxat Paxaavxa10 Conservancy. The
Conservancy is a Tongva-led organization created to care for this land and future
land return. The Conservancy is composed of members from various Tongva
Tribal Councils as a way to expand inclusivity across the various Gabrieleno
communities that are situated in different parts of Los Angeles County. Because
there is no mechanism in California to return land to First Peoples, the Tongva
community established this land conservancy to create opportunities to receive
and steward their homelands. Other local efforts to generate resources include
the AcknowledgeRent initiative, established by the Fernandeño Tataviam Band
6 Pronounced: Yang-Na
7 Pronounced: TONG-və
8 Dobson, Ashley et al. “‘We Are Still Here.’ A Report on Past, Present, and Ongoing Harms Against Local
Tribes.”
9 “Past Due: Report and Recommendations of the Los Angeles Mayor’s Office Civic Memory Working Group”
(Huntington-USC Institute on California and the West, April 2021), http://civicmemory.la.
10 Pronounced: Tar-a-haht pah-hava
2020
Virginia Confederate
statues toppled
2020
Serra statue toppled
2021
Garcetti issues apology,
renames Serra park,
creates land easement
2019
Newsom issued an
apology for the state’s role
in violence toward and
displacement of Native
Americans in California
Photo: Ronnie Pitman
Photo: Kenneth Lopez, Meztli Projects
Photo: California Gov. Newsom’s Office
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 544 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 15
of Mission Indians to help fund the Tribal Administration operations, education,
language revitalization, culture, wellness programming and federal recognition.
Similar conversations and interventions have been happening in the Bay Area as
well. In 2018, the Early Days sculpture was removed from the Pioneer Monument.
In 2019, projects were commissioned to reclaim the space that the monument
took up, including a portrait series in which 150 members of the Bay Area
Indigenous community were photographed standing on the plinth where Early
Days stood. In June 2020, the Columbus Statue was removed from Coit Tower by
the San Francisco Arts Commission. In 2023, the San Francisco Arts Commission,
Human Rights Commission and Recreation and Parks Department released
the “Final Report of the Monuments and Memorials Advisory Committee,”
with recommendations from the community and amendments to their public
art policies and guidelines.11 Also in the Bay Area, the Shuumi Land Tax was
established by the Sogorea Te Land Trust to support the return of Indigenous
land, repatriation of ancestral remains and building Ohlone cultural spaces. The
land tax is a suggested tax for organizations operating on Ohlone land.
Many of these interventions use creative tools to tell the stories of communities
historically left out of political participation and civic engagement. It’s important
to note that in all of this work, cultural issues are inherently bound up in other
intersecting dimensions of life. While discussing the mural, we heard echoes
of much larger conversations around settler colonialism, white supremacy, the
displacement of Native Peoples, the rising costs of housing and displacement
of working-class and people-of-color communities and affordability in Santa
Monica. As such, the Reframe: City Hall Mural project is not only a response to
the representations in the mural, but also the systems that produced the mural,
and the systems that the mural reinforces, which are still very real today.
The mural in the lobby of Historic City Hall has long been a point of controversy
and source of trauma among community members. In 2015, the controversy
came to a head when members of Pico Youth and Family Center and other
activists called for the mural’s removal, as a symbol of racism particularly
because of its representation of Native people.12 The removal of the Columbus
statue from Grand Park in 2018 and the Serra statue in 2020 from Olvera
Street created opportunities to intensify pressure on the City of Santa Monica
to reconsider the WPA-era mural as a way to connect to the larger national
movement regarding monuments and civic memory. Elias Serna, artist, educator
and organizer with the Pico Youth and Family Center remembers,
During the George Floyd protests, Confederate statues were coming down.
I remember having a conversation with some friends and we were like, hey?
You know what? Now’s the time to go to this mural. This is a monument.
It’s a tile mural. Our murals get painted over all the time. They’re taking down
all those racist images. This is ours.13
Members of the Pico Youth and Family Center have a long history of engaging
Santa Monica around issues of affordability, representation, gentrification,
the justice system and youth-based issues. The mural became a focal point
for the organization because of its presence in Santa Monica City Hall and its
representation of Native people in relation to land, land loss and displacement.
11 “San Francisco Monuments and Memorials Advisory Committee Final Report” (San Francisco Arts Com-
mission, Human Rights Commission, Recreation and Parks Department, May 2023).
12 Hector Gonzalez, “Activist Calls City Hall Mural of Kneeling Native Americans Santa Monica’s Confeder-
ate Flag,” Santa Monica Lookout, June 25, 2015, surfsantamonica.com.
13 Elias Serna. Interview with Meztli Projects, April 7, 2023.
Beginnings of the
Reframe: City Hall
Mural project
2022
Tongva Taraxat Paxaavxa
Conservancy starts with
land acquisition
Photo: Kenneth Lopez, Meztli Projects
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 545 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 16
In 2018, the City of Santa Monica Arts Commission and its Public Art Committee
approved a Percent for Art budget allocation and 5-point plan of committee
work, programming and new artwork commissions to address the mural. Before
all elements of this plan could be implemented, the Belmar History + Art project
was launched in response to a Coastal Commission requirement to acknowledge
the history of the Black neighborhood that was displaced from the Civic Center
site through eminent domain actions in the 1950s. The City Hall Mural project
was put on hold for this time-sensitive priority and restarted in 2021, after the
Belmar History + Art Project was completed.
In May 2021, City Council directed staff to install a temporary scrim to cover
the mural.15 In response to this direction, the debate garnered renewed public
attention and the City Council received letters for and against covering the
mural. The Mural Ad Hoc Committee was appointed by the City Council on
September 28, 2021 to serve as liaisons to the Landmarks and Arts Commissions
to help guide the process to recontextualize the mural. In December 2021,
the Public Works Department sent an Info Item about the covering project to
Council.16
However, in February 2022, Council reconsidered and canceled the directive to
cover the mural, instead directing staff to continue with the Arts Commission
plans to engage the community and in the interim, to create a temporary lobby
display.17 Following the community process and informed by community input,
the Ad Hoc Committee was tasked to return to the full City Council with a set
of recommendations for Council consideration (this report). The adopted
recommendations would then inform an RFP to engage an artist or artist team
to produce and install artistic recontextualization(s). This phase was overseen
by the Arts Commission under its authority as custodians of the City’s public art
collection. For a more detailed timeline of events leading up to the Reframe: City
Hall Mural project, see Appendix A.
14 For more information about Japanese incarceration, visit https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/
japanese-relocation
15 Santa Monica City Council, “Staff Report 4575” (City of Santa Monica, May 11, 2021) http://santamoni-
cacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?Frame=&MeetingID=1266&MediaPosition=&ID=4575&Css-
Class=.
16 Susan Cline, Assistant City Manager, “Information Item: Recontextualizing City Hall’s Stanton Macdonald
Wright Murals” (City of Santa Monica, December 23, 2021) https://www.smgov.net/Departments/council/
infoitems.aspx.
17 Santa Monica City Council, “Staff Report 4999” (City of Santa Monica, February 22, 2022) http://santamon-
icacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?Frame=&MeetingID=1307&MediaPosition=&ID=4999&Css-
Class=.
Successive Displacements
After First Peoples were forced into the missions, many others have been displaced from the land that is now
Santa Monica, often for racist reasons. When California became a US state, many people of Spanish descent
began to lose their claims to their Ranchos, large tracts of land granted originally by the Spanish and Mexican
governments. During World War II, Japanese Americans were removed from California and incarcerated
purely because of their race.14 After the end of slavery, Black Americans were prevented from owning property
by means of redlining and racial covenants. Eminent domain was employed by governmental agencies to seize
and raze disproportionately Black and Brown communities for public projects, including the I-10 freeway and
the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium.
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 546 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 17
Before the selection and contracting of the Meztli Projects team for the Reframe:
City Hall Mural project, the City of Santa Monica created a preliminary online
survey about place and belonging in March 2022. This survey, directed to
residents of Santa Monica, received 110 responses. The same survey was
distributed to Santa Monica employees and received 13 responses. This survey
was intended to begin a public conversation around the mural and to create a
foundation for the Meztli Projects team to design their programming.
In the summer of 2022, artist Glenna Avila engaged local youth as a way to lay the
groundwork for the Reframe process and to generate a temporary lobby display.
Avila is an artist and educator dedicated to the intersection of art, community
and youth. For 28 years, Avila was the Director of the California Institute of the
Arts Community Arts Partnership program, creating murals in Los Angeles
County elementary schools while incorporating children and the community.
For the Reframe project, Avila prompted youth with questions around belonging
in Santa Monica. The youth’s artwork was collected and showcased in a City Hall
lobby display from August 2022 to January 2023.19
18 Ashley Gallagos, interviewed in “Striving Toward a World of Belonging Without Othering,” Independent
Sector (blog), March 17, 2022.
19 For more information on this display, see https://www.santamonica.gov/blog/reframe-s-youth-art-dis-
play-in-the-historic-city-hall-lobby.
Preliminary work
Belonging
Belonging continues to be an important concept that surfaced throughout the Reframe project. In this context,
belonging is the idea that communities need and deserve more than just access to resources; they also deserve
a voice and decision-making power in political and social structures. Understanding the pre-colonial history
of places, critical racial theory and politics alongside the impacts of spatial planning (visible and invisible
markers and boundaries) helps us identify why and when people feel they don’t belong.18
Photo: City of Santa Monica
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 547 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 18
About Our Process
In line with the stated goals of the Acknowledge and Reframe initiative, our team created a
process that proposed to flatten hierarchies and uplift the lived experience of community
members who are experts of their own realities and who have systematically been excluded
from building narratives of Santa Monica’s history, value systems and societal norms.
We designed this process to open up the discussion about the mural to include voices and
perspectives far beyond who is typically considered an “expert” in murals or history.
We considered what perspectives are traditionally centered and worked to radically expand
that field. For instance, our work aimed to consider information about WPA murals (which
as a whole are presented by white experts for white audiences) but also decenter and place
this information within the context of a much broader field of lived experiences, perspectives
and histories.
Our approach consisted of the following four parts:
• A “Working Circle” composed of 13 individuals with strong ties to very
different parts of Santa Monica that committed to attend public programs
as well as meet as a cohort to act as an advisory body and think tank for six
months. At the end of this process, the Working Circle discussed actions that
could be taken in response to the mural. Their discussions have informed
our recommendations to the City Council.
• A series of Public Programs on relevant themes including a bus tour of
sites of memory; virtual and in-person panel discussions about art, civic
memory and alternate histories of Santa Monica; a virtual tour of relevant
educational resources; a reflective listening workshop and a screening of the
documentary Town Destroyer. Additionally, we created programming through
the perspective of First Peoples as a starting point to engage issues of equity
and inclusion.
• The creation and installation of Lobby Displays in Historic City Hall that
explained the project and presented updates to City Hall visitors. A Feedback
Activity to survey members of the public about their perceptions of the
mural and spark ideas for new public artworks.
• Interviews and Small Group Engagements with a broad spectrum of
individuals who have a stake in the mural conversation or vocal opinions
about it, subject matter experts, and local content experts. We also visited
existing meetings and had one-on-one conversations with targeted
constituencies.
These four strategies allowed us to touch a broad cross-section of Santa Monica,
engage in deep qualitative discussions, support Santa Monica residents with
tools to think about the mural in new ways as well as connect with one another,
and pursue a transformative, deliberative process to reach new understandings.
Public Programs Working Circle
Convenes
Lobby Display &
Feedback Activity
Interviews &
Small Groups
Report
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 548 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 19
Frameworks
In our design of the project, we drew on our experience and expertise in facilitating public engagement
processes through a non-hierarchical, trauma-informed lens. Here are some specific frameworks that
informed our approach.
• Centering First Peoples
The decision by Santa Monica to launch the Acknowledge and Reframe Together initiative was in response
to harms committed towards First Peoples and other communities. A clear deduction is that the harms to
First Peoples must be understood and acknowledged and that they must help shape the space in which a
portion of this work is done. This means that language, phrasing and worldviews that are central to their
lifeways and interrupted by colonization should be normalized within the Reframe: City Hall Mural project
considerations. One way that we did this was through a workshop for Working Circle members and City
staff to understand the differences between terminologies such as Indigenous, Native American and First
Peoples and when each term is best used to empower and prevent exclusion.
• Trauma-Informed Practices
Trauma-informed practice is an approach that asks, “What happened to you?” rather than “What is wrong
with you?” This shifts the tone from victim-blaming to recognizing the person as a survivor. Trauma-
informed practices are not a specific or technique-heavy modality, rather it includes a set of guiding
principles that recognizes that trauma has significant effects on people and is often under-recognized,
under-reported and addressed. A reflective listening session for the Working Circle was one way to model
these practices that helped expand the understanding of how each respective member was experiencing
the mural and how those feelings were connected to systems of power.
• Survivor Centered Approach
A survivor-centered approach means establishing a relationship with the survivor that promotes their
emotional and physical safety, builds trust and helps them to restore some control over their life. This
approach informed how the team established a baseline of acknowledgments on the impact of colonization
so that First Peoples did not have to retell the trauma they experienced.
• Healing Informed Practices
We hope that the recommendations in this report can open the door to First Peoples directing a series of
reparative actions in Santa Monica. A healing centered approach requires a different question that moves
beyond “What happened to you?” to “What’s right with you?” and views those exposed to trauma as agents
in the creation of their own well-being rather than victims of traumatic events.
• Monument Lab’s Approach
Our team has been engaged in a long dialogue with colleagues at Monument Lab, and we have been
inspired by their approach based on deep research, broad public engagement and experimental prototypes
for participation.19 We have re-mixed this approach to fit the Reframe: City Hall Mural project and its
particular engagement needs.
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 549 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 20
Public Programs Working Circle
Convenes
Interviews &
Small Groups
Lobby Display &
Feedback Activity
Town Destroyer
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 550 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 21
At the heart of our process was the creation of a Working Circle. This group was
based on a “citizens’ assembly” model.20 A citizens’ assembly is an increasingly
popular form of policy-making that uses elements of a jury process. Its members
form a representative cross-section of the public and are provided with time,
resources and a broad range of viewpoints to learn deeply about an issue.
They are then asked to work together and create policy recommendations.
This model is premised on the belief that community members themselves
have expertise and when given time and resources will come to their own
sophisticated analysis and just solutions. Instead of using so-called experts to
generate recommendations privately OR engage in a process that attempts to
put a series of questions up for general referendum-style voting, our process
emphasized discussion, group-learning and the wisdom of everyday people to
make decisions that impact their communities.
We believed that if individuals from different communities in Santa Monica met
with one another with open minds they would learn from each other and reach
new understandings rather than simply asking individuals to “vote” or debate
one another in a town hall. So, in addition to the citizens’ assembly model we
also often brought in strategies from talking circles and story circles. A talking
circle is an Indigenous way of gathering and being in community, characterized
by allowing each person to speak without interruption in a circular format with
an emphasis on intention, listening with attention and self-monitoring the
impact of one’s contributions to the discussion. Examples of these forms are
recounted in the book The Gatherings: Reimagining Indigenous-Settler Relations,
which chronicles a decades-long series of discussions that took place between
Indigenous and settler communities in the Northeast of North America.21
Another approach that inspired the way we resourced the Working Circle
and community members who participated in this process was Metro’s
work in Boyle Heights in the mid-2010s. Los Angeles County Metro’s Review
Design Advisory Committee (RDAC) is responsible for building housing along
transportation corridors as part of their Joint Development program. They
utilized a meaningful and different approach to community engagement. Metro,
along with community organizers, empowered RDAC community members and
resourced them with a knowledge base of architects, city officials and other
decision-makers so that RDAC members could make critical recommendations
informed by their lived experience rather than selecting from predetermined
outcomes. For example, at previous meetings, Metro would present proposed
building plans to the RDAC and one Elder would respond that the building
was ugly (communicating in Spanish). At the next meeting, Metro presented
the same design but painted bright colors to reflect a more “Latin” flavor. Still,
the RDAC member insisted the building was ugly. Following the knowledge-
building sessions, the RDAC member was able to articulate the deficiencies
in the proposed building design in architectural language. This resourcing of
RDAC members led to approximately 4-5 new affordable housing buildings with
designs that better served the needs of the community.
Selection and composition
To select Working Circle members, we held an open call for applicants, sending
out the call via email newsletters, to individuals who had filled out the earlier
City survey and to leaders of communities invested in this conversation. We tried
to recruit as diverse a group as possible. We aimed for the group to be committed
20 For more information on citizen assemblies, see https://citizensassemblies.org/.
21 Mawopiyane and Shirley N. Hager, The Gatherings: Reimagining Indigenous-Settler Relations (Toronto:
University of Toronto Press, 2021).
The Working
Circle
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 551 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 22
and consistent in order to build accountability to the process and to each other.
We also wanted this group to be connected to communities that felt they had
a strong stake in the questions that the mural brought up. Eligible participants
were offered a $1000 honorarium.
We received 32 applications and selected 13 members with an additional two
appointed by the City of Santa Monica to serve as liaisons to the Landmarks
Commission and Arts Commission. The City later determined that these two
members should recuse themselves from the final stages of the process when we
were developing recommendations in order to retain their voting responsibilities
for future commission work related to the mural or the Reframe process. Staff
members from Cultural Affairs, Planning, and the Office of Equity and Inclusion
attended Working Circle meetings as observers and to provide information when
appropriate.
The Working Circle brought together engaged individuals with diverse
perspectives, histories and ties to Santa Monica communities. These
communities include local First Peoples, Marquez family descendants, Pico
Youth and Family Center, other local nonprofits and activists, Santa Monica
Conservancy, Santa Monica College students and young adults, Santa Monica-
Malibu Unified School District, City of Santa Monica employees and others who
work and live in Santa Monica. Members included Tafari Alan, Brock Ramon
Alvarado, Kathleen Benjamin (Santa Monica Arts Commission), Miguel Bravo,
Roger Genser (Santa Monica Landmarks Commission), Lizette Hernandez, Bob
Knight, Ruthann Lehrer, Kimberly Marshall, Mona Morales Recalde, Sharon
Reyes, Emily Silver, Cathy Taylor, Paolo Velasco, and Zora Zajicek.
The Working Circle composition was intended to reflect not only the
demographic nature of Santa Monica but also balance out the level of
representation of folks who have been historically excluded from decision-
making processes. Applicants who were not selected for this cohort were
invited to participate in other forums—as panelists and in interviews, etc. We
intentionally attempted to demystify the idea of the cohort as a set of experts
with titles and clout; instead, they were a group of community representatives.
The diagram on the next page of the Working Circle offers some insight into the
spectrum of communities they are connected to.
Working Circle journey
The Working Circle met a total of 13 times as a group – 4 of these were in person,
with the rest taking place on Zoom. Working Circle members also attended
the public programs when possible. Our team facilitated the meetings and
attempted to create an environment that would allow trust to grow, make sure
that all members felt that they had space to speak, and create a “brave” space
where members ask difficult questions and bring their authentic perspective.
We prioritized small group breakout discussions, as well as a “circle” format
intended to make sure everyone had equal opportunity to speak.
We also sought to resource the Working Circle with tools, knowledge, and
perspectives that could expand their frames of reference and allow them to
work together. The Working Circle members were taught techniques of reflective
listening to allow them to try to take in what each other said and slow their need
to respond. They used these techniques to describe the mural to one another and
reflect what they heard.
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 552 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 23
Tribal First
People LA Native
American
Indian
Commission
Volunteer
Equity
development
subcommittee
Community
Corporation
of SMChrysalis
The People
Concern
St. John’s
Growing
Hope
Gardens
Pico
NeighborhoodVirginia
Avenue
Community
SM
Resident
SMMUSD
SMMUSD
Preservation
Architect
City Fire
Dept
Generational
West LA
Resident
Indigenous
activism and
education
Combating
Anti
Blackness
Training
Pico Youth
and Family
Center
SMC Art
Department
SMC Pride
Center
SMC
Racial
Justice
Center
SMC
Student
government
Broad Stage
SM Resident
Art historian
CADRE
community
organizer Quilombos
Capacity
Builders
SM
Conservancy
Rancho Boca
Santa Monica
descendant
SM History
Museum
SM
Conservancy
Bandini
Foundation
City
Oce of
Equity and
Inclusion
AWARE-LA
SM
Northeast
Neighbors
Lizette
Ruthann
Ramon
Tafari
Mona
Cathy
Kimberly
Bob
Sharon
Paolo
Zora
Emily
Mike
Santa
Monica
College
Barrett
Gallery @
SMC
West
LA-Sawtelle
Neighborhood
Council
Working
Circle
Network
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 553 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 24
The Working Circle attended public programs about civic memory, local history
and public art and debriefed about them together. They met with art historian
and Stanton Macdonald-Wright expert, Will South, viewed the film Town
Destroyer about a similar controversy around a WPA mural in San Francisco,
attended a photography exhibition by Swinomish and Tulalip artist Matika
Wilbur at Santa Monica College and heard from members of Gabrieleno/
Tongva and Kizh tribes. They also had several general discussions about the
mural, public art and the Reframe process. Our intent was to create a learning
environment where we all could gain perspectives without having to move
toward deliberation or recommendations immediately.
Understanding that the Working Circle process would be somewhat fluid
given the situations of each member, we built in strategies to balance out
positionalities, privileges and other power skewing factors. Our team facilitated
individual check-ins with Working Circle members and did regular check-ins
as a team to make sure we responded to both individual needs as well as
collective feedback and ideas on how to move forward. Working Circle members
also provided a throughline throughout the process and were a touchpoint
for communities to engage in the nuanced and complex conversations that
emerged.
Towards the end of their time together, the Working Circle was tasked with
discussing recommendations for actions in response to the mural. First, they
were asked to brainstorm a long list of possible actions and then given a series
of anonymous surveys about priorities and perspectives on the mural (roughly
based on the Delphi survey technique). Through this process, the group was
able to come to agreements on values and statements about the mural and,
finally, create a ranked and prioritized list of recommended actions. These
final meetings emphasized in-person engagement and dialog, and we were able
to gain additional nuance and direction from these heartfelt conversations.
More detail about the exact process used to create these statements of values,
perceptions and recommendations, including survey results and questions, can
be found in Appendix B.
At times, the Working Circle process proved difficult. Frequently it was
uncomfortable, especially when habits of leadership and expertise were
challenged. Some Working Circle members had difficulty letting others speak
and were impatient about letting the process unfold. Many underwent profound
shifts in the way they related to the topics and to each other. In the end, we feel
confident that all Working Circle members encountered and listened deeply
to perspectives that were not their own and were also able to speak to their
experience and knowledge.
Specifics of Language
As an example of the ways we tried to resource the Working Circle, we can look at some specifics of language.
At the start of this Reframe process, many Working Circle members would use the term Native or Native
American to refer to the two Brown persons depicted in the City Hall mural. These terms create a really broad
and therefore ineffective narrative to respond to. Those bodies depicted reference Santa Monica’s First Peoples,
and it is this specific group of “Native Americans’’ that are most impacted by these issues. We encouraged the
Working Circle to reflect on these differences and refine their language. This language shift has also created
efficiency in building partnerships between Santa Monica and the Gabrieleno/Tongva community. This is
important because settler colonialism prefers to deal with abstract issues, so that the most accessible “Native
Americans’’ are invited into these conversations. This creates instances where “First Peoples’’ can become
excluded.
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 554 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 25
PromptStep
Final Recommendations
Recommendation Development Process
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 555 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 26
Our team produced programs that created connection and education for the
public and provided crucial tools and resources to the Working Circle. We
brought together guest presenters with connections to the topic from the
region and beyond. The events were designed to draw out perspectives and
approaches to thinking about public space, local history, public art, Indigenous
representation, sites of civic memory and related controversies. We tried to
balance local, national and international perspectives on these issues.
Initially, we intentionally left the schedule of the latter half of the public
programs open so that we could adapt our programming to be responsive to
community needs and conversations. We also organized an “open house” at City
Hall to answer questions and foster open dialog with anyone interested in the
project. On average we had 30-40 people at each event. The documentation from
these events is available at santamonica.gov/city-hall-mural.
Prisms of Indigeneity (in-person)
In this first event, we focused on conversations about the expansiveness of
Native and Indigenous identities across North America and the importance of
uplifting the First Peoples of the communities we live in. The event took place
at Matika Wilbur’s “Project 562: Changing the way we see Native America”
exhibition which reflected on the diversity of Tribal Nations across the
country. This event quickly surfaced the tensions that would demand response
throughout this project and highlighted how much work there was to come.
It was an excellent demonstration of the complexity of Native and Indigenous
identities even within the Santa Monica region.
Lunch and Learn - Reframe: City Hall Mural Project
This event followed up on some of the themes brought up in the Prisms of
Indigeneity event and provided an overview of the Reframe project and ways to
get involved for City employees. The goal of this event was to refocus the lens of
City Hall staff, learn new language, and use the preferred terms by First Peoples
to better address their current needs and arising issues related to the City Hall
mural.
Sites of Memory Tour (in-person)
This public tour explored three significant places in Santa Monica history and
how they express remembrance in public space: Kuruvungna Village Springs,
Historic Santa Monica City Hall (with the Stanton Macdonald-Wright mural in
the lobby) and Historic Belmar Park. This tour allowed Working Circle members
to connect with members of the public, explore diverse approaches to creating
and preserving civic memory in Santa Monica and the work involved in creating
and maintaining these sites.
What Do You See Here? - An educational resources and Feedback Activity
workshop
This Zoom event served as an introduction to our feedback activity and an
overview of teacher and library resources for using the activity in an educational
setting. These resources covered the history of the WPA, the artist, Santa
Monica First Peoples, and recreation and segregation in Santa Monica, as well as
resources for analyzing and contextualizing historical visual culture.
Memory Work Today - New approaches to telling stories about the places we live
This Zoom event highlighted the work of contemporary artists, designers,
technologists and historians thinking about ways of interpreting and presenting
history in public. The event featured idris brewster and Christine Wong Yap.
This event inspired much discussion of ways that innovative storytelling could
be brought to bear on Historic City Hall.
Public programs
Photo: Kenneth Lopez, Meztli Projects
Photo: Kinfolk
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 556 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 27
Community Listening Workshop with Anu Yadav (in-person)
This event focused on the wide diversity of thought around the mural at historic
Santa Monica City Hall. The workshop was designed to develop participants’
empathetic listening skills. Critically acclaimed actress, writer, and theater-
based educator Anu Yadav led this workshop using a variety of large and small
group exercises to surface values, questions, challenges, and hopes and dreams
about the mural. The group began to develop a long-list of possible actions
regarding the mural and the issues presented by the mural. A summary of the
responses gathered at this workshop can be found in Appendix C.
City Hall Mural Open House (in-person)
This event was designed to create a casual environment for the public to
discuss the Reframe project with members of the facilitation team at City Hall.
Conversations here included ways that Santa Monica’s art commissioning
process could be made more inclusive, details about the production of the
mural, and further exploration of public interpretations of the piece.
Other Histories of Santa Monica and the Bay District (in-person)
This event, co-hosted with the Santa Monica History Museum (SMHM),
featured the work of local historians, archivists and tradition bearers looking at
Indigenous, Latinx and African American stories. Members gained inspiration
from local models of history, archiving, and storytelling. Speakers included
Mona Recalde, Jaime Cruz, and Carolyne Edwards, with an SMHM gallery tour
by Anne Wallentine. The event conversation highlighted ways that communities
can better document their stories and ways that non-Native people can support
the work of Native groups like the Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of
Mission Indians.
Screening of Town Destroyer mural documentary (in-person)
This event was a screening of the compelling film Town Destroyer that offers
histories and commentary of a relevant case study—the Life of Washington mural
in San Francisco. This film frames numerous key perspectives around the
controversial mural, its role in public space, censorship and community control.
Our team facilitated a discussion of the film as a way to broaden conversations
about contested public artworks and possible interventions and responses.
Three things were echoed by those in attendance: continue having these difficult
conversations with the support of a facilitation team, focus on the reparative
work needed to address past harms towards First Peoples, and develop more tools
to address similar issues involving public art, public space and representation.
In order to engage more people in this process, we designed a feedback activity
containing a three-page worksheet that individuals could fill out online or
complete on paper and return to City Hall or the Santa Monica Public Library.
Overall, we hoped to engage people in reflecting on the mural and to go deeper
than a survey listing options for or against the mural. One of the goals of the
feedback activity was to have people engage directly with the mural images and
to understand not just how they interpreted the images, but also their emotional
responses and attachments to the mural. Therefore, the first two pages of the
activity provided reproductions of the two mural panels and asked participants
what they saw in each panel, what they felt was missing, and how the images
made them feel about being in City Hall or Santa Monica. We also wanted to
understand what participants felt would be essential in depictions of Santa
Monica to get a fuller sense of the values and perspectives that shaped their
interpretations of the existing mural. So, the last page asked participants what
they would include if they were creating or commissioning an artwork that
would represent the history of Santa Monica. These responses would also be
useful if the process generated recommendations around commissioning new
Feedback activity
engagement
Photo: Kenneth Lopez, Meztli Projects
Photo: Kenneth Lopez, Meztli Projects
Photo: Kenneth Lopez, Meztli Projects
Photo: Fatosh Arabacioglu, courtesy of Snitow-Kaufman Productions
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 557 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 28
artwork. Finally, we asked participants to tell us about themselves, provide their
zip code and optionally, offer their email addresses to receive updates on the
project.
We collected feedback activity responses from February 6, 2023, through May 10,
2023. We initially intended to stop collecting responses on April 1st but chose to
extend the deadline to make sure that all the core constituencies had a chance to
respond.
The feedback activity was shared intentionally with Santa Monica residents and
key stakeholders in the process inside and outside of Santa Monica. Additionally,
Working Circle members circulated it in their networks so that the diverse scope
of Santa Monica community members and voices were included. We sent out
the link to the activity widely, via City of Santa Monica email and social media
channels and throughout our networks. The paper worksheets were available in
the Historic City Hall lobby, City Hall East and at the Main, Pico and Montana
branches of the Santa Monica Public Library. We installed a poster display in the
Historic City Hall lobby describing the project, which included a QR code link to
the activity.
We featured the feedback activity along with resources for educators in our
“What Do You See Here?” virtual event, and we promoted the activity during all
of our public events. We also staffed a booth at the Art and Literacy Festival in
Virginia Avenue Park, engaging children and parents who attended the festival.
To make sure that the perspectives of Spanish-speaking Santa Monicans were
captured, the feedback activity was also available in Spanish. The facilitation
team also visited the Familias Latinas Unidas, a Spanish-speaking parents
group at Virginia Avenue Park to talk about the project and collect feedback
activity responses. A summary of the responses to the feedback activity is in the
“Feedback Activity Responses” section of this report and fuller details about the
responses are available in Appendix C.
We conducted individual interviews to explore certain perspectives in depth
and connect at length with people who were highly invested in the issue but
not part of the Working Circle, willing or able to engage in other events. Our
team conducted interviews with key Santa Monica stakeholders, including
Santa Monica First Peoples; the larger Indigenous community; members of
the Pico Youth and Family Center; Latinx, African American/Black, Asian
American and Pacific Islander stakeholders who have a relationship to public
art or the Reframe process; City of Santa Monica employees; the descendants of
the Marquez family who are mentioned in the City Hall mural; historians and
preservationists; and art students and educators.
Overall, we conducted 15 interviews and asked questions about perceptions
and feelings related to the mural, what is missing from the mural, potential
interventions, the mural’s location, alternative representations of Santa Monica,
new art commissions and who should be involved. What became evident through
the interviews was that responses revealed a great deal about interviewees’
own subjectivities in relationship to the depictions showcased in the mural. In
that sense, responses illuminated the mural’s varied levels of impact. We drew
heavily on these interviews for the “Feedback from Particular Constituencies”
section of this report. Relevant interviews are also woven through this report and
shed light on diverse entry points into the conversation.
Interview and
small group
engagements
Photo: Kenneth Lopez, Meztli Projects
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 558 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 29
Interviewees:
• Tafari Alan, student, Santa Monica College
• Alex Aldana, Executive Director, Pico Youth & Family Center
• Margaret Bach, local historian, former member of the Santa Monica Landmarks
Commission
• Angie Behrns-Dorame (Gabrieleno/Tongva), Kuruvungna Springs Foundation
• Kathleen Benjamin, Belmar History + Art advisory group member, Arts
Commissioner
• Jamie Cruz, educator, historian
• Gina DeBaca, artist, cultural worker
• Mary (Terri) de la Pena, author, Marquez family descendant
• Bill Deverell, American West historian, USC professor & Director of the
Huntington-USC Institute on California and the West
• Nina Fresco, board member, Santa Monica Conservancy; former chair of the
Santa Monica Planning Commission
• Jeremy Gonzalez (Gabrielino Kizh Nation), community member
• Paulina Sahagun, educator, artist
• Elias Serna, Ph.D., M.F.A., artist, educator, professor, and board member, Pico
Youth & Family Center
• Will South, artist, art historian, Stanton Macdonald-Wright specialist
• Angel Villaseñor, former City of Santa Monica employee, community member
We supplemented the interviews with targeted outreach events for specific
communities and many informal conversations. The facilitation team put
special effort into connecting with Santa Monica First Peoples and the larger Los
Angeles Indigenous community. We distributed the feedback activity at the CSU
Puvungna (Long Beach) Pow Wow, the Annual Native Voices Short Play Festival
at the Autry and a clean-up event exploring Native land starting in Tongva
Park. We reached out to many community leaders and community members,
ultimately receiving a letter from the Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of
Mission Indians and from Nick Rocha, Chairman of the Gabrielino-Shoshone
Nation of Southern California (both letters are reproduced in Appendix D). The
letter from Chairman Rocha was also read aloud at the mural during the Sites of
Memory tour.
As part of these more targeted engagement efforts, we hosted another Lunch
and Learn with City of Santa Monica staff, who have a particular relationship to
the mural as part of their workplace. This event was an opportunity for a staff
member on the Working Circle to share their experience with the process and to
collect feedback about the mural from City staff more broadly.
Working Circle members took the lead on organizing events in their own
communities such as
• workshops for K-5 elementary school teachers and administrators at Santa
Monica-Malibu Unified School District (SMMUSD)
• a presentation to a Working Circle member’s church
• a town hall at the Pico Youth and Family Center
• a feedback activity session with the Santa Monica Conservancy members at
City Hall
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 559 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 30
• a teach-in with Community Corporation of Santa Monica staff and residents
• a field trip for a Santa Monica College art class.
Working Circle members also connected us with and invited us to existing
meetings in their communities, including the Santa Monica Area Interfaith
Council, Human Resource Council, Santa Monica Conservancy, and the Puente
parents’ group at SMMUSD. In this way, the Working Circle connected the
process to a wider network of Santa Monica residents and relevant community
events and conversations. While the feedback activity acted as a tool to record
individual reactions, it was also a conversational tool and often promoted
complex conversations that could not be captured in the activity. Those
conversations helped shape our programs and the Working Circle agenda and
added nuance to the recommendations detailed in this report.
Lunch and Learn I Lunch and Learn II
Distribute the
feedback
activity at the
CSU Puvungna
(Long Beach)
Pow Wow
at the Annual Native
Voices Short Play
Festival at the Autry
Receive a letter from
the Gabrieleno/
Tongva San Gabriel
Band of Mission
Indians
Receive a letter
from Nick Rocha,
the chief of the
Gabrielino
Shoshone
at a clean-up event
exploring Native
land starting in
Tongva Park
Reach out to many
community leaders
and community
members
Workshops for
SMMUSD K-5
school teachers and
administrators
Presentation to a
Working Circle
member’s church
Town hall at the
Pico Youth and
Family Center
Booth at Arts and
Literacy Festival,
visit to Familias
Latinas Unidas
at park
Feedback
activity session
with the Santa
Monica
Conservancy
members at
City Hall
Visits to Human
Resource Council,
Santa Monica
Area Interfaith
Council, Puente
meeting
Teach-in with
Community
Corporation of
Santa Monica sta
and residents
Field trip for a
Santa Monica
College art class
Additional
outreach to specific
constituencies
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 560 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 31
History of Santa Monica and the Bay District is a “petrachrome” mural installed
on the interior walls of the lobby of Santa Monica’s City Hall building. The
mural was designed by Stanton Macdonald-Wright, an American artist who
spent his early years in Santa Monica. It was commissioned through the Works
Progress Administration’s Federal Art Project—a government program designed
to employ artists during the Great Depression, bolster the economy, and restore
national pride. Macdonald-Wright also acted as the administrator of the WPA
project’s Southern California division, supervising numerous other artists and
their projects. This mural was completed in 1939 along with the building itself.
The City of Santa Monica owns the mural and it is part of the City’s public art
collection. Santa Monica City Hall was landmarked in 1979 and the mural was
mentioned in the designation. In 2011, the exterior of City Hall was given a
supplemental landmark designation.
The mural was created using a process invented by Macdonald-Wright called
“petrachrome,” which is very similar to terrazzo.22 Blocks of colored liquid
cement material (including crushed tile, marble, and granite) are poured in
place to create the image. A flexible frame is used to block off each colored
section and the material hardens when it dries. The images are created in panels
that are roughly three feet by three feet. These panels are then installed as an
architectural facing to a wall surface and polished. This technique was employed
in several other murals in the Federal Art Project and WPA program in Southern
California that were directed by Macdonald-Wright.
In 2003, the City’s Cultural Affairs Division, as part of a comprehensive project to
survey and restore thirteen murals in the city, commissioned Rainer, Stavroudis
& Zebala to perform a conservation and restoration project on the lobby mural.
In a follow up assessment of Santa Monica’s public art collection in 2015, the
mural was noted to be in good condition.
22 Charles Epting, “The New Deal’s Forgotten Art Form,” Living New Deal, June 19, 2015, https://livingnewd-
eal.org/tag/petrachrome/.
The History of the Mural
City Hall mural being prepared in FAP workshop.
Photo: Public domain, FDR Library Collection
Photograph of man working on a floor mural, circa 1940.
Photographs relating to the WPA Southern California Art
Project, circa 1937-1941. Photo: Archives of American
Art, Smithsonian Institution
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 561 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 32
Prior to his work with the WPA, Macdonald-Wright came to some prominence
as one of the first proponents and practitioners of abstract, non-figurative art in
America. With artist Morgan Russell, he developed a style called Synchromism,
meaning “with color.” In his later career, after returning to the West Coast,
Macdonald-Wright returned to figurative work. Particularly in his public mural
work, like the City Hall mural, Macdonald-Wright used historical figures.
In 1934, Macdonald-Wright volunteered to paint a 200-foot mural at the Santa
Monica Library entitled Technical and Imaginative Pursuits of Early Man or Man’s
Two-fold Development. This mural included 160 figures represented in a fantastical
tableau together including such figures as Edgar Allen Poe, Bach, Confucius, Lao
Tsu, Copernicus and Newton, as well as individuals from Santa Monica, including
himself, Gloria Stuart, Leo Carillo, Judge Carillo and film director Frank Tuttle.
He also included several “hidden portraits,” including notable Santa Monicans
cast as anonymous figures—nephews of Senator John Percival Jones (co-founder
of Santa Monica) in Renaissance costume, Mayor William H. Carter working in a
machine shop and a self-portrait as a flute player.23
This library commission led to Macdonald-Wright’s appointment as lead
administrator of the Southern California division of the WPA in 1935, a position
that he held for seven years. During his tenure, Macdonald-Wright produced
nine murals. These murals, in mosaic tile and petrachrome often showcased
innovative, durable techniques and dealt with themes relating to California
history, depictions of recreation and technological advances. Macdonald-Wright
was admired as an energetic and ingenious administrator but also criticized for
altering and censoring the work of other artists and his highly unconventional
choice to award a disproportionate number of mural commissions to himself.
In contrast to Macdonald-Wright’s nine murals, five other artists had three each,
twelve artists had two and the remaining 32 artists had one each, according to a
public complaint letter written by Edward Bilberman of the Artists’ Congress.24
23 This mural was eventually reinstalled in the current Main Library in 2006. For more information about
the Santa Monica Public Library mural, see https://smpl.org/mural/index.htm.
24 Marlene Park, “A Romantic in a Frenzied Office: Macdonald-Wright and the Federal Art Projects, 1934-
1943,” in Color, Myth, and Music: Stanton Macdonald-Wright and Synchromism (Raleigh, NC: North Carolina
Museum of Art, 2001), p. 127.
Stanton
Macdonald-
Wright as WPA
administrator
Detail of Macdonald-Wright mural at Santa Monica
Public Library. Photo: City of Santa Monica
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 562 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 33
To the best of our knowledge, Macdonald-Wright had no outside guidance or
oversight over the content of the City Hall mural. The foremost historian of
Macdonald-Wright’s life, Will South, agrees with this, pointing to the complete
absence of archival materials relating to this mural.25 Because FAP/WPA
murals were government-commissioned works, most of them have extensive
documentation in government archives. Typically, mural artists would be asked
to submit drawings and sketches before being permitted to produce and install
public projects. The City Hall mural has almost no paper trail, suggesting that
Macdonald-Wright, because he was both artist and commissioner, did not submit
any concepts, written descriptions, drawings or plans to any oversight body. This
arrangement, as noted by the Artists’ Congress in their complaint letter, was
highly unusual.
The WPA in Southern California is distinct from the majority of other WPA
divisions because of the leadership of Macdonald-Wright. Whereas much
of WPA art is known for its social realist approach and content, Macdonald-
Wright was actively averse to this style and worked to eliminate it. Macdonald-
Wright believed social realist content was “political” and viewed this approach
as anathema to “true” artistic content. This was a personal perspective that
Macdonald-Wright admits was not held by his employer, the federal government.
According to his oral history interview with Betty Hoag, he actively colluded
with other anti-socialist members of the art world to identify and censor artistic
content without bringing it to the attention of his employers.26 His approach
to this censorship was by his own description, covert. He knew the Federal
government did not share his views so he worked to personally paint over and
alter other artists’ work without due process.
Macdonald-Wright was, at the end of his life, openly critical of the Federal Art
Project, the art that it produced and the artists that it fostered and supported,
believing that it “set back art all over the United States a hundred and fifty
years… it was absolutely the worst thing that could possibly have happened.”27
There are a few misconceptions about the mural that we feel are beyond
interpretation and deserve to be clarified.
“The mural is painted directly on the wall.”
The mural is not a painting. It was created through a terrazzo-style process
called petrachrome, assembled in panels off-site, and then installed as a facing
on top of the structural wall.
“The mural could not be moved because it is part of the building.”
Petrachrome is a durable stone composite material that has been successfully
moved several times. At least two of the known petrachrome murals have
been relocated and restored (Helen Lundgren’s History of Transportation and
Macdonald-Wright’s Typical Activities of a Beach and Harbor City/Recreations of
Long Beach). The petrachrome process was deliberately designed as a material
that can be assembled off-site and attached to an existing wall.
“The mural is landmarked.”
The mural is not itself landmarked but is mentioned in the description of City
Hall in the initial 1979 landmark designation.
25 Will South, “Q&A with Reframe Working Circle,” April 26, 2023.
26 Betty Hoag, Oral History: Stanton Macdonald-Wright, September 13, 1964, Archives of the American Art
New Deal and the Arts Project, https://www.aaa.si.edu/collections/interviews/oral-history-interview-stan-
ton-macdonaldwright-11673.
27 Hoag, Oral History: Stanton Macdonald-Wright, September 13, 1964.
Some common
misconceptions
Helen Lundgren’s “History of Transportation,” one of
several petrachrome murals that have been relocated.
Photo: Andrew Laverdiere, Living New Deal
Macdonald-Wright “Landing of the Vikings in Vinland” at Santa
Monica High School. Photo: Richard A. Walker, Living New Deal
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 563 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 34
Detail of southwest panel of “History of Santa Monica and the Bay District” without the list of dates. Photo: Kenneth Lopez, Meztli Projects
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 564 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 35
Detail of northwest panel of “History of Santa Monica and the Bay District” without the list of dates. Photo: Kenneth Lopez, Meztli Projects
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 565 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 36
The City of Santa Monica describes the mural this way in the Public Art
Archive entry:
The section in the northwest corner depicts a group of five figures
meeting on a beach rimmed by mountains, with rocks in the waves
at the shoreline. A Spanish conquistador stands with a padre in
a Franciscan robe holding a walking stick. They face two Native
Americans, kneeling and sitting at a stream, drinking with their
hands. Behind them is a standing, bearded figure who wears a blue hat
and cloak, and behind him are two bridled horses. A waterfall is seen
in the middle distance, the source of the stream. A bird soars in the sky.
A timeline accompanying the mural indicates dates of historic
significance for both the city and the state.
The section in the southwest corner of the lobby portrays a Santa
Monica of the 1930’s: the cliff-side coastal landscape, with people
engaged in recreational pursuits evocative of the locale. A road race,
sailboats and airplanes are seen behind large foreground figures,
including two polo players (one mounted), a boy kneeling with a
model airplane, a pair of tennis players, and a chow dog, modeled
on Macdonald Wright’s own pet.
While Macdonald-Wright speaks at length about the specific figures in the
southwest side of the mural, there is no further discussion about his intentions
regarding the overall theme or intention of the mural as a whole. In this part of
the report, we’ll address common ideas about who and what is depicted in the
mural, whether those depictions are accurate, and highlight some key differing
interpretations.
Interpretations of the Mural
It’s important to note that the mural is a constructed image, not a factual event or a
photograph. There are many possible interpretations of what is in the mural. Some are
more plausible than others, but fundamentally an image is open to interpretation, and no
interpretation can be said to be definitively true or untrue. Because of the nature of the mural
and the depth of feelings that the mural evokes, we have found that interpretations of what is
depicted, how it is depicted, and what ideas, worldviews and sentiments that depiction evokes
vary greatly. Many interpretations of the mural that we imagined to be uncontroversial have
turned out to be hotly debated.
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 566 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 37
What we know about the artist’s intentions for the images in the mural is via an
interview with the artist conducted in 1964 by Betty Hoag, for the Archives of
American Art New Deal and the Arts Project.28 In this oral history, Macdonald-
Wright speaks explicitly about the objects, places and figures in the southwest
(second) panel, sometimes known as “recreation.” He talks about Will Rogers
and his polo field, automobile racing on San Vicente or Wilshire Blvd, the
Douglas Building, Harry M. Gorham, tennis players May Sutton and Tom Bundy,
as well as the dog, modeled after his own two dogs named Min Wong and Yung
Wevay.
This image touches on some of the most renowned features of Santa Monica at
that time, highlighting automobile racing, aviation, tennis and film stars. Will
Rogers was one of Santa Monica’s most well-known residents in the 1920s and
had a famed polo field. While it is not evident in the depiction in this mural, Will
Rogers was Cherokee and grew up in Indian Territory, now part of Oklahoma.
28 Hoag, Oral History: Stanton Macdonald-Wright, September 13, 1964.
The southwest or
“recreation” side
of the mural
Detail of southwest panel of “History of Santa Monica
and the Bay District” without the list of dates. Photo:
Kenneth Lopez, Meztli Projects
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 567 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 38
The dates that appear on the right side of this panel refer to significant moments
relevant to City of Santa Monica government, which emphasizes the location
of the mural in City Hall. The 1924 round the world flight of Douglas planes is
the only date listed that does not pertain to City of Santa Monica government.
An airplane in flight and a toy airplane depicted in the mural seem to be visual
references to this date.
Many interviewees, Working Circle members and feedback activity respondents
have noted all of the figures in the recreation scene are portrayed as white.
Certainly, this speaks to who had power and standing in 1939 Santa Monica, but
is not an accurate portrayal of either Santa Monica or even the scope of leisure
in Santa Monica at the time. As was made explicit by the Belmar History + Art29
project, there was a thriving Black residential and leisure community in Santa
Monica at the time–prior to the urban renewal that destroyed the neighborhood
in the 1950s. Nina Fresco notes that there were Black polo clubs and famous
African American pilots in the 1930s.30 Kathleen Benjamin notes that we know
there were Black surf clubs and famed Black surfers like Nick Gabaldon.31 As
historian Bill Deverell notes, it’s all a matter of where you point your camera.
“Predominantly white, sure. 100% white, no. It’s all a question of where you point
your camera, right? So you put your camera at the tennis club, 1939…It’s going to
be racially segregated.”32
29 https://www.santamonica.gov/belmar-history-art)
30 Nina Fresco, Interview with Meztli Projects, June 6, 2023.
31 Kathleen Benjamin, Interview with Meztli Projects, June 28, 2023.
32 Bill Deverell, Interview with Meztli Projects, May 3, 2023.
Southwest panel dates
1875 - Senator John P. Jones
Founds Santa Monica
1907 - City Charter Approved
by State Legislature
1914 - Commission Form of
Government
1924 - Round the World Flight
of Douglas Planes
1939 - New City Hall Completed
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 568 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 39
There are no recorded descriptions of who or what Macdonald-Wright was
intending to render on the northwest side of the mural. We can only speculate
about even who or what is depicted, outside of the mural’s general title, History
of Santa Monica and the Bay District. Nonetheless, we have surfaced numerous
valuable interpretations and present them here, with some evaluation of
competing claims.
The northwest
side of the mural
Detail of northwest panel of “History of Santa Monica
and the Bay District” without the list of dates.
Photo: Kenneth Lopez, Meztli Projects
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 569 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 40
List of dates
The dates in the northwest panel receive a great deal more focus than the dates
on the southwest panel, both in their content and how they relate to the images
in the mural. Overall, the list focuses on European political structures and
moments, though it contains more names than actual descriptions of events.
Notably, the list does not begin with any mention of Native history or First
Peoples of the area. The first date, 1769, references the Portolá expedition into
what the Spanish referred to as Alta California and includes Junipero Serra, but
not Juan Crespi, even though both priests accompanied parts of the expedition.
The Portolá expedition seems to be the context for the image, because of the
inclusion of the particular figures as we discuss below. Another significant date
in the contemporary discussion of the mural is the 1838 land grant to Francisco
Marquez and Ysidro Reyes that became Rancho Boca de Santa Mónica. The
inclusion of these names is a point of great pride for the descendents of these
families, many of whom have lived in Santa Monica since then and are active in
preserving the history of the Rancho period. Some observers have also noted
the lack of women in this list, especially Arcadia Bandini de Stearns Baker,
Colonel Robert Symington Baker’s wife. Bandini was an early benefactor of Santa
Monica and had arguably more influence in shaping early Santa Monica than her
husband.
The leftmost figure
This figure is a Franciscan monk. We think almost everyone agrees on at least
this much based on the commonly told histories of the area and the distinctive
style of dress. However, there are two interpretations about which Franciscan
monk this is in particular: Father Juan Crespi or Father Junipero Serra.
Father Juan Crespi. This interpretation is based on the fact that Father Crespi’s
diary describes a scene of water discovery and contact with Indigenous
people by the shore at a place Crespi calls the “Pools of Santa Monica” and
also describes another encounter in an area that could be nearby Kuruvungna
Springs. There is also another legend that the Springs are the source of the name
“Santa Monica,” which is recorded and combined with references to Father
Crespi’s diary in a book titled History of Santa Monica and the Bay District.33
However, it is unknown, as we discuss below, whether Macdonald-Wright used
any of these sources. Aside from the general dress of a Franciscan monk, there
are no other indications in the mural itself that this is Crespi.
Father Junipero Serra. This interpretation is very compelling based on three
factors. First, Serra is almost always depicted with an extremely distinct and
iconic baldness pattern that is unique from a generic tonsure. This pattern
creates three distinct tufts of hair above the monk’s face. Second, the figure’s left
foot is stepped forward and the figure is holding a cane; the injured foot and use
of a cane are also iconic components of Serra’s depictions. Third, Serra’s name is
written on the mural to the left of the scene. In addition, it should be noted that
Serra is an extremely common, almost stock figure in historical depictions of
early California, particularly those made in the early and mid 20th Century.
33 Charles S. Warren, History of the Santa Monica Bay Region: In Two Parts Narrative and Biographical (Santa
Monica, CA: A. H. Cawston, 1934).
Debated figures
and features
Northwest panel dates
1769 - Gaspar de Portolá,
Junipero Serra
1822 - Mexican Territory
1827 - Xavier Alvarado, Antonio
Machado
1838 - Francisco Marques,
Ysidro Reyes
1848 - U.S. Territory
1872 - Col. R.S. Baker
Detail of northwest panel. Photo: Kenneth Lopez, Meztli
Projects
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 570 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 41
The figure with a helmet standing next to the Franciscan monk
Many interpret this figure as Gaspar de Portolá. This also appears to us to be the
most likely explanation given the style of military dress and the name Gaspar de
Portolá that appears on the mural. This identity is assumed by many observers of
the mural. There is some disagreement as to whether this figure’s shirt is made
of metal or cloth or leather. Depending on the interpretation of what the shirt
is made of, there is also some disagreement about whether this style of dress
is appropriate to the kind of outfit Portolá would have worn, which would have
most likely been leather. Some interpreters, like Nina Fresco, believe that this
figure is dressed more like Juan Cabrillo than Portolá.34 However, Cabrillo is not
named on the wall and did not travel with Serra or Crespi. This figure also has no
other identifying markers to connect it to Cabrillo.
The waterfall
Some, especially those who believe that Crespi’s diary was a source for the
mural, interpret the waterfall as Kuruvungna Springs. This is an intriguing and
coherent interpretation. There is no formal evidence that this is true but also
nothing to dispute it.
The figure on horseback
There are two common interpretations of this figure. One reads this image as
representing an extension of the Portolá expedition. Another reads the mural as
a historical tableau in which the figures represent different time periods, rather
than one historical moment. In this interpretation, the figure on horseback
represents the later Spanish period after colonization.
The two Native figures
The two figures on the lower right of the panel are intended to be First Peoples
of the area. This is not widely disputed; however, much of the rest of what we
can say about them is highly disputed and different constituencies are highly
invested in their interpretations of the scene. Ultimately the image is just that,
an image, and open to interpretation. The following statements are difficult to
prove decisively, and different viewers have each suggested the below with great
conviction.
They are showing the water to the standing figures.
They are drinking the water.
They are drinking water that the horse is standing in.
They are kneeling in subservience to the standing figures.
They are enslaved.
They are or are not kneeling. One of the figures is on their knees and the other
is seated cross-legged. Both are positioned on the lower right, lower than the
other figures. On the one hand, it seems almost impossible to argue that one
of these figures is not kneeling, but we have heard from people who dispute
this claim. Some use the word “sitting” to describe their posture, potentially to
avoid the connotation of “kneeling before someone” in the word “kneeling.”
Their lowered position and orientation toward the central figure, the Franciscan
monk, adds to the interpretation of these figures in a subservient position and
not just lower for access to the water.
34 Nina Fresco, Interview with Meztli Projects, June 6, 2023.
Details of northwest panel. Photos: Kenneth Lopez,
Meztli Projects
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 571 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 42
Debated figures in the northwest panel
This character in
the mural strongly
resembles iconic
depictions of Father
Serra due to the
unique baldness
pattern as well as the
cane and pronounced
left foot.
This figure is unlikely to
be Father Crespi, with a
more traditional monk
tonsure.
This character could
be either Gaspar de
Portolá or Juan Rodriguez
Cabrillo. Portolá seems
likely, because his name
is on the adjacent wall.
The rider on
horseback is
ambiguous but
seems to be dressed
consistently with
the way that Spanish
soldiers from the
Portolá expedition are
depicted.
The lowered, kneeling position of
the Native bodies is consistent with
many depictions from this time
period, including this one from a
mural by Macdonald-Wright entitled
Landing of the Vikings in Vinland at
Santa Monica High School.
Gaspar De Portolá:
Father Serra:
Juan Rodriguez
Cabrillo:
Spanish soldier:
Native figures:
Father Crespi:
All images under public domain
except where noted.
Detail of northwest panel
of “History of Santa
Monica and the Bay
District” without the list
of dates. Photo: Kenneth
Lopez, Meztli Projects
Photo: Richard A. Walker, Living New Deal
Photo: Wally Gobetz
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 572 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 43
We believe that the discussion of whether the figures are kneeling or not is
particularly charged because of the widespread existence of kneeling Indians
as a visual trope in American art, commercial graphics and advertising. While
it is true that perhaps the intent of the artist was to associate the Native bodies
with the springs and water, which would lead to positioning the Native bodies as
stooped towards the water, this image exists within a landscape of many other
popular representations of Native Americans in a kneeling or lowered posture
before white bodies. This array of images includes another work, Landing of the
Vikings in Vinland (1939) by Macdonald-Wright, other WPA murals in California
and nationally and many other examples.35
They are or are not dressed in a historically accurate way. The figures are
wearing very little clothing. One wears a headband and a dark colored loincloth.
The other wears a white loin cloth. Both have shoulder-length hair. It’s difficult
to say what would be a truly accurate representation of First Peoples’ dress
at this time. Their clothing is also so generally and vaguely portrayed that it’s
hard to say much about its accuracy. The people are dressed in a way that could
plausibly be worn by an Indigenous person in the area during a warm season,
but not in a way that is specifically readable as belonging to a particular group.
The contrast between the Europeans and the Native figures is notable, in that
the Europeans are heavily clothed in outfits that would be appropriate for cold
weather and that communicate distinctive roles and identities.
Illustrative renderings available at the time when the mural was created depict
Gabrielenos wearing different attire, particularly feather headdresses and
skirts. A five-volume study of the Missions and Missionaries of California (1929),
commissioned by Franciscan scholar Zephryrin Engelhardt and illustrated by
Alexander Harmer, was available at the time and was widely popular.36 Father
Juan Crespi’s diary was also available and contained various descriptions of
encounters with First Peoples, sometimes noting their clothing. The mural’s
depiction is not egregiously incorrect or geographically incongruent, as in the
case of something like the Early Days monument in San Francisco that includes
an Indigenous figure dressed in clearly incorrect clothing (discussed under Case
Studies below). Nor is the mural specifically correct or clearly a representation of
any tribe. This lack of specificity is a common issue raised about representations
of colonization.37
They have no faces or eyes. Interestingly, the figures do in fact have faces. The eyes
are turned away from the viewer and the contrast in the petrachrome material is
so low that many people looking directly at the mural fail to register the facial
features. It is clear that their faces are not given much visual focus in the mural.
35 “Santa Monica High School: Macdonald-Wright Murals-Santa Monica, CA,” Living New Deal, n.d., https://
livingnewdeal.org/sites/santa-monica-high-school-macdonald-wright-murals-santa-monica-ca;
“Alameda County Courthouse: Exploration,” New Deal Art Registry, n.d., https://www.newdealartregistry.
org/rendersite/AlamedaCountyCourthouse/Oakland/CA/.
36 “Alexander Harmer - Colorized,” California Missions: Keeping the Past Present, n.d., https://www.mission-
scalifornia.com/galleries/alexander-harmer-colorized/.
37 Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, An Indigenous Peoples’ History of the United States (Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 2014).
Drawing by Alexander Harmer depicting the first
baptism in California taking place at Mission San
Juan Capistrano (1929). Photo: University of Southern
California Libraries and California Historical Society
Detail of northwest panel. Photo: Joel Garcia, Meztli
Projects
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 573 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 44
As mentioned above, there is no known statement from the artist about what or
who he intended to portray or why for the northwest panel. So the following is
speculation based on interviews with scholars whose work focuses on the artist,
the time period, and the program that facilitated the mural: Will South, Bill
Deverell and Natalie McDonald of the Living New Deal project.38
Missions, Junipero Serra and the origin story of California. The mural seems
to reflect a romanticized depiction of the origin story of the State of California,
which was very commonly told for most of the 20th century. Father Serra and
the Mission System he designed were very much at the center of this history.
Serra founded 8 of the 21 Spanish Missions in California, from San Diego to San
Francisco. These structures were restored and presented as tourist attractions
by the National Park Service in the 1930s as part of a project to create a unified
narrative about the history of California.
The Mission Play (1912) by John Steven McGroarty was also widely popular in
the years leading up to the mural; it was performed hundreds of times and
even led to the construction of its own ballroom. The three-act play celebrates
the Missions, Serra and the conversion of First Peoples to Christianity, and it
bemoans the loss of the Spanish Missions to Mexico.”
The Mission Play was a popular transmitter of a mythic narrative regarding the
origins of California and the encounter between Spanish priests, soldiers and
the Gabrieleno people. As early as 1946, as shown in Carey McWilliams’ essay
“The Indian in the Closet,” countervailing treatments of this historical period
that emphasized the rape, murder, slavery and forced conversion were readily
available, and these histories were based on primary sources, such as Serra
and Crespi’s journals.39 Nonetheless, the romantic narrative about California’s
founding was heavily promoted by the State through mandatory curricula, the
restoration of the Missions as tourist attractions by the National Park Service,
and through popular media like The Mission Play. Until 2017, all 4th Graders in
California were assigned a Mission curriculum and asked to create a diorama of
a Mission.
Father Crespi’s diary, Kuruvungna Springs and the origin story of Santa
Monica. Some observers feel that Father Crespi’s diary is the source material
for Macdonald-Wright’s mural. Published in 1927, the diary remarks on several
encounters between the Spanish and groups of First Peoples. In the entry of
May 4, Crespi notes that the group traveled along the shore until they reached
a hill that juts out into the sea containing several pools of fresh water, which
they name the “Pools of Santa Monica.” Crespi records a report from a second
division of explorers about a large village of First Peoples in this place:
The reverend father says in his diary that they were with them all day; that
they were Indians of good appearance, affable and cheerful; and that they were
much in love with these good-looking heathen [unbaptized]. They gave the
Spaniards fish and mussels, for which they went to fish in their little canoes;
and they danced for them in their fashion to entertain them, and begged them
to remain there a second night…The men all go about naked, with quivers on
their shoulders, while on their heads they wear a kind of crown made of skins
of beaver and other animals. They wear their hair cut like perukes and daubed
with white and green with some taste. The women go modestly covered with
woven fibers and skins.40
38 Will South, Bill Deverell, Natalie McDonald, Personal Communication with Meztli Projects, 2023.
39 Carey McWilliams, “The Indian in the Closet,” in Southern California: An Island on the Land (New York:
Duell, Sloan & Pearce, 1946).
40 Herbert Eugene Bolton, Fray Juan Crespi: Missionary Explorer on the Pacific Coast 1769-1774 (Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press, 1927), p.100-101.
Historical
context and
potential sources
Pamphlet from 1920. Photo: Public domain
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 574 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 45
In another entry recorded for August 4, the group traveled from tar pits (likely
La Brea) about two hours northwest to come to a site of two springs at the foot of
a higher mesa and village of First Peoples. The site of that encounter is thought
to be Kuruvungna Springs, a sacred site near University High School in West
Los Angeles that is accessible and maintained today by the Kuruvungna Springs
Foundation.
After two hours’ travel, during which we must have covered two leagues, we
stopped at the watering place, which consists of two little springs that rise at
the foot of a higher mesa. From each of the two springs runs a small stream of
water which is soon absorbed; they are both full of watercress and innumerable
bushes of Castilian roses. We made camp near the springs, where we found a
good village of very friendly and docile heathens [unbaptized] who, as soon as
we arrived, came to visit us, bringing their present of baskets of sage and other
seeds, small, round nuts with a hard shell, and large and very sweet acorns. . .
They made me a present of some strings of beads of white and red shells which
resemble coral, though not very fine. I understood they were asking us whether
we were going to stay, and I said “No,” that we were going further on.” I called
this place San Gregorio, but to the soldiers the spot is known as the Springs of El
Berrendo, because they caught a deer alive there. . . 41
Another source, a book published in 1934 with a similar title to the mural–History
of the Santa Monica Bay Region by Charles S. Warren, locates the naming of Santa
Monica at Kuruvungna Springs. In this story, Spanish soldiers traveling from
the Pueblo of Los Angeles associated the Springs with the tears of Saint Monica
for her son Augustine. Warren recounts this story specifically as a “legend”
originating in 1769 with no factual basis:
Soldiers were given furloughs now and then to explore the territory in all this
section. Even then they must have seen that the best growth would be toward the
ocean. The travels of these soldiers brought them one day, weary and thirsty, to
a point on what is now the grounds of the University High School in West Los
Angeles. There their eyes were gladdened with the sight of water from bubbling
springs. They sank to their knees in gratitude. After drinking of the dancing
waters, they lay down to rest, and in gratitude for their refreshment, bethought
themselves of a fitting name for the place. “We will call it Santa Monica,” said
the one with the quick imagination, “for the springs resemble the tears of the
good Santa Monica, shed for her erring son.42
Confusingly, Warren then conflates this legend associated with the Springs with
the encounter at the “Pools of Santa Monica” by the shore recorded in Crespi’s
May 4 diary entry, saying that May 4 is the feast day of Saint Monica. He then
quotes and paraphrases at length from the description of the encounter with the
First Peoples recorded on May 4 in Crespi’s diary.
It’s impossible to know what sources of inspiration the artist used, especially
given the lack of documentation around his designs. It is plausible that
Macdonald-Wright knew of the legend about the origin story of Santa Monica
and may have included the waterfall as a reference to this story. If he used Father
Crespi’s diary or Warren’s History of Santa Monica and the Bay Region, he does not
seem to have drawn from either source’s description of the “Native inhabitants.”
Also, the mural does not include gifts of any kind from the Native figures or any
other representations of Indigenous civilization recorded in Crespi’s diary, such
as canoes or structures. These inconsistencies are a reminder that the mural is
not itself a recording of history, but an artist’s creation that references historical
events through constructed images.
41 Bolton, Fray Juan Crespi: Missionary Explorer on the Pacific Coast 1769-1774, p.149-150. There are later
translations, notably from 2001, that have different translations of this entry and slightly differing details.
We have chosen the edition that would have been available to the artist.
42 Charles S. Warren, History of the Santa Monica Bay Region: In Two Parts Narrative and Biographical, p. 15.
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 575 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 46
Obviously, the largest point of interpretive contention is whether the overall
scene presented is objectionable. While it is clear that some viewers feel no
offense at seeing these images, it seems to us beyond debate that many other
viewers do. Throughout our process, we have encountered three different major
kinds of objections and three major defenses.
Objections
• The Native figures are showing deference or subservience to the conquerors.
This portrayal is traumatic to survivors of generational violence because it
depicts a triumphant moment of subjugation.
• The Native figures are showing collaboration and goodwill towards their
soon-to-be oppressors. This portrayal is traumatic not only because it erases
a history of extreme violence and cruelty but suggests that Native people
welcomed it.
• The Native figures are generally shown as less than the other white/
Spanish figures and whether or not they are revered or vilified, they are not
portrayed as real humans or on the same level as one another.
Defenses
• The Native figures are shown in a way that honors Native people, because
they relate to the earth, look strong, or their posture might reference East
Asian figures such as bodhisattvas.
• The Native figures are helpful because they acknowledge that people lived
here before European invasion.
• The Native figures are neutral and just happen to be in the higher and lower
positions they are in because it makes a dynamic composition. The figures
may or may not even be having an interaction.
These interpretations cannot be resolved definitively, but we offer here
some further considerations around the objections. In alignment with our
commitment to centering First Peoples and to a trauma-informed, survivor-
centered approach, we need to take seriously the objections that First Peoples
have shared, particularly around how these images cause harm.
Representations of the Mission System and Junipero Serra. Regardless of
whether the scene in the mural depicts a moment of deference or a moment of
collaboration, the images in the mural are associated with colonization and the
Mission System for many Indigenous viewers. While the mural does not contain
images of explicit violence (in contrast to Victor Arnatauff’s Life of Washington
mural, which we discuss below), for First Peoples and other Indigenous
Peoples, images of Junipero Serra and other references to forced conversion or
colonization are reminders of the violence of the history of the Mission System.
In fact, romanticized or “whitewashed” images can be all the more galling and
traumatic, as they reinforce romanticized narratives of this history and make it
easy to pretend that real violence did not happen.
As we noted before, the State of California actively promoted an origin story for
the state with the Missions at the center. The Missions remain popular tourist
sites, but they are deeply ambivalent sites for Indigenous Peoples. In her An
Indigenous People’s History of the United States, Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz highlights
how the Mission sites and the celebration of Serra are perceived and reinscribe
generational trauma:
Are the
representations
in the mural
objectionable?
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 576 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 47
Very few visitors notice, however, that in the middle of the plaza of each Mission
is a whipping post. The history symbolized by that artifact is not dead and
buried with the generations of Indigenous bodies buried under the California
crust. The scars and trauma have been passed on from generation to generation.
Putting salt in the wound, as it were, Pope John Paul II in 1998 beatified
Junipero Serra, the first step toward sainthood. California Indigenous peoples
were insulted by this act and organized to prevent the sanctification of a person
they consider having been an exponent of rape, torture, death, starvation,
and humiliation of their ancestors and the attempted destruction of their
cultures. Serra would take soldiers with him, randomly kidnapping Indigenous
individuals and families, recording these captures in his diaries, as in this
instance: “[When] one fled from between their [the soldiers’] hands, they caught
the other. They tied him, and it was all necessary, for, even bound, he defended
himself that they should not bring him, and flung himself on the ground with
such violence that he scraped and bruised his thighs and knees. But at last, they
brought him. . . He was frightened and very disturbed.’
In 1878, a old Kamia man named Janitin told an interviewer of his experience
as a child: “When we arrived at the Mission, they locked me in a room for a
week. . . Every day they lashed me unjustly because I did not finish what I did
not know how to do, and thus I existed for many days until I found a way to
escape; but I was tracked, and they caught me like a fox.” He was fastened to the
stage and beaten to unconsciousness.43
Not just a memory, the impacts of the Mission System are very much still present
with Indigenous People today, as noted by Deborah A. Miranda, an enrolled
member of the Ohlone-Costanoan Esselen Nation of California. In her widely
acclaimed book, Bad Indians: A Tribal Memoir, she shares a compilation of
documents, photos and memoir that recounts the establishment of Missions
in California and the impact on Indigenous people—then and today.44 One of
the ongoing impacts of the Mission System is shame. For example, “That is, in
fact, the case with psychological research on the subject of shame; it creates
a situation that naturally inhibits people from opening up and sharing their
experiences with others.”45 Shame and other feelings associated with it make
it difficult for First Peoples to engage, which is a repeated and ongoing harm
that anyone who descends from the original inhabitants of Santa Monica can
rightfully claim. It is this historical lineage of both the Mission System and
representations of colonization that leads to objections about the Native figures
showing either deference or goodwill to a Franciscan monk and a soldier.
The impact of dehumanizing or romanticized representations. The
comparative lack of detail for the Native figures, including their faces, and their
lowered position both in design and how their bodies are placed on the ground,
whether intended to depict subservience or not, raises a variety of issues
when viewed from the perspective of Indigenous Peoples. These elements of
the image contribute to the interpretation of this as a portrayal of Indigenous
Peoples as less human and lower than the other figures, who, in contrast, merit
a detailed portrayal as individuals with distinctive styles of dress that suggest
their identities, active postures that communicate power, and full detailed facial
expressions that indicate personhood.
43 Dunbar-Ortiz, Roxanne. An Indigenous Peoples’ History of the United States. Boston, Beacon Press, 2015. p.
128-129.
44 Deborah A. Miranda, Bad Indians: A Tribal Memoir (Berkeley, CA: Heyday, 2013).
45 Scot N. DuFour, “Shame, Anger, and Guilt: The Hierarchy of Emotions in Restorative Justice,” Inquiries
Journal 8, no. 04 (2016).
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 577 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 48
This image must be taken in light of the many, many images from this time period
that portray Native figures kneeling or in subservient positions before white figures
and the many other images in popular culture that include romanticized or negative
representations of Indigenous Peoples. According to the Reclaiming Native Truth
project, this kind of representation “reinforces negative stereotypes among the
dominant culture and can harm the self-esteem and aspirations of our own people,
and especially our children.”47
Even if intended to be or interpreted as heroic, a romanticized “historical” image
without any particularity reinforces the idea that all Indigenous Peoples are the
same and that they are in the past. The Reclaiming Native Truth Project research
confirmed that “contemporary Native Americans are, for the most part, invisible in
the United States.”48 The lack of visibility and sense of relevance in modern culture
is particularly dangerous in the way that it can undermine support for Native issues
and can lead to dehumanizing policies. Secretary Deb Haaland, when speaking
at Sherman Indian High School, the oldest Indian boarding school in Riverside,
California, stated, “There are current impacts [of the Indian boarding schools] in
drug addiction and poverty and the lack of economic development, and health
disparities. When people are invisible, you don’t have to pay attention. We should
care about every single community in this country. So bringing all of these things to
light; it will make us become a better country.”49
Racialized representations in a place of power like City Hall. It’s important to
consider the physical context of the mural when considering the objections to the
mural and its potential impact. It’s not in an educational or leisure space, but in a
space of government where decisions are made that affect all of Santa Monica. In
other words, it’s a place where power is exercised, and the imagery displayed both
reinforces that power and is imbued with power by being displayed in this place.
Taking this context into account, the fact that the majority of the figures in both
the mural panels are represented as white and the only people of color in either
panel seem to many to be subservient is significant. During this process, we did
not encounter any interpretations that called into question the whiteness of the
other figures. The central figures in both panels—Will Rogers in the southwest and
(likely) Junipero Serra in the northwest—appear to be white men and are celebrated
by being the focal point in the composition. The relative positioning of the Native
figures below the Franciscan friar effectively “others” and alienates Indigenous
Peoples, other Brown people and also women, since there is only one female figure
in the mural. In this context, what the artist, the mural and the WPA program ended
up doing, whether intentional or not, is exercising “soft power” by communicating
who is “other” and who, by extension, belongs in this space and who does not.
This mural is in an unavoidable location within a civic building that is a place of
work for many and must be entered to conduct certain kinds of business with the
City. In this process, some community members remarked that it is difficult to be
confronted with the mural without their consent every time they enter the space. This
lack of consent can feel violent, especially when the harm of othering and shaming
is experienced repetitively. When entering this space, Indigenous People, people
of color and women are more likely to take the images in the mural as a cue to who
belongs in the space of City Hall. In these instances, the representations in the mural
matter as a symbol of power, and its location not only amplifies the content of the
mural, it also authenticates the potentially harmful representations it contains.
46 Kendra Cherry, “How Othering Contributes to Discrimination and Prejudice,” Very Well Mind (website), May 1,
2023, https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-othering-5084425.
47 Maria Elena Campisteguy, Jennifer Messenger Heilbronner, and Corrinne Nakamura-Rybak, “Research Find-
ings: Compilation of All Research: Reclaiming Native Truth, a Project to Dispel America’s Myths and Misconcep-
tions” (Echo Hawk Consulting & First Nations Development Institute, June 2018).
48 Ibid.
49 “Haaland Seeks Healing for Native American Boarding School Survivors,” All Things Considered, May 22, 2022.
Othering is a phenomenon
in which some individuals or
groups are defined and labeled
as not fitting within the norms
of a social group. It is an effect
that influences how people
perceive and treat those who
are viewed as being part of
the in-group versus those who
are seen as being part of the
out-group.46
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 578 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 49
Two approaches to removing harmful iconography from public space have been
employed in Los Angeles County. The City Hall mural differs from these cases
in that it is not explicitly a monument to an individual, as was the Columbus
statue in Grand Park or the Serra statue at Yaangna Park (unofficially called
Serra Park until 2022). Still, these cases speak to the concerns about the likely
depiction of Father Serra in the City Hall mural and about depictions of similarly
controversial figures in public space. The Columbus statue was removed by Los
Angeles County officials through the advocacy and creative action of community
members; while the Serra statue was toppled by community members. Although
they took different paths, these approaches opened opportunities to support
First Peoples and their efforts to seek recognition, justice and equity across many
sectors, including opportunities to heal past and current harms.
The Columbus statue was dedicated in 1973 and was a gift to Los Angeles County
by the United Lodges of Southern California, Order Sons of Italy in America.
Community members have protested for the statue’s removal since at least 1995.
The statue was covered when the County first celebrated Indigenous Peoples
Day on October 9, 2018.50 The Los Angeles City/County Native American Indian
Commission (LANAIC) also formally requested removal and deaccession in
October 2018.51 The statue was removed from Grand Park on November 10, 2018.
50 Pamela Avila, “Christopher Columbus Disappears from View in L.A. on Indigenous Peoples Day,” Los
Angeles Magazine, October 8, 2018.
51 Los Angeles City/County Native American Indian Commission, “Statement on the Removal of the Colum-
bus Statue at Grand Park,” October 18, 2018.
Current Conversations and Case Studies in the Field
This mural controversy is part of a global reckoning with monuments and memorialized
space, which has intensified in the last decade. To situate the Reframe project, we explore
here artworks that have provoked similar questions and controversies, and we look at how
communities have worked to resolve them. We will touch on a few that directly relate to this
situation: monuments to controversial historical figures, artworks depicting a relationship
between colonizers and Indigenous Peoples, and some also produced in the early part of the
20th Century. Throughout, we note the actions that have been taken, if any, in response to
these controversies, including removal, covering and interpretive efforts.
Monument
removals and
historical
revisions:
Los Angeles
Photo: Kenneth Lopez, Meztli Projects Photo: palewire
Columbus Statue (1973)
Grand Park, Los Angeles
2018: Statue removed
2021: LACDAC commissions
temporary artwork by
Tongva artists
2021: Board of Supervisors
issues apology and
commissions report
2023: “We Are Still Here”
report released
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 579 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 50
LANAIC Vice-Chair Chrissy Castro shared her experience of the removal,
That day was one that I will always hold in my memory, as far as the at-large
Indigenous community in LA coming together and claiming a small victory, a
much needed victory. After decades of demonstration, protests and dialogue,
it was very emotional when the statue finally came down. You know, we had
singers. Folks were clapping and yelling. And it was just a sense of release, of
finally being heard. And we know that there’s a lot more work to do, but it was
an important step towards really telling the true history of the place that we
now call Los Angeles.52
In July 2020, the Los Angeles County Department of Arts and Culture put
out a call for artists, in collaboration with LANAIC, to create a temporary
artwork or program in response to the removal. Two projects were selected: a
virtual engagement program by the Puvungna Collective and a temporary art
installation by Mercedes Dorame.53
Following the removal of the Columbus statue, the George Washington statue in
Grand Park was toppled on August 13, 2020.54 The George Washington statue now
remains part of the civic art collection but was relocated to Bob Hope Patriotic
Hall, a decision that also has been protested. In June 2021, the Los Angeles
County Board of Supervisors apologized to First Peoples and commissioned
“ʻWe Are Still Here.’ A Report on Past, Present, and Ongoing Harms Against
Local Tribes.”55
The Junipero Serra statue, a replica of the original done by sculptor Ettore
Cardin for the U.S. Capitol’s National Statuary Hall (1930), was initially installed
at the intersection of Spring Street and Sunset Boulevard (now Cesar Chavez
52 Paul Farber and Chrissie Castro, Taking Down the Columbus Statue in Downtown L.A. with Organizer Chrissie
Castro, vol. Episode 8, Monument Lab Podcast, n.d.
53 For more information on these projects, see https://www.lacountyarts.org/experiences/civic-art/memo-
ry-and-futurity-yaangna
54 Colleen Shalby, “7 Arrested in Vandalism of George Washington Statue near L.A. City Hall,” Los Angeles
Times, August 14, 2020.
55 Ashley Dobson, Tremayne Nez, and Representatives from the Local Tribes, “‘We Are Still Here.’ A Report
on Past, Present, and Ongoing Harms Against Local Tribes” (Los Angeles City/County Native American Indi-
an Commission & Los Angeles County Department of Arts and Culture, January 2023).
Father Serra statue (1930)
El Pueblo de Los Angeles
Historic Monument /
“Serra Park,” Los Angeles
2015: Serra canonized amid
protests
2020: Statue toppled
2021: City of LA issues
formal apology and
announces renaming and
cultural easement initiative Photo: Kenneth Lopez, Meztli Projects
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 580 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 51
Avenue) on August 26, 1934 by the Knights of Columbus. It was later relocated to
El Pueblo de Los Angeles historical monument, a department of the City of Los
Angeles. The statue was donated to and is part of the City of Los Angeles’ public
art collection. The statue is an “idealized” portrait of Father Serra. He holds a
small replica of Mission San Carlos Borromeo del Rio Carmelo in his proper left
hand and a cross aloft in his proper right hand.
The statue had been protested for decades, especially leading up to Serra’s
canonization in 2015.56 The statue was toppled by community members on June
20, 2020, at the Olvera site where it had stood since at least the 1960s. Following
its toppling, the Los Angeles City Council deemed the removal an act of civil
disobedience.
On June 30, 2020, City Council members introduced a motion to address
controversial statues, plaques and other symbolic honorifics. Among the actions
following this motion, the park has been renamed by the Board of Recreation
and Parks Commissioners in collaboration with local tribal communities.57 On
October 11, 2021, Mayor Eric Garcetti along with Councilman Mitch O’Farrell, a
member of the Wyandotte Nation, formally apologized to First Peoples at Olvera
where the Serra statue was toppled.58 O’Farrell introduced other proposals, such
as updating the City’s seal and flag to include Indigenous representation, the
City issuing a formal apology to Native American tribes, and plans to introduce a
resolution that calls on federal and state governments to rename the Christopher
Columbus Transcontinental Highway, as part of the 10 Freeway is labeled.
Additionally, the City established an Indigenous Cultural Easement in the area
where the statue was toppled so that the Tongva community could use the site in
ways that increase their visibility.59 This easement, initially recommended by the
Civic Memory Working Group in April 2021, is an example of how a City can take
concrete actions to support the efforts of First Peoples to seek recognition and
justice.
These local examples are mirrored in many national cases, but we have selected
a few particularly relevant cases to discuss here. Some of these cases, like
the Pioneer Monument in San Francisco’s Civic Center, the Equestrian Statue
of Theodore Roosevelt by James Earle Frasier outside the American Museum
of Natural History, and the Old New York diorama inside the same museum,
feature similar concerns about representations of Native figures in relationship
to colonizers as in the City Hall mural. We have also included two cases of New
Deal era interior murals that represent Native figures within historical tableaus.
The City Hall mural differs from these cases in that it does not depict explicit
violence, as do Victor Arnautoff’s Life of Washington and Frank Mechau’s Dangers
of the Mail. However, these cases illustrate similar questions about artistic
representations of historical narratives and their impact. These national cases
also represent a wider range of responses, including and beyond removal.
56 Joe Mozingo, Matt Hamilton, and Jeff Gottlieb, “Decision to Canonize Father Junipero Serra Draws Divid-
ed Reaction,” Los Angeles Times, January 16, 2015.
57 Mitch O’Farrell and Curren D. Price, Jr, “Citywide Policy / Acceptance and Placement / Removal and
Renaming / Statues, Monuments, Honorifics, and Naming Rights / City-Owned Land, Property, and Public
Right-of-Way” (Los Angeles City Council, June 30, 2020).
58 Julia Wick, ““We’re Sorry’: L.A. Moves to Make Amends for Wrongs Committed against Indigenous Peo-
ple,” Los Angeles Times, October 11, 2021.
59 City News Service, “LA Officials Announce ‘Indigenous LAnd Initiative’ to Address Past Wrongdoings,”
Spectrum News, October 11, 2021.
National
monuments and
artwork case
studies
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 581 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 52
The Pioneer Monument was erected in 1894 by Frank Happersberger and financed
by the estate of James Lick, who made a trust for bronze statuary representing
the history of California.60 The monument was originally located in front of the
Old City Hall in San Francisco, which was destroyed in the earthquake of 1906.
In 1996, the monument was relocated to Fulton Street between Hyde and Larkin
Streets next to the San Francisco Public Library. The monument consists of a
central column bearing statuary, bronze reliefs and plaques, surrounded by
four smaller plinths bearing statuary facing the cardinal directions. The plinth
titled Early Days depicts a Catholic monk converting an “Indian” on the ground
who appears to be from an entirely different part of the continent, wearing
attire appropriate to Indigenous People of the North American Plains. A Spanish
vaquero stands with his hand raised triumphantly next to them.
Complaints from Indigenous Peoples about the Early Days sculpture arose at
least as early as 1995, during the plans for the relocation. A 1995 letter from the
American Indian Movement Confederation called Early Days “a symbol of the
humiliation, degradation, genocide, and sorrow inflicted upon this country’s
indigenous people by a foreign invader through religious persecution and ethnic
prejudice.”61 Upon its relocation in 1996, a small plaque was added linking the
fate of Native Americans to “whites’ diseases, armed attacks, and mistreatment,”
which was quickly deemed insufficient.62
This statue was eventually removed on September 14, 2018. The San Francisco
Arts Commission had voted to take down the statue in April 2018, but the
Board of Appeals, catering to opposition, overturned them, blocking the
statue’s removal. The Board of Appeals then reversed itself, and the statue was
removed and placed in a storage facility. In 2019, projects were commissioned
to reclaim the space that the monument took up, including a portrait series in
which 150 members of the Bay Area Indigenous community were photographed
standing on the plinth where Early Days stood.63 In 2023, the San Francisco Arts
Commission, Human Rights Commission and Recreation and Parks Department
released the “Final Report of the Monuments and Memorials Advisory
Committee”, with recommendations from the community and amendments to
their public art policies and guidelines.64
60 Smithsonian American Art Museum, “The Pioneers Monument, (Sculpture),” Art Inventories Catalog,
Smithsonian Institution Research Information System, n.d., accessed October 19, 2023.
61 Daniela Blei, “San Francisco’s ‘Early Days’ Statue Is Gone. Now Comes the Work of Activating Real Histo-
ry,” Smithsonian Magazine, October 4, 2018.
62 Ibid.
63 San Francisco Arts Commission, “Bay Area’s Indigenous Community Takes Center Stage in New Exhibi-
tion and Temporary Light-Art Installation,” Press Release, August 2, 2019.
64 “San Francisco Monuments and Memorials Advisory Committee Final Report” (San Francisco Arts Com-
mission, Human Rights Commission, Recreation and Parks Department, May 2023).
Early Days within the
Pioneer Monument
(1894)
Civic Center, San Francisco
1996: Protests result in
addition of plaque
2018: Statue removed
2019: New projects
commissioned
2023: Final Report of the
Monuments and Memorials
Advisory Committee
Photo: Beyond My Ken
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 582 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 53
The Equestrian Statue of Theodore Roosevelt by James Earle Frasier was
commissioned in 1925 to stand on the steps of the American Museum of Natural
History, a city-owned property in Central Park West in New York City. It was
unveiled to the public in 1940 as part of a memorial to Roosevelt also at the
museum, which has a long association with the Roosevelt family. People have
protested the statue for decades because of the way it presents a racial hierarchy
through the placement of the figures with a clearly elevated white man with an
identity (Roosevelt) on horseback, flanked by anonymous Native American and
African figures. It was addressed in a 2017-2018 Mayoral Advisory Commission
to consider controversial monuments and the commission was unable to reach
consensus on what to do with it.65 The mayor decided at that time to retain the
statue in place with additional context, and in 2019, an exhibit opened at the
American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) called “Addressing the Statue.”
The exhibition highlighted many different viewpoints on the statue.66 In June
2020, in response to the widening movement for racial justice after the murder
of George Floyd, the museum requested that the City remove the statue. In 2021,
the New York City Public Design Commission approved the relocation, and
the Theodore Roosevelt Presidential Library Foundation and City of New York
agreed to a long-term loan of the statue. In January 2022, the Equestrian Statue of
Theodore Roosevelt was removed from the front steps of the Museum.67
65 Mayoral Advisory Commission on City Art, Monuments, and Markers, “Report to the city of New York,”
January 2018.
66 American Museum of Natural History, “Addressing the Statue,” n.d., https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/
addressing-the-statue.
67 American Museum of Natural History, “Statement about the Relocation of the Equestrian Statue,” June 21,
2020, https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/addressing-the-statue.
Equestrian Statue of
Theodore Roosevelt (1940)
and Old New York (1939)
Diorama
American Museum of
Natural History, NYC
2017-2018: NYC Mayor’s
commission unable to reach
consensus. Mayor decides
to retain the statue in place
with interpretive signage
2019: “Addressing the Statue”
exhibit opens
2022: Statue relocated
2020: Museum requests that
the City remove the statue
Photo: Edward H. Blake
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 583 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 54
Also at the American Museum of Natural History, this 1939 diorama in the Old
New York exhibition depicts Dutch leader Peter Stuyvesant receiving a delegation
of Lenape. The museum acknowledges that this depiction of the Lenape reflects
common clichés and a fictional view of the past that ignores how complex and
violent colonization was for Native people.68 In 2018, very large labels were added
to the glass front of the diorama with context and commentary. Bradley Pecore, a
visual historian who is Menominee and Stockbridge Munsee from northeastern
Wisconsin, offered an Indigenous perspective on the diorama for the labels. In a
short video that the museum produced about the updates, Pecore comments:
If the diorama was simply covered up and blacked out, all it would do is put
that history in a cupboard, in a box that we don’t have to look at. Is it somewhat
shameful? Sure. But we need to talk about that.69
The labels are unmissable and clearly condemn the stereotypical
representations and the colonial violence that the depiction masks. They also
provide information about Lenape people now to counter the idea that the
diorama depicts people who were once in this place but are now gone. The
museum also developed curricula for teaching the Old New York diorama for
grades 3-5 and 6-12.
68 American Museum of Natural History, “Old New York Diorama,” n.d., https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/
permanent/theodore-roosevelt-memorial/hall/old-new-york-diorama#:~:text=This%201939%20diorama%20
depicts%20Dutch,colonization%20was%20for%20Native%20people.
69 Behind the Updates to Old New York Diorama, n.d., https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndj59hGuSSY&t=2s.
Photo: American Museum of Natural History
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 584 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 55
This painting by Frank Mechau depicts, quite graphically, a massacre by
stereotypical “Indians,” who are killing white men and scalping naked white
women at the scene of an overturned stagecoach. The painting was one of
several commissioned in 1935 by the New Deal Section of Painting and Sculpture
as “Romantic Subject Matter in History of Post” for the Post Office Department
Building. Completed in 1937, it was controversial even before it was unveiled,
primarily for the depictions of violence against and nudity of the white female
figures.70
The painting is in what is now the William Jefferson Clinton Federal Building,
home to the Environmental Protection Agency since 1996. The building is not
open to the public, but for many years, EPA employees communicated their
concern that its presence created a hostile work environment and harmed
relationships with Tribal leaders who visited the EPA for collaborative work.71
EPA employees attempted to resolve the issue internally, and a temporary display
was placed in front of it to partially obscure it from view as early as 2000. In
2003, employees enlisted the help of the Society of American Indian Government
Employees (SAIGE), and the National Congress of American Indians passed a
resolution objecting to the work. After the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights
Under Law argued that the images created a hostile work environment on behalf
of Native EPA employees, the EPA passed the issue over to the General Services
Administration (GSA). The GSA responded in 2005 with a historic preservation
review of the painting under the National Historic Preservation Act 106.72 They
held two public consultations, in 2006 and 2007, before issuing a decision in
2007 on a mitigation plan for the painting, including installing a new screen and
revised interpretive materials as part of a comprehensive interpretive program
for all 22 New Deal paintings in the building.
After an additional lengthy review process, a permanent metal mesh curtain was
installed as well as interpretive panels in 2018.73 The curtains remain closed, but
can be opened by viewers if they wish to see the painting, and members of the
public can view the painting by appointment.
70 U.S. General Services Administration, “Frank Mechau,” William Jefferson Clinton Federal Building, n.d.,
https://www.gsa.gov/real-estate/gsa-properties/visiting-public-buildings/william-jefferson-clinton-feder-
al-building/whats-inside/wheres-the-art/frank-mechau.
71 Barbara Leigh Smith, “Whose Story Should Be Told,” Enduring Legacies Native Cases Project
(The Evergreen State College, 2014), https://nativecases.evergreen.edu/.
72 Sandra Starr, “Indians in the Post Office: Artworks Offer Mixed Messages,” National Museum of the
American Indian, Fall 2010, p. 41.
73 Jessy J. Ohl and Jennifer E. Potter, “Traumatic Encounters with Frank Mechau’s Dangers of the Mail,”
Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies 16, no. 1 (January 2, 2019): 26–42.
Dangers of the Mail
(1937), William Jefferson
Clinton Federal Building,
Washington, DC
1937: Protested before
unveiled
2000: Temporary display
placed in front of mural
1996: EPA employees raise
concerns
2005: Native employees file
hostile work environment
complaint
2008: GSA conducts historic
preservation reviews
2018: Permanent mesh
curtain and interpretive
panels installed
Photo: Public domain
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 585 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 56
Life of Washington is a mural cycle in San Francisco’s George Washington High
School. It was painted by Victor Arnautoff, a Russian-born social realist artist,
for the WPA in 1936. Composed of 13 panels and spanning 1600 square feet, the
work was painted directly on the wall in wet plaster as a fresco. In this mural,
depictions of atrocities and murder are intended as social commentary on
America’s origin myths. As part of this commentary, the mural includes several
disturbing images including enslaved people and the dead body of a Native
person at the feet of pioneers. While this is also a WPA-funded mural, this work
is distinct from the City Hall mural because of the artist’s social realist approach
to depicting George Washington as someone who enslaved people and led a
violently colonizing nation.
In 1968 and 1969, Black students raised objections to the mural, not because
of the violence of the images, but because of the “one-sidedness of the
presentation.”74 Students wanted depictions of the contributions of Black people
to the U.S. in sciences or in fighting for the nation’s independence. After some
debate, the students withdrew their demand for the mural’s removal, proposing
that plaques explaining its deficiencies be placed alongside the mural and a
new mural be commissioned. The response mural Multi-Ethnic Heritage was
completed in 1974 by the young artist Dewey Crumpler, after studying muralism
in Mexico. It does not appear that explanatory plaques were ever installed.
More recently, the mural cycle has been at the center of a protracted public
controversy that gained national attention. In 2018, a proposal by San Francisco
Heritage to designate George Washington High School as a city landmark was
opposed by San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) Board of Education
because it could complicate the potential removal of the mural.75 In 2019,
the SFUSD Board voted to paint over the mural, then decided to cover it with
curtains or panels.76 In response, George Washington High School Alumni
Association filed a lawsuit against the SFUSD Board. In 2021, the Court ruled that
the school board’s original decision violated state law by deciding on covering
before undergoing a CA Environmental Quality Assessment (for historical
preservation) process.77 Finally, in 2022, the Board, with new members, voted
to rescind the previous decision to cover up the mural and to abandon their
appeal.78 The controversy has attracted many high-profile critics and defenders,
many of whom are documented in the film Town Destroyer.79
74 Robin D. G. Kelley, “We’re Getting These Murals All Wrong,” The Nation, September 10, 2019.
75 Laura Waxman, “Education Leaders Oppose Landmark Designations for Three SF Schools over Contro-
versial Mural,” San Francisco Examiner, March 8, 2018.
76 Sam Lefebvre, “‘This Is Reparations:’ S.F. School Board Votes to Paint Over Controversial High School
Mural,” KQED, June 25, 2019.
77 Carol Pogash, “Murals at San Francisco School Should Stay for Now, Judge Says,” The New York Times, July
29, 2021.
78 Jill Tucker, “Post-Recall S.F. School Board Rescinds Vote to Cover Controversial Washington High Mural,”
San Francisco Chronicle, June 22, 2022.
79 Alan Snitow and Deborah Kaufman, Town Destroyer (Bullfrog Films, 2022).
Life of George Washington
(1936), George Washington
High School, San Francisco
1968–69: Black students protests
1974: Response mural produced
by Dewey Crumpler
2019: SFUSD Board votes to
paint over the mural, then
decides to cover it with
curtains or panels. Alumni
Association files a lawsuit
against the School Board.
2021: Court rules that the
SFUSD Board’s original
decision violated state law
2022: SFUSD Board votes to
rescind the previous decision
to cover up the mural
Photo: Richard Evans, Living New Deal
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 586 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 57
Each example we have discussed contains its own unique mix of factors—the
origin of the artwork, the holding institution, the degree to which the work is
available to the public, as well as the mode and content of the representation.
The impact of the work varies significantly based on location and therefore
the immediate audience for the work. Outdoor sculptures have a wide-ranging
impact on the general public, but indoor artworks tend to have a narrower and
more specific audience and impact–museum attendees such as children on
school field trips, federal government employees and visitors meeting about
environmental policy, or high school students on their way to class everyday. The
City Hall mural is in this second category of indoor artworks, but its audience
and impact are still wide ranging given that it is located in a government building
where employees and residents attend to the day to day business of running the
City of Santa Monica and which is also open to the public most of the time.
Additionally, the interventions around these controversial public artworks
vary depending on location, context, community desires and the willingness
of agencies to respond. There is no one-size-fits-all solution. There are many
voices and perspectives that were involved and considered in each case, and
often government agencies were responding to long-standing protests. In each
example, there was a long series of steps that led to the current status, with
the eventual interventions reaching different levels of compromise, with the
exception of the recent controversy around Life of Washington, in which no action
has been taken. Still no situation was resolved definitely and forever, because the
conversation continues.
Themes in the
case studies
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 587 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 58
We received 337 responses to the feedback activity. Of the 337 responses, 276
or (82%) of the respondents gave a valid zip code. The majority (74%) gave a
Santa Monica zip code, and most of the rest (22%) gave a zip code in Los Angeles
County.
Is there a way to add 1-the
earlier lunch and learn with
the City (even though its
listed under public
programs) 2-the events listed
in the feedback activity
section: Art and Literacy
Event, visiting Families
Latinas Unidas 3-something
about the interviews 4-visits
to Human Resource Council,
Santa Monica Area Inter-
faith Council, Puente meet-
ing? Also, or alternatively,
we could organize it by
constituency. Label as
additional outreach to
specific constituencies. . .
remove categorizations
Rather than ask multiple demographic survey questions, we asked one open-
ended question where we asked respondents to tell us about themselves and
what perspectives might have shaped their responses to the activity. About 30%
of respondents (N=100) chose to share some aspect of their racial or ethnic
identity. For more demographic information about respondents and the full
dataset of responses, see Appendix C.
Overall, we hoped to engage people in reflecting on the mural and to go deeper
than a survey listing options for or against the mural. One of the goals of the
feedback activity was to have people engage directly with the mural images and
to understand not just how they interpreted the images, but also their emotional
responses and attachments to the mural. We grouped the responses we received
into a handful of larger themes that we discuss below. Since people can and do
have multiple emotional responses to an image, some responses were grouped
into multiple themes. Therefore, the percentages are offered to give a general
sense of the size of the groups and do not add up to 100. Also, in the feedback
activity, we presented the northwest side as the first panel and the southwest or
“recreation” side of the mural as the second panel, so we have referred to them
as “first (northwest)” and “second (southwest)” below.
The mural images are offensive, disturbing or exclusionary. A majority of
the respondents (59%) found one or both of the mural panels to be offensive,
disturbing or exclusionary. Overall, these respondents felt that the mural
represented the hierarchies inherent in settler colonialism and white supremacy.
In the first (northwest) panel, they noted the lower position of the Native figures
Feedback Activity Responses
In order to engage more people in this process, we designed a feedback activity containing a
three-page worksheet that individuals could fill out online or complete on paper and return
to City Hall or the Santa Monica Public Library. We collected feedback activity responses
from February 6, 2023, through May 10, 2023. The feedback activity was shared intentionally
with Santa Monica residents and key stakeholders in the process inside and outside of Santa
Monica.
Sentiments about
the mural in the
feedback activity
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 588 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 59
and the difference in detail in facial expressions and clothing between the
European and Native figures. They reacted to the fact that the colonizing figures
are shown facing the viewer in active positions (mid-stride). Many people read
the images as representing the Native figures in a subservient position and noted
that they appear to be faceless or turned away from the viewer.
In relation to the second (southwest) panel, these individuals overwhelmingly
responded to the fact that all the figures represented appear to be white and
upper class. Many respondents noted that there is only one woman represented
in either panel, and she also does not have facial detail. Children felt they
were not adequately represented either. Many respondents found the second
(southwest) panel to be the more problematic image in its representation of
white elitism in Santa Monica of the 1930s or present day. Especially paired with
the first (northwest) panel, it appears to suggest an erasure of the Indigenous
people and anyone non-white in contemporary Santa Monica.
There was a range in this group of responses in terms of whether these
images contain an accurate representation of the history of Santa Monica.
Some respondents felt that the hierarchies of the time periods in the panels
are captured and told through the images. Others felt that the images are
romanticizations that misrepresent the violence of settler colonialism. Others
felt that the images left out important aspects of the history and representations
of Indigenous peoples, colonization, Black and Asian Santa Monicans and
working-class Santa Monicans.
The mural images are beautiful or valuable, but also contain troubling aspects
that need addressing. Another, smaller group of respondents (15%) appreciated
the mural for its artistic or historical significance, but also recognized that the
images have significant flaws that require a response. Many of these respondents
found the images beautiful, particularly the natural landscape depicted and how
the images coordinate with the tile work and other architectural elements of the
City Hall lobby. These respondents often placed a value on historic preservation,
and some were aware of the New Deal origins of the artwork or other pieces by
the artist. However, the concerns articulated by these respondents mirrored the
concerns of the larger group of respondents who found the images particularly
lacking in terms of Native representation and missing large groups of Santa
Monicans. This group generally holds artwork and artists in high esteem and
feels that new artworks could ameliorate the problems with this mural.
The mural images are beautiful and there is nothing wrong with them.
A roughly similarly sized group of respondents (16%) felt that the mural panels
are perfect, and nothing needs to be done to address them. Many of these
respondents provided less detail in their responses, but they have mostly positive
or neutral interpretations of what is depicted in both panels. A few have negative
interpretations but feel strongly that the images are still beautiful or valuable
because of their historic significance. This group might have some minor
suggestions about what is missing or how the images could be improved, but these
suggestions, if they have them, are in the realm of “quibbles.” They are not offended
by the mural. Quite the contrary, overall, the artwork makes these respondents feel
happy or proud, and some have very strong attachments to the mural.
The mural images are neutral or negative, but as historical artifacts, they
have little bearing on the present. Another roughly similarly sized group of
respondents (12%) was somewhat indifferent about the artworks. Some of them
interpreted the images as having negative or exclusionary elements, but they
were not particularly concerned about the images. As historic images that were
created in the past, some felt that these images are either unrelatable or have
little import for today. Some felt that because they are historic images, they
cannot or should not be changed.
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 589 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 60
The discussion about the mural is a distraction from other pressing issues
in Santa Monica. A small number of respondents (4%) felt that the process of
engagement around the mural was a waste of time and resources. They would
have preferred that Santa Monica spent those resources addressing quality-
of-life concerns and development pressures. Some of these respondents also
expressed their strong attachment to the mural. Others were more indifferent or
felt the mural had no bearing on the present. Some had a very negative view of
Santa Monica government and proposed new artworks that represented Santa
Monica as corrupt or overrun by development.
We did not design the feedback response activity to gather feedback on what
the City of Santa Monica should do about the mural. Rather, we were focused
on having respondents engage directly with the images and gathering their
emotional responses. However, in this open-ended format, many respondents
chose to share their ideas and suggestions about actions to take in response
to the mural. Since we asked respondents to imagine an artwork to represent
the history of Santa Monica, many respondents may have been primed to
make suggestions related to commissioning new work. (We provide the list of
proposed locations and the themes in the imagined artworks in Appendix C.)
Also notably, some respondents (about 15%) answered the question about where
they would place an artwork in Santa Monica as if we had asked about where
they would place the existing mural. It’s important to remember that this was
not a survey, and the open-ended questions did not present any options to the
respondents, therefore many more individuals could be in support of or against
these actions than it appears. So, we have not provided numbers or percentages
of respondents attached to each particular action.
Suggested actions:
• Commission new artwork with more updated, positive or accurate images
• Commission new artwork visually near the existing mural to address it
• Replace the existing mural with new artwork
• Preserve the existing mural
• Create interpretive panels and other educational materials related to the
existing mural
• Relocate the existing mural to another location
• Destroy or cover the existing mural permanently
• Create interpretative materials that would partially obscure the existing
mural
• Modify the existing mural
Except for actions that would move, alter, obscure or destroy the mural,
which were not suggested by people who thought there is nothing wrong with
the mural, all of these actions were suggested by people who had a range of
opinions and responses to the mural. Notably, there were respondents who
found the mural deeply offensive and disturbing and who also argued that the
mural should remain in place. They felt that removing or covering the mural
permanently could erase the troubling history of white supremacy and settler
colonialism that it represents without addressing that history or the harm
caused by the images. For these respondents, keeping the mural in place can
offer a springboard for truth-telling, education and repair. In addition, people
who found the mural offensive and those who found it beautiful both argued
Suggested actions
in response
to the mural in
feedback activity
responses
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 590 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 61
that the image could benefit from interpretation, such as interpretive signage
or programming. Some felt that a museum or another location besides City
Hall would be a more appropriate location to offer the necessary context and
interpretive support. Ultimately, all these possible actions and more were
discussed and considered by the Working Circle.
From the beginning of our process, we thought carefully about the
constituencies that have been particularly impacted by the mural’s depictions
and absences, as well as those who have been significantly invested in the
outcomes of the Reframe process. In addition to recruiting members of these
groups for the Working Circle, we also reached out for individual interviews and
smaller engagements when possible. This section compiles the feedback we
collected from these groups from all the different engagement methods we used,
especially where constituents self-identified themselves in the feedback activity
responses and from our interviews, where possible.
Santa Monica First Peoples
The individuals who filled out the feedback activity and identified themselves as
Santa Monica First Peoples (Gabrieleno, Tongva, Chumash, Tataviam, Acjachamen)
almost all found the mural images offensive. They felt the first (northwest) panel
communicated disrespect for Indigenous people and clear hierarchy of the
European figures, noting that the Native men (1) did not have eyes–symbolizing
that they are soulless, (2) are kneeling while the white men are standing over
them, and (3) are drinking from the stream that also had a horse’s hoof in it.
Some saw the image as depicting the Native men as subservient or bowing.
Several felt that this image depicted an invasion and the beginning of colonization
and subjugation of Native people. These feedback activity respondents felt that
the first image was missing women and accurate or respectful historical and
present-day representation of Native people, flora and fauna.
A few Santa Monica First Peoples did not have as strongly negative reactions to
this first (northwest) panel. One of the feedback activity respondents noticed the
dominant position of the priest and felt the images represented only one side of
the historical narrative, but they did not feel personally offended by the images.
In our interview with her, Angie Behrns-Dorame (Gabrieleno/Tongva) had some
critiques of how key aspects of Santa Monica’s history seemed to be missing
from the mural but did not find the representation of Native figures demeaning.
Overall, she was against changing artwork and removing a piece of Santa Monica
history but was enthusiastic about new opportunities for Tongva artists.80
In response to the second (southwest) panel, the feedback activity respondents
noted the whiteness of the image and the privileged leisure activities like many
other respondents did, but they also felt that this image represented the erasure
of the Native figures in the first panel. This echoes what Jeremy Gonzalez stated
in our interview with him, “It looks like a bunch of colonizers enjoying the fruits
of my land.”81 Feedback activity respondents again felt that women were missing,
but they also noted that the “rest of society,” including other people of color and
middle-class or working-class people, was missing. They also noted the lack
of contemporary or present-day Native representation, as if all the Indigenous
people had become extinct.
80 Angie Behrns-Dorame, Interview with Meztli Projects, May 6, 2023.
81 Jeremy Gonzalez, Interview with Meztli Projects, December 20, 2022.
82 Nicholas Rocha, Chairman, Gabrielino-Shoshone Nation of Southern California, “Letter to City of Santa
Monica,” February 25, 2023.
Feedback from
Particular
Constituencies
So let us tell you how it is
perceived and interpreted
by those descendants whose
ancestors were held in captivity
at the supposed era this image
depicts. While you may see my
ancestors drinking water, we
see slaves granted a drink while
under guard. We see slaves being
used for a water contamination
test while the sword of the
mounted conquistador pointed
directly at the neck of the native
as he condescendingly sits
above, for it was those swords
that struck down many of my
ancestors who were unwilling
to worship a foreign religion.80
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 591 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 62
These images made these feedback activity respondents feel unwelcome in civic
participation, demeaned or belittled and angry. They felt like at best, the images
made Santa Monica seem “way behind the times” and at worst, like Santa Monica
is a place that supports white supremacy. They questioned the values of the
City and whether it uplifts or supports white people only. One felt the artwork
should be removed because it is not the type of positive representation Native
people need. One person, who was more indifferent about the images, felt that
the artwork should be preserved because it represents “a period of time and how
we perceived history.” Overall, their imagined new artworks of Santa Monica
history (via the feedback activity exercise) focused on representation of Native
history, land, culture and dress pre-colonization, as well as present-day Native
representation and visions of a multicultural society with everyone on an “equal
playing field.”
Additionally, Santa Monica First Peoples we spoke to directly linked the mural
to issues of land access and Land Back83 as well as other important issues Native
communities in Santa Monica face. For example, the San Gabriel Band of Mission
Indians state in their letter to the City of Santa Monica, stated, “rather than
focus on the mural itself we view this as an opportunity to discuss additional
education that can assist in promoting the awareness of our Tribe, history, and
culture.”84 They urged the City to engage in a series of actions oriented to land
acknowledgments, Land Back, affordability and historical representation, etc.
Their full list of recommendations can be found in Appendix D.
Larger Indigenous community
We also collected feedback from the larger Indigenous community largely by
attending Indigenous Los Angeles cultural events like the CSU Puvungna Pow
Wow and soliciting responses through the Los Angeles City and County Native
American Indian Commission. This group of respondents to the feedback
activity identified as Indigenous, Native, Native American Indian, from Zia
Pueblo and Laguna Pueblo, Mayan, Mayo, Quechua, Quechuan or Yaqui. A
third of this group of respondents gave a Santa Monica zip code and described
a close connection to Santa Monica. The rest identified as living in Los Angeles
County. Unsurprisingly considering the wider range of backgrounds, this group’s
responses to the mural were more varied, but still three quarters of them had
similar responses to the mural as the Santa Monica First Peoples respondents.
Several of them centered Santa Monica First Peoples in their responses and
explicitly called for Santa Monica First Peoples to be consulted in any next
steps. Of those who recommended a course of action, several recommended
that the existing mural be replaced with new artwork or that the existing mural
be relocated to a museum. One of the respondents who felt there was nothing
wrong with the mural felt it should remain in City Hall where everyone can enjoy
it and draw lessons from it.
African American or Black, Asian American, and Latine/x Santa Monicans
The team collected feedback activity responses from other Santa Monica
community members who have been historically excluded from civic processes
and specifically excluded from representation in the mural. Of those who
responded to the feedback activity, a number self-identified as African, African
American, Black, Asian, Asian American, Cambodian American, Chinese
American, Filipino or Japanese American. A few other respondents identified
as a Person of Color or Brown. Notably, almost all of these respondents felt
83 Often referred to with the shorthard “Land Back,” the movement to return land to First Peoples has been
a decentralized effort across North America to reestablish Indigenous sovereignty, with political and eco-
nomic control of their ancestral lands. These same efforts have also been replicated in New Zealand and Fiji.
84 San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians (Gabrieleno/Tongva), “Letter to City of Santa Monica,” May 12, 2023.
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 592 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 63
the mural was offensive and exclusionary. They noted the representation of
colonization and the racial hierarchy in the northwest panel and felt that the
image communicated how the City would likely treat them or other marginalized
populations. In response to the southwest panel, several felt the exclusion of
people of color personally, again noting that the image communicates that
they don’t belong in Santa Monica. In terms of new artwork, these respondents
suggested a fuller representation of Native history, the contributions of people
of color in building Santa Monica and the multicultural society of present-day
Santa Monica. A Japanese American respondent noted how the legacy of the
Japanese American concentration camps shaped their response. They noted that
“reframing the truth of our past is important given the desires of some in this
country wanting to try and erase the truth of historical facts.”
We also made the feedback activity form available in Spanish and visited
Familias Latinas Unidas, a Spanish-speaking parent group at Virginia Avenue
Park, to collect responses. We also received responses from people self-
identifying as Chicana, Chicano, Cuban, Hispanic, Latina, Latino, having parents
from Mexico, from Mexico City, Mexican American, of Mexican descent or
submitted their response in Spanish. About three-quarters of these respondents
found the mural offensive, and the remaining quarter were either indifferent
about the mural or felt there was nothing wrong with it.
Like other groups of respondents, many who identified as Latine/x felt this mural
reflected poorly on the City of Santa Monica. In our interview with her, local
resident and artist Paulina Sahagun stated:
I grew up seeing this. I grew up, you know, seeing our people always being
treated like we don’t belong. I mean, the 1930s was when a lot of people, a lot
of my people, were deported. This is when it was painted. I mean, it really goes
back to the whole thing of the doctrine of discovery.85
From this perspective, the mural itself reveals the history and view that Santa
Monica institutional power structures historically had during the period. This
group of Latine/x responses contains suggestions that run the whole gamut
of possible actions around the mural, from asserting that the mural doesn’t
belong anywhere until the true history of what happened is acknowledged and
represented to suggesting that the mural could be relocated outside City Hall
with lighting so that more people would be able to see it.
Pico Youth and Family Center
Organizers of the Pico Youth and Family Center (PYFC) have been at the
forefront of getting the City to address the mural. Rooted in the predominantly
Latine/x Pico neighborhood in Santa Monica, some members of the PYFC
community identify as Chicana/o and some as part of the larger Indigenous
community. Their concerns about the mural are rooted in the depictions of
Brown bodies and how they are perceived as subservient or less human than
the white figures in the mural. For the PYFC community, these depictions
are connected to larger issues that they want addressed in their community,
particularly youth issues, affordable housing, homelessness and gentrification.
It was important for us to continue to engage the PYFC community, even as
we decided to center Santa Monica First Peoples and as we sought to bring
others into the conversation. Members of the Working Circle have deep ties
to the community there and helped facilitate meetings in conversation with
community members to gather feedback along the way. We also conducted
interviews with PYFC leaders.
85 Paulina Sahagun, Interview with Meztli Projects, June 5, 2023.
86 Reframe: City Hall Mural Feedback activity response gathered by Meztli Projects, 2023.
It reminds me not only how
unwelcome my history is in the
story this place wants to talk
about itself, but also how the real
experiences of my family and
friends need to be made invisible
to make this story make sense.
It reminds me that City Hall is
not accountable to me at all,
which I think is a relatively true
fact about the way that Santa
Monica city governance behaves.
Unfortunately, this mural’s
revisionist histories tell some
actual truths about it.85
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 593 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 64
Many PYFC community members wanted the mural to come down, while
others were interested in programming and other art commissions to offset the
settler colonial narrative perceived as coming through the mural. Elias Serna,
an organizer with PYFC, suggested that bolts be drilled into the mural as a way
to retain it, but disrupt it at the same time.87 Other community members at the
Pico Youth and Family Center had similarly creative ideas including moving
the mural to the Museum of Tolerance, creating alternative narratives to honor
Indigenous Veterans, adding additional context to the history of Santa Monica
that details various oppressions, and creating a documentary to talk about Santa
Monica history from a people’s perspective.
Santa Monica historic preservation community
The Santa Monica historic preservation community has been a vocal part of the
discussion of the mural since before the Reframe: City Hall Mural process began.
We continued to engage these communities through interviews, a visit to a Santa
Monica Conservancy board meeting and through the feedback activity. One of
the Working Circle members affiliated with the Santa Monica Conservancy held
a viewing and feedback activity collection session at the mural. While there are
likely more members of this community who filled out the activity but just didn’t
identify this way, some respondents self-identified as interested in history or
historic preservation, connected to the Santa Monica Conservancy or indicated
that they were former Landmarks Commission members. This group had fewer
responses that found the mural offensive and more responses that found the
mural beautiful without flaw. There were also a significant number of responses
that found the mural beautiful but acknowledged important pieces missing and
responses that seemed to evaluate the images from an aesthetic or historical
lens. Some of these both appreciative and critical responses indicated significant
knowledge of local history, which was included in both what they liked about the
mural and what they saw to be missing.
Marquez family descendants
A few feedback activity respondents identified themselves as Marquez family
descendants. Marquez family descendants shared how proud they are that their
ancestor is named in the mural, along with their knowledge of the history of the
Rancho period. For example, in her interview with us, Terri de la Pena states:
Francisco Marquez came to Alta California in 1825, but his father-in-law
Jose Manuel Valenzuela was a soldier in the 1781 expedition that brought Los
Pobladores to found El Pueblo de Los Angeles. Thus, the Valenzuela side of the
family has been in California for 242 years; the Marquez side for 198 years.
Estéban de la Peña, my grandfather, arrived here from Parras, Coahuila,
Mexico in 1894, and married my grandmother Amelia who was one of the
Márquez grandchildren. In contrast, my maternal grandmother and mother
came to Santa Monica from Chihuahua during the 1920s. So one side of my
immediate family has been in the Santa Monica area for over 200 years, and the
other side for almost 100 years.89
For the Marquez family descendants, the mural represents a sense of pride and
acknowledgment of the history of the land grant families whose time in the US
predates contemporary immigration from the Americas. For them, the mural
anchors their history in the region. The Marquez family descendants we spoke
to were opposed to removing, covering or altering the mural, but were also
87 Elias Serna, Interview with Meztli Projects, April 7, 2023.
88 Reframe: City Hall Mural Feedback Activity response gathered by Meztli Projects, 2023.
89 Terri de la Pena, Interview with Meztli Projects, December 16, 2022.
The beauty of Santa Monica’s
coastline shows through time,
connecting us to this place and to
people who have come before us.
I am intrigued to learn more
about the water portrayed in
different ways - the rivers, the
waterfalls, and the engagement
of the birds, horses and people
with water. Technically I am
intrigued by the tile formations
of the mural itself - the horizontal
and vertical lines - I’ve read
about petrachrome and would
like to know more about how the
artist created this.88
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 594 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 65
strongly in favor of telling the fuller history of Santa Monica that includes the
stories of people of color, such as a nuanced picture of the Rancho period, the
removal of Japanese Americans during WWII, waves of Mexican immigration
after the Mexican Revolution, and African Americans who came to Santa Monica
to work in the aerospace industry as part of the Great Migration.
City of Santa Monica employees
A handful of feedback activity respondents identified as current or former City
of Santa Monica employees. Of these respondents, most felt that the mural
is offensive or exclusionary; the remaining respondents felt the mural was
beautiful but also missing important representations, that there was nothing
wrong with the mural, or were indifferent. Those who found the mural offensive
were embarrassed by it and were concerned about the message the mural
communicates to those who come to City Hall. There was some concern that
the mural will make some feel unwelcome and that feeling will contribute to a
mistrust of government workers or an “us vs them” mentality (“us” being the
public and “them” being the government workers). One respondent felt that the
elitism of the second panel made them feel unseen as a government worker.
Angel Villasenor, for example, states:
I would have to walk by that mural going to my office. The Native Americans
don’t have eyes. It’s just a reminder of colonialism, and you know the deep
oppression suffered by Indigenous communities. I think that has no place in the
city. The fact that the city is using this whole historical landmark conversation
to keep it, is an excuse. I think it’s institutional racism. I remember walking in,
and how I felt every single day going to my office. Aside from that, the framed
headshots of prior leadership that hang in the second floor hallway were all
white men. You know what I’m saying. I think the city must do a better job of
understanding what kind of message these things send.90
For many City workers having to see the mural on a daily basis was traumatizing
and a reminder of the racist history of the institution.
In addition to collecting feedback activity responses from City of Santa Monica
employees, we held a lunchtime Zoom session where attendees were invited to
share their thoughts and feedback about the mural. During the session, those
who shared felt that the mural should be preserved to serve as a jumping-off
point for discussion of difficult historical events and also that contemporary
artwork should be commissioned to offer a better and full representation of
history. One participant shared examples of how Dachau was preserved to tell
the story of the Nazi concentration camps and how the Whitney Plantation has
been preserved to tell the full story of U.S. slavery. One participant noted that if
you get rid of the mural, “you deny that this is how we perceived our past for so
long and that it infiltrates the way that we see our present.” Another participant
was concerned with the fact that the only two people of color, in either panel,
are depicted in an implied subservient position. They suggested, “If any of these
murals are to be kept, they need to be adjusted to a manner that is for teaching,
remembering, and including, instead of a celebration of conquest.”
90 Angel Villasenor, Interview with Meztli Projects, April 11, 2023.
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 595 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 66
Recommendations
These recommendations were developed through a collaborative process that unfolded over
seven months as the Reframe Phase I Facilitation Team received input from the Working
Circle, the feedback activity responses, one-on-one interviews and other engagements with
Santa Monica community members and groups.
The recommendations development process was supported by and marked
by its breadth through outreach to and connection with a cross-section of
people from markedly diverse perspectives, the quality and the depth of
discussion and deliberation, and the degree of agreement found amongst
these very diverse viewpoints. For instance, the Working Circle was selected
to bring together individuals with diverse perspectives, histories and ties to
Santa Monica communities. The people who engaged through the feedback
activity, interviews, small group engagements and public programs widened
the discussion even more. Everyone who engaged with us through all these
methods brought deep feeling, knowledge and thoughtfulness to the issue. The
following recommendations are infused with the learnings from the Working
Circle’s journey and all of the voices of those who engaged in the Reframe:
City Hall Mural process. For more detail on the Working Circle’s discussion
of recommended actions and the results of the Delphi surveying process, see
Appendix B.
These values-based recommendations center on reparative work that can
advance the ideas of justice and healing that many cities and communities are
moving towards. The recommended actions are paired with implementation
recommendations developed by the Meztli team and informed by ongoing
initiatives and efforts in Santa Monica.
We felt it was important to ground the recommendations in a collectively
articulated set of values. The lengthy Working Circle process allowed us to
consider values after the group was able to get to know each other and begin
to have deeper conversations with each other. While no group of such diverse
people will ever agree on everything, we were pleased to find substantial
agreement around values. These values helped frame the Working Circle
discussions around possible actions in response to the mural.
The Working Circle members were unanimous in their belief that Santa Monica
should:
• Center Santa Monica First Peoples in the City’s response to the mural.
• Do something concrete, not just words.
Nearly unanimously, the group felt it was important to:
• Center working-class people and other people of color in the City’s response
to the mural.
• Make sure visitors to City Hall know that the City understands the issues that
people have with the mural.
• Make sure visitors to City Hall know that the City condemns the white
supremacy worldview depicted in the mural.
• Make sure everyone who visits the Historic City Hall lobby feels welcome/
like they belong.
Values
supporting the
recommendations
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 596 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 67
And about three-quarters of the group felt it was important to:
• Attend to the people who feel harmed by the mural.
• Address the material consequences of colonialism and provide considerations
including financial considerations to Santa Monica First Peoples.
• Protect future visitors to City Hall from the harm of seeing demeaning images.
• Create new opportunities for artists.
• Have the City response deal with other things in addition to the mural.
• Generate meaningful public discussion and engagement around the mural.
As you read through the recommendations in this report, you will see these
values woven throughout and as recurring themes. Ultimately, these values
undergird the recommendations and helped to prioritize which actions
in response to the mural were the most important to pursue. The actions
recommended are presented here in the order of importance, not necessarily
in the order of how they might be implemented. For instance, commissioning
new permanent artwork can be a lengthy process, but some actions like creating
interpretive panels might be able to be more quickly implemented.
The conversation around not removing the mural is multi-faceted. The harm
that this mural has caused is important and considerable, and removing or
covering the mural would guard against continuing this harm. However, removal
or covering does not address the harm that has already been done. Therefore,
the immediate and urgent focus should be on actions that move towards
repair for the communities harmed, such as those we have laid out in these
recommendations.
Our Working Circle discussions supported this direction, even though some in
the Working Circle would still like to see the mural removed. Several Working
Circle members reflected at the end of the process that they believed, knowing
more about the histories represented in the mural and the history of the mural,
that simply removing the mural would be letting the City “off the hook” for
tacitly endorsing the image by letting it remain unaddressed for so long (over
80 years since installed and at least 10 years of protest). This was a concern that
was echoed by some throughout our engagement process, including City of Santa
Monica employees, feedback activity respondents and interviewees. As Pete
Galindo, former staff member of Social and Public Art Resource Center states in
the Town Destroyer documentary, “the trick of white supremacy is the ability to
make itself invisible,” and removing the mural obscures the systems that made
the mural possible. Leaving it there, for now, is a reminder of the historical
injustices that many of our municipal agencies are built on and continue to
operate through.
Just as the Council reversed their decision to cover the mural so that the mural
would be visible during the process of public engagement, continuing to leave
the mural up and uncovered can provide further opportunities to engage and
address the harm that mural has caused. However, leaving it up does create an
ongoing risk of continued harm if no other actions are taken. As a result, the
Working Circle members were in strong agreement that the City should NOT “do
nothing” with the mural panels, or sell them or cover them at this time.
In addition, Santa Monica First Peoples are clearly among the most impacted
by this artwork, but the process to remove or cover the mural was not initiated
by them. When advocacy efforts such as these are not rooted in the community
that faces the biggest impacts by any issue (in this case First Peoples), they
are burdened with uncompensated emotional, cultural and intellectual labor
that responds to the issue raised within a frame that First Peoples did not help
Why we are not
talking about
removing or
covering the
mural
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 597 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 68
construct. Not removing the mural offers an opportunity for First Peoples to
uplift these issues from their perspective so that the outcomes and futurity
of their reflections are driven by them. Many of the recommendations in this
report speak to the reparative actions community members signaled were of
utmost importance and were possible while keeping the mural in place for the
time being.
The recommendations below provide longer-term pathways toward meaningfully
including First Peoples and other impacted communities in Santa Monica’s equity
work. Therefore, the Council should make clear commitments to addressing the
mural through the recommended actions in this report, including their reasons
for leaving the mural up. Reasons could include taking full accountability for
the mural, using limited funds to work on issues that are of greater value and
importance to the impacted communities, and making the lobby a space to
publicly and clearly condemn the attitudes made manifest by the mural.
Recommendation 1:
Commission new artwork in City Hall lobby
The City should commission new additional work in the City Hall lobby. New
artwork should present history from different perspectives and celebrate and
reframe what is traditionally presented as “historically significant.” City Hall is
a center of power and the new work needs to balance or redress the hierarchies
created by the existing mural. The new work should address the exclusions
in the “recreation” mural as well—Black, Brown, Asian, working-class people,
unemployed people and poor people who were in Santa Monica in 1939 and deal
with themes of ongoing Indigenous presence in Santa Monica. The new work
should create a welcoming environment for Indigenous people, working-class
people and people of color.
This recommendation emerged clearly as the highest priority recommendation
from the Working Circle process and indeed echoes the initial directive from the
Arts Commission and its Public Art Committee. During the deliberations, several
Working Circle members felt that a focus on the reparative opportunities that
this process has offered, such as potential land return, should be a priority rather
than simply addressing the harm by covering the mural or adding a plaque.
There was also a collective feeling that simply recommending removing the
mural would disrupt the potential for larger cultural and economic shifts that are
needed to make Santa Monica the equity-oriented community it aspires to be.
Further implementation recommendations:
•Include Santa Monica First Peoples in the commissioning process, such as
the RFP development, community engagement, design review and approval
process, etc. A preference to commission an artist from Santa Monica First
Peoples was noted by the Working Circle.
•The commission should be scoped with a great deal of clarity to avoid
creating future conflict and miring the project in new controversy once an
artist or artists is selected and begins their process.
•The artwork should not further highlight horrors or injustices experienced
by BIPOC people. The interpretive panels can work to explain and condemn
those activities. This new artwork should not force people to confront more
potentially traumatizing imagery while conducting business with the City.
•The new work should be produced at a scale that visually balances
MacDonald-Wright’s mural to offset the message of that work, both the
historical inaccuracies and the misrepresentations in the northwest panel as
well as the exclusions of people of color in the southwest panel. The overall
Recommendations
concerning the
mural and new
artwork
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 598 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 69
goal is to create an overwhelmingly inclusive statement at this particular
location that has great symbolic importance and functional significance for
all residents of Santa Monica.
•The work should not be ONLY digital or Augmented Reality. The Working
Circle and several community responses affirmed this recommendation.
The concern was that the work would be easily missed by people who visit
City Hall or eventually disappear when the technology is not functioning or
outdated.
•While the spaces to create a new artwork at the necessary scale in the City
Hall lobby are limited, there are multiple options available, including the
2nd floor balcony frontage (the strip of horizontal upper wall space that is
facing the main entrance), available walls of the 1st floor, the walls of the
2nd floor, and potentially the ceiling or the space below the ceiling (for a
suspended artwork). Other site opportunities may also arise or be developed
in Phase II.
Recommendation 2:
Commission new interpretive panels
The City should also create interpretive panels that offer context, but make clear
statements against the misrepresentations in the mural. The panels should give
basic information about the mural but must also clearly condemn the depiction
of Native people, the Mission System and white supremacy in general. The
interpretation of the southwest panel should clearly indicate the communities
excluded from the mural’s depictions, namely African Americans and the
descendants of the Santa Monica First Peoples along with other Indigenous
groups who were stolen by Spanish colonizers and brought to Santa Monica.
The new interpretive panels should be written by an advisory group that
includes at least one Indigenous person and Black, Latine/x, Asian American,
people and others who are excluded from the southwest mural panel. The final
interpretive panels should be reviewed by the Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel
Band of Mission Indians along with the various Gabrieleno Tribal Councils
connected to Santa Monica.
The panels should be unavoidable when looking at the mural–it should not be
minor or a small plaque. The interpretive overlay on the Old New York diorama at
the American Natural History Museum is a good precedent. They could include
deeper audio or QR/AR/VR content but should not require digital devices to
access the basic information.
Potential area for interpretive
signage/new artwork
Potential area for new artwork
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 599 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 70
Recommendation 3:
Ensure that Santa Monica’s public art and commemorative
landscape centers equity and belonging
Santa Monica’s public art and commemorative landscape needs to foster a
greater sense of inclusion and belonging. The Belmar Art + History project and
future new artwork in the City Hall lobby are much needed correctives, but there
is much still to address as part of the larger Reframe initiative.
The Reframe: City Hall Mural process should be the beginning of a series of
steps taken by the City of Santa Monica to revisit the policies and processes
that govern public artwork and civic memory. These steps should begin with
developing a set of equity and inclusion principles to govern decisions about
existing works and how they might be addressed or deaccessioned, as well as
future works and how they are commissioned. Then, the City should review
the rest of the artworks, monuments and forms of civic memory (such as
street names) in the City of Santa Monica using the criteria established. The
Chicago Monuments Project report provides examples of criteria for review (e.g.
artworks that promote white supremacy) and examples of how such artworks
might be addressed. Other recent examples for this kind of both policies and
collection review have included the San Francisco Monuments & Memorials
Advisory Committee and the City of Los Angeles’ Civic Memory project. All new
and existing policies should be accessible and include how members of the Santa
Monica community can engage with these processes.
The policies around commissioning new work should create pathways to
support emerging and underrepresented artists in receiving new commissions.
Throughout the Reframe process, we repeatedly heard the value of creating
more opportunities for artists, especially artists from Santa Monica First
Peoples, Black, Brown and Asian communities. A Tongva elder who participated
in the Community Listening Workshop stressed that there should be artwork
by Santa Monica First Peoples throughout the city, and the letter from the San
Gabriel Band of Mission Indians (Gabrieleno/Tongva) notes the opportunity to
hire First Peoples artists.
The City should also commission new artwork on these themes of inclusion and
representing other views of Santa Monica’s history in a location that is much more
publicly visible than the City Hall lobby. While the City Hall lobby is an important
and symbolic place to communicate belonging to many different groups of people,
relatively few Santa Monicans come through that space on a regular basis. Many of
the proposals for new artworks we received through the feedback activity felt that
other locations outside of City Hall would be preferable for new artworks, because
they felt new artwork should be located outdoors in highly accessible locations
where many people gather, like the Pier or Third Street Promenade. Other
respondents felt that new artwork should be in multiple locations or “everywhere”
throughout the city. One suggested a kind of Santa Monica history “scavenger
hunt” of connected artworks. Others stressed that artworks should be installed
in locations that are significant for Indigenous Peoples and other communities of
color, noting that the artwork should be where history happened. For more info
on the artwork proposals in the feedback activity responses, see Appendix C.
This recommendation advances Santa Monica’s “Citywide Equity Work” by
expanding the grants, commissions and creative support to under-resourced
artists. For more information on the City of Santa Monica’s ongoing equity
priorities, see the Diversity Equity and Inclusion Update shared with the Santa
Monica City Council in July 2023.91
91 David White, City Manager, “Information Item: Diversity Equity and Inclusion Update for FY 2022-23”
(City of Santa Monica, July 7, 2023).
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 600 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 71
Recommendation 4:
Create additional educational materials about the mural
Many believe that the mural can serve an educational purpose in telling fuller
histories about Santa Monica, including histories of First Peoples, the Rancho
period, Black, Brown, and Asian communities, and working-class folks in Santa
Monica. In order to make good on this, the City should partner with a qualified
educational institution. There was thoughtful discussion about using the panels
as educational materials. All agreed that this would be a deep challenge and not
something to be taken on lightly. Many felt that the City staff was ill-equipped
to do this work and would need substantive partnerships with other institutions
to make this meaningful. This is a good opportunity for Santa Monica to invest
in the creative and scholarly development of First Peoples and Black folks. The
curricula designed by the American Museum of Natural History for the Old New
York diorama described in the case studies section are a good model for youth
teaching guides.
Our framework, pedagogy and analysis of the data gathered throughout this
process helped us articulate the below recommendations. We also found an
extremely high level of agreement amongst the Working Circle that the City’s
response should not be limited to actions related to the cultural sphere or the
City Hall Lobby and that the City should act to materially address issues related
to the exclusions seen in the mural. A large number of recommendations in this
category found almost unanimous support from the Working Circle. The full
list can be found in Appendix B, but the following five recommendations rose to
the top as most critical. These recommendations echo the desires expressed by
Gabrieleno/Tongva tribe’s formal letter (see Appendix D). “Centering the
perspectives of First Peoples” and “doing something concrete, not just words”
were highly rated values consistent with these recommendations.
The suggestions here are not prescriptive for future processes, but pathways
to open up opportunities for continued work in this area as well as deal with
community members’ immediate concerns. They are framed around a few
specific areas:
•Equity in art & culture, art commissions, and other decision-making bodies
that impact the livability of residents.
•Centering Indigenous communities in processes and representational
practices in this recommended order: Santa Monica First Peoples, Los
Angeles First Peoples, Native Americans, North American Indigenous
Diaspora, Larger Indigenous Diaspora.
•Affordability and access for working-class people and people of color in
Santa Monica.
Recommendation 5:
Expand DEI+ trainings for City staff
The City should build on actions taken since its Racial Equity Statement of
2020, which included the formation of an Office of Equity and Inclusion and
the subsequent launch of an Equity Plan process. It should expand DEI training
for all City staff. We understand that, since 2020, the City of Santa Monica has
offered a number of trainings for City staff around implicit bias and racial
equity in local government, interrupting microaggressions, and civility in
the workplace with a focus on equity and inclusion. To be successful, future
efforts should focus on implementation strategies and tools for staff that center
the overlapping experiences, shared spaces and mutual accountability of
underrepresented peoples.
Recommendations
for City of Santa
Monica to lead
beyond the mural
and new artwork
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 601 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 72
We also encourage the City to continue to go deeper to develop staff capacities
around cultural exchange, decoloniality and social justice. Training approaches
that center building leadership around cultural exchange have significant
transformative power. The Intercultural Leadership Institute’s approach to DEI
(Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, Accessibility, Belonging, etc.) proposes to invert
current efforts that funnel underrepresented peoples into norms created and
dominated by a white worldview. The approach challenges dominant social
norms while honoring differences of histories, traditions and vocabulary. It
develops leaders specifically within the arts & culture field to adeptly respond
to significant changes that impact society, politics, the environment and the
economy.
To follow this approach, Santa Monica should partner with practitioners who
understand how to bridge different worldviews and support the creation of tools
that hold communities together while strengthening each respective perspective.
One example of a useful framework is LA County Creative Strategist Anu Yadav’s
“Healing Through Story” toolkit. The toolkit focuses on the power of story as an
arts-based healing process that promotes wellbeing and connection. It highlights
community-building methods for listening and facilitation and includes
interviews with community groups on how we heal.92 Another helpful example,
artEquity’s National Facilitator Training program is a two-weekend intensive
retreat with a purpose: deep analysis and skills building paired with meaningful
discourse on issues of inclusion, equity and the role of art makers. Participants
attend cultural events, join a national cohort of colleagues in the field, and help
sustain a national arts movement.
Recommendation 6:
Adopt a City-wide land/territory acknowledgment initiative
Land Acknowledgements, although extremely important, can become diluted
as these acknowledgments are the bare minimum of the protocols from which
they originate. The recognition of place between Indigenous communities
stems from the important practices between peoples to understand each other’s
worldviews and often were paired with cultural exchanges, ceremonies and
other important community-building functions.
It is important to understand the longstanding history that has brought you to
reside on the land, and to seek to understand your place within that history.
Land acknowledgements do not exist in a past tense or historical context:
colonialism is a current ongoing process, and we need to build our mindfulness
of our present participation.93
Santa Monica has an opportunity to adopt a City-wide land acknowledgment
initiative that includes the actionable practices that often have been stripped
from the original intentions of land acknowledgments. In one example of
putting a land acknowledgment into action, in January 2022, Seattle launched its
new Indigenous Advisory Council (IAC)94 to help advise its decision-makers on
issues similar to those raised through Reframe. In another example, in Oct 2020,
Minneapolis launched a truth and reconciliation process with a focus on Black
and Indigenous residents.95 In developing this initiative, the City should involve
92 The “Healing Through Story” toolkit is available here: https://www.anuyadav.com/healing-through-story
93 Northwestern University, “About Land Acknowledgment,” Native American and Indigenous Initiatives
(website), n.d., https://www.northwestern.edu/native-american-and-indigenous-peoples/about/Land%20
Acknowledgement.html.
94 Seattle Department of Neighborhoods, “Newly Formed Indigenous Advisory Council Now Accepting
Applications for Members,” Front Porch (blog), January 25, 2022
95 Melissa Turtinen, “Minneapolis Will Create a Commision to Confront History of Racism,” Bring Me the
News. (website), October 12, 2020.
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 602 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 73
but not overtax local First Peoples. The recommendations in the letter from the
Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians are a great place to start
(Appendix D).
Recommendation 7:
Improve representation on Santa Monica committees
Some of the issues raised from the City Hall Mural could have been mitigated
through a holistic process that included members of the communities excluded
or misrepresented in the mural. As of the writing of this report, to our
knowledge there are no First Peoples serving as part of the Arts Commission
or Landmarks Commission. It is unclear if there are any self-identified Native
Americans or Indigenous Peoples serving in these kinds of City roles.
Many of the issues across the country relating to the misrepresentation of
peoples stems from systems that exclude marginalized communities. For Santa
Monica to remedy these issues it should add First Peoples representatives to
decision-making bodies such as the Airport, Landmarks, Arts and Planning
Commissions among others as well as the Clean Beaches & Ocean Parcel Tax
Citizens Oversight Committees, Metropolitan Water District and Urban Forest
Task Force among similar bodies. One example of this approach is Seattle’s
Indigenous Advisory Council, created in 2022 through a bill sponsored by a
Council Member to help strengthen the City’s unique political relationship with
tribal nations and to work to fulfill political, legal, and racial equity obligations
to American Indian, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian people that reside in
Seattle.
Recommendation 8:
Facilitate Land Back in Santa Monica
The movement to return land to First Peoples has been a decentralized effort
across North America to reestablish Indigenous sovereignty, with political
and economic control of their ancestral lands.96 These same efforts have
also been replicated in New Zealand and Fiji. These efforts are distinct from
efforts to provide reparations for descendants of enslaved people, but there
are opportunities to bring Land Back efforts and reparations efforts into
conversation.97 In Santa Monica, there have been discussions about providing a
right to return for displaced groups, such as incarcerated Japanese Americans,
African Americans removed by urban renewal, and working-class people of all
backgrounds pushed out by gentrification. Land Back considerations have not
yet been part of the discussion in Santa Monica, but they can be brought into
conversation alongside, not at the expense of, these other considerations.
Land Back strategies shift from place to place because the federal relationships
to Indigenous Nations varies—where some Tribes are federally recognized,
others are simply state recognized and some lack any recognition at all. None
of Los Angeles County’s six Tribes are federally recognized, and California has
a much more severe and complicated history between First Peoples and the
state than many of the other states in the union do with their First Peoples.
Given the economic power California has, this extremely large gap within the
federal government’s responsibility to Indigenous Nations in the boundaries of
the US presents an opportunity for counties like Los Angeles and cities such as
Santa Monica to develop creative ways for First Peoples communities to practice
96 For more information, see “About the Land Back Movement” https://clockshop.org/wp-content/up-
loads/2022/09/Final_LandBack-2-sheeter-1.pdf
97 For more information, see “About the Reparations Movement” https://clockshop.org/wp-content/up-
loads/2022/11/LB2-infosheet.pdf
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 603 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 74
sovereignty and self-determination. Land transfers have taken place across the
US with many burdening Tribes with the costs of remediation and other costs
that at times are waived for corporations and nonprofits.
Santa Monica can be a leading example by partnering with First Peoples to
create opportunities for their members to return home such as setting aside
housing at the Santa Monica Airport redevelopment project. “Set Aside” housing
has historically faced many barriers because many believe that this strategy
isn’t possible using public funds.98 However, one example of how this has been
achieved before is the Actors Fund’s new affordable housing development in
Hollywood.99
Another example of creative opportunities for Land Back are temporary cultural
easements that lead to a land transfer. One example of this is the new cultural
easement at Yaangna Park, the site of the Serra statue toppling in 2020, that
allows for the Tongva community to use that site as a space for cultural practices,
art projects, cultural initiatives, etc. with the goal of transferring the land to
develop a site of learning for and by First Peoples so they are better represented
at the El Pueblo de Los Angeles Historical Monument, the “Birthplace of Los
Angeles.” Identifying unused sites as surplus land for potential land return is
another. For example, the current surplus land designation of the Santa Monica
Civic Auditorium might enable consideration for Land Back.100
Recommendation 9:
Facilitate Kuruvungna Springs relationships
Open green space is an important facet of the well-being of communities and
their members, as has been established by institutions such as the California
Endowment. This is increasingly more important to First Peoples as their origin
stories are connected to places such as Kuruvungna Springs. While it is not in
the City of Santa Monica, Kuruvungna Springs is an important site for repair
and sovereignty for Santa Monica First Peoples. The Tribe named the return of
the land at Kuruvungna Springs from the Los Angeles Unified School District
to the Tribe in their letter to Santa Monica. In addition, Kuruvungna Springs is
connected to the City Hall mural in that one of the primary legends concerning
the naming of the City appears to be the encounter between Spanish settlers and
the Kuruvungna Springs—an event that many believe is centrally depicted in the
mural.
Working Circle members also had a strong agreement about recommending
this action, and there are many within the Santa Monica community who have
developed strong connections to this cultural site. We recommend that the City
of Santa Monica continue to build relationships with the Kuruvungna Springs
Foundation and support their efforts to have the land transferred back to them.
In the meantime, the City of Santa Monica should explore how they can support
the expansion of Kuruvungna Springs staffing and programs as an extension of
Santa Monica cultural priorities.
98 A “Set Aside” policy is a requirement that developers keep a portion of new or rehabilitated units afford-
able to people with low incomes.
99 Anousha Sakoui, “Actors Fund Breaks Ground on Affordable Housing Project in Hollywood for Perform-
ing Arts Workers,” Los Angeles Times, February 11, 2021.
100 For more information about the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium designation as surplus land, see https://
www.santamonica.gov/blog/faqs-for-designation-of-the-civic-auditorium-as-surplus-land.
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 604 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 75
Conclusion
We end this phase of the process heartened by the seriousness with which this community took
the work. Representations matter. Civic art matters. The stories we tell about who we are, where
we have been, and what we have done matter. Santa Monica’s people came out to participate
in these events with great conviction. It is clear that people have a deep emotional connection
to this issue—whether this is rooted in their trauma of past harms, their love for civic art and
culture, their fear of censorship, a feeling of exclusion, or a fear of lost or distorted history.
We were encouraged by the ability of the Working Circle–a group picked to
represent the full gamut of perspectives and community connections across this
issue–could find large swaths of agreement and encouraged by the nuance and
depth of what we heard from communities across the region.
The debate around the mural—whether it’s a valuable piece of art, a traumatic
reminder of colonization and forced conversion, a beautiful representation of
the history of Santa Monica, or a monument to white supremacy that creates
a hostile civic and work environment—will never be completely resolved until
the larger social contradictions that the mural represents are also resolved.
Producing programming that centers a First Peoples’ perspective, employing a
citizen assembly, and facilitating meetings with a healing and trauma centered
lens has allowed us to explore how to bring more equity to public art and also
think about the relationship between artistic storytelling and larger social issues.
The two are linked and this project is an example of the incredible importance of
their intimacy.
The mural and the controversy around it have created a rare and critical focal
point of civic energy. The key is not to squander the moment and let it further
perpetuate ill-will and distrust, but rather to use it to move towards equity,
justice and a better Santa Monica. The mural has provided an incredible
educational opportunity to reframe the conversation. As Jaime Cruz, professor
at Santa Monica College states, “It’s important to understand that over the last
several years specifically, monuments and plaques have come down. Christopher
Columbus, among other people, have come down because of the counter story.
People have now become more aware, very empowered by what they learn.”101
The recommendations that surfaced from our process followed from the key
values of centering First Peoples and taking productive action, not just offering
platitudes. Santa Monica should take proactive steps to commission new works
that foster belonging for BIPOC and working-class people, both within City Hall
and other more highly trafficked locations. They should take ownership of past
actions by producing highly visible interpretive panels that condemn white
supremacy in connection with the City Hall mural. Just as important as these
actions are actions that work to repair harm in the present day: developing better
standards of representation, expanding DEI initiatives and staff training, initiating a
land acknowledgement process, facilitating Land Back, and the preservation and
improvement of sacred sites. The recommendations above provide longer-term
pathways towards putting First Peoples at the center of Santa Monica’s equity
project. These are the things that will allow Santa Monica to emerge from this
stronger, at the forefront of national conversation and transformational change.
The recommendations that emerged from our process are clear and resounding.
Now the work of the City Council and Santa Monica’s civic institutions remains to
implement them and lead the way forward.
101 Jaime Cruz, Interview with Meztli Projects, June 6, 2023.
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 605 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 76
Meztli Projects facilitation team and report authors
Joel Garcia, Robin Garcia, Susannah Laramee Kidd and Rosten Woo
Meztli Projects would like to thank all of the many people who contributed to
Phase I of the Reframe: City Hall Mural project, especially all of the community
members who attended public programs or community meetings and submitted
a feedback activity response. We would also like to thank the following people
and organizations for their contributions and support for this process.
Reframe Working Circle members
Tafari Alan, Brock Ramon Alvarado, Miguel Bravo, Lizette Hernandez, Bob
Knight, Ruthann Lehrer, Kimberly Marshall, Mona Morales Recalde, Sharon
Reyes, Emily Silver, Cathy Taylor, Paolo Velasco and Zora Zajicek
Meztli Projects support
Alicia Bella, Kenneth Lopez, Khayra Mentado and Isaac Michael Ybarra
City of Santa Monica Staff
Cultural Affairs
Sofia Klatzker, Manager; Shannon Daut, Former Manager; Naomi Okuyama,
Public Art Supervisor
Planning
Stephanie Reich, Design and Historic Preservation Planner
Human Services
Carla Fantozzi, Community Services Supervisor
Office of Equity and Inclusion
Lisa Parson, Manager; David Gardinier, Coordinator
Public Works
Amelia Feichtner, Capital Program Manager; Amber Richane, Acting Chief
Operating Officer
Santa Monica Public Library
Erica Cuyugan, City Librarian; Cecilia Tovar, Assistant City Librarian; Jennifer
Ulrich, Principal Librarian; Librarians Kathy Lo, Karen Reitz and Jeff Schwartz
Event assistance
Miles Friesen, Alfonso Manzo, Lesley Ramirez and Kimberly Soo
Credits and Acknowledgements
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 606 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 77
City of Santa Monica Advisory Bodies
Santa Monica City Council Mural Ad Hoc Committee
Councilmembers Christine Parra and Oscar de la Torre
Santa Monica Arts Commission Mural Subcommittee
Public Art Committee Member Francois Bar and Arts Commissioners Michael
Baroff, Kathleen Benjamin (Working Circle liaison), Janeen Jackson, Iao Katagiri
and Deepa Subramanian
Santa Monica Landmarks Commission Mural Subcommittee
Commissioners Roger Genser (Working Circle liaison), Amy Green
and Dolores Sloan
Public program speakers and facilitators
Prisms of Indigeneity
Walter Meyer, Art Department Chair, Santa Monica College
Emily Silver, Director, Pete and Susan Barrett Gallery, Santa Monica College
Matika Wilbur
Isaac Michael Ybarra
Sites of Memory
Kathleen Benjamin
David Kipen
Robbie Jones, Black Santa Monica Tours
Bob Ramirez, Kuruvungna Village Springs
Memory Work Today
idris brewster, Kinfolk Tech
Christine Wong Yap, artist
Community Listening Workshop
Anu Yadav, artist and facilitator
Other Histories of Santa Monica and the Bay District
Jaime Cruz, History Department, Santa Monica College
Carolyne Edwards, Co-founder, Quinn Research Center
Mona Morales Recalde, Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians
Rob Schwenker, Executive Director, Santa Monica History Museum
Anne Wallentine, Collections Manager/Curator, Santa Monica History Museum
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 607 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 78
Individuals consulted for their expertise and advice
Annie Danis, PhD, California State Polytechnic University-Pomona, Art and Archaeology
Bill Deverell, PhD, Director of the Huntington-USC Institute on California and the West
Paul Farber, Monument Lab
Natalie D. McDonald, Living New Deal
Will South, PhD, art historian, Stanton Macdonald-Wright specialist
John Thomas, Living New Deal
Alexander Tarr, PhD, A People’s Guide to the San Francisco Bay Area
Sue Bell Yank, Clockshop, formerly 18th Street Art Center
Samuel “Sandy” Zipp, PhD, Brown University, American Studies and Urban Studies
Interviewees
Tafari Alan, student, Santa Monica College
Alex Aldana, Executive Director, Pico Youth & Family Center
Margaret Bach, local historian, former member of the Santa Monica Landmarks
Commission
Angie Behrns-Dorame (Gabrieleno/Tongva), Kuruvungna Springs Foundation
Kathleen Benjamin, Belmar Art + History advisory group member
Jamie Cruz, educator, historian
Gina DeBaca, artist, cultural worker
Mary (Terri) de la Pena, author, Marquez family descendant
Bill Deverell, American West historian, USC professor & Director of the
Huntington-USC Institute on California and the West
Nina Fresco, board member, Santa Monica Conservancy; former chair of the Santa
Monica Planning Commission
Jeremy Gonzalez (Gabrielino Kizh Nation), community member
Paulina Sahagun, educator, artist
Elias Serna, Ph.D., M.F.A., artist, educator, professor, and board member, Pico Youth
& Family Center
Will South, artist, art historian Stanton Macdonald-Wright
Angel Villaseñor, former City of Santa Monica employee, community member
Groups that sponsored listening sessions and events for
their communities
Community Corporation of Santa Monica
CSU Puvungna (Long Beach) Pow Wow
Families Latinas Unidas, Parent Council, Virginia Avenue Park
Pico Youth and Family Center
Santa Monica Area Interfaith Council
Santa Monica College
Santa Monica Conservancy
Santa Monica Human Relations Council
Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 608 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 79
Appendices
Appendix A: City Hall Mural Recent Historical Timeline
Appendix B: Working Circle Discussion and Development
of Values, Statements, and Recommendations
Appendix C: Engagement Details
Appendix D: Letters from Tribal Communities
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 609 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 80
Appendix A: City Hall Mural Recent Historical Timeline
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 610 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 81
As described above in the process section, we employed a “Working Circle” to
create recommendations. Similar to a citizen jury, the Working Circle was made
up of 13 individuals selected to represent a broad range of perspectives, life
histories and community connections.
The Working Circle model pulled in people with connections to key Santa
Monica communities to democratize knowledge and illuminate a diversity of
community views. This was designed to be an intimate community group and
over the course of Phase I of the project, Working Circle members engaged in
open dialogue on civic history, representation and public art in Santa Monica.
Additionally, this group of folks connected to one another and gained new
perspectives. Some members already knew each other, but this process offered
each one an opportunity to connect using new tools and perspectives and to
learn some new ideas and maybe unlearn others.
A major task of the Working Circle was to develop recommendations together.
All of the recommendations in this report were discussed and given priority by
the Working Circle. The legitimacy of the Working Circle’s recommendations
stems from the broadness of the group–everyday citizens from astonishingly
diverse starting points–and the quality and the depth of their engagement and
discussion. This truly diverse group was able to find extremely significant points
of agreement through deep engagement. The Working Circle used a highly
facilitated process similar to “Delphi Surveying’’ in which the group was given
three rounds of anonymous surveys to develop and refine their statements and
recommendations.
This appendix includes the details and results of the final rounds of surveying
and discussion. Note that the survey tables below include 12 survey responses,
because one Working Circle member stepped down from the Working Circle
before the recommendations development process. The Working Circle liaisons
to the Landmarks Commission and the Arts Commission did not attend any
of the Working Circle meetings once we moved into the recommendations
development phase to avoid having to recuse themselves from any matters that
would come before their respective commissions. City of Santa Monica staff
from Cultural Affairs, Planning and the Office of Equity and Inclusion attended
the discussions around recommendations but did not fill out the surveys or
prioritize actions.
Appendix B: Working Circle Discussion and Development
of Values, Statements, and Recommendations
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 611 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 82
Values from the Working Circle
We felt it was important to ground the recommendations in a collectively
articulated set of values. Based on the interviews, small group engagements
and feedback survey responses, we drafted a list of Values statements that
represented values (not positions or recommendations) that we heard from the
public. The Working Circle anonymously voted on these values to highlight those
they thought were very important for the City to uphold, somewhat important,
not a priority, not important, or unsure. After each round of surveys, the
Working Circle discussed the results and proposed changes.
The Working Circle members were unanimous in their belief that it is very or
somewhat important for Santa Monica to:
• Center Santa Monica First Peoples in the City’s response to the mural.
• Do something concrete, not just words.
Nearly unanimously, the group felt it was very or somewhat important to:
• Center working-class people and other people of color in the City’s response
to the mural.
• Make sure visitors to City Hall know that the City understands the issues that
people have with the mural.
• Make sure visitors to City Hall know that the City condemns the white
supremacy worldview depicted in the mural.
• Make sure everyone who visits the Historic City Hall lobby feels welcome/
like they belong.
And about three quarters of the group felt it was very or somewhat important
to:
• Attend to the people who feel harmed by the mural.
• Address the material consequences of colonialism and provide
considerations including financial considerations to Santa Monica First
Peoples.
• Protect future visitors to City Hall from the harm of seeing demeaning
images.
• Create new opportunities for artists.
• Have the City response deal with other things in addition to the mural.
• Generate meaningful public discussion and engagement around the mural.
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 612 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 83
What do you feel is most important to address
in the City of Santa Monica's response to the mural?
Very
import-
ant
Some-
what
import-
ant
Not
sure
Not a
priority
Not
import-
ant at all
Centering Santa Monica First Peoples in the City's response to the mural 11 1 0 0 0
Doing something concrete, not just words 11 1 0 0 0
Centering working-class people and other people of color in the City's
response to the mural
10 1 1 0 0
Making sure visitors to City Hall know that the City understands the
issues that people have with the mural
10 1 0 0 1
Making sure visitors to City Hall know that the City condemns the white
supremacy worldview depicted in the mural
10 1 0 0 1
Making sure everyone who visits the Historic City Hall lobby feels
welcome/like they belong
9 2 1 0 0
Attending to the people who feel harmed by the mural 9 0 1 1 1
Addressing the material consequences of colonialism and providing
considerations including financial considerations to Santa Monica First
Peoples
9 0 1 0 2
Protecting future visitors to City Hall from the harm of seeing demeaning
images
8 0 2 0 2
Creating new opportunities for artists 7 3 1 1 0
The City's response should deal with other things in addition to the mural 7 3 1 1 0
Generating meaningful public discussion and engagement around the
mural
7 3 1 0 1
Centering other Indigenous Peoples in the City's response to the mural 7 0 2 2 1
Adding new artworks to the City Hall lobby 6 3 2 1 0
Adding new interpretive works to the City Hall lobby 6 2 2 1 1
Telling the story of the Mission period in a way that acknowledges the
horror of the time
5 6 0 0 1
Telling the story of Santa Monica 4 0 2 4 2
Using City Hall Lobby as a teaching space 3 4 4 0 1
Representing the story of Santa Monica prior to 1769 3 4 2 1 2
Making sure the mural is viewable by everyone who comes to City Hall 3 0 1 4 4
Representing the story of Santa Monica between 1939 and 2023 2 2 3 4 1
Representing the story of Santa Monica between 1769 and 1848 2 3 0 5 2
Preserving the physical integrity of the mural as a historical artifact 2 1 2 2 5
The City's response should only deal with the mural 2 0 1 3 6
Representing the story of Santa Monica between 1848 and 1939 1 4 1 4 2
Telling the story of the Rancho period 1 3 0 6 2
Making City Hall beautiful 1 6 1 1 3
Helping the City of Santa Monica avoid scandal or controversy 1 2 0 4 5
Helping the City of Santa Monica save money 1 1 0 4 6
Protecting the artistic legacy of the artist Stanton Macdonald-Wright 1 1 0 1 9
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 613 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 84
Statements About the Mural
Because one of the key issues in this process was the issue of interpretation,
we thought it would be useful to have the group consider statements about the
mural. What can be said to be true about the mural? We gathered statements
(again, adapted from things we had heard through the interviews and feedback
activity responses) and engaged the group in the same process of anonymous
surveying.
The group had a somewhat more difficult time finding agreement here.
With the exception of one member, the group agreed that it was true and
important that:
• People feel harmed by the mural.
More than 80% thought it was true and important that:
• Although the mural is representative of its time, it still problematic and
• The mural’s location at City Hall is important to the way we think about it,
• The mural is a dehumanizing portrayal of First Peoples, and
• The mural is harmful.
More than 75% felt it was true and important that:
• The mural represents a white supremacy world view
And two thirds believed it was true and important that:
• The mural represents a classist view of the world
• The mural shows a misleading view of the history of Santa Monica
• The mural is embarrassing
• The mural made them feel uncomfortable
False statements
Conversely, no one in the group believed these statements to be true:
• The mural makes me feel happy
• The mural is inspiring
Most of the working circle believed the following statements were false:
• The whiteness of the people in the mural is simply factual of Santa Monica in 1939
• There’s nothing wrong with the mural
• The mural is from the past and has no bearing on the present
• The mural represents objective history
• This mural celebrates Santa Monica
• This mural represents Santa Monica in 1939 accurately
• The mural was a neutral or positive portrayal of First Peoples
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 614 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 85
Please respond to the following statements about the mural. True and
important
True
but not
important
Not sure
if this is
true or
false
FALSE
People feel harmed by the mural 11 0 0 1
Although the mural is representative of its time, it still problematic 10 0 1 1
The mural’s location at City Hall is important to the way we think about it 10 1 0 1
The mural is a dehumanizing portrayal of First Peoples 10 0 0 2
The mural is harmful 10 0 0 2
The mural represents a white supremacy world view 9 1 0 2
The mural represents a classist view of the world 8 3 1 0
The mural shows a misleading view of the history of Santa Monica 8 0 2 2
The mural is embarrassing 8 1 1 2
The mural makes me feel uncomfortable 8 2 0 2
The mural could be used as a teaching tool 6 3 2 1
The mural needs interpretation 6 2 2 2
Mural would be more productive at another location 5 0 4 3
The mural represents Stanton Macdonald Wright’s values and worldview 3 5 3 1
The mural represents the mainstream viewpoint of history of its time 3 3 4 2
The mural is of historic significance 3 4 1 4
The mural condemns Santa Monica 3 0 2 7
The wealth of the people in the mural accurately represents Santa Monica
at the time the mural was produced
2 0 4 6
The mural is beautiful 2 2 1 7
The whiteness of the people in the mural is simply factual of Santa Monica
in 1939
2 0 1 9
There’s nothing wrong with the mural 2 0 0 10
This mural represents Santa Monica in 1939 aspirationally 1 4 4 3
The mural is from the past and has no bearing on the present 1 0 2 9
The mural represents objective history 1 1 1 9
This mural represents Santa Monica in 1939 accurately 1 0 2 9
This mural celebrates Santa Monica 1 0 2 9
The mural is a neutral portrayal of First Peoples 1 0 1 10
The mural is a positive portrayal of First Peoples 1 0 1 10
The mural represents an allegorical story of Santa Monica 0 3 3 6
The mural represents what Santa Monica stands for 0 1 4 7
The mural makes me feel happy 0 0 2 10
The mural is inspiring 0 0 1 11
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 615 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 86
Recommended Actions from the Working Circle
Alongside the process of anonymous surveys about values and perceptions of
the mural, the Working Circle generated a list of possible actions to be taken by
the City of Santa Monica. To begin with, this list was unedited and broad and
included actions having to do with the mural itself, the City Hall lobby and the
underlying issues brought up by the mural. We then used anonymous surveys
to rank this list and find the recommendations that found strongest agreement.
Since the list of possible actions was so lengthy, we grouped the survey questions
into four areas: actions dealing with the mural, actions related to commissioning
new artwork, recommendations about new artwork itself, and actions beyond
the mural.
In the following charts, we include all of the responses for the actions surveys.
Some actions received only weak support from most Working Circle members;
others were strongly recommended by some and strongly opposed by others.
Yet, we found an extremely high level of agreement amongst the Working Circle
that the City’s response should not be limited to actions related to the mural
or the City Hall lobby and that the City should act to materially address issues
related to the exclusions seen in the mural. Centering the perspectives of First
Peoples and doing something concrete were highly rated in the values survey,
which is consistent with these recommendations.
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 616 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 87
Actions Dealing with the Mural Recom-
mend
- High
Priority
Recom-
mend
- Low
Priority
No strong
feelings
either way
Recom-
mend
Against
Strongly
Recom-
mend
Against
Add interpretive panels written by an Indigenous person 9 1 1 0 1
Add interpretive panels that condemn colonization, forced religious
conversion and white supremacy
9 1 0 0 2
Add interpretive panels that condemn the murals' portrayal of First
Peoples
8 1 2 0 1
Add interpretive panels about atrocities and injustices committed
towards Indigenous people
6 2 1 0 3
Move the murals: to a historical or cultural institution 5 3 1 0 3
Create educational and/or interpretative programming about the
murals
4 5 1 1 1
Cover the murals: permanently 3 3 2 2 2
Move the murals: to storage 3 2 4 0 3
Add interpretive panels vetted by a committee 3 3 2 0 4
Add interpretive panels "explaining" or interpreting the artwork 2 3 1 3 3
Add interpretive panels vetted by a historian 2 1 4 1 4
Cover the murals: in a way that allows for temporary viewing (opaque
curtain or scrim)
2 1 2 3 4
Move the murals: to a private location 2 0 3 2 5
Occasionally cover the murals on certain days (such as Indigenous
People's Day)
2 0 0 2 8
Do nothing about these murals 2 0 0 1 9
Add interpretive panels that cover up portions of the mural 1 2 4 2 3
Add interpretive panels about the artistic process 1 1 2 4 4
Add interpretive panels about artist Stanton MacDonald Wright 1 1 3 2 5
Cover the murals: in a way that allows for artist engagement
(transparent, clear acrylic)
1 2 2 2 5
Add interpretive panels about the WPA and New Deal artworks 1 3 0 1 7
Sell the murals 0 2 4 0 6
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 617 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 88
Actions Related to Commissioning New Artwork Recom-
mend
- High
Priority
Recom-
mend
- Low
Priority
No strong
feelings
either way
Recom-
mend
Against
Strongly
Recom-
mend
Against
New artwork should be created by: a member of Santa Monica First
Peoples
10 1 1 0 0
Commission new work elsewhere in Santa Monica 9 1 2 0 0
Commission new work in the City Hall lobby 9 1 0 1 1
New artwork should be created by: an Indigenous person 9 2 1 0 0
New artwork should be created by: a person of color 6 4 2 0 0
New artwork should be created by: multiple artists 5 1 5 0 1
New artwork should be: permanent 5 3 3 1 0
The artist should: present to a special committee 5 3 3 1 0
Commission new work on the City Hall facade 4 4 1 0 3
New artwork should be created by: anyone in consultation with Santa
Monica First Peoples
3 2 3 2 2
New artwork should be: installed for at least 10 years 3 3 5 1 0
The artist should: use a process typical of what Santa Monica presently
does (present process and concept to Public Art Committee of Arts
Commission)
3 4 4 1 0
Do not commission new artwork 2 1 0 0 9
New artwork should be: performance-based 2 2 6 1 1
New artwork should be: rotating temporary works 2 5 3 1 1
New artwork should be: installed for at least 1 year 1 4 5 0 2
The artist should: have total artistic freedom 1 5 3 1 2
New artwork should be created by: anyone 0 1 1 3 7
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 618 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 89
New artwork should:Recom-
mend
- High
Priority
Recom-
mend
- Low
Priority
No strong
feelings
either way
Recom-
mend
Against
Strongly
Recom-
mend
Against
Deal with themes of Indigenous presence in Santa Monica 10 0 2 0 0
Be representative of all the races and ethnicities that have been and are
part of Santa Monica
8 1 3 0 0
Deal with themes of African American presence in Santa Monica 8 0 4 0 0
Deal with themes of Belonging generally 8 1 2 1 0
Deal with themes of Mexican presence in Santa Monica 8 1 3 0 0
Deal with themes of Mexican-Indigenous (Yaqui, etc.) presence in Santa
Monica
8 2 2 0 0
Present history from different perspectives and celebrate and reframe
what is traditionally presented as "historically significant"
8 1 3 0 0
Deal with themes of Latinx presence in Santa Monica 8 0 3 0 1
Address the exclusions in the "recreation" mural -- Brown, Black, Asian,
working people, unemployed people, poor people who were in Santa
Monica in 1939
7 2 2 1 0
Be physical 7 1 4 0 0
Deal with themes of Asian presence in Santa Monica 7 1 4 0 0
Represent Santa Monica today 4 1 5 2 0
Deal with themes of history in Santa Monica 4 2 3 2 1
Specifically engage the Stanton MacDonald Wright mural 2 2 3 2 3
Be digital/augmented reality 2 1 3 1 5
Deal with themes of the Rancho period in Santa Monica 1 4 3 2 2
Be projected 1 1 6 1 3
Be non-figurative 0 3 5 3 1
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 619 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 90
Actions Beyond the Mural and the City Hall Lobby Recom-
mend
- High
Priority
Recom-
mend
- Low
Priority
No strong
feelings
either way
Recom-
mend
Against
Strongly
Recom-
mend
Against
Evaluate current artistic commissioning processes to ensure that they
are more equitable and inclusive
12 0 0 0 0
Facilitate Kuruvungna Village Springs | Gabrielino-Tongva Springs
Foundation and or Kuruvungna Springs Cultural Center & Museum
via financial resources or support of land return
11 0 1 0 0
Formal land acknowledgment protocol for City of Santa Monica 11 0 1 0 0
Provide cultural sensitivity, cultural humility and anti-racism
training for City officials and employees to promote a more inclusive
and respectful working environment
11 1 0 0 0
Support ongoing public programming for Santa Monica histories not
represented in the mural
11 1 0 0 0
Indigenous Cultural Celebrations: Regularly host Indigenous cultural
celebrations and events to raise awareness about Indigenous heritage,
history, and contributions to the city
10 0 2 0 0
Provide museum space to allow Santa Monica First Peoples to display
about themselves or facilitate development of connections with existing
organizations like the Santa Monica History Museum or historical society
10 0 2 0 0
Support educational programming about and led by Santa Monica First
Peoples for City staff and the general public
10 0 2 0 0
Add a First Peoples representative to other important commissions
such as Commission on Sustainability, Environmental Justice, and the
Environment, Housing Commission, Urban Forest Task Force
10 0 2 0 0
Add a First Peoples representative to the Arts Commission 10 0 2 0 0
Public Apology: Issue a formal public apology for past actions that led
to the displacement and suffering of Indigenous people, acknowledging
past wrongs as part of the healing process
10 0 1 1 0
Allocate space in the airport redevelopment project to build a First
Peoples Cultural Center and Museum
10 0 1 0 1
Consider ways to cede land in Santa Monica back to First Peoples 10 0 1 0 1
Incorporate the Tongva language and place names into Santa Monica
infrastructure
10 0 1 0 1
Create a tribal liaison staff position at the City of Santa Monica 9 0 3 0 0
Evaluate areas where landscape can be cultivated by Native Plants and
partner with tribal groups to allow for gathering
9 2 1 0 0
Add a First Peoples representative to the Landmarks Commission 9 0 3 0 0
Create expansive curricula about Santa Monica history for use in Santa
Monica schools
9 1 2 0 0
Support ongoing public programming to empower Santa Monicans to
archive and tell the history of Santa Monica
9 3 0 0 0
Allocate financial resources, such as a district tax, for Santa Monica
First Peoples
9 0 2 0 1
Language Revitalization Programs: Support initiatives to revive and
sustain Indigenous languages in Santa Monica, promoting cultural
heritage preservation
8 1 3 0 0
Incorporate the Tongva language and place names into Santa Monica
infrastructure
8 2 1 0 1
Identify and change street names to Tongva inspired names, ex;
Kuruvungna Blvd
7 2 2 0 1
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 620 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 91
Recommendations Prioritized by the Working Circle
In the end, the list of recommended actions that found substantial agreement
was surprisingly long. In order to make sure we highlighted the most critical
actions, in our last session we asked each member of the Working Circle to
place stickers next to the recommendations they felt were the highest priority.
Each member had one red dot to place next to the action that they felt that the
City must take, at all costs. This red dot sticker would count for two votes. Each
member also received four green dots to place next to actions that they felt
should be prioritized in addition. Each green dot would count for one vote. After
the Working Circle members placed their dots, we concluded with a discussion
to affirm the slate of recommendations and talk through some of the additional
nuances of the prioritized actions. It’s important to note that four members of
the Working Circle were absent for this final meeting. As a result, we went to
great lengths to follow up and confirm the results with the absent members. The
chart below shows the results of the prioritization exercise.
Clearly, the highest priority recommendation from the Working Circle was that
the City should commission new work in the City Hall lobby. This artwork should
be created by a member of Santa Monica First Peoples. It should present history
from different perspectives and celebrate and reframe what is traditionally
presented as “historically significant.” The Working Circle discussed the location
of the new work at length. City Hall is a center of power and the new work needs
to balance or redress the feeling of exclusion created by the existing mural.
The Working Circle also believed that the City should create interpretive panels
that condemn colonization, forced religious conversion, white supremacy
generally and the mural’s portrayal of First Peoples in particular. These panels
should be written by an Indigenous person and should be at a scale that is
unmissable for viewers of the mural. Educational and interpretive programming
about the mural should support these panels.
The Working Circle was also clear that they did not feel that these actions
would be sufficient. The top actions also include creating a formal Land
Acknowledgement process for the City of Santa Monica. The priorities were less
clear for other actions beyond the mural and the City Hall lobby, but the fact
that so many received at least one vote in the prioritization process shows how
important it was to the Working Circle that actions to address the harm of the
mural accompany the City’s actions around the mural itself.
The Working Circle process did not always achieve total consensus, but
frequently came close and did produce an overwhelming amount of agreement.
At the close of our work together, the direction was clear, the group ratified the
results collectively, and we feel confident that the process produced a collective
understanding of the way forward.
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 621 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 92
Prioritized Actions Red Dot Green Dot Total
Commission new work in the City Hall lobby 5 10
Add interpretive panels that condemn colonization, forced religious conversion and white
supremacy 1 1 3
Create educational and/or interpretative programming about the murals 1 1 3
New artwork should be created by: a member of Santa Monica First Peoples 3 3
Formal land acknowledgment protocol for City of Santa Monica 3 3
New artwork should: Present history from different perspectives and celebrate and reframe
what is traditionally presented as "historically significant"
3 3
Commission new work elsewhere in Santa Monica 2 2
The artist should: use a process typical of what Santa Monica presently does (present process
and concept to Public Art Committee of Arts Commission)
2 2
Provide cultural sensitivity, cultural humility and anti-racism training for City officials and
employees to promote a more inclusive and respectful working environment
2 2
Allocate space in the airport redevelopment project to build a First Peoples Cultural Center and
Museum
2 2
Consider ways to cede land in Santa Monica back to First Peoples 2 2
New artwork should: Address the exclusions in the "recreation" mural--Black, Brown, Asian,
working people, unemployed people, poor people who were in Santa Monica in 1939
2 2
New artwork should: Deal with themes of Indigenous presence in Santa Monica 2 2
New artwork should be created by: anyone in consultation with Santa Monica First Peoples 1 1
New artwork should be created by: multiple artists 1 1
Add a First Peoples representative to other important commissions such as Commission on
Sustainability, Environmental Justice, and the Environment, Housing Commission, Urban Forest
Task Force
1 1
Evaluate current artistic commissioning processes to ensure that they are more equitable and
inclusive
1 1
Facilitate Kuruvungna Village Springs | Gabrielino-Tongva Springs Foundation and or
Kuruvungna Springs Cultural Center & Museum via financial resources or support of land
return
1 1
Support ongoing public programming for Santa Monica histories not represented in the mural 1 1
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 622 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 93
Engagement Overview
Phase I of the Reframe: City Hall Mural process engaged people approximately
1300 times from March 2023 to November 2023. The number of unique
participants is likely smaller, considering that many people engaged with the
process in multiple ways.
• 123 respondents to March 2022 survey distributed to Santa Monica residents
and employees
• 100 youth participants in Summer 2022 Belonging in Santa Monica
workshops with Glenna Avila
• 13 Working Circle members selected from 32 applications
• Approximately 270 participants at 9 public events featuring 12 guest speakers
or facilitators
• 15 interview participants
• Approximately 240 participants at 14 presentations or listening sessions with
community groups
• At least 200 Feedback Activity sheets distributed at 5 additional community
events
• 337 respondents to the Reframe: City Hall Mural Feedback Activity
Community Listening Workshop
One of the public community listening sessions was a workshop focused on
the wide diversity of thought around the mural at historic Santa Monica City
Hall. The workshop was designed to develop participants’ empathetic listening
skills. Critically acclaimed actress, writer and theater-based educator Anu Yadav
led this workshop using a variety of large and small group exercises to surface
values, questions, challenges and hopes and dreams about the mural. The group
began to develop a long-list of possible actions regarding the mural and the
issues presented by the mural. A summary of the responses gathered at this
workshop is included here.
Values that participants brought into the workshop
• Connection
• Dignity
• Community
• Togetherness repair
• Listening
• Respect
• Visibility
• Loving kindness
• Unity
• Kindness
• Generosity
• Equality
• Transformation
• Fairness
• Seeing Indigenous people
• Honesty
Appendix C: Engagement Details
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 623 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 94
Questions that participants had about the process
grouped by themes
How can the process be more authentic, generative, effective and healing?
• How can we get more Natives/Chicanos involved in discussions?
• Who decides on the progress of the mural project?
• Will the City take this truly seriously or are we doing all of this just for
optics?
• Why do we waste time and money to answer the misknowledge and
understanding of this mural?
• I’ve been to numerous community meetings and asked 5 separate City
Managers what has changed because of community meetings, not one of
them could come up with anything. Is this just an exercise to placate the
masses or does it really matter?
• How can we come together to imagine a more just and inclusive future?
• How can we learn to treat each other better?
How can we engage First Peoples and address the impact of colonialism?
• How do the Tongva people want their story portrayed in art and around City
Hall?
• What can I do as an uninvited guest to support Native folks in Los Angeles/
Santa Monica?
• How do we make sure that Native people feel respected in this process?
• Can we agree to disagree and do what’s best for the folks most affected?
• How can we center decolonizing narratives in the neoliberal and colonized
matrix?
• While we wait/not expect the City to fully listen/support/repair, are there any
Santa Monica residents here or anywhere who would return to their house to
Tongva conservancy?
How can we tell/understand fuller histories?
• Know your town/city’s story
• What if the current murals area was turned into a museum showing the
problematic history City Hall/the City lies on?
• ¿Por qué es tan difícil reconocer la historia de que este país está formado
por todos las razas? [Why is it so difficult to recognize the history that this
country is made up of all races?]
What is the function and power of art?
• What makes this one display of art capable of bringing light to a situation
long misunderstood and ignored?
• Why is the content of public art so powerful?
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 624 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 95
Challenges that participants saw in responding
to the mural grouped by themes
Understanding each other or working together
• Getting people to let go of their preconceived prejudices
• Close-minded people who won’t facilitate sharing of public walls or spaces
• Community members who are ignoring Indigenous perspectives
• People are set in their position/perspective
• That enough white people (in City Hall power) will have enough courage to
empathize with Indians
• Everyone understand everything a little differently than everyone else
• Getting people with different understanding of the murals to respect various
points of view
Dealing with ambiguity or plurality
• Justice in this situation? I don’t think it exists
• The attachment to a singular word vs. the approach to what constitutes
“reality”
• People who do not wish to let go of the way the world has been (cannot
imagine a world where settler colonialism isn’t the center and only story told)
• Honoring all voices, history and perspectives in the next steps overcoming
people’s certainty even when things are gray
• Rewrite your story
Understanding the process
• Why do you want to change the mosaic in City Hall?
• Stop misinformation
Creating real change
• How is Santa Monica dedicated to meaningful repair? Who benefits from
these choices?
• The mural is still on Gabrielino/Tongva land where many Native people can’t
afford to live (regardless of what it ends up looking like)
• Seguir luchando contra el racismo, niveles economicos, y marginacion
[Continue to fight against racism, economic levels, and marginalization.]
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 625 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 96
What if…? questions and thoughts from participants
grouped by themes
Positive learnings from the process
• We could come to an agreement on the mural?
• We could better hear and understand each other?
• We get a legal breakdown of what’s really possible?
• The politics of the possible became our default?
Centering Indigenous or People of Color’s perspectives
• We included/centered Indigenous experience and feelings centered around
representation in public space. What if we listened to them and their
perspectives instead of centering our own?
• We could see from the place this causes the most pain and lead from there?
• People understand the impact the images of the mural have on people of
color?
• That the racist image of “Indians” is removed. –An Indian
New artwork centering different people and narratives
• Should have more murals -by a Tongva elder
• We had larger positive art displays of more dignified portrayals of local
Native folks?
• We create a new space to have one Indigenous artist to create artwork close
to City Hall?
• We do or create a new mural at City Hall (outside wall of new City Hall):
rancho, Japanese villages, Tongva people?
• This provided space for Gabrieleno/Tongva visibility and art within Santa
Monica?
• This process launched an Indigenous arts renaissance?
• The mural contained positive representations of workers, Black or brown
people, the women who worked at the Douglas airport?
• We maintain the mural at City Hall and have another art piece that tells a
different story?
• White supremacy was not the only story that is allowed to be told? What
if other stories could be at the center and could feel seen when you walk
around the city?
• Que tal si enseñamos más nuestra ciudad diversa llena de historia lucha y
colaboración? [How about showing more of our diverse city full of history,
struggle and collaboration?]
Understanding the mural and its content
• We can use digital technology to interpret the murals and provide deeper
understand of our cultural history?
• Recognize that art as art and not seeing it as something derogatory?
• People understood the history of what’s portrayed: Father Crespi’s journals,
naming the City of Santa Monica?
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 626 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 97
The mural as learning tool
• The murals were recognized as an example of behavior that must not be
repeated?
• We can use digital technology to interpret the murals and provide a deeper
understanding of our cultural history?
• We move the mural to a place like a museum that preserves it but puts it in
context with problematic histories?
• This mural proves the way for expansion into other topics necessary for all
to understand?
Repair and systems change
• The whole story of Santa Monica was being taught in schools?
• The City of Santa Monica transferred the airport to the Tongva Conservancy
in 2028 for housing and repair?
• Santa Monica used resources and took steps to engage in meaningful repair
for Native folks?
• The histories of colonialism were able to be shown/unearthed everywhere?
• We saw the whole of City Hall as an archaeological site or art installation?
• That City Hall recognized that Mexicans/Chicanos are Indians?
• The City created a “physical” Land Acknowledgment?
• The City added Tongva artists to the City collection?
• Kuruvungna Village was returned?
• The Kuruvungna bulletin was digitized?
• All staff and electeds have “Tongva history training”?
Feedback Activity Responses Detail
A spreadsheet containing the complete dataset of responses received is available
at www.santamonica.gov/reframe-city-hall-mural.
We received 337 responses to the feedback activity.
Digital Form 230
Paper Form 107
Spanish 7
Of the 337 responses, 276 or 82% of the respondents gave a valid zip code. The
majority (74%) gave a Santa Monica zip code, with most of the rest (22%) giving a
zip code in Los Angeles County.
Santa Monica 74%
Los Angeles County 226%
Other CA 3%
Other US 1%
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 627 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 98
Demographics
Rather than ask multiple demographic survey questions, we asked one open-
ended question where we asked respondents to tell us about themselves and what
perspectives might have shaped their responses to the activity. About 30% (N=100)
of respondents chose to share some aspect of their racial or ethnic identity.
Santa Monica First Peoples 9
Other Indigenous (North, Central,
and South Americas)
12
African/African-American/Black 6
Asian/Asian-American 10
Hispanic/Latino/a/e/x/Chicano/a 26
Iranian/Persian/Turkish-American 4
Person of Color/Brown 6
White 32
Respondents also chose to share many other aspects of their identities and
experiences, especially in terms of how they relate to Santa Monica. We look a
bit more closely at some of these groups of people and their responses in the
“Feedback from Particular Constituencies” part of our report.
• Multigenerational Santa Monica
resident
• Lifelong Santa Monica resident or
Born and raised here
• Longtime Santa Monica resident
• Santa Monica resident
• Born and raised in nearby Los
Angeles (Venice, Mar Vista, etc)
• Lifelong Los Angeles resident or
Born and raised in Los Angeles
• Displaced resident
• Work in Santa Monica
• Went to school in Santa Monica
• Business/property owner in Santa
Monica
• Santa Monica City employee
• Grade-schooler
• College student
• Educator/teacher
• Marquez family descendant
• Artist/art or art history major
• Historian/preservationist/history
major
• Santa Monica Conservancy
• Former SM City Commissioner
• Retired professionals
• Immigrant/child of immigrants
• Catholic/Jewish/Muslim
• LGBTQ+
Imagined New Artworks
We asked respondents to imagine an artwork to represent the history of Santa
Monica and to tell us what it would look like or include. The responses were
varied and rich, capable of filling multiple galleries with visions of Santa Monica
past, present, and future. We offer a high level review of the themes in these
responses, while noting that a deeper analysis is warranted.
• An inclusive, multicultural vision of Santa Monica: Many respondents noted
who was missing from the existing mural and proposed that new artwork
would include all of these groups of people, such as Black, Brown, Asian,
Hispanic, Indigenous, Muslim, Buddhist people; women and children;
people of different income levels; workers, farmers, and businesses.
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 628 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 99
Respondents also noted the hierarchy in the existing mural and proposed
that new artwork would include all of these types of people on “an equal
playing field” and the contributions to diverse groups of people to Santa
Monica’s history and development. Some wanted representations of more
modern aspects of what Santa Monica looks like today, including more
inclusive and updated recreation activities or landmarks like the Santa
Monica Pier. Some also mentioned that a new artwork should make people
feel welcome in civic life in Santa Monica.
• Positive and accurate representations of Santa Monica First Peoples: Respondents
also proposed artworks that would include fuller representations of
Indigenous people, culture and history. There were many ideas for the
direction of these artworks, which could include maps of significant places,
dates for Indigenous history prior to colonization, or specific Tribal cultures
and villages including Kuruvungna Springs. Some noted the importance
of representing Indigenous people in the present or recent history. Others
noted the importance of telling the true story of how colonization impacted
Santa Monica First Peoples, even while still others noted that they wanted
the truth to be told, but did not want violent images of colonization to be
portrayed. Several respondents noted that an Indigenous artist should be
commissioned for new artwork or that Santa Monica First Peoples should
direct the content of new artwork.
• The natural landscape of Santa Monica: Some respondents really appreciate
the oceans, beaches and mountains depicted in the existing mural; one even
suggested that mural could be improved by removing all the figures. Others
emphasized the native flora and fauna of the region that Santa Monica
First Peoples were and are stewards of. These respondents suggested new
artworks that would more directly feature these elements.
• Inclusive processes for the development of new artwork: Some respondents
expressed opinions on the media of new artwork or the processes by which
it would be commissioned. They were interested in artists who would
work with the community on development and making sure that the City
asked for input broadly. Some were interested in how new artwork could
be educational and could even include QR codes for further information,
especially as it related to current information on Santa Monica First Peoples.
Artwork location
We also asked respondents where they would place their imaginary artwork. The
following is an analysis of the themes in these responses, in which responses
could count towards multiple themes.
• City Hall and environs (163 responses)
• The most frequent response to this question was that the new artwork
should be at City Hall without specifying exactly where in the City Hall
complex (54 responses).
• The next most frequent response was that the new artwork should be
outside City Hall, with many people noting that City Hall is not open
during the daytime and so that artwork inside is not accessible all of the
time (27 responses).
• A very similar number of responses specifically suggested that the new
artwork be in place of the existing mural (26 responses) or near the
existing mural (21 responses).
• Another large number of respondents thought that the new artwork
should be placed in Tongva Park, echoing those who thought it should be
outside City Hall (20 responses).
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 629 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 100
• Some other respondents specified that the mural should not be in the
Historic City Hall, but in City Hall East (6 responses) or in the City Hall
courtyard (4 responses).
• A handful of other respondents had specific ideas for where new artwork
should go in City Hall 2nd floor, the entrance to the Council chamber, in
the overhead space between the two existing mural panels (4 responses).
• One respondent suggested that there should be a “land acknowledgment
seal” placed next to the City Hall seal in the lobby, separately from and in
addition to new artwork that would be placed elsewhere.
• Other prominent locations in Santa Monica (60 responses)
• Many other people felt that new artwork should be placed in an easily
accessible or highly trafficked location outside of City Hall, like the Santa
Monica Library (18), Santa Monica Pier (16), Third St Promenade (16),
Annenberg Beach House (5), Bergamot (2), the Santa Monica Airport (2)
or Civic Center (1).
• Multiple locations or everywhere (29 responses)
• Many people felt that there should be multiple new artworks spread
throughout the City, like all City properties, exteriors of important
buildings, on infrastructure like overpasses and underpasses, along
the E line, along the 10 freeway or from downtown to Bergamot. One
these responses imagined that these artworks would be connected by a
scavenger hunt.
• Public spaces and parks in Santa Monica (18 responses)
• Several other people indicated that they thought the new artwork
should be in any easily accessible and high traffic location like a park or
other non-commercial space (8 responses). Several others mentioned a
specific park or outdoor public space like Palisades Park, the Millenium
Wall, Wilshire and 26th, Douglas Park, Virginia Avenue Park, Lincoln
Park, Ocean Park, along the beach (9 responses). One person specified
that the artwork should not be at the Third St Promenade or the Pier.
• Educational facilities (10 responses)
• Another collection of responses thought that the new artwork should
be sited in an educational facility like Santa Monica College (5), Santa
Monica High School (2), every or any school or library (2) or near a
middle school (1).
• Sites of significance for the City or a particular group of people (9 responses)
• A handful of respondents were interested in siting a new artwork in a
location of significance, to enhance the meaning of the artwork. Some
mentioned specific locations where they thought an artwork would be
meaningful (5 responses): Inkwell Beach (2), Kuruvungna Springs, La
Veinte or the Pico Neighborhood, 4th Street and Pico Boulevard. Some
wanted the new artwork to be placed in consultation with or in sites
significant for the Indigenous, Asian and Latinx communities (2), and
some noted only that the artwork should be placed in a historically
significant location, “where it represents what happened” (2).
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 630 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 101
Some respondents interpreted this question to mean we were asking where they
would place the existing mural. We analyzed the themes in these responses
separately, since these responses spoke more specifically to actions around the
existing mural.
• Keep it where it is in City Hall (19 responses)
• Move it outside of City Hall so that it is visible to more people (6 responses)
• Move it to a museum or other location where it could have contextualization
(Woodlawn Cemetery, Annenberg Beach House, Library, Bergamot, Santa
Monica College) (8 responses)
• Remove from public view permanently, including burying in the ground in
front of City Hall (5 responses)
• Do nothing or place it anywhere, because the money should be spent on
something else (5 responses)
• Keep it where it is in City Hall, but modify it, add a plaque, or additional
artwork (3 responses)
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 631 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 102
Appendix D: Letters from Tribal Communities
Santa Monica City Council
Santa Monica, CA
February 25, 2023
To the City Leadership of Santa Monica,
It comes to our attention that the controversial mural is going to be once again displayed in
City Hall due to the pressure by those ignorant of our people's painful history. Ironically the
image portrayed is not one of historical accounts, but instead, an artist's conception based on
which we and the State of California know as disturbingly inaccurate storytelling.
Conception is just that: an idea that is left to the interpretation of those who view it. So let
us tell you how it is perceived and interpreted by those descendants whose ancestors were
held in captivity at the supposed era this image depicts. While you may see my ancestors
drinking water, we see slaves granted a drink while under guard. We see slaves being used for
a water contamination test while the sword of the mounted conquistador pointed directly at
the neck of the native as he condescendingly sits above, for it was those swords that struct
down many of my ancestors who were unwilling to worship a foreign religion.
What you leaders need to ask yourselves is, "what if one is to replace the natives with black
men, and Junipero Serra with a slave owner? Would it still be as appropriate? Would it still be
acceptable art?” The answer is NO. Because it brings the same content to our minds as it
would a black man if he were to see that imagery in a place where all men are supposed to be
considered equal. Or if you can, imagine the Spaniard Soldiers replaced with any other
military that had a history with the natives here and it would STILL be of negative
connotations at ANY past historical level. We ask you to please reconsider your intentions to
display this mural and have the common decency to think of those who this image offends
and help move us forward not backwards.
Chairman Nicholas Rocha
Gabrielino-Shoshone Nation of Southern California
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 632 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 103
May 12, 2023
To Whom it May Concern:
The purpose of this email is to provide the Tribal response to the Santa Monica mural. Our tribe, the San
Gabriel Band of Mission Indians is the tribe immemorial of the Los Angeles and Orange County. We are
Gabrieleno/Tongva and likely the Native Americans depicted in the mural.
We understand the mural has created conversation and varied views. To that point, the mural has
proved to be a point of education. It has created conversation that extends beyond the First People of
Los Angeles to also look at the lack of inclusivity the mural provides. We support education about our
people and increased visibility of our ancestors and continued presence.
Rather than focus on the mural itself we view this as an opportunity to discuss additional education that
can assist in promoting the awareness of our Tribe, history, and culture.
There are ways the Tribe can partner with the City Santa Monica, this is not an exhaustive list however it
does present a few ideas to extend the conversation beyond the mural:
•Land Acknowledgement: We recommend the City adopts a Land Acknowledgement
•Art: Hire First People Artists to create art
•Education: Partner with our Tribe for education about our people on our ancestral land
•Land Back: Evaluate areas of the city that can be used for Land Back to the tribe, like the Santa
Monica Airport
•Landscape: Evaluate areas where landscape can be cultivated by Native Plants and partner with
our tribe to allow for gathering
•Historical Society: Create a connection with the First People and acknowledge our presence
•Provide Museum Space to allow our people to display about our people
•Kuruvungna Springs: Although it is owned to LAUSD, facilitate the land return to our tribe
•Tribal Office Liaison: Create a staff position that allows for the city to thoughtfully consider the
First People
Santa Monica specifically is a city that is committed to justice. This was exhibited with Bruce’s Beach.
Although our tribe does feel over looked in the reparations and lack of acknowledging the First People, it
does provide hope of a moral conscious that can guide future conversations to create space and visibility
for our people on our ancestral land.
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 633 Attachment: Full Meztli Report with Recommendations - Final Report [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report, Executive Summary 1
The Reframe: City Hall Mural project emerged from protest and debates around
the Stanton MacDonald-Wright mural in the lobby of Historic Santa Monica City
Hall entitled History of Santa Monica and the Bay District. The mural has long
been a point of controversy, but in 2015 a renewed effort brought public criti-
cism for its depiction of First Peoples and settlers and its portrayal of 1930s Santa
Monica as an affluent, all-white, predominantly male, center of leisure.
Starting the Process
The City of Santa Monica began work on addressing longstanding concerns
around the WPA-era mural in the lobby of Historic City Hall with direction
from the Arts Commission in 2018. This direction informed initial planning for
the project and included a 5-point plan of committee work, programming, and
funding for new artwork commissions to address the mural. These were:
Executive Summary
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report
The City of Santa Monica Acknowledge + Reframe Together (Reframe) Initiative
centers community voices with the aim of creating a more just and equitable Santa
Monica. Through a deliberative and collaborative process, each Reframe project starts
with community members who have been historically excluded from discourse about
representation in civic spaces, especially communities of color. Reframe utilizes a
combination of art, storytelling and deep community engagement, and results in the
production of public art and civic memory projects.
This report is the culmination of Phase I of Reframe: City Hall Mural, summarizing the
process of community engagement and subsequent community recommendations.
Background
The Working Circle meets at Historic Santa
Monica City Hall lobby, photo by Kenneth
Lopez, Metzli Projects, 2023
11.A.b
Packet Pg. 634 Attachment: Executive Summary of Meztli Report and Recommendations (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report, Executive Summary 2
1. Form a Mural Subcommittee. The Subcommittee will inform and guide the
planning process managed by city staff (formed in November 2018.)
2. Issue an Art Bank call specifically requesting artworks that respond to Indig-
enous or other often overlooked histories of Santa Monica (resulting in the
Lives that Bind exhibit in City Hall East.)
3. Coordinate a panel discussion series that will host open public dialogues
with experts from diverse perspectives including Indigenous Peoples,
History, and Art (executed by Meztli Projects as part of Phase I.)
4. Commission a temporary participatory artwork in City Hall to collect
community voices (evolved into the Meztli Projects Phase I plan, lobby
display and feedback activity.)
5. Informed by the community engagement and panels series, commission
a permanent educational panel or other artistic interpretation at City Hall
to recontextualize the Macdonald-Wright mural (part of the recommenda-
tions included in this report by Meztli Projects arising from the community
engagement process of Phase I.)
City Council Direction
In the midst of the Arts Commission’s recontextualization work, Public Works
Department staff received additional direction from the City Council in May 2021
to install a temporary scrim to cover the mural prior to the return to City Hall for
in person, public meetings.
Simultaneously, the Arts Commission and Cultural Affairs were directed to
initiate a community engagement and education process around the representa-
tions depicted in the mural, as well as “engaging an artist to recontextualize the
mural with artwork that does not whitewash our past but rather celebrates the
diverse history of Santa Monica’s people, culture and its renewed commitment to
acknowledging the movement for equity, justice and respect for all.”
The Mural Ad Hoc Committee was appointed by Council on September 28, 2021
to serve as liaisons to the Landmarks and Arts Commissions to help guide the
process to recontextualize the mural. Following the community process and
informed by community input, the Ad Hoc Committee was tasked to return to
the full City Council with a set of recommendations for Council consideration
(this report). The adopted recommendations would then inform an RFP to
engage an artist or artist team to produce and install artistic recontextualiza-
tion(s). This phase was overseen by the Arts Commission under its authority as
custodians of the City’s public art collection.
In February 2022, Council directed staff to no longer install a temporary scrim
over the Stanton Macdonald-Wright mural in the lobby and instead directed staff
“to launch a process that engages and educates the community and results in
the addition of artwork within the lobby to create a more inclusive and complete
story of the City’s history and vision for the future” and directed staff to “explore
the creation of a temporary lobby display around the themes that will be
explored during the larger community education and engagement process.”
Cultural Affairs contracted with consultants Meztli Projects in 2022 to design a
City Hall Mural project Phase I to engage Santa Monica community members in
conversations both in general around representation and belonging, and with
the specific questions arising from the lobby mural.
11.A.b
Packet Pg. 635 Attachment: Executive Summary of Meztli Report and Recommendations (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report, Executive Summary 3
The Meztli Projects facilitation team is composed of four artists, curators, and
researchers: Joel Garcia, Robin Garcia, Susannah Laramee Kidd and Rosten Woo.
Meztli was selected by the City for its novel approach and expertise in public
art, qualitative research, experience working with Indigenous communities,
expansive community engagement strategies, and most importantly, for its deep
involvement in emerging conversations around authentic and new approaches to
public memory and commemoration at a local, regional and national levels.
Meztli Projects’ approach to the work:
• A “Working Circle” focus group composed of 13 individuals with strong
ties to very different parts of Santa Monica that committed to attend public
programs as well as meet as a cohort to act as an advisory body and think
tank for six months. At the end of this process, the Working Circle discussed
actions that could be taken in response to the mural. Their discussions
informed the recommendations in this report.
• A series of Public Programs on relevant themes including a bus tour of sites
of memory; virtual and in-person panel discussions about art, civic memory
and alternate histories of Santa Monica; a virtual tour of relevant educational
resources, a reflective listening workshop, and a screening of the documen-
tary Town Destroyer. Additionally, they created programming through the
perspective of First Peoples as a starting point to engage issues of equity and
inclusion.
• The creation and installation of lobby displays in Historic City Hall that
explained the project and presented updates to City Hall visitors.
• A Feedback Activity to survey members of the public about their percep-
tions of the mural and spark ideas for new public artworks.
• Interviews and Small Group Engagements with a broad spectrum of indi-
viduals who have a stake in the mural conversation or have voiced opinions
about it, subject matter experts, and local content experts. Meztli also visited
existing community meetings and had one-on-one conversations with
targeted constituencies.
Public Programs Working Circle
Convenes
Interviews & Small
Groups
Lobby Display &
Feedback Activity
Report
Over six months, the team produced 8+ public programs, conducted 14 inter-
views with key stakeholders, surveyed over 300 people across Santa Monica,
and convened a Working Circle made up of 12 individuals with ties to distinct
communities and diverse perspectives on Santa Monica’s history and public art.
The Working Circle engaged one another in an ongoing deep group process to
learn together and ultimately develop and prioritize recommendations.
Method
11.A.b
Packet Pg. 636 Attachment: Executive Summary of Meztli Report and Recommendations (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report, Executive Summary 4
The Working Circle met a total of 13 times as a group – 4 of these were in person,
with the rest taking place on Zoom. Working Circle members also attended the
public programs when possible. Meetings were facilitated to create an envi-
ronment that would allow trust to grow, make sure that all members felt that
they had space to speak, and create a “brave” space where members ask diffi-
cult questions, and bring their authentic perspective. Meztli prioritized small
group breakout discussions, as well as a “circle” format intended to make sure
everyone had equal opportunity to speak.
The public programs explored themes of Indigeneity, art history, innovative civic
memory projects, local sites of memory, alternative archives and public history
projects based in Santa Monica, reflective listening and healing through story,
and related controversies about public art and history. At each of these events,
Meztli found an audience that was fully engaged by the topic and often eager to
voice their opinions on the mural. Meztli was focused on expanding the conver-
sation to engage a larger landscape of questions and concerns around inclusion,
repair, civic memory, and public space.
Meztli also conducted extensive research using archival materials and interviews
with content experts. The findings from each of these kinds of engagement can
be found in the following report.
History of Santa Monica and the Bay District is a “petrachrome” (similar to
terrazzo) mural installed on the interior walls of the lobby of Santa Monica’s City
Hall building, designed by Stanton Macdonald-Wright, an American artist who
spent his early years in Santa Monica. The mural was commissioned through the
Works Progress Administration’s (WPA) Federal Art Project. Macdonald-Wright
also acted as the administrator of the WPA project’s Southern California divi-
sion, supervising numerous other artists and their projects. Macdonald-Wright’s
mural was completed in 1939 along with the building itself. The City of Santa
Monica owns the mural and it is part of the City’s public art collection. Santa
Monica City Hall was landmarked in 1979 and the mural was mentioned in the
designation. In 2011, the exterior of City Hall was given a supplemental land-
mark designation.
About the
Mural
Details of the mural “History of Santa Monica and the
Bay District” by Stanton Macdonald-Wright, 1939.
Southwest panel shown to the left,
Northwest panel shown to the right;
photos by Kenneth Lopez, Metzli Projects, 2023
11.A.b
Packet Pg. 637 Attachment: Executive Summary of Meztli Report and Recommendations (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report, Executive Summary 5
It appears Macdonald-Wright had no outside guidance or oversight over the
content, considering the complete absence of archival materials relating to
the mural. Typically, mural artists would be asked to submit drawings and
sketches before being permitted to produce and install public projects. The
City Hall mural has almost no paper trail, suggesting that Macdonald-Wright,
because he was both artist and commissioner, did not submit any concepts,
written descriptions, drawings, or plans to any oversight body.
Macdonald-Wright did speak explicitly about the mural in an interview about
the objects, places, and figures in the southwest side: Rogers Field, automo-
bile racing on San Vicente or Wilshire Blvd, the Douglas Building, Harry M.
Gorham, tennis players May Sutton and Tom Bundy, Will Rogers and his polo
field, as well as the artist’s own dog.
There are no recorded descriptions of who or what Macdonald-Wright was
intending to render on the northwest side of the mural. We can only speculate
about who or what is depicted, outside of the mural’s general title: History of
Santa Monica and the Bay District.
It is mostly agreed that the northwest panel includes depictions of a Fran-
ciscan monk (most likely Father Serra); a man with a helmet (possibly Gaspar
de Portola); a figure on horseback (which could represent the Spanish period
or an extension of the Portola expedition); waterfalls (perhaps Kuruvungna
Springs); and the two figures on the bottom right, who are intended to be
Indigenous people.
The largest point of interpretive contention is whether the overall scene
presented is objectionable. Throughout this process, Meztli encountered three
different major kinds of objections and three major defenses regarding the
First Peoples’ portrayal.
Objections
1. The figures are showing deference/subservience to the conquerors. This
portrayal is traumatic to survivors of generational violence because it
depicts a triumphant moment of subjugation.
2. The figures are showing collaboration and goodwill towards their soon-
to-be oppressors. This portrayal is traumatic not only because it erases a
history of extreme violence and cruelty but suggests that Native people
welcomed it.
3. The figures are generally shown as less than the other white/Spanish
figures and whether they are revered or vilified - they are not portrayed as
real humans or on the same level as one another.
Defenses
1. The figures are shown in a way that honors Native people (because they
relate to the earth, look strong, or their posture might reference East Asian
figures such as bodhisattvas).
2. The figures are helpful because they acknowledge that people lived here
before European invasion.
3. The figures are neutral and just happen to be in the higher/lower positions
they are in because it makes a dynamic composition. The figures may or
may not even be having an interaction.
These interpretations cannot be resolved definitively. While some viewers feel
no offense at seeing these images, it is beyond debate that many other viewers
most certainly do and feel very harmed by them.
Detail of the mural,
photo by Kenneth Lopez,
Metzli Projects, 2023
11.A.b
Packet Pg. 638 Attachment: Executive Summary of Meztli Report and Recommendations (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report, Executive Summary 6
Through a public feedback activity, Meztli had people engage directly with
the mural images to understand not just how they interpreted the images, but
also their emotional responses and attachments to the mural. They collected
feedback activity responses from February 6, 2023, through May 10, 2023 and
received 337 responses to the feedback activity.
The mural images are offensive, disturbing, or exclusionary. A majority of the
respondents found one or both of the mural panels to be offensive, disturbing, or
exclusionary. Overall, these respondents felt that the mural represented the hier-
archies inherent in settler colonialism and white supremacy. In the northwest
panels, they noted the lower position of the Native figures and the difference
in detail in facial expressions and clothing between the European and Native
figures. They reacted to the fact that the colonizing figures are shown facing the
viewer in active positions (mid-stride). Many people read the images as repre-
senting the Native figures in a subservient position and noted that they appear to
be faceless or turned away from the viewer.
In response to the southwest panels, respondents overwhelmingly noted the fact
all the figures represented are white and appear to be upper class. Many noted
that there is only one woman represented in either panel, and she also does not
have facial detail. Children felt they were not adequately represented either.
Many respondents found this “recreation” panel to be the more problematic
image in its representation of white elitism. Especially paired with the north-
west panel and as a representation of “Santa Monica of the 1930s/present day,” it
appears to suggest an erasure of both Indigenous people and anyone non-white
in a contemporary Santa Monica.
The mural images are beautiful or valuable, but also contain troubling aspects
that need addressing. Another, smaller group of respondents appreciated the
mural for its artistic or historical significance, but also recognized that the
images have significant flaws that require a response. Many of these respondents
found the images beautiful, particularly the natural landscape depicted and how
the images coordinate with the tile work and other architectural elements of the
City Hall lobby. These respondents often placed a value on historic preservation,
and some were aware of the New Deal origins of the artwork or other pieces by
the artist. However, the concerns articulated by these respondents mirrored the
concerns of the larger group of respondents who found the images particularly
lacking in terms of Native representation and missing large groups of Santa
Monicans.
The mural images are beautiful and there is nothing wrong with them. A roughly
similarly sized group of respondents felt that the mural is perfect, and nothing
needs to be done to address it. Many of these respondents provided less detail in
their responses, but they have mostly positive or neutral interpretations of what
is depicted in both panels. A few have negative interpretations but feel strongly
that the images are still beautiful or valuable because of their historic signifi-
cance. This group might have some minor suggestions about what is missing or
how the images could be improved, but these suggestions, if they have them,
are in the realm of “quibbles.” They are not offended by the mural. Quite the
contrary, overall, the artwork makes these respondents feel happy or proud, and
some have very strong attachments to the mural.
The mural images are neutral or negative, but as historical artifacts, they have
little bearing on the present. Another roughly similarly sized group of respon-
dents was somewhat indifferent about the artworks. Some of them interpreted
the images as having negative or exclusionary elements, but they were not
particularly concerned about the images. As historic images were created in the
past, some felt that these images are either unrelatable or have little import for
Summary of
Feedback
11.A.b
Packet Pg. 639 Attachment: Executive Summary of Meztli Report and Recommendations (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report, Executive Summary 7
today. Some felt that because they are historic images, they cannot or should not
be changed.
The discussion about the mural is a distraction from other pressing issues in
Santa Monica. A small number of respondents felt that the process of engage-
ment around the mural was a waste of time and resources. They would have
preferred that Santa Monica spent those resources addressing quality-of-life
concerns and development pressures. Some of these respondents also
expressed their strong attachment to the mural. Others were more indifferent or
felt the mural had no bearing on the present.
While no group of such diverse people will ever agree on everything, there was
substantial agreement about values among the Working Circle members and the
following values helped drive the discussion about the recommendations in this
report.
The Working Circle members were unanimous in their belief that Santa Monica
should:
• Center Santa Monica First Peoples in the City’s response to the mural.
• Do something concrete, not just words.
Nearly unanimously, the group felt it was important to:
• Center working class people and other people of color in the City’s response
to the mural
• Make sure everyone who visits the historic City Hall lobby feels welcome/like
they belong
• Make sure visitors to City Hall know that the City understands the issues that
people have with the mural.
• Make sure visitors to City Hall know that the City condemns the white
supremacy worldview depicted in the mural.
And more than three-quarters of the group felt it was important to:
• Address the material consequences of colonialism and provide consider-
ations including financial considerations to Santa Monica First Peoples.
• Protect future visitors to City Hall from the harm of seeing demeaning
images.
• Create new opportunities for artists.
• Have the City response deal with other things in addition to the mural.
• Generate meaningful public discussion and engagement around the mural.
The harm that this mural has caused is important and considerable, and
removing or covering the mural would guard against continuing this harm.
However, removal or covering does not address the harm that has already been
done. Therefore, the immediate and urgent focus should be on actions that move
towards repair for the communities harmed, such as those we have laid out in
these recommendations.
Our Working Circle discussions supported this direction, even though some in
the Working Circle would still like to see the mural removed. Several Working
Circle members reflected at the end of the process that they believed, knowing
Shared Values
Note About Actions
to Remove or
Cover the Mural
11.A.b
Packet Pg. 640 Attachment: Executive Summary of Meztli Report and Recommendations (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report, Executive Summary 8
more about the histories represented in the mural and the history of the mural,
that simply removing the mural would be letting the City “off the hook” for
tacitly endorsing the images by letting them remain unaddressed for so long.
This was a concern that was echoed by some throughout our engagement
process, including City of Santa Monica employees, feedback activity respon-
dents, and interviewees.
Just as the Council reversed their decision to cover the mural so that the mural
would be visible during the process of public engagement, continuing to leave
the mural up and uncovered can provide further opportunities to engage and
address the harm that mural has caused. However, leaving it up does create an
ongoing risk of continued harm if no other actions are taken. As a result, the
Working Circle members were in strong agreement that the City should NOT “do
nothing” with the mural, nor should the City sell or cover it at this time.
In addition, Santa Monica First Peoples are clearly among the most impacted by
this artwork, but the process to remove and or cover the mural was not initiated
by them. When advocacy efforts such as these are not rooted in the commu-
nity that faces the biggest impacts by any issue (in this case First Peoples), they
are burdened with uncompensated emotional, cultural, and intellectual labor
that responds to the issue raised within a frame that First Peoples did not help
construct. Not removing the mural offers an opportunity for First Peoples to
uplift these issues from their perspective so that the outcomes and futurity
of their reflections are driven by them. Many of the recommendations in this
report speak to the reparative actions community members signaled were of
utmost importance and were possible while keeping the mural in place for the
time being.
Therefore, the City should make clear commitments to addressing the mural,
including reasons for leaving the mural on display. This could include taking
full accountability for the mural, and making the lobby a space to publicly and
clearly condemn the attitudes made manifest by the mural.
Recommendation 1:
Commission New Artwork in City Hall Lobby
This emerged as the highest priority. The art should present history from
different perspectives and celebrate and reframe what is traditionally presented
as “historically significant.” City Hall is a center of power, and the new work
needs to balance or redress the exclusions exemplified in the existing mural.
The new work should address the exclusions in the southwest panels as well--
Brown, Black, Asian American, working-class people, unemployed people, and
poor people who were in Santa Monica in 1939 and deal with themes of Indige-
nous presence in Santa Monica. The new work should create a welcoming envi-
ronment for Indigenous people, working-class people, and people of color.
Recommendation 2:
Commission New Interpretive Panels
The City should create interpretive panels that condemn colonization, forced
religious conversion, white supremacy generally, and the mural’s portrayal of
First Peoples in particular. These panels should be written by an advisory group
including an Indigenous person and other people of color and should be at a
scale and placement that is unmissable for viewers of the mural, ideally installed
in close visual proximity and in consultation with First Peoples.
Recommendations
11.A.b
Packet Pg. 641 Attachment: Executive Summary of Meztli Report and Recommendations (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report, Executive Summary 9
Recommendation 3:
Ensure that Santa Monica’s Public Art and Commemorative
Landscape Centers Equity and Belonging
The Reframe: City Hall Mural process should be the beginning of a series of
steps taken by the City of Santa Monica to revisit the policies and processes
that govern public artwork and civic memory, including processes to support
emerging and underrepresented artists in receiving new commissions. As part
of this, the City should conduct a survey of the existing public art, monuments
and sites of civic memory throughout Santa Monica, so that gaps and opportu-
nities can be identified. The City should also commission new artwork on the
theme of inclusion and representing other views of Santa Monica’s history in a
location that is much more publicly visible and meaningful.
BEYOND THE MURAL AND NEW ARTWORK
There was an extremely high level of agreement amongst the Working Circle
that the City’s response should not be limited to actions related to the cultural
sphere or the City Hall Lobby and that the City should act to materially address
issues related to the exclusions seen in the mural. Centering the perspectives of
First Peoples and “doing something concrete” were highly rated values
consistent with the following recommendations. Implementation of the
following recom-mendations would require collaboration and resources and
may be considered in the context of developing a citywide Equity Plan.
Recommendation 4:
Create additional educational materials about the mural
Many believe that the mural can serve an educational purpose. All agreed that
this would be a deep challenge and not something to be taken on lightly. Many
felt that City staff are ill-equipped to do this work and would need substantive
partnerships with other institutions to make this meaningful. This is a good
opportunity for Santa Monica to invest in the creative and scholarly
development of underrepresented communities.
Recommendation 5:
Expand DEI+ Trainings for City Staff
City should build on actions taken since its Racial Equity Statement of 2020,
which included the formation of an Office of Equity and Inclusion and the
subsequent launch of an Equity Plan process. It should expand DEI training for
all City staff. To be successful, future efforts should focus on implementation
strategies and tools for staff, moving away from a white worldview and
centering the overlapping experiences, shared spaces and mutual accountability
of under-represented peoples.
Recommendation 6:
Adopt a Citywide Land/Territory Acknowledgment Initiative
Land Acknowledgements, although extremely important, can become diluted as
these acknowledgments are the bare minimum of the protocols from which they
originate. Santa Monica has an opportunity to adopt a city-wide land acknowl-
edgment initiative that includes the actionable practices such as a new Indige-
nous Advisory Council (IAC) to help advise its decision-makers on issues similar
to those raised through Reframe.
11.A.b
Packet Pg. 642 Attachment: Executive Summary of Meztli Report and Recommendations (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report, Executive Summary 10
Recommendation 7:
Improve Representation on Santa Monica Committees
As of the writing of this report there are no First Peoples serving as part of the
Arts Commission or Landmarks Commission, among other bodies. Some of the
issues raised from the City Hall Mural could have been mitigated if members of
the communities excluded from and/or misrepresented in the mural had been
included in these kinds of decision-making bodies.
Recommendation 8:
Facilitate Land Back in Santa Monica
There is an opportunity for Santa Monica to develop creative ways for First
Peoples communities to practice sovereignty and self-determination. Santa
Monica could partner with First Peoples to create opportunities for their
members to return home.
Recommendation 9:
Facilitate Kuruvungna Springs Relationships
While not in Santa Monica, Working Circle members had strong agreement that
the City of Santa Monica continue to build relationships with the Kuruvungna
Springs Foundation and support their efforts to have the land transferred back to
them.
The mural and the controversy around it have created a rare and critical focal
point of civic energy. The key is not to squander the moment and let it further
perpetuate ill-will and distrust, but rather to use it to move towards equity,
justice, and a better Santa Monica. The mural has provided an incredible oppor-
tunity to reframe the conversation.
Authors
Meztli Projects Facilitation Team: Joel Garcia, Robin Garcia,
Susannah Laramee Kidd and Rosten Woo
Reframe Working Circle Members
Tafari Alan, Brock Ramon Alvarado, Miguel Bravo, Lizette Hernandez, Bob
Knight, Ruthann Lehrer, Kimberly Marshall, Mona Morales Recalde, Sharon
Reyes, Emily Silver, Cathy Taylor, Paolo Velasco, and Zora Zajicek
Santa Monica Arts Commission Mural Subcommittee
Public Art Committee Member Francois Bar and Arts Commissioners Michael
Baroff, Kathleen Benjamin (Working Circle liaison), Janeen Jackson, Iao
Katagiri and Deepa Subramanian
Santa Monica Landmarks Commission Mural Subcommittee
Commissioners Roger Genser (Working Circle liaison), Amy Green, and
Dolores Sloan
Santa Monica City Council Mural Ad Hoc Committee
Councilmembers Christine Parra and Oscar de la Torre
Credits
City of
Santa Monica
Acknowledgements
Reframe: City Hall Mural Project Phase I is a project of
the City of Santa Monica.
11.A.b
Packet Pg. 643 Attachment: Executive Summary of Meztli Report and Recommendations (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
11.A.f
Packet Pg. 644 Attachment: City Hall Historic Designation documents (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Page 1 of 3
SUPPLEMENTAL DETERMINATION OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
LANDMARKS COMMISSION ESTABLISHING EXTERIOR CHARACTER DEFINING
FEATURES FOR THE CITY HALL SITE
I. PURPOSE
The Landmarks Commission hereby prepares and adopts a Supplemental Determination
that identifies the contributing historic elements and features of the landscape and grounds
surrounding Santa Monica City Hall (“City Hall”) relative to its status as a designated City
Landmark.
II. REGULATORY SETTING
Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) Section 9.36.060(a) states that the Landmarks
Commission shall have the power to “Designate Structures of Merit, Landmarks and
Landmark Parcels, and to make any preliminary or supplemental designations,
determinations, or decisions, as additions thereto, in order to effectuate the purposes” of
Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 9.36. SMMC 9.36.120 (f) further states that the
Landmarks Commission has the power to make preliminary or supplemental designations,
determinations or decisions, as additions to its designation determinations.
III. HISTORICAL CONTEXT AND SETTING
The City Hall building dominates the broad, relatively symmetrical and formal landscape
which visually supports the structure’s monumentality and prominence on the site. The
building exterior is an example of the 1930s PWA Moderne style of architecture, which
emphasized balanced massing, smooth lines, symmetrical fenestration, faceted corners,
and the use of understated decorative elements. The architectural composition of City Hall
consists of a three‐story central pavilion flanked by two‐and‐a‐half story symmetrical wings.
The building’s distinctive architectural features include the stepped and faceted mass,
stylized vertical fluting, horizontal streamline detailing, a variety of decorative ornamental
features and tile work. The foot print, scale, form, balanced massing, classical proportions
and concrete masonry construction of the building are the primary architectural and design
characteristics that have a direct relationship with the landscape setting. The projecting
central pavilion, the L‐shaped wings to the north and south with recessed courts, a rear
U‐shaped courtyard to the east, and the faceted treatment of the building’s corners, all
directly influence the figure/ground relationship of the architecture with the surrounding
landscape. Likewise, the site layout, design, and proportions of the various landscape
components relates directly to the building’s footprint, scale, massing, design composition,
and distinctive monumental architecture.
City Hall is oriented facing west toward Main Street and is situated in the center of a
generally flat site which consists of approximately 6.24 acres. The existing setting for Santa
Monica City Hall is defined by its open character and symmetrical organization which
presently appears much as it did during the historic period of significance (1938‐1957). The
City of Santa Monica Landmarks Commission
May 23, 2011 Meeting
11.A.f
Packet Pg. 645 Attachment: City Hall Historic Designation documents (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Page 2 of 3
landscape setting is distinguished by an expansive front lawn that encompasses the
majority of the western front of the site. The symmetrical layout of the sidewalks, planters
and planting beds reinforces the architectural design of the PWA Moderne City Hall, and
the original Palm tree plantings still enliven the west and south facades of the building an d
define the northern border of the site.
IV. CITY OF SANTA MONICA LANDMARKS COMMISSION ACTIONS
A. On October 16, 1979, the Landmarks Commission designated the structure
and site known as Santa Monica City Hall as a City Landmark pursuant to
Landmark Designation Criteria #1, #2, #3, #4, and #5 identified in SMMC
Section 9.36.100. (Attachment A)
B. On January 9, 2011, the Landmarks Commission filed a request to
supplement the Landmark designation of City Hall to identify exterior
character defining features.
C. On May 9, 2011, the Landmarks Commission reviewed and considered the
analysis presented in the “Character Defining Features Analysis – Santa
Monica City Hall Landscape and Grounds”, prepared by PCR Services
Corporation, dated April 2011, and conducted a public hearing in accordance
with the requirements established by Santa Monica Municipal Code Section
9.36.120(f), and voted by motion to adopt this supplemental determination
identifying and establishing the character defining features of the landscape
and grounds surrounding City Hall.
V. ESTABLISHMENT OF CONTRIBUTING HISTORIC ELEMENTS AND FEATURES
OF THE LANDSCAPE AND GROUND SURROUNDING CITY HALL
The Landmarks Commission hereby determines that the following are the character
defining features of the City Hall site:
A. Windmill Palms in the north and south gardens at front of City Hall;
B. Concrete planters flanking the front entrance of City Hall;
C. Dedication marker for City Hall;
D. Rectangular planting bed and brickwork in the center of the main entrance
walkway;
E. Concrete curbs and brickwork flanking the main entrance walkway;
F. Concrete sidewalks and brickwork throughout much of the site including the
scoring pattern, proportions, textures, color and finish;
G. Concrete entry steps and brickwork at the front, rear, and south side;
H. Lawn areas (north and south) in the front of City Hall and at the southeast
corner of the site;
I. Council Parking lot and design configuration, north of City Hall;
J. Canary Island Date Palms (3) in the Council Parking lot area;
K. Mexican Fan Palms (7) overlooking the Santa Monica Freeway and adjacent
to the south elevation;
L. The steeply-graded terraced hill, adjacent to the Freeway and remnants of
11.A.f
Packet Pg. 646 Attachment: City Hall Historic Designation documents (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Page 3 of 3
the retaining walls;
M. Foundation planting beds surrounding City Hall;
N. Flagpole;
O. Memorial Rose Garden and dedication marker; and
P. Symmetrical configuration of the landscape and hardscape elements at the
front of City Hall
VI. RECORD OF DETERMINATION
I hereby certify that the above supplemental determination to its October 16, 1979
designation of City Hall as a City Landmark accurately reflects the determination of
the Landmarks Commission of the City of Santa Monica on May 9, 2011 as
determined by the following vote:
AYES: Bach, Fresco, Genser, Kaplan, Lehrer, Shari, Chair Berley
ABSTAIN: none
ABSENT: none
NAYES: none
Respectfully Submitted
May 23, 2011
____________________________________
Ruth Shari, Chair Pro-Tem
Attest:
____________________________
Scott Albright, AICP
Landmarks Commission Secretary
11.A.f
Packet Pg. 647 Attachment: City Hall Historic Designation documents (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
CHARACTER DEFINING FEATURES ANALYSIS
SANTA MONICA CITY HALL
LANDSCAPE AND GROUNDS
1685 MAIN STREET
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street, Room 212
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Prepared by
Margarita J. Wuellner, Ph.D.
PCR Services Corporation
233 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 130
Santa Monica, California 90401
April 2011
11.A.f
Packet Pg. 648 Attachment: City Hall Historic Designation documents (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
11.A.f
Packet Pg. 649 Attachment: City Hall Historic Designation documents (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
City of Santa Monica Santa Monica City Hall
PCR Services Corporation. i
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Location and Setting ................................................................................................................................................................ 2
1.2 Research and Survey Methods ............................................................................................................................................ 3
2.0 HISTORICAL CONTEXT ............................................................................................................................................ 7
2.1 Santa Monica ............................................................................................................................................................................... 7
2.2 Ocean Park ................................................................................................................................................................................... 8
2.3 Transportation Improvements in Santa Monica .......................................................................................................... 8
2.4 City Beautiful Movement ..................................................................................................................................................... 10
2.5 Moderne Architecture .......................................................................................................................................................... 13
2.6 Landscape Architecture ....................................................................................................................................................... 14
2.7 Parks, Places and Spaces in Santa Monica .................................................................................................................... 15
2.7 Santa Monica City Hall: Building and Landscape ...................................................................................................... 17
2.8 Santa Monica City Hall Landscape: Events and Public Use ................................................................................... 23
3.0 CHARACTER DEFINING FEATURES ANALYSIS .................................................................................................... 48
Existing Description ...................................................................................................................................................................... 48
Character Defining Features ...................................................................................................................................................... 50
APPENDIX A ‐ LANDMARK DESIGNATION FOR SANTA MONICA CITY HALL
11.A.f
Packet Pg. 650 Attachment: City Hall Historic Designation documents (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
April 2011
City of Santa Monica Santa Monica City Hall
PCR Services Corporation. ii
List of Figures
Figure 1 Regional Location and Project Vicinity Map ............................................................................................................ 3
Figure 2 Assessors Tract Map .......................................................................................................................................................... 4
Figure 3 Site Map ................................................................................................................................................................................... 5
Figure 4 Vicinity of City Hall in 1895 (Sanborn Map, Santa Monica, 1895, Sheet 10) ........................................... 25
Figure 5 Future City Hall site in 1918, showing former Olson Lumber Co. on future City Hall site with
proposed Main Street to west, low land to north, and steep gulch to southeast (Sanborn Map,
Santa Monica, 1918, Sheet 17) .................................................................................................................................... 26
Figure 6 View showing area of “low land” northeast of Colorado Boulevard and Ocean Avenue, with Pacific
Electric car traveling west through arroyo; future City Hall site is on high land to south on right
side of photo, and Patten & Davies Lumber Co. appears to north in background (Santa Monica
Public Library Image Archives) .................................................................................................................................. 27
Figure 7 City Hall site in 1950, showing Olympic Boulevard and Sears Roebuck Co. to north, Private Street
to south, and Veteran’s Temporary Housing Project to west (Sanborn Map, Santa Monica, 1950,
Sheet 17) .............................................................................................................................................................................. 28
Figure 8 City Hall under construction, November 16, 1939 (Santa Monica Public Library Image Archives)29
Figure 9 City Hall, 1939, view to northeast, showing new concrete sidewalks, freshly planted concrete
planters flanking the front entrance, and palm trees at north border of site (Santa Monica Public
Library Image Archives) ................................................................................................................................................ 30
Figure 10 City Hall, 1939, showing freshly sodded front lawn and concrete sidewalks; planters at front
entrance are still empty; two palm trees appear northwest of the building; furnishings include
wood benches along the main entrance walk and along the front of the building; an additional
palm was located at the southwest corner of the lawn .................................................................................... 31
Figure 11 First Floor Plan, Santa Monica City Hall, August 4, 1939 (Donald B. Parkinson and J. M. Estep
Associated Architects) .................................................................................................................................................... 32
Figure 12 Post Card, 1939, depicting New City Hall, Santa Monica, California (Santa Monica Public Library
Image Archives) ................................................................................................................................................................ 33
Figure 13 New City Hall, November 23, 1939, prior to dedication (Los Angeles Public Library) ....................... 34
Figure 14 City Hall Entrance, 1939, showing daisies in planting bed at front entrance, concrete planters
flanking front entrance (still unplanted), and brick steps to entrance (Santa Monica Public
Library Image Archives) ................................................................................................................................................ 35
Figure 15 City Hall, 1940, showing palms planted along south elevation and at southeast corner of building,
decorative foundation plantings in the rear courtyard, and palm tree was planted at northeast
corner of the parking area north of the Jail (City of Santa Monica). ............................................................ 36
Figure 16 City Hall, ca. 1940, plantings at northwest corner of building (City of Santa Monica). ....................... 36
Figure 17 Historic appearance of Santa Monica City Hall, ca. 1940‐1941, after landscaping had been
completed (Santa Monica Public Library Image Archives) ............................................................................. 37
Figure 21 City Hall during the 1950s (Santa Monica Public Library Image Archives) ............................................. 41
Figure 23 Aerial View, City Hall in 1975 (Annual Report for the Fiscal Year 1974‐1975) ..................................... 43
Figure 24 City Hall in 1975, view to north (Annual Report for the Fiscal Year 1974‐1975) ................................. 44
Figure 25 City Hall entrance, ca. 1982, before the installation of the succulent garden (Los Angeles Public
Library) ................................................................................................................................................................................. 45
Figure 26 City Hall entrance, 1983 (Los Angeles Public Library) ..................................................................................... 46
Figure 28 Landscaping ........................................................................................................................................................................ 53
Figure 29 General view from northwest corner of site toward main entrance, view to southeast .................... 54
Figure 30 General view from southwest corner of site toward main entrance, view to northeast .................... 54
Figure 31 General view of main entrance, view to southeast ............................................................................................. 55
Figure 32 Veterans Rose Garden (1951) in original Planting Bed (1939), view to east ......................................... 55
11.A.f
Packet Pg. 651 Attachment: City Hall Historic Designation documents (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
List of Figures (Continued)
City of Santa Monica Santa Monica City Hall
PCR Services Corporation. iii
Figure 33 Planting Bed along north side of Main Entrance Walk, view to east ........................................................... 56
Figure 34 Planting Bed along south side of Main Entrance Walk, view to east .......................................................... 56
Figure 35 Intersection of Main Entrance Walk with sidewalk along Main Street, view to north ........................ 57
Figure 36 Entrance to City Hall, view to southeast ................................................................................................................. 57
Figure 37 Foundation plantings along south elevation, view to east .............................................................................. 58
Figure 38 Foundation plantings along west elevation, view to south ............................................................................. 59
Figure 39 Foundation plantings along west elevation, view to north ............................................................................. 59
Figure 40 Curved row of mature palms at northern border of site, view to northwest ......................................... 60
Figure 41 Mature palms and one tree at northeast corner of parking area, view to northeast ........................... 60
Figure 42 Remaining tree plantings at north entrance to lawn from parking lot, view to north ........................ 61
Figure 43 Mature exotic tree in North Garden, view to south ............................................................................................ 61
Figure 44 Ornamental tree plantings near parking area, view to northwest .............................................................. 62
11.A.f
Packet Pg. 652 Attachment: City Hall Historic Designation documents (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
11.A.f
Packet Pg. 653 Attachment: City Hall Historic Designation documents (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
City of Santa Monica Santa Monica City Hall
PCR Services Corporation. 1
CHARACTER DEFINING FEATURES ANALYSIS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of a character defining features survey and analysis of the landscape and
grounds associated with Santa Monica City Hall, Santa Monica, California. This cultural landscape analysis
was conducted by PCR Services at the request of the City of Santa Monica (City). The park site to the west
across Main Street from City Hall is currently in design phase for the Palisades Garden Walk Project. This
future park project also includes the landscape located on the front portion of the City Hall site. Because of
the potential for the Palisades Garden Walk project to impact the landscape associated with the City Hall,
PCR Services was asked to conduct a character‐defining features analysis to identify the contributing historic
elements and features of the landscape and grounds surrounding City Hall. This analysis will be used by the
City in their review of the proposed project design to ensure the Palisades Garden Walk/Town Square
project is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties
with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitation, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (the
Standards), (Weeks and Grimmer, 1995).
The City Hall building and site at 1685 Main Street was designated City of Santa Monica Historic Landmark
#10 in 1979. The property was designated under criteria 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the City’s Landmark Ordinance.
A copy of the designation is provided in Appendix A. The building symbolizes elements of the cultural, social,
economic, and political history of the City because it has been the center of city government since 1939 and
because it was constructed by the Works Progress Administration (WPA). It has aesthetic value because of
the notable exterior and interior tile work and the interior murals designed by Stanton McDonald‐Wright. It
is associated with important historic personages and events in local history. It embodies the distinguishing
architectural characteristics of the Classical Moderne style and is representative of the work of notable
architects Donald B. Parkinson and J. M. Estep.
The property was formally determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places in 1996
as the result of survey conducted for FEMA after the Northridge earthquake by Historic Resources Group
(HRG) to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). By virtue of this
determination, the City Hall was included in the California Register of Historical Resources. A historic
structure report was prepared by HRG for Santa Monica City Hall in 2003 which identified the existing
historic architectural features of the building and assessed their condition, but did not analyze the landscape.
The period of significance identified for Santa Monica City Hall in the historic structure report was 1938 to
1951, encompassing the design and construction campaign and extending to the date of last alteration, which
assumed significance over time, and was close to the fifty year mark.1 According to the historic structure
report, the period of significance did not include additions and alterations after 1951 that have been
determined non‐significant.2
To date, the period of significance and themes associated with the City Hall landscape have not been defined
sufficiently to support a thorough and accurate character‐defining features analysis of the historic landscape.
1 Personal communication with Christy Johnson McAvoy, Historic Resources Group, March 14, 2011.
2 Historic Resources Group, Santa Monica City Hall, Historic Structure Report (January 17, 2003).
11.A.f
Packet Pg. 654 Attachment: City Hall Historic Designation documents (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Character Defining Features Analysis April 2011
City of Santa Monica Santa Monica City Hall
PCR Services Corporation. 2
The Section 106 survey and historic structure report used the National Register’s 50‐year threshold at the
time of the survey, and the period of significance was broadly defined in the landmark designation due to the
continuing importance of City Hall as the center of government and its association with significant
personages. Based upon this information, the landscape generally has two periods of significance, 1939‐
1940 for architecture, art and design, and “since 1939” for cultural, social and political history and historic
personages as a part of City Hall. However, this period of significance is too broadly defined to support a
thorough and accurate character‐defining features analysis of the City Hall landscape. Therefore, it was
necessary to develop a historic context, identify the period of significance and themes associated with the
landscape, and determine the historic appearance of landscape during the period of significance before an
accurate character‐defining features analysis could be completed. The results of this research and analyses
are presented below.
1.1 Location and Setting
The Santa Monica City Hall (City Hall) is located at 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California (see Figure 1,
Project Location Map). The City Hall faces Main Street to the west, and is bounded by 4th Street on the east,
State Highway Route 10 on the north, and Olympic Drive on the south. City Hall is situated at the north
corner of Lot 1, Block 3 of the Bandini Tract (Assessor’s ID 4290‐012‐902) (see Figure 2, Assessor’s Tract
Map).
The City Hall is oriented facing west toward Main Street and is situated in the center of a generally flat site
which consists of approximately 6.24 acres (see Figure 3, Site Map). The landscape setting for City Hall is
distinguished by an expansive front lawn that encompasses the majority of the front part of the site. The
main entrance to the site includes a large rose garden flanked by symmetrical entrance walks. Concrete
sidewalks provide for pedestrian circulation across the City Hall site and around the building. Vehicular
access is via drive ways at the northwest and southeast corners of the site, and vehicular circulation and
parking is served by the Council parking area at the north end of City Hall and the alley that runs behind the
building to the east. Existing landscape plantings include approximately 20 tall palms and a variety of trees,
shrubs, succulents, and ornamental plantings. There are concrete planters flanking the main entrance to the
building, and foundation plantings exist along the front and side elevations of the building. Tall Windmill
Palms enliven the front façade of City Hall and a couple of Mexican Fan Palms punctuate the south facade.
The northern border of the site overlooking the Santa Monica Freeway (I‐10) is screened by a tall hedge and
features a row of distinctive mature Mexican Fan Palms; and several tall Canary Island Date Palms mark the
northeast corner of the site. The new City Police Headquarters is situated immediately behind City Hall to
the east. The entrance at the south end of the building is beautified by a contemporary designed landscape
featuring an infinity edge reflecting pool, cascade and lower pool. The southern border of the site features a
contemporary landscape improvement and a recently updated streetscape along Olympic Drive. The park
site for the Palisades Garden Walk Project is located to the west across Main Street from City Hall. The
surrounding environment south of City Hall includes the Superior Court Building at 1725 Main and the Santa
Monica Civic Auditorium (Landmark) at Main and Pico. Other notable structures in the vicinity include Main
Street Bridge across the Santa Monica Freeway (Route 1) just north of City Hall; Sears Roebuck and Company
(Landmark) situated across the freeway to the north; the McClure Tunnel over Route 1; and Santa Monica
Pier (Landmark) to the northwest.
11.A.f
Packet Pg. 655 Attachment: City Hall Historic Designation documents (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
11.A.f
Packet Pg. 656 Attachment: City Hall Historic Designation documents (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
11.A.fPacket Pg. 657Attachment: City Hall Historic Designation documents (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
FIGURE
Source: Aerial Express, 2009; PCR Services Corporation, 2010.
0 200 400 Feet
Character Defining Features Analysis, Landscape and Grounds, Santa Monica City Hall, Santa Monica, California
Site Map
PROJECT SITE
3Mai
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
4t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
Olympic DriveColorado Avenue10
1
O
c
e
a
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
11.A.f
Packet Pg. 658 Attachment: City Hall Historic Designation documents (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Character Defining Features Analysis April 2011
City of Santa Monica Santa Monica City Hall
PCR Services Corporation. 6
1.2 Research and Survey Methods
A pedestrian survey of the City Hall site was conducted on January 18, 2011 by Margarita J. Wuellner, Ph.D.,
Director of Historic Resources, PCR Services Corporation. The survey was conducted in accordance with the
Office of Historic Preservation, Instructions for Recording Historical Resources (March 1995), J. Timothy and
Genevieve P. Keller, “How to Evaluate and Nominate Designed Historic Landscapes,” National Register
Bulletin 18 (U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1985), and Charles A. Birnbaum, ASLA,
“Protecting Cultural Landscapes: Planning, Treatment and Management of Historic Landscapes,” Preservation
Briefs 36 (National Park Service, 1994). The site was physically examined to locate contributing landscape
features remaining from the period of significance (1938‐1951) associated with Santa Monica City Hall. The
Survey Area (Figure 3) included the City Hall site and immediate vicinity. The survey involved visual
examination, photographic documentation in color 35mm digital photographs, and physical identification of
existing landscape features. Notable plantings, landscape features and furnishings within the Survey Area
are described in the landscape analysis and a list of character‐defining features is provided in Chapter 3.
Survey and research is essential before undertaking any project involving a historic landscape. Findings help
to identify a landscape’s historic period of development and bring greater understanding of the associations
and characteristics that make the landscape or history significant. Research findings provide a foundation to
make educated decisions for work and can facilitate ongoing maintenance and management operations,
interpretation and eventual compliance requirements.
3 Historical research included review of the City
records on the local Landmark designation for City Hall, the Historic Structure Report for Santa Monica City
Hall (2003), a reports and research associated with the City Hall Jail Retrofit project on file at PCR, review of
historic maps and photographs in local library and City collections, and review of local newspapers and
published histories. Research was conducted for the development of the historic context for the City Hall
landscape and to document the historic appearance of the property, presented in Chapter 2. No historic
planting plans were available from the City and building permits provide no information on landscape
improvements. If more information is desired in the future about particular individual features, further
research is recommended in City records (i.e. meeting minutes and budget appropriations) and the records
of the City Forester, if available, for detailed information on specific landscape improvements.
Historic landscapes include residential gardens and community parks, scenic highways, rural communities,
institutional grounds, cemeteries, battlefields and botanical gardens. They are composed of a number of
character defining features which individually or collectively contribute to the landscape’s physical
appearance as they have evolved over time. In addition to vegetation and topography, cultural landscapes
may include water features such as ponds, streams and fountains; circulation features such as roads, paths,
steps and walls; buildings; and furnishings, such as fences, benches, lights and sculptural objects. Most
historic properties have a cultural landscape component that is integral to the significance of the resource. A
historic property consists of all its cultural resources – landscapes, buildings, archaeological sites and
collections.
Historic landscapes fall into several categories, designed landscapes, vernacular landscapes, historic sites,
and ethnographic landscapes. A designed landscape, such as the City Hall site, is a landscape that was
3 Charles A. Birnbaum, ASLA, Preservation Briefs: 36, Protecting Cultural Landscapes: Planning, Treatment and Management of
Historic Landscapes, Technical Preservation Services, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1994
(http://www.nps.gov/hps/tps/briefs/brief36.htm, accessed February 4, 2011).
11.A.f
Packet Pg. 659 Attachment: City Hall Historic Designation documents (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
April 2011 Character Defining Features Analysis
City of Santa Monica Santa Monica City Hall
PCR Services Corporation. 7
consciously designed or laid out by a landscape architect, master gardener, architect, or horticulturalist
according to design principles, or an amateur gardener working in a recognized style or tradition. 4 Designed
historic landscapes are classified according to type. The landscape associated with City Hall can be classified
as civic design.5 Contributing character‐defining landscape features identified on the City Hall site are those
resources which are associated with the period of significance and retain integrity (location, setting, design,
materials, workmanship, feeling, and association).
2.0 HISTORICAL CONTEXT
The existing landscape setting associated with the City Hall site is associated with several important
historical themes developed below, including the history of the communities of Santa Monica and Ocean
Park; Transportation Improvements in Santa Monica; the City Beautiful Movement; Moderne Architecture;
Landscape Architecture; development of public Parks, Places and Spaces in Santa Monica; the Santa Monica
City Hall: Building and Landscape; and the Santa Monica City Hall Landscape: Events and Public Use.
2.1 Santa Monica6
In 1875, the original town site of Santa Monica was surveyed, including all of the land extending from
Colorado Street on the south to Montana Avenue on the north, and from 26th Street on the east to the Pacific
Ocean on the west. Between 1893 and the 1920s, the community operated as a tourist attraction, visited
primarily by wealthy patrons. During this period, the areas located just outside of the incorporated city
limits were semi‐rural in setting and typified by scattered residences. After the advent of the automobile in
the 1920s, Santa Monica experienced a building boom, which included the development of the area known as
Ocean Park, located to the south of the downtown commercial district.
During the 1880s, Santa Monica’s downtown commercial district consisted primarily of development along
Second Street from Utah (Broadway) to about a half block north. By 1888, a hotel and theater occupied the
northeast corner of Third Street and Broadway. In the 1890s, two of the City’s three most distinctive
commercial buildings of the period were constructed along Third Street: the Keller Block (Carroll H. Brown,
architect) which is still extant at the southwest corner of Broadway; the Bank of Santa Monica Building
(demolished) at the southeast corner of Santa Monica Boulevard; and the Whitworth Block (altered) at 1460
Second Street.
The Central Business District developed early in the history of Santa Monica as the location of commercial
businesses catering to both local residents and the City’s many visitors. Due to the rise of the Central
Business District, the southern part of Santa Monica became the hub of activity. Today, Second Street and
Third Street still comprise Santa Monica’s commercial core. It is roughly bounded by Wilshire Boulevard,
Second Street, Colorado Avenue, Fourth Street south of Santa Monica Boulevard and Seventh Street north of
4 Ibid.
5 J. Timothy Keller, ASLA, and Genevieve P. Keller, National Register Bulletin 18, How to Evaluate and Nominate Designed Historic
Landscapes, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1985, (http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/
pdfs/nrb18.pdf, accessed February 4, 2011).
6 Portions of this section were adapted from the “Santa Monica Historical Resources Inventory 1985‐1986, Final Report, pp. 28‐59
and State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation, Historic Resources Inventory Form Update, Central Business
District and Third Street Promenade. Prepared by Tearnen, Bricker, and Field, 1998.
11.A.f
Packet Pg. 660 Attachment: City Hall Historic Designation documents (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Character Defining Features Analysis April 2011
City of Santa Monica Santa Monica City Hall
PCR Services Corporation. 8
Santa Monica Boulevard. Many buildings within the district are commercial, interspersed with residential
uses. The most prevalent styles are those associated with the 1920s and 1930s, including: Spanish Colonial,
Art Deco, and Classically‐influenced buildings. These buildings range from one to twelve stories in height
and are clad in a variety of materials, such as stucco, brick, and concrete.
2.2 Ocean Park
Ocean Park was a seashore amusement center at the southerly limits of Santa Monica, part of which is within
the corporate limits of Santa Monica, and the remainder of which lies in present‐day Venice, annexed to Los
Angeles. Ocean Park developed somewhat independently from the rest of Santa Monica. Separated from the
city’s commercial core by an arroyo, Ocean Park was initially oriented toward the beach. Within the city of
Ocean Park, Abbot Kinney created his unique Venice resort, approximately a mile south of Santa Monica.7
Abbot Kinney and his associates erected a series of piers and other tourist attractions in the late 19th
century. After the turn of the century, building activities in Ocean Park intensified. Recognizing that a rail
link to Los Angeles would be the key to development of the area, in 1893 Kinney donated land for the right‐
of‐way and a depot for the Santa Fe railroad. The community took the name Ocean Park in 1895. The Ocean
Park Pier was developed in 1898, with adjacent Pier Street as one of the area’s early commercial streets.8
Main Street became the commercial corridor of the developing Ocean Park community, servicing both
permanent residents and visitors who lived in the cottages, bungalows, and courts that sprang up as far east
as Lincoln and beyond. By the close of the teens, a substantial portion of Ocean Park was improved. By the
1930s, buildings occupied most of the available parcels in the area and older improvements were removed
to provide space for newer development. Ocean Park assumed its modern identity during the 1930s as a
year‐round community.9 This change shifted the focus of commercial centers from Pier Avenue to Main
Street; and commercial establishments of the period appear to have catered to Ocean Park residents, rather
than tourists.10 Ocean Park’s established pattern of small‐scale development continued in the post‐World
War II era. Today, a multi‐layered and diverse historical legacy in terms of age, styles, and building types
characterizes Ocean Park.11
2.3 Transportation Improvements in Santa Monica12
The Main Street Bridge was built to connect the downtown commercial core with the area to the south of the
arroyo and is associated with early 20th century transportation improvements in the City of Santa Monica.
7 Charles Sumner Warren, Santa Monica Community Book, 1944, 35‐37.
8 Fred E. Basten, Santa Monica Bay: Paradise by the Sea: a Pictorial History of Santa Monica, Venice, Marina del Rey, Ocean Park,
Pacific Palisades, Topanga & Malibu, Hennessey + Ingalls: Los Angeles, 1997.
9 Myers, William A., and Ira L. Swett. Trolleys to the Surf; The Story of the Los Angeles Pacific Railway. Glendale: Interurban
Publications, Inc., 1976.
10 Leslie Heumann, “Department of Parks and Recreation series 523 form, 2000-2100 Blocks of Third Street District.”
11 Fred E. Basten, Santa Monica Bay: Paradise by the Sea: a Pictorial History of Santa Monica, Venice, Marina del Rey, Ocean Park,
Pacific Palisades, Topanga & Malibu, Hennessey + Ingalls: Los Angeles, 1997.
12 Portions of this section were adapted from the “Historic Resources Technical Report Santa Monica Civic Center Specific Plan:
Historic Resources Survey, Evaluation, and Analysis of Project Impacts,” prepared by PCR Services Corporation for the City of
Santa Monica, March 2004.
James W. Lunsford, The Ocean and the Sunset, The Hills and the Clouds: Looking at Santa Monica. 1983.
Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, City of Santa Monica.
Paula A. Scott, Santa Monica: A History on the Edge, Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing, 2004.
11.A.f
Packet Pg. 661 Attachment: City Hall Historic Designation documents (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
April 2011 Character Defining Features Analysis
City of Santa Monica Santa Monica City Hall
PCR Services Corporation. 9
The Bridge is noted for its role in providing increased connectivity, and in turn, development between the
city’s commercial core and the Ocean Park neighborhood, known during the 1910s and 1920s as South Santa
Monica. Members of both neighborhoods recognized the function of the Main Street Bridge as more than a
transportation improvement; the Bridge initially had a symbolic role as an embodiment of civic unity. With
the development of the Santa Monica City Hall starting in 1938, Main Street and the Main Street Bridge
provided access to Santa Monica’s civic core.13
A deep arroyo, occupied today by the Santa Monica Freeway, once separated Santa Monica’s commercial
district and the Ocean Park neighborhood. In the late 19th century, the arroyo functioned as a track bed for
the Southern Pacific Railroad (SPRR) and the Pacific Electric Railway. While the immediate vicinity of the
arroyo was sparsely populated, it was in proximity to the city’s earliest resorts. The Arcadia Hotel, circa
1887, was located nearby on a bluff overlooking the Pacific Ocean to the south of present day Colorado
Avenue until it was demolished in 1908.
The rapid growth of Santa Monica during the 1920s generated an increased need for transportation
connectivity and the Main Street Bridge, circa 1926, created a link, via Main Street, between the city’s
growing commercial core and Ocean Park. Upon completion, the Main Street Bridge extended Main Street
across the arroyo. Traveling south, Main Street bisected the mostly vacant area owned by the SPRR until it
reached the former Santa Fe Railroad’s right of way and a small residential pocket that occupied the
southeast corner of the quadrant. From there, Main Street turned diagonally southwest to connect with the
existing segment of Main Street in Ocean Park. The Bridge still occupies its original location despite
numerous changes to its setting over the past eight decades.
The challenging topography from the Pacific Ocean inland to the vicinity of the Fourth Street Bridge created
the need for a variety of permanent crossings since at least the 1890s. An 1891 Sanborn map depicts a thin
north‐south bridge over the natural arroyo, occupied today by the Santa Monica Freeway. An elevated
boardwalk that extended from the bridge provided access from the bluff to the beach and Arcadia Bath
House below. By 1895, a more substantial wooden bridge in the same vicinity was built (Figure 4). This
bridge, known as the Ocean Avenue Bridge, had three separate lanes for the passage of wagons, automobiles,
and pedestrians. A period photo depicts the passage below the bridge just wide enough for a single train
track.14 The wooden bridge was replaced by a concrete structure in 1902 (demolished 1934). By the late
1930s, with the former rail passage widened and converted to automobile use, the road below was known as
Olympic Boulevard. Olympic Boulevard ran through the tunnel until it was rerouted in the 1960s. In 1966,
the Santa Monica Freeway reached the Pacific Coast Highway via the tunnel (known today as the Mc Clure
Tunnel). Throughout its history, the Main Street Bridge has spanned rail lines, Olympic Boulevard, and the
Santa Monica Freeway.
13 “Historic Resources Technical Report Santa Monica Civic Center Specific Plan: Historic Resources Survey, Evaluation, and
Analysis of Project Impacts,” prepared by PCR Services Corporation for the City of Santa Monica, March 2004.
14 Louise B. Gabriel, Santa Monica Historical Society Museum. Images of America: Early Santa Monica. Charleston, SC: Arcadia
Publishing, 2006.
11.A.f
Packet Pg. 662 Attachment: City Hall Historic Designation documents (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Character Defining Features Analysis April 2011
City of Santa Monica Santa Monica City Hall
PCR Services Corporation. 10
2.4 City Beautiful Movement
The ideals of City Beautiful Movement were popular throughout the nation from the 1880s to 1920; the later
City Beautiful continued into the 1930s and continued with a loss of purpose but with a remarkable
consistency of technique into the 1940s. The City Beautiful Movement originated with the work of social
reformers and visionary urban designers and planners who sought to ease squalid urban conditions with the
construction of squares, boulevards, parks, and monumental public buildings. In the broadest sense, the City
Beautiful Movement was political, for it demanded reorientation of public thought and action toward urban
beauty. The environmental reorganization necessary for grand aesthetic achievements required an altered
political structure, including state enabling legislation, new public institutions, and grants of power to
private entities to build railroad stations and other semipublic buildings. The reorganized urban politics was
remarkably flexible and encompassed both new and vitalized administrative agencies with expanded
popular participation. The movement involved a politics of accommodation between the expert planning
professional and the enlightened citizens on the board or commission that set the basic planning goals and
oversaw construction.15
Chicago’s Daniel Burnham was a leading City Beautiful Movement proponent and the grand public works and
architecture constructed for the 1893 World’s Columbian Exposition in Chicago would serve as the
inspiration for City Beautiful Movement proponents for decades afterwards. Urban plans often cited as
exemplary of City Beautiful ideals include Washington, DC’s McMillan Plan (1901‐2), developed by a
commission that included Daniel Burnham, Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr., Charles F. McKim and the Plan of
Chicago, co‐authored by Daniel Burnham and Edward H. Bennett in 1909. City Beautiful Movement
designers typically used stately architectural styles for buildings and public works, particularly Classical
Revival and Beaux‐Arts, which are characterized by the use of detail, monumental columns, balustrades,
statuary, and sculptured spandrels.16
The hallmark of the City Beautiful Movement was the civic center, the grouping of public and private
buildings—city hall, municipal auditorium, public library, major financial institutions—in the heart of
downtown. The civic center was intended to be a beautiful ensemble, grouping public buildings around a
park, square, or intersection of radial streets in a manner that allowed for the visual delights of perspectives,
open spaces, and the contrasts between buildings and their settings. The civic center was meant to serve as a
powerful symbol of community, shared values and purpose. Its architectural motifs were echoed in school
buildings, police stations, fire houses, park structures, and other municipal outposts throughout the cities
that possessed them.17
In Santa Monica, the selection of a site for the first city hall was hotly contested during 1901 partly because
of the old rivalry between the North and South sides of town. Sites at Third and Utah, and Fourth and
15 See Norman T. Newton, “City Beautiful Movement and City Planning,” in Design on the Land, the Development of Landscape
Architecture, (Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1971), Chapter 29; and William H. Wilson, The City Beautiful
Movement (Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989).
16 The 1901 Plan for Washington, DC, The City Beautiful Movement, http://xroads.virginia.edu/~cap/CITYBEAUTIFUL/city.html.
Accessed February 9, 2009; John J‐G Blumenson, Identifying American Architecture: A Pictorial Guide to Styles and Terms, 1600‐
1945, (New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1981).
17 Peter Dobkin Hall, “Setting, Landscape Architecture, and the Creation of Civic Space in the United States, 1790‐1920.” (John F.
Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, November 2006), http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/phall/Civic_Space_WIP.pdf,
accessed March 17, 2011.
11.A.f
Packet Pg. 663 Attachment: City Hall Historic Designation documents (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
April 2011 Character Defining Features Analysis
City of Santa Monica Santa Monica City Hall
PCR Services Corporation. 11
Oregon were considered and the latter was finally selected for the first city hall. Among the more important
improvements of the early 1900s on the North side was the building of an Auditorium in 1901, in connection
with the North Beach Bath house. The first city hall was dedicated March 19, 1903, built by H.X. Goetz,
contractor at a cost of $38,000. Besides the new municipal offices, a public library was provided with
pleasant quarters.18
However, it wasn’t until the two sides of the City were formally connected with the opening of the Main
Street Bridge in 1926 celebrated by public ceremony, and the construction of the new City Hall in 1938‐39,
that a centralized Civic Center began to take shape in Santa Monica. Completion and dedication of Santa
Monica’s $250,000 post office and Federal Building in 1938 and initiation of work on a link in the Roosevelt
Coast Highway south of Colorado Avenue were also important steps in the development of the municipality.19
For years the new City Hall site had been referred to as “no man’s land” because of its non‐developed acres in
the heart of the city, and had been considered as a possible site for a Civic Center at some time in the future,
but it was not until the efforts of the city officials, Chamber of Commerce, and other organizations were
combined to aggressively seek a solution to the problem of acquisition and improvement, that any
considerable steps were taken to bring the old dream into a new and vital reality. Construction of the new
City Hall on the “no man’s land” not only served to “weld together the Santa Monica and Ocean Park sections
of the city,” but “would at the same time develop surrounding properties and enhance valuations in a portion
of the city that would otherwise be dormant and undeveloped for another decade or more.”20
When the new City Hall was dedicated on November 25, 1939, it represented “the fulfillment of a long‐
cherished municipal dream.”
21 Over 5,000 persons thronged the City Hall lawn and another thousand
occupied the speaker’s platform at the main entrance, including national, state and city officials, among them
mayors and executives of many Southland cities who came to congratulate Santa Monica. Mayor Edmond S.
Gillette declared the new Civic Center would “weld all sections of the city into one community, eliminating
old factional lines.”
22 An illustrated map depicting the city in the Evening Outlook’s Souvenir Edition
commemorating the newspaper’s 65th year of publication shows the “New City Hall and Civic Center” clearly
labeled, indicating the public’s identification of the New City Hall with a new Civic Center had been
successfully achieved.23
Completion of a $300,000 branch Courthouse and County Building in the Santa Monica Civic Center was
observed by dedication ceremonies on July 27, 1951. The new building was dedicated to “justice and good
government,” and hailed as a “symbol of democracy, a place where the people can go for a determination of
their rights.” Mayor Russell K. Hart spoke for the Santa Monica City Council, which donated the building site.
The building was designed by architects Frederic C. Barienbrock and Robert Kliegman to harmonize with the
architecture of the adjoining City Hall.24 Soon outgrowing its original needs, two‐story wing additions adding
18 Luther A. Ingersoll, Ingersoll’s century history, Santa Monica Bay cities (L.A. Ingersoll, 1908), 216‐225.
19 “Los Angeles County,” Los Angeles Times, Jan. 3, 1939, p. F6.
20 “S.M. City Government Housed in Fine Structure, Civic Center Plans Carried to Fruition During Past Years,” Evening Outlook,
November 22, 1940, p. 22 top.
21 “City Hall Dedicated: State and Federal Officials Join in Santa Monica Ceremony,” Los Angeles Times, Nov. 26, 1939, p. B12.
22 Ibid.
23 Evening Outlook, November 22, 1940.
24 “Santa Monica Dedicates New County Building,” Los Angeles Times, July 28, 1951, p. A5.
11.A.f
Packet Pg. 664 Attachment: City Hall Historic Designation documents (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Character Defining Features Analysis April 2011
City of Santa Monica Santa Monica City Hall
PCR Services Corporation. 12
more than 90,000 square feet to the county building were officially authorized by the Board of Supervisors in
January 1965.25
Across from the Civic Center along the west side of Main Street, Rand Corporation developed the $7 Million
Rand Research Center building and campus during the early 1950s. Ground breaking ceremonies were held
on November 21, 1951. Formerly the site of an emergency housing project for 152 veterans and their
families, the eight‐acre site for the building was purchased from the City of Santa Monica for $250,000.26 The
Rand complex was recently demolished (within the last decade) but several Palms and Magnolia trees which
once beautified the Rand campus and parking area during the 1960s still appear to survive on the site.27
The Civic Center became fully established with the construction of the Civic Auditorium (1958) designed by
Welton Becket and the addition of the County court building on Main Street during the 1950s. The
multimillion‐dollar Santa Monica Civic Auditorium was designed to provide facilities for conventions,
cultural, community, athletic, recreational, stage and operatic events. The focal point of the auditorium plan
was the center line of Main Street, with landscaping and parking spaces ultimately to include virtually the
entire southern end of the Civic Center bounded by Main Street, 4th Street and Pico Boulevard.28 A six‐day
celebration marked the completion of the $2,900,000 Civic Auditorium on June 15, 1958, with actor Glenn
Ford, Santa Monica High School Alumnus, as master of ceremonies, City Manager Randall M. Dorton, and
Architect Welton Becket as speakers.29 In 1959, the Civic Center property was expanded west of the Civic
Auditorium for automobile parking.30
As a part of the 1958 Civic Center improvements, 1.72 miles of Pacific Electric track were removed starting
easterly of Lincoln Boulevard and continuing to Paloma Avenue in Venice, two blocks south of Rose Avenue.
Immediately after the tracks were removed, the City initiated a Civic Center access and beautification
program which was completed in time for the opening of the new Civic Auditorium. A bus terminal, access
roads and landscaping throughout the Civic Center boundaries was included in the beautification program.
Santa Monica appropriated $92,2330 for acquisition of the right of way north of Main Street to Pico
Boulevard; another access road between 4th Street and Main was to be opened in order to expedite the flow
of traffic.31 Also in 1958, bids were opened for the first phase of construction on what was to be Los Angeles’
most expensive freeway up until that time ($16,500,000 per mile)—the Santa Monica Freeway. Heretofore,
the Hollywood Freeway held the record, costing as much as $10,000,000 a mile.32 By 1959, Santa Monica
was well on its way to becoming one of the important convention cities in Southern California.33 By 1962, the
skeleton of the Santa Monica Freeway was rapidly taking shape in West Los Angeles. Construction of the
freeway from the intersection of Olympic Boulevard and Soto Street to Olympic and Lincoln Boulevards near
25 “Courthouse Wings Accepted,” Los Angeles Times, Jan. 21, 1965, p. WS1.
26 “Ground Broken for Rand Center in Santa Monica,” Los Angeles Times, Nov. 22, 1951, p. A14.
27 “RAND ‘Thinks’ for Security,” Los Angeles Times, Dec. 16, 1962, p. WS1.
28 “Steps Advance for Extensive Civic Building,” Los Angeles Times, Feb. 19, 1956, p. E1.
29 “Santa Monica to Start Auditorium Fete Today,” Los Angeles Times, June 15, 1958, p. B2.
30 “Move Fails to Halt Center Expansion: Santa Monica Land Earmarked for Auto Park,” Los Angeles Times, Aug. 2, 1959, p. WS1.
31 “S.M. Civic Center To Be Improved,” Los Angeles Times, April 27, 1958, p. WS2.
32 “Santa Monica Freeway Will Be City’s Most Costly,” Los Angeles Times, Jan. 12, 1958, p. B1.
33 “Santa Monica Booming as Convention Center,” Evening Outlook, June 3, 1959, p. 23.
11.A.f
Packet Pg. 665 Attachment: City Hall Historic Designation documents (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
April 2011 Character Defining Features Analysis
City of Santa Monica Santa Monica City Hall
PCR Services Corporation. 13
the Santa Monica Civic Center was estimated to be a $200 million job (91.6% of the cost was footed by the
federal government) which was expected to be complete in 1965.34
2.5 Moderne Architecture
Moderne, also referred to as Art Moderne, is a later derivation of the Art Deco style, emphasizing a modern
or futuristic appearance. Unlike the Art Deco style, it often lacked ornamentation and featured a more
classical, horizontal orientation. The Art Deco style traces its origins to the Paris Exposition des Arts
Decoratifs of 1925 and prevailed until around 1935, when it was followed by “Streamline,” “Zigzag,” and
“WPA” Moderne architecture, derivations characterized by monumental volume, strong geometric shapes,
and stylized plant and animal motifs. Following the height of the Art Deco style in the early 1930s,
Streamline and Zigzag Moderne architecture was an economic and stylistic response to the ravaging effects
of the Great Depression. A new style was needed to express optimism and a bright look toward the future.
Moderne‐style structures continued to suggest modern values of movement and rejection of historic
precedents, but with far less opulence and more restraint than the Art Deco style of the late 1920s and early
1930s. Streamline Moderne style architecture took its cue from the emerging field of industrial design and
borrowed imagery from things swift and free – in particular, the ocean liner. The Streamline Moderne style
reflects the national trends of the style which reached its height during the early 1940s and continued in use
into the early 1950s. The Streamline Moderne style differed from the “High Art Modern Architecture” of the
early 1930s in that it,
…continued to regard design as ‘styling’ and that architecture should represent or perform as an image
rather than be a used as a space to radically change ones everyday life. The boosters of Streamline
Moderne argued that their purpose was not to create an architecture that functioned in the same way as
the ocean liner, airplane, or locomotive; rather, the buildings would symbolize those things and
therefore remind one of the ‘modern’ future. 35
Notable examples of Art Deco/Moderne architecture in Santa Monica include Central Tower (1929), 1424 4th
Street, designed by Eugene Durfee, Santa Monica’s first Deco skyscraper; the Bay Cities Guarantee
(1929/30), 1225 Santa Monica Mall, double the height of the Central Tower, designed by Walker & Eisen; the
Grand Central Market Building (1932), 1330 4th Street, also by Eugene Durfee; General Telephone (1937),
1314 7
th Street, designed by Maurice Sasso, with a lobby featuring murals of New York and the great
buildings of Europe; the Shangri‐La Apartments and Hotel (1939‐40), designed by William Foster and named
for the mythical Tibetan mecca of James Hilton’s novel Lost Horizon; and the Sears Building (1946), 302
Colorado, designed by Roland H. Crawford, which at the time of its construction contained the largest clear‐
span interior in the United States.36
The Works Progress Administration (WPA), a Depression‐era, New Deal program established in 1934, was
designed to help localities by infusing funds for new construction projects, which in turn created new jobs.
Most of the WPA projects were for the construction of public buildings or infrastructure; however, the
program also had an interesting element that provided employment for artists, musicians, and craftspersons.
34 “Santa Monica Freeway Taking Shape Rapidly,” Los Angeles Times, Dec. 23, 1962, p. C13.
35 Patrick Pascal, Kesling. Modern Structures Popularizing Modern Design in Southern California 1934‐1962, (Los Angeles: Balcony
Press, 2002), 10.
36 “Santa Monica’s Art Deco Architecture,” ( Hollywood, California, Art Deco Society of Los Angeles, 1994).
11.A.f
Packet Pg. 666 Attachment: City Hall Historic Designation documents (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Character Defining Features Analysis April 2011
City of Santa Monica Santa Monica City Hall
PCR Services Corporation. 14
The primary goal of the WPA was to put people to work and most projects were designed to spend a majority
of the funds on labor, not materials. Additionally, few projects used powered machinery in order to allow for
hiring more men. Therefore, WPA buildings and structures in are marked by a high degree of craftsmanship,
albeit untrained, provided by primarily unskilled labor. The quality of masonry work varies widely,
undoubtedly reflecting not only different teams of workers, but also their growing skills in masonry
techniques. The use of local materials in order to keep costs low is another hallmark of WPA projects. This
resulted in some similarities of appearance within a region. WPA projects in Santa Monica were well
designed, often by a prominent local architect or regional WPA engineer. The buildings were influenced both
by local traditions and contemporary styles.
As applied to the WPA buildings of Santa Monica, the character‐defining features include flat roofs, smooth
exterior surfaces, vertical or horizontal fenestration openings and linear building elements. Although
horizontal lines are more typical of the Moderne style across the country, WPA Moderne buildings often
feature grooved bands in an otherwise smooth concrete exterior surface. Rounded corners are also common.
WPA Moderne buildings differ from other examples of this general style in that they tend to be hand
constructed rather than machine‐tooled. Metal details are rare except in the window frames. Windows
typically are “stock” and not specifically designed for the building.
Santa Monica had its share of WPA projects, including the Santa Monica Post Office (1937), 1248 5th Street,
designed by Neal. A. Malick and Robert D. Murray, featuring a regionally‐inspired wave motif at its base and
reliefs of the eastern and western hemisphere above the entrances. Other WPA projects in Santa Monica
included the upgrade and/or full replacement of several public school facilities, particularly those that were
damaged from the Long Beach earthquake of 1933. School facilities that were either repaired or built
included Madison Elementary School (1937), Franklin School (1937), Roosevelt School (1936), and Barnum
Hall at Santa Monica High School (1938). Many of the interior spaces of the new buildings included public
art pieces comprised of tiled mosaics, murals, and/or painted theatre curtains. Barnum Hall contains two
murals, a fire curtain mural and a large mosaic. Both murals are associated with Stanton MacDonald‐Wright,
an internationally recognized artist of the modern era, who was also a Santa Monica resident and associated
with the federal arts projects from 1934 to 1943.
2.6 Landscape Architecture37
Landscape architecture embraces planning, design and management of the landscape. It is allied to
architecture and town planning, and informed by geography, botany, ecology, and horticulture. The scope
ranges from garden and park design to environmental assessment, derelict land reclamation, and landscape
planning. The discipline has expanded from appreciating the visual qualities of picturesque architecture and
landscape in the early 19th century to cover human settlement and people’s physical relationship with the
land. This can be interpreted as a democratization of ideas, which began with private garden design and
then applied to a wider constructed environment, for both public and private good.
It was the American architect Calvert Vaux (1824‐95) and the journalist Frederick Law Olmsted (1822‐1903)
who first used the term “landscape architecture” for their new profession. Vaux was a former partner of
Andrew Jackson Downing, and with Olmsted he won the competition for New York’s Central Park in 1858.
37 Summarized from Stanford Anderson and Colin St. John Wilson, The Oxford Companion to Architecture, Volume 1, (Oxford University
Press, 2009).
11.A.f
Packet Pg. 667 Attachment: City Hall Historic Designation documents (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
April 2011 Character Defining Features Analysis
City of Santa Monica Santa Monica City Hall
PCR Services Corporation. 15
Olmsted, Vaux and Company went on to design parks, campuses, and housing estates in several cities in the
1860s and 1870s. With the growth of the North American city, large municipal park systems were
developed. In 1881, Olmsted and his nephew, John Charles Olmsted, began a park system for Boston, linking
Boston Commons and the Charles River to Franklin Park on the edge of the city, which became known as the
Emerald Necklace.
At the turn of the century, designers were applying private park and garden ideas to public projects and
involving elements of utility and infrastructure in their designs. On 4 January 1899, eleven landscape
architects including Downing, Vaux, son of Calvert Vaux, met to form the American Society of Landscape
Architects, and in 1900 the university course in landscape architecture at Harvard University was
inaugurated with Olmsted’s son, Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr., as head. Further courses were established at
Cornell (1904) and at the Department of Forestry at Berkeley (1913).
A key impetus for the growth of the profession has been legislation requiring landscape plans and the use of
landscape architects, for which political lobbying has been central to its development, as first envisioned by
Olmsted. For example, the establishment of the American National Park Service in 1917 led to a landscape
architecture division under Charles P. Punchard, Jr. The Tennessee Valley Authority, established in 1933,
employed landscape architects in the design of new towns; while the New Deal policies of the Roosevelt
administration included the work of the Farm Security Commission landscape architects such as Garret
Eckbo (1910‐2000), who planned new settlements for migrant workers.
Eckbo with Daniel Kiley (1912‐2004) and James C. Rose (1913‐91), were classmates at Harvard in 1937‐8,
and together formed the ‘Harvard Revolution’ of the 1930s, which applied Modernism to landscape
architecture, and emphasized space, asymmetry, site, functionality and social ideals of public good. Ideas
such as the value of public parks and gardens, street beautification, garden cities, public access to sunshine
and fresh air, and ideal national landscapes, were shared by ideologies of both left and right. They were
influenced by public health concerns over diseases such as rickets and tuberculosis, and also concerned
about providing unemployment relief through public works; concerns common to Berlin, Paris, London, New
York and Los Angeles in the 1930s.
2.7 Parks, Places and Spaces in Santa Monica
The City of Santa Monica has a long and rich history of both public and private involvement in tree planting
and the creation of public parks, places and spaces. One of the earliest tree plantings in the City of Santa
Monica was the Moreton Bay Fig tree, planted on the grounds of the Miramar Hotel about 1890 by Santa
Monica founder, Senator John P. Jones. The fig tree is one of the largest examples of its type in the state, and
is a City of Santa Monica designated Landmark.
Palisades Park was the first officially designated public open space in the City. In 1892, the founder of Santa
Monica, Senator John P. Jones and developer, Colonel Robert S. Baker donated the strip bordering the
palisades from Colorado Avenue (previously Railroad Avenue) to Montana Avenue, to the City of Santa
Monica on condition that the said strip be forever used as a public park. Five years later in 1897, the
remaining bluff property from Montana Avenue north to Adelaide Drive was donated to the City by the Santa
Monica Land and Water Company, of which Senator Jones was the Major Stockholder. Rows of eucalyptus
and cypress trees bordering Ocean Avenue were the first plantings in the Park. Dirt pathways along the
bluffs, down the center of the Park, and along Ocean Avenue, wound through wild grasses and brush.
11.A.f
Packet Pg. 668 Attachment: City Hall Historic Designation documents (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Character Defining Features Analysis April 2011
City of Santa Monica Santa Monica City Hall
PCR Services Corporation. 16
Historic engineering drawings indicate that Linda Vista Drive (now the California Incline Bridge) was
completed during the first decade of the 1900s.38 In 1913, at the urging of Thomas W. Dudley (Mayor from
1911‐1916), the first plan of Palisades Park was proposed by landscape architect Le Grande. He proposed a
formal European design, with walkways, planters, pergolas, fountains, and a brick wall to separate the park
from the noise and dust of the street. However, the proposal for the brick wall failed as it was opposed by
the Santa Monica Woman’s Club with the argument that it would eliminate the ocean views. 39 In 1915 the
name of the Park was changed from Linda Vista Park (Spanish for “lovely view”) to Palisades Park. J. W.
Scott, builder of the Arcadia Hotel, contributed the funds for the planting of rows of eucalyptus and cypress
trees bordering Ocean Avenue along the Park. In the early 1900s, the palisades were transformed into
parkland. Improvements included wide walkways, new plantings, picturesque sunshades, and a rustic fence
made of branches. Many of the early trees were provided by the new Park Commissioner, Edward H.
Sweetzer, who donated much of his salary toward the beautification of the landscape.40 A designated City
Landmark, Palisades Park is a good example of the City Beautiful movement that incorporated some of the
formal tenets of French Beaux‐Arts landscape style in the unity and harmony of its design, the axial layout,
and the incorporation of key viewpoints.
Santa Monica contains several other parks, two of which also have historical associations. Lincoln Park
(currently called Reed Park), like Palisades Park, was a gift of Senator Jones to the City. Located between
Seventh and Eighth (now Lincoln) on Wilshire, the park is the site of the Miles Playhouse, a Santa Monica
landmark designed by John Byers. Like Palisades Park, Reed Park was planted with eucalyptus trees in the
early twentieth century. Douglas Park, at Chelsea and Wilshire, is known today for its lawn bowling facility.
The park also contains several reflecting pools near a shaded picnic area. The park is located on the former
site of the Douglas Aircraft factory. In addition, parks throughout the city were planted during the first half of
the twentieth century. Many of these tree plantings are still extant today.
An important place historically associated with Santa Monica is the Municipal Pier and Looff (Newcomb) Pier
at the foot of Colorado Avenue, south of Palisades Park. The latest in the succession of pleasure piers and
railroad wharves built in Santa Monica Bay, the present wood structure dates from 1921 and 1916 but has
been substantially damaged in storms over the years and was subsequently rebuilt. The entrance is marked
by a neon sign which forms an arch over a ramp extending from Colorado.
Other landscapes of note are the mature street trees lining many of Santa Monica’s residential streets and the
median strips along San Vicente, Fourth Street and Adelaide Place. Street tree planting appears to have been
part of City of Santa Monica planning beginning with the first subdivisions. As mentioned above, J. W. Scott
financed the planting of eucalyptus trees along Ocean Avenue and Wilshire Boulevard. Early photographs
also show palms planted along Wilshire Boulevard in the 1920s. Other early tree plantings include the rows
of windbreaks, usually eucalyptus, originally used to shield crops from wind. However, many of the existing
street trees were part of the postwar urban redevelopment of Santa Monica. The 1956 City of Santa Monica
Master Plan included a five‐year tree planting program that sought to infill trees on those streets that were
not planted. The program was continued with the 1962 Public Works Master Plan that mapped existing
rows of street trees and made recommendations for a planting schedule to add trees to the few remaining
38 Jones & Stokes, Finding of Effect for the California Incline Bridge, p. 7.
39 Lunsford, “The Ocean and the sunset, the hills and the clouds looking at Santa Monica,” p. 9.
40 Basten, Palisades Park Panorama, pp. 12‐13.
11.A.f
Packet Pg. 669 Attachment: City Hall Historic Designation documents (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
April 2011 Character Defining Features Analysis
City of Santa Monica Santa Monica City Hall
PCR Services Corporation. 17
treeless streets. In addition to the trees, vintage lampposts occur along streets and in parks at several
locations throughout Santa Monica and contribute substantially to the ambience of the City.
2.7 Santa Monica City Hall: Building and Landscape
The existing Santa Monica City Hall replaced the first City Hall, a Mission Revival style building formerly
located on the corner of Fourth Street and Santa Monica Boulevard. In 1901, Santa Monica voters approved
a bond measure of $35,000 to construct the first City Hall and jail. The Fourth and Santa Monica site was
purchased by the city for $4,800. Designed by H.X. Goetz, the hall was dedicated on March 19, 1903, and was
welcomed warmly by the public. Despite a remodeling project completed in 1912, the first city hall was soon
deemed incapable of supporting a growing city staff as Santa Monica continued to expand through the 1920s
and 1930s. City officials developed plans to replace the original city hall with a new, larger structure in
1924, but these plans were not approved. In 1938, a citizen’s committee was formed to work on the
planning and financing of a new city hall. Working with city officials and the Chamber of Commerce, the
committee devised a creative way to fund the project, by sale of the first city hall ($168,000), application for
a federal grant, and increase in taxes ($28,000). With a budget of approximately $370,000, the committee
began to plan for construction.41
The new city hall was to be built on eight acres of land purchased from the Southern Pacific Railway
Company, for an amount of $60,000. The plot was the site of the city’s former freight depot for 60 years,42
which because of its barren appearance, was known as “no man’s land.”43 Review of Sanborn Maps and
historic photographs provide information on the topography, condition, and use of the site at the turn of the
century. A 1918 Sanborn Map shows the location of proposed Main Street, low land south of Colorado and a
steep gulch in the area of the future City Hall site (Figure 5). Patten & Davies Lumber Co. was located at the
corner of Colorado Avenue and 4th Streets. An area of “low land” ran along Colorado Avenue and south of
Patten & Davies Lumber Co. The future City Hall site was the area of ground between the “low land” and a
“steep gulch,” which at the turn of the century was occupied by the Pacific Electric Railway Company’s
Freight House, Olson Lumber Company sheds and yard, and a vacant motion picture studio. The Braun
Bryant & Austin Asphalt Paving & Cement Contractors was located along the east side of the “steep gulch”
near 4th Street. The area south of the future City Hall site was mostly vacant land at the time. The Pacific
Planing Mill was located along 4th Street to the northeast. Commercial and residential development was
concentrated along Ocean Avenue to the west and Pico Boulevard to the south. A 1920s photograph depicts
the vicinity of the future City Hall site at the time (Figure 6). A 1950 Sanborn map shows the dramatic
change that occurred in this area during the 1920s‐1940s, with the construction of Main Street Bridge,
Olympic Boulevard and the Santa Monica City Hall. The triangle of land between Colorado Avenue and
Olympic Boulevard had been occupied by Sears Roebuck & Company, and the Veteran’s Temporary Housing
Project was located on the open land across Main Street west of City Hall (Figure 7).
The PWA Moderne‐style Santa Monica City Hall was designed in 1938 by prominent Los Angeles architects,
Joseph M. Estep, and Donald B. Parkinson. The construction of the Santa Monica City Hall was begun in 1938
and completed in late 1939 by contractors, Campbell and Kelly, and totaled $168,000.44 The project was
41 Historic Resources Group, Santa Monica City Hall, Historic Structure Report (January 17, 2003).
42 Ibid.
43 “Santa Monica to Dedicate $370,000 City Hall Today,” Los Angeles Times, Nov. 25, 1939, p. 6.
44 12‐27‐1938, original permit for construction of City Hall, Permit No. B444, three stories, concrete exterior walls, and 132 rooms.
11.A.f
Packet Pg. 670 Attachment: City Hall Historic Designation documents (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Character Defining Features Analysis April 2011
City of Santa Monica Santa Monica City Hall
PCR Services Corporation. 18
largely funded by the federal government’s New Deal‐era Public Works Administration (PWA) program, with
the remaining funds coming from city taxes and the property sale of the original City Hall on Fourth Street
and Broadway. The application for the PWA grant was submitted in February, 1937.
45 PWA projects
commonly incorporated many building and design trades on each project, including masonry, woodwork, tile
work and metalwork, sculpture and mural painting, in addition to employing artists and artisans who
designed and constructed these decorative arts. Artist Stanton Macdonald‐Wright painted interior murals in
the building and the Gladding McBean Company supplied the decorative tile.
Construction of the new city hall began in late 1938, continuing on through the summer and autumn of
1939.46 According to newspaper accounts of the time, removal of the Pacific Electric’s freight tracks from the
new site for the Santa Monica City Hall delayed the excavation for the foundations of the new building. To
speed the process, crews of men from the Pacific Electric worked overtime to raze the freight depot and
loading platform from its foundations, and rip up the rails on the spur track. The north end of the new
building covered much of the ground formerly occupied by the freight depot.47 Because of the topography of
the site, extensive grading and site preparation was necessary, as is documented in historic photographs
(Figure 8). Furthermore, the foundation preparations and construction process necessary to complete the
reinforced concrete building were substantial. By late November, the building was complete and ready for
dedication, with construction and engineering costs totaling approximately $297,000. Grading and
landscaping costs were $12,484, less than five percent of the construction budget,48 with the primary effort
going into the grading and preparation of the site for construction. It can be assumed from the construction
budget and overall costs that there was little remaining funding available for landscaping the site. The
building is constructed of reinforced concrete and occupies approximately 40,000 square feet. Historic
photographs of City Hall shortly after completion in 1939 show the building fronted by a freshly sodded lawn
and relatively austere grounds surrounding the structure (Figures 9 and 10). The existing concrete
sidewalks had been installed, the planters at the front entrance were freshly planted, and palm trees were
planted northwest of the building. Early furnishings included wood benches along the main entrance walk
and along the front of the building; an additional palm was located at the southwest corner of the lawn. The
Santa Monica City Hall was dedicated on November 24, 1939, under the democratic principles of “truth,
liberty and tolerance,” which are stated in the dedication plaque imbedded in the pavement before the front
steps of the building. The building’s completion was hailed as a victory for cooperative action, as well as the
result of integrated efforts between residents, officials and the Federal government.
No original site plan or planting plan was found among the architectural plans obtained by PCR from the
Parkinson Archives. However, the original building plans do show the concrete planters that flank the front
entrance to the building and are still extant (Figure 11). A 1939 post card depicts an idealized view of Santa
Monica City Hall at the time of its dedication (Figure 12). Historic photographs made shortly after the
building was completed show an open landscape with a freshly sodded grass lawn and symmetrically laid
out concrete sidewalks for pedestrian circulation, which is still extant. Prior to the building’s dedication, two
tall Mexican Fan Palms were planted in the recessed court along the south elevation (Figure 13), which may
have been moved from the Old City Hall. The palm trees, even the sod that once beautified the old city hall
45 “City Hall Dedicated: State and Federal Officials Join in Santa Monica Ceremony,” Los Angeles Times, Nov. 26, 1939, p. B12.
46 Historic Resources Group, Santa Monica City Hall, Historic Structure Report (January 17, 2003).
47 “Excavation for City Hall Delayed,” Evening Outlook, December 5, 1938.
48 Ibid.
11.A.f
Packet Pg. 671 Attachment: City Hall Historic Designation documents (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
April 2011 Character Defining Features Analysis
City of Santa Monica Santa Monica City Hall
PCR Services Corporation. 19
site were moved to the new civic center location.49 A 1939 photograph also depicts a large rectangular
planting bed filled with a simple field of daisies at the front entrance to City Hall; the bed of daisies occupied
the same location as the existing Rose Garden, and were presumably planted for the building’s dedication
(Figure 14). It was reported at the time, “Today the site is being transformed into a park—a garden linking
Santa Monica and Ocean Park.”50 Another article reported, “This building, finished only a few weeks ago,
houses Santa Monica’s municipal government and marks the fruition of a dream of civic leaders for many
years past—that the waste area formerly known as ‘no man’s land’ might be transferred into a beautiful civic
center, now rapidly assuming form through clever landscaping.”51
Other early landscape plantings during 1940 included symmetrically laid out decorative foundation
plantings (shrubs and hedges) as well as ornamental shrubs, trees and more palm trees (Figures 15, 16 and
17). Their location, scale and texture accentuated the classical symmetry and visual prominence of City
Hall’s monumental architecture. In addition, there were decorative foundation plantings around the building
in the rear courtyard (east) and around the Jail wing. Three Canary Island Date Palms were planted at the
northeast corner of the parking area north of the Jail. Historic photographs also shows that landscape
plantings and fencing were originally used to define the northern border of the site, including a curved row
of Mexican Fan Palms (extant) and a concrete fence along the sidewalk from the corner of the site to the Main
Street Bridge (removed). The two benches were symmetrically placed along the east side of the lateral front
sidewalk. Two other benches were symmetrically placed along the main entrance walkway.
Over years as funds became available and the impetus to beautify the grounds of City Hall was felt among
civic leaders and the community, various landscape improvements around the building were completed
which have resulted in the landscape setting we see today. The first change occurred in 1951, when a rose
garden was planted in front of the entrance as a memorial to local men killed in war. Dedicated on Armistice
Day, 1951, the rose garden still provides a space for remembrance and reflection.52
Historic photographs show the 1950s appearance of the City Hall landscape (Figures 18‐21). The front
façade of City Hall was articulated by two rows of five original Windmill Palms. Well manicured foundation
hedges were planted between the Windmill Palms, and flanked the concrete planters at the front entrance. A
widely spaced row of six manicured ornamental shrubs lined the lawn on the east side of the lateral front
sidewalk at the front of the building. The front entrance was flanked by four Junipers, and the planting boxes
also contained manicured low‐profile shrubs or hedges. The two original bench furnishings were still in
place, symmetrically placed along the east side of the lateral front sidewalk. Two other original bench
furnishings were symmetrically placed along the main entrance walkway, facing the rose garden. Narrow,
linear planting beds containing symmetrically organized low‐profile ornamental plantings bordered the
north and south lawns along the main entrance walk. Three features similar to bollards or posts appear to
have been located temporarily at the west end of the rose garden, but are not clearly distinguishable in the
historic photos (Figure 18). An ornamental tree was located at the northwest corner of the building. Three
ornamental trees lined the lawn along the south side of the Council parking lot, and an additional ornamental
tree was planted along the edge of the lawn north of the Council parking lot. A gracefully curving row of
49 “Ornate City Hall Turned Into Ghostly Ruins at Santa Monica,” Los Angeles Times, Jan. 6, 1939, p. 14.
50 “Santa Monica to Dedicate $370,000 City Hall Today,” Los Angeles Times, Nov. 25, 1939.
51 “S.M. City Government House in Fine Structure, Civic Center Plans Carried to Fruition During Past Years,” Evening Outlook, November
22, 1940, p. 22 top.
52 “CityHall War Memorial Dedication to Highlight Observance of Armistice Day,” Evening Outlook, November 8, 1951, p. 19.
11.A.f
Packet Pg. 672 Attachment: City Hall Historic Designation documents (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Character Defining Features Analysis April 2011
City of Santa Monica Santa Monica City Hall
PCR Services Corporation. 20
Mexican Fan Palms lined the brow of the hill overlooking Olympic Boulevard. The steeply‐graded hill was
terraced with what appear to be retaining walls and planted with decorative annuals/perennials in a
regularized pattern that included a well‐manicured centerpiece with the words “City Hall.” A sidewalk along
Olympic Boulevard entered the City Hall site at its northeastern corner, providing access to the rear, east
courtyard of the building. The Council parking lot was located at the building’s north court and featured
three Canary Island Date Palms. There was an oval traffic circle in the rear east court and additional parking
behind the building. The borders of the site were planted with lawns and improved with concrete sidewalks.
The south elevation featured two very tall Mexican Fan Palms.
A gift of friendship and appreciation was taking root in the Santa Monica City Hall gardens on November 29,
1955, after a thousand tulip bulbs from the Netherlands were planted there. The tulips, an entirely new
strain, were named for the city by the donors, Piet van den Bleenhoven, local importer and Santa Monica
resident, and his associates in Holland, the Bergers brothers of Lisne. Van den Bleenhoven explained that it
all started at the end of World War II with the liberation of Holland from the Nazis. The Dutch people had a
great feeling of appreciation toward America, and one such person was C. M. Bergers, a veteran bulb grower,
who visited Santa Monica in 1944. He was so impressed with the climate and beauty of Santa Monica, that he
named one of his outstanding novelties after the city. Permission for the naming was given by the City
Council and after more years of development the first bulbs finally arrived. The flower was a bright cherry
red and sturdier than previous varieties.53
Changes to the City Hall building have resulted in substantial alterations to the site and landscape on the east
side (rear) of City Hall. In 1958 a major 27,000 square‐foot addition was attached to the rear of City Hall,
between the Jail and the Fire Department wings. The addition was designed by J. Harold Melstrom to
function as offices and expanded jail facilities for the Police Department.54 The three‐story brick masonry
addition was connected to the north and south wings of the original building, obscuring the original east
elevation of the building and demolishing original landscape features behind the building including the
traffic oval; however, a 50‐by‐120‐foot courtyard was left between the wings between the original rear
elevation and the new addition to the east.55 The Santa Monica Police Department moved into the new
$438,00 City Hall Annex on June 3, 1959. The basement of the annex contained a pistol range, and the
building contained new jail facilities to relieve the overcrowding which frequently existed at the old jail. The
old jail facilities, however, remained in use.56 Additional remodeling of the police buildings occurred in
1966.57
A 1958 photo showing the front façade of City Hall (Figure 22) suggests the landscaping was also refurbished
around this time, probably in conjunction with the overall Civic Center improvements. The narrow planting
beds along the main entrance walk were taken out and replaced with an evenly‐spaced row of well‐
manicured small ornamental trees. The four original Junipers in the planting boxes flanking the front
53 “Dutch Friendship Tulips Will Beautify City Hall,” Evening Outlook, November 29, 1955, p. 11.
54 “$175,000 City Hall Addition Given Approval, Architect Authorized To Draw Up Plans,” Evening Outlook, April 24, 1957, p. 1.
55 “City Hall Building Plan Aired,” Evening Outlook, Sept. 11, 1957, p. 1‐2.
56 “Santa Monica Police Dept. Move Into New $438,000 City Hall Annex,” Evening Outlook, June 3, 1959, p. 23.
57 07‐23‐1958, Permit No. B24341, Architect: J.A Melstrom, Contractor: Cal‐Western Construction, Inc., addition of police building, three
stories, masonry and concrete walls, concrete floor joists.
10‐21‐1966, Permit No. B38590, Architect: Santa Monica Department of Engineering, Contractor: Motz Engineering, remodeling of
police buildings, removal and relocation of interior walls, electrical and plumbing work.
11.A.f
Packet Pg. 673 Attachment: City Hall Historic Designation documents (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
April 2011 Character Defining Features Analysis
City of Santa Monica Santa Monica City Hall
PCR Services Corporation. 21
entrance may also have been trimmed back or replaced at this time and two additional coniferous shrubs
appearing to be Yews were introduced in the planters.
Esther McCoy lamented the Civic Center development’s impact on the City Hall landscape in 1962, “a small
disaster went almost unnoticed at the very door of the Santa Monica council chambers. Gardens and old
parking lots were ripped up and a continuous floor of asphalt was poured. This is what we got in place of the
garden and old landscaped parking slots: 91 new spaces. In two or three years this will be inadequate. Then
what?”58
Grace Heintz provides us with a narrative description of the landscape plantings on the City Hall site in 1976,
in which she characterizes the appearance of the building and landscape at the time and provides specific
information on the species and locations of the plantings:
Balanced symmetry is the keynote in plantings at the City Hall. Along the street curb in front
grows a line of Podocarpus macrophylla var. maki. In the lawn north of the rear parking entrance,
near the bridge over the freeway, stands a magnificent clump of Yucca elephantipes. A row of
Washintgonia robusta (Mexican Fan Palm) lines the crest of the freeway cut. Farther back in the
parking lot north of the building are 3 Canary Island Date Palms (Phoenix canariensis). Three
Carobs (Ceratonia siliqua) line the south side of the parking lot. A bunya‐bunya (Araucaria
bidwillii) stands at the northwest corner of the building. Along the north wall are Yew pines
(Podocarpus macrophylla), with Bird‐of‐Paradise (Strelitzia regiane) and a bank of Natal Plum
(Carissa macrocarpa).
The western façade has matching quintets of Windmill Palms (Trachycarpus fortune), and four
fine Hollywood Junipers (Juniperus chinensis ‘Kaizuka’) flank the main entrance, matched by an
equally happy pair at the street end of the entrance walkway. Along the south face of the building
are more Yew pines, compact trees with slender leaves four to five inches long; Bird‐of‐Paradise
with conspicuous orange and blue flowers; New Zealand Flax (Phormium tenax), with six‐foot
sword‐line leaves; Green Dracena (Cordyline australis); and very tall Mexican Fan Palms. Carobs
line the border of the parking lot, between the lot and the street are two elegant clumps of
Senegal Date Palm (Phoenix reclinata) and a small Olive tree (Olea europea).59
Photographs in the City’s 1974‐1975 annual report (Figures 23 and 24) are a useful companion to the above
description. The large exotic tree at the northwest corner of City Hall is the Bunya‐bunya (Araucaria
bidwillii) described by Heintz and is estimated to be around 50 years old but was not part of original 1930s
design. The Hollywood Junipers Heintz described at the Main Street end of the entrance walkway are
depicted in the 1974‐1975 photographs. Based upon their appearance in the 1974‐1975 photos it is likely
the Junipers were planted about 40 years ago and were not a part of the original 1930s design.60 A flag pole
was installed in the rose garden prior to 1974‐1975. By this time, the narrow planting beds bordering the
58 Esther McCoy, “Santa Monica’s Inspiration Point—It’s at End of the Line,” Los Angeles Times, Oct. 28, 1962, p. 4.
59 George T. Hastings, Trees of Santa Monica, revised and rewritten by Grace Heintz (Santa Monica: Friends of the Santa Monica
Library, 1976), 18.
60 A photograph showing a tree planting at city hall in 1949 on the north side by council parking shows the Bunya‐bunya was not yet
planted at the time. The tree is estimated to be about 50 years of age by City staff. Personal communication, Randy Little, Public
Landscape Staff to Scott Albright, Planning Staff, City of Santa Monica.
11.A.f
Packet Pg. 674 Attachment: City Hall Historic Designation documents (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Character Defining Features Analysis April 2011
City of Santa Monica Santa Monica City Hall
PCR Services Corporation. 22
main entrance walk had been replanted and the ca. 1958 ornamental trees removed from that location. Five
Carob trees lined the lawn at southern edge of the site. The substantial 1958 additions to the east side of City
Hall are depicted in Figure 23, along with the parking area expansion to the east in the location of the former
lawn. A very large deciduous tree was located behind City Hall at the northeast corner of the addition. Three
small ornamental trees lined the north edge of the expanded parking area. A manicured hedge existed at the
brow of the hill overlooking the freeway in the location of the former Olympic Boulevard. The hedge
followed the curved line created by the original Mexican Fan Palms at the crest of the hill, and the Canary
Island Date Palms at the northeast corner of the Council parking area were still extant. There were plantings
in the central court (east court) and along the south side of the building, but the types of plantings are not
discernable from the photographs. The two tall Mexican Fan Palms along the south elevation and the ten
Windmill Palms along the west elevation of City Hall continued to articulate the exterior facades. A row of
street trees had been introduced along the west edge of Main Street side walk.
In 1977, another addition to the City Hall building was completed to accommodate police department
expansion with a new locker room, sauna, and whirlpool. Concrete ramps were added to the front and rear
entrances of the building to provide for disability access. 61
The North and South gardens along the front of City Hall were altered in 1982 with the creation of succulent
gardens. Most of the plantings in the gardens along the front of City Hall were removed at the time with the
exception of the Windmill palms (Figures 25, 26 and 27).62 The North Garden, situated along the front of the
building north of the main entrance, was again replanted in 1992 with plants uniquely suited to Santa
Monica’s soil and climate, creating an ideal habitat for indigenous birds, butterflies and other beneficial
insects. According to the marker in the garden, it is a California‐friendly garden, requiring little water or
fertilizer and only quarterly maintenance.
The rear 1958 and 1977 additions were later removed and a new separate, detached police headquarters
building constructed behind City Hall in 2003. Thereafter, the historic appearance of the east elevation of
City Hall was largely restored. The new 117,000 square foot Public Safety Building houses the police and fire
departments as well as jail facilities. Contemporary in design, it is the first major facility in Santa Monica
built with the intent of minimizing its lifecyle impact on the natural environment while providing for the
health and comfort of the building’s occupants.63 It is interesting to note that during excavation for the new
Public Safety Building, bulldozers hit a giant six‐foot‐square concrete box with a system of pipes running
through and around it. Because of visible oil residue, city historians speculated the box may have held crude
oil to power the old Southern Pacific Railroad steam engines at the Main Street and Colorado Avenue Depot
during the 1920s and was left behind in the 1930s when the canyon was filled with dirt.64
61 9‐13‐1977, Permit No. B50200, Architect: Don M. Ramos, Contractor: Hal Summers, new locker room, sauna and whirlpool for police
department, measures 52’2” x 21’9,” one –story, frame and stucco exterior walls, total floor area of 3,552 square feet.
06‐29‐1982, Permit No. 55207, Architect: Niver Engineering, Contractor: Hal Summers, addition to second floor of police department
building.
07‐25‐1983, Permit No. 56047, Architect: City of Santa Monica Engineering Division, Contractor, B.P Kent Company Inc., construction
of concrete ramp at north wing of the hallway in the main city hall building.
62 Personal communication, Scott Albright, Planning Department, City of Santa Monica.
63 http://www.smgov.net/Departments/OSE/Categories/Green_Building/Public_Safety_Building.aspx (accessed 2/3/2011);
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Greenbuilding/CaseStudies/Public/SMPubSafety.htm (accessed 2/3/2011);
64 “Striking oil, No It’s not a new well—construction crews building the new police station have uncovered a piece of Santa Monica
history,” Our Times, December 12, 1999, p. 2.
11.A.f
Packet Pg. 675 Attachment: City Hall Historic Designation documents (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
April 2011 Character Defining Features Analysis
City of Santa Monica Santa Monica City Hall
PCR Services Corporation. 23
The southern border of the City Hall site features a recently completed contemporary landscape which
appears to be associated with the new Public Safety facility and the recently improved streetscape along
Olympic Drive. This contemporary landscape consists of a tall hedge at the south end of City Hall, wide
swaths of succulent plantings, and a row of street trees along Olympic Drive.
ADA access improvements and reconfiguration of the entrances on the south elevation of the historic Jail are
a part of the current Jail Retrofit project, and a new utility room to support the reuse of the historic Jail as a
data center has recently been completed at the southeast corner of City Hall.
2.8 Santa Monica City Hall Landscape: Events and Public Use
The dedication of the new Santa Monica City Hall took place on November 25, 1939, amidst great patriotic
feeling and community pride in “the fulfillment of a long‐cherished municipal dream.” The total reported
cost for the project announced at the dedication ceremony was $370,000. More than 5,000 persons
thronged the “newly sodded lawn.” Numerous speakers including national, state and city officials and
Southland executives occupied the speaker’s platform at the main entrance. Mayor Edmund S. Gillette
declared the new Civic Center would “weld all sections of the city into one community,” and Kenneth Godwin,
P.W.A. western director, reviewed the P.W.A. role in financing the project, beginning with the grant
application in February, 1937. Dedication rituals were conducted by the Santa Monica Elks Lodge and the
Santa Monica Bay Parlor of the Native Sons. The Elks Lodge presented an American Flag, and Sheriff Eugene
Biscailuz presented a California Bear Flag on behalf of the Native Sons. The Native Sons also placed a plaque
in front of the main entrance, dedicating the city hall “to the principles of truth, Liberty, and tolerance.”65 The
Santa Monica Chapters of the Daughters of the American Revolution presented a flag, and the Veterans
Service League conducted the flag raising ceremony. Program speakers included U.S. District Attorney Ben
Harrison, J.F.T. O’Connor, former United States Comptroller, Leo Carillo, and former Representative John
Dockweiler.66 Jimmy Wallington, master of ceremonies, introduced Donald Parkinson and Joseph M. Estep,
architects; G. F. Campbell of the Campbell Kelly Co., contractors; Horatio W. Bishop, resident engineer for
P.W.A.; Fred Jarbo, City Inspector; Representative Leland M. Ford; Sherriff Eugene Biscailuz; Oscar Hague;
Mayor Bowron of Los Angeles; and Postmaster Phillip T. Hill of Santa Monica.67
A five‐day Fete to honor Santa Monica’s 75th birthday was held on July 12‐16, 1950. The opening ceremony
took place on the City Hall steps where the Jubilee Queen, after disembarking from her helicopter at City Hall,
was greeted by her court of ladies‐in‐waiting and city officials. A variety of public events were held
throughout the city including a lifeguard rescue demonstration, the opening concert and coronation, world’s
largest square dance, numerous displays and exhibits, street dancing and entertainment, a parade, a great
variety of tournaments, a folk dance festival, a muscle beach athletic show, and several theatrical plays and
musical concerts.68
Dedication of a Civic Center rose garden in memory of Santa Monica war dead and the traditional street
corner taps ceremonies in tribute to the fallen war heroes highlighted Santa Monica’s observance of
Armistice Day in November 1951. A feature of the rose garden program, sponsored by the Santa Monica Bay
Chapter, Gold Star Mothers, was the public unveiling of a bronze marker in front of City Hall. A number of
65 “New City Hall Dedicated to Principles of Democracy and Americanism in Government,” Evening Outlook, November 25, 1939, p. 2.
66 “City Hall Dedicated: State and Federal Officials Join in Santa Monica Ceremony,” Los Angeles Times, Nov. 26, 1939, p. B12.
67 “Santa Monica to Dedicate $370,000 City Hall Today,” Los Angeles Times, Nov. 25, 1939, p. 6.
68 “Diamond Jubilee Celebration Starts Wednesday, Queen’s Arrival to Open Colorful Observance of City’s 75th Birthday,” Evening
Outlook, July 8, 1950, p. 5.
11.A.f
Packet Pg. 676 Attachment: City Hall Historic Designation documents (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Character Defining Features Analysis April 2011
City of Santa Monica Santa Monica City Hall
PCR Services Corporation. 24
veterans organizations and civic officials were in attendance. Mayor Russell K. Hart spoke at the dedication,
which included songs by mother‐singers and placing of flowers by veterans organizations in memory of the
men and women who sacrificed their lives in defense of their country.69
Beginning in 1956, the City Council decreed that Santa Monica’s Christmas Flag should fly below the
American and California state flags from the morning after the lighting of the Santa Monica Nativity Scenes
until the end of the year. The original flag, a handmade replica of a 14th‐Century flag, was a gift of former
resident, Actress Joan Wilcoxon and her husband Henry, who formerly staged Christmas plays at Miles
Playhouse and later at the Civic Auditorium during the 1950s. Due to potential hazards to workmen, the
flagpole was moved from atop the City Hall to the east lawn in the early 1970s.70
During the latter part of the twentieth century and continuing until the present time, the City Hall landscape
has been the cultural and social center of city government. For example, in 1987 the city symbolically
renamed the access roads around City Hall in honor of Santa Monica’s three sister cities: Fuji, Japan; Hamm,
West Germany; and Mazatlan, Mexico. Large blue and white street signs were installed surrounding City hall,
topped with the crests of the cities they honored, and under the city names the sister city connection was
noted in smaller print. Mayor Pro Tempore Herb Katz officiated at the unveiling ceremony that was attended
by 14 Fuji residents visiting Santa Monica through the auspices of the Chamber of Commerce and the Santa
Monica Sister Cities Association.71
The continued social role of the landscape is documented in an article in the Outlook on June 22, 1989, which
reported that a Santa Monica feeding program drawing more than 300 homeless people nightly was being
transferred to the front lawn of City Hall from Palisades Park. The City’s role was to provide a public space
for the program while a volunteer citizens group operated the feeding program.
72 Again in 1994, the
landscape served a social and political function as the location for a 10‐week sleep‐in on the City Hall lawn in
demonstration against Santa Monica’s park closure law of 1993, which closed the city parks at night.73
Again more recently, the City Hall landscape was the location for another political demonstration. Several
hundred high school students, university students, church groups and community members from all over
Los Angeles county slept outside on the lawns of City Hall on behalf of the invisible children of northern
Uganda who are abducted and forced to fight as soldiers.74
69 “City Hall War Memorial Dedication to Highlight Observance of Armistice,” Evening Outlook, November 8, 1951, p. 19.
70 “Christmas Flag to Fly Over SM City Hall,” Dec. 3, 1965, Evening Outlook, p. 25; “Christmas Flag Gets Relocated,” Evening Outlook,
Dec. 18, 1972, p. 11
71 “Sister cities get sign of respect, SM renames City Hall access roads,” Evening Outlook, June 19, 1987, p. A3.
72 “SM Food Program Relocated, Meals to be Served on City Hall Lawn,” The Outlook, June 22, 1989, p. B1.
73 “Homeless end long City Hall protest,” The Outlook, August 26, 1993, p. B1.
74 “Camping Out for Invisible Children,” Santa Monica Mirror, May 4, 2006.
11.A.f
Packet Pg. 677 Attachment: City Hall Historic Designation documents (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
April 2011 Character Defining Features Analysis
City of Santa Monica Santa Monica City Hall
PCR Services Corporation. 25
Figure 4. Vicinity of City Hall in 1895 (Sanborn Map, Santa Monica, 1895, Sheet 10)
11.A.f
Packet Pg. 678 Attachment: City Hall Historic Designation documents (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Character Defining Features Analysis April 2011
City of Santa Monica Santa Monica City Hall
PCR Services Corporation. 26
Figure 5. Future City Hall site in 1918, showing former Olson Lumber Co. on future City Hall site with
proposed Main Street to west, low land to north, and steep gulch to southeast (Sanborn Map,
Santa Monica, 1918, Sheet 17)
11.A.f
Packet Pg. 679 Attachment: City Hall Historic Designation documents (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
April 2011 Character Defining Features Analysis
City of Santa Monica Santa Monica City Hall
PCR Services Corporation. 27
Figure 6. View showing area of “low land” northeast of Colorado Boulevard and Ocean Avenue, with Pacific
Electric car traveling west through arroyo; future City Hall site is on high land to south on right
side of photo, and Patten & Davies Lumber Co. appears to north in background (Santa Monica
Public Library Image Archives)
11.A.f
Packet Pg. 680 Attachment: City Hall Historic Designation documents (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Character Defining Features Analysis April 2011
City of Santa Monica Santa Monica City Hall
PCR Services Corporation. 28
Figure 7. City Hall site in 1950, showing Olympic Boulevard and Sears Roebuck Co. to north, Private
Street to south, and Veteran’s Temporary Housing Project to west. (Sanborn Map, Santa
Monica, 1950, Sheet 17)
11.A.f
Packet Pg. 681 Attachment: City Hall Historic Designation documents (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
April 2011 Character Defining Features Analysis
City of Santa Monica Santa Monica City Hall
PCR Services Corporation. 29
Figure 8. City Hall under construction, November 16, 1939 (Santa Monica Public Library Image Archives)
11.A.f
Packet Pg. 682 Attachment: City Hall Historic Designation documents (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Character Defining Features Analysis April 2011
City of Santa Monica Santa Monica City Hall
PCR Services Corporation. 30
Figure 9. City Hall, 1939, view to northeast, showing new concrete sidewalks, freshly planted concrete
planters flanking the front entrance, and palm trees at north border of site (Santa Monica Public
Library Image Archives)
11.A.f
Packet Pg. 683 Attachment: City Hall Historic Designation documents (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
April 2011 Character Defining Features Analysis
City of Santa Monica Santa Monica City Hall
PCR Services Corporation. 31
Figure 10. City Hall, 1939, showing freshly sodded front lawn and concrete sidewalks; planters at front
entrance are still empty; two palm trees appear northwest of the building; furnishings include
wood benches along the main entrance walk and along the front of the building; an additional
palm was located at the southwest corner of the lawn
11.A.f
Packet Pg. 684 Attachment: City Hall Historic Designation documents (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Character Defining Features Analysis April 2011
City of Santa Monica Santa Monica City Hall
PCR Services Corporation. 32
Figure 11. First Floor Plan, Santa Monica City Hall, August 4, 1939 (Donald B. Parkinson and J. M. Estep
Associated Architects)
11.A.f
Packet Pg. 685 Attachment: City Hall Historic Designation documents (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
April 2011 Character Defining Features Analysis
City of Santa Monica Santa Monica City Hall
PCR Services Corporation. 33
Figure 12. Post Card, 1939, depicting New City Hall, Santa Monica, California (Santa Monica Public Library
Image Archives)
11.A.f
Packet Pg. 686 Attachment: City Hall Historic Designation documents (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Character Defining Features Analysis April 2011
City of Santa Monica Santa Monica City Hall
PCR Services Corporation. 34
Figure 13. New City Hall, November 23, 1939, prior to dedication (Los Angeles Public Library)
11.A.f
Packet Pg. 687 Attachment: City Hall Historic Designation documents (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
April 2011 Character Defining Features Analysis
City of Santa Monica Santa Monica City Hall
PCR Services Corporation. 35
Figure 14. City Hall Entrance, 1939, showing daisies in planting bed at front entrance, concrete planters
flanking front entrance (still unplanted), and brick steps to entrance (Santa Monica Public
Library Image Archives)
11.A.f
Packet Pg. 688 Attachment: City Hall Historic Designation documents (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Character Defining Features Analysis April 2011
City of Santa Monica Santa Monica City Hall
PCR Services Corporation. 36
Figure 15. City Hall, 1940, showing palms planted along south elevation and at southeast corner of
building, decorative foundation plantings in the rear courtyard, and palm tree was planted at
northeast corner of the parking area north of the Jail (City of Santa Monica).
Figure 16. City Hall, ca. 1940, plantings at northwest corner of building (City of Santa Monica).
11.A.f
Packet Pg. 689 Attachment: City Hall Historic Designation documents (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
April 2011 Character Defining Features Analysis
City of Santa Monica Santa Monica City Hall
PCR Services Corporation. 37
Figure 17. Historic appearance of Santa Monica City Hall, ca. 1940‐1941, after landscaping had been
completed (Santa Monica Public Library Image Archives)
11.A.f
Packet Pg. 690 Attachment: City Hall Historic Designation documents (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Character Defining Features Analysis April 2011
City of Santa Monica Santa Monica City Hall
PCR Services Corporation. 38
Figure 18. Santa Monica City Hall, February 6, 1956 (Fairchild Aerial Surveys)
11.A.f
Packet Pg. 691 Attachment: City Hall Historic Designation documents (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
April 2011 Character Defining Features Analysis
City of Santa Monica Santa Monica City Hall
PCR Services Corporation. 39
Figure 19. Santa Monica City Hall prior to 1958 alterations (Courtesy City of Santa Monica)
11.A.f
Packet Pg. 692 Attachment: City Hall Historic Designation documents (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Character Defining Features Analysis April 2011
City of Santa Monica Santa Monica City Hall
PCR Services Corporation. 40
Figure 20. City Hall during the 1950s (Courtesy City of Santa Monica)
11.A.f
Packet Pg. 693 Attachment: City Hall Historic Designation documents (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
April 2011 Character Defining Features Analysis
City of Santa Monica Santa Monica City Hall
PCR Services Corporation. 41
Figure 21. City Hall during the 1950s (Santa Monica Public Library Image Archives)
11.A.f
Packet Pg. 694 Attachment: City Hall Historic Designation documents (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Character Defining Features Analysis April 2011
City of Santa Monica Santa Monica City Hall
PCR Services Corporation. 42
Figure 22. City Hall, 1958, showing Rose Garden, front entrance and landscaping at the time (Santa
Monica Public Library)
11.A.f
Packet Pg. 695 Attachment: City Hall Historic Designation documents (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
April 2011 Character Defining Features Analysis
City of Santa Monica Santa Monica City Hall
PCR Services Corporation. 43
Figure 23. Aerial View, City Hall in 1975 (Annual Report for the Fiscal Year 1974‐1975)
11.A.f
Packet Pg. 696 Attachment: City Hall Historic Designation documents (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Character Defining Features Analysis April 2011
City of Santa Monica Santa Monica City Hall
PCR Services Corporation. 44
Figure 24. City Hall in 1975, view to north (Annual Report for the Fiscal Year 1974‐1975)
11.A.f
Packet Pg. 697 Attachment: City Hall Historic Designation documents (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
April 2011 Character Defining Features Analysis
City of Santa Monica Santa Monica City Hall
PCR Services Corporation. 45
Figure 25. City Hall entrance, ca. 1982, before the installation of the succulent garden (Los Angeles Public
Library)
11.A.f
Packet Pg. 698 Attachment: City Hall Historic Designation documents (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Character Defining Features Analysis April 2011
City of Santa Monica Santa Monica City Hall
PCR Services Corporation. 46
Figure 26. City Hall entrance, 1983 (Los Angeles Public Library)
11.A.f
Packet Pg. 699 Attachment: City Hall Historic Designation documents (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
April 2011 Character Defining Features Analysis
City of Santa Monica Santa Monica City Hall
PCR Services Corporation. 47
Figure 27. City Hall showing succulent gardens, view to south (Santa Monica Public Library)
11.A.f
Packet Pg. 700 Attachment: City Hall Historic Designation documents (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Character Defining Features Analysis April 2011
City of Santa Monica Santa Monica City Hall
PCR Services Corporation. 48
3.0 CHARACTER DEFINING FEATURES ANALYSIS
The existing landscape setting associated with the City Hall site is associated with several important
historical themes developed above, including the history of the communities of Santa Monica and Ocean
Park; Transportation Improvements in Santa Monica; the City Beautiful Movement; Moderne Architecture;
the work of notable architects Parkinson and Estep; Landscape Architecture; development of public Parks,
Places and Spaces in Santa Monica; the design and construction history of Santa Monica City Hall: Building
and Landscape; and the cultural and social history of Santa Monica City Hall Landscape: Events and Public
Use. The landscape has two primary periods of significance, 1939‐1940 for architecture and design, and
1938‐1957 for cultural, social and political history and historic personages associated with the site. If we
apply the National Register guidelines, the period of significance for architecture and design is 1939‐1940,
and for history, 1939‐1961, due to the 50‐year threshold. The integrity of the pedestrian circulation system
and layout is high. However, the integrity of the historic landscape has been impacted by alterations to the
City Hall building and landscape beginning in 1958, as discussed above; therefore, the period of significance
must be restricted to 1938‐1957. Under the National Register, later landscape improvements may attain
significance under Criterion A for their association with history or events and may be evaluated for
significance as contributing features once they reach the 50‐year threshold.
Existing Description
The City Hall building dominates the broad, relatively symmetrical and formal landscape which visually
supports the structure’s monumentality and prominence on the site. The building exterior is an example of
the 1930s PWA Moderne style of architecture, which emphasized balanced massing, smooth lines,
symmetrical fenestration, faceted corners, and the use of understated decorative elements. The architectural
composition of City Hall consists of a three‐story central pavilion flanked by two‐and‐a‐half story
symmetrical wings. The building’s distinctive architectural features include the stepped and faceted mass,
stylized vertical fluting, horizontal streamline detailing, a variety of decorative ornamental features and tile
work. The foot print, scale, form, balanced massing, classical proportions and concrete masonry
construction of the building are the primary architectural and design characteristics that have a direct
relationship with the landscape setting. The projecting central pavilion, the L‐shaped wings to the north and
south with recessed courts, a rear U‐shaped courtyard to the east, and the faceted treatment of the building’s
corners, all directly influence the figure/ground relationship of the architecture with the surrounding
landscape. Likewise, the site layout, design, and proportions of the various landscape components relates
directly to the building’s footprint, scale, massing, design composition, and distinctive monumental
architecture.
The City Hall is oriented facing west toward Main Street and is situated in the center of a generally flat site
which consists of approximately 6.24 acres (Figures 3 and 28). The existing setting for Santa Monica City
Hall is defined by its open character and symmetrical organization which presently appears much as it did
during the historic period (1938‐1957). The landscape setting is distinguished by an expansive front lawn
that encompasses the majority of the western front of the site. The symmetrical layout of the sidewalks,
planters and planting beds reinforces the architectural design of the PWA Moderne City Hall, and the original
Palm tree plantings still enliven the west and south facades of the building and define the northern border of
the site.
11.A.f
Packet Pg. 701 Attachment: City Hall Historic Designation documents (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
April 2011 Character Defining Features Analysis
City of Santa Monica Santa Monica City Hall
PCR Services Corporation. 49
Original concrete sidewalks provide for pedestrian circulation across the City Hall site and around the
building. The centrally located entrance walk provides pedestrian access to the main entrance of City Hall
from Main Street. The entrance walk consists of two similar east‐to‐west sidewalks consisting of three rows
of concrete squares each, with squares measuring approximately four feet square. The entrance walk
intersects at its east and west ends with two sidewalks that cross the site from north to south, along Main
Street on the west and the front of City Hall on the east. The entrance walk is bordered by original eight‐inch
brick pavers laid in two rows flush with the surface of the side walk. The brick border runs along the outer
edge of the entrance walk, curving outward at the west end of the walk; at the east end of the entrance walk
the brick border continues across the sidewalk fronting City Hall and along the edge of the concrete planters
at the front of the building to the brick entrance steps. A similar brick treatment borders the Planting Bed at
Main Entrance. Additional sidewalks traverse the outer north and south edges of the front lawn, continue
along the north and south elevations of City Hall, curving around the corners of the building and the recessed
courts at the sides and at the back of the building. It appears the original sidewalks have been retained to a
large extent. Where damage or deterioration has occurred or alterations were necessary, especially behind
the building, the concrete squares have been largely replaced in kind. The integrity of the pedestrian
circulation and layout is high.
Two concrete planters flank the main entrance to City Hall. The planters are original to the building and
appear on the historic building plans and photographs. The concrete planter south of the entrance has been
altered for a concrete ADA ramp. The integrity of the north planter is intact.
The main front entrance as well as the original secondary entrances on the side and rear elevations of the
building are largely intact. The front entrance consists of concrete steps and a concrete landing with
decorative brick edging. The secondary entrances have concrete steps and landings. The existing pipe
railings at the entrances are not depicted in the historic photographs and appear to be later additions, and
they are compatible with the architectural character of City Hall. The original Main Entrance and the
majority of the original secondary entrances are largely intact, except for the addition of ADA ramps at the
front and rear of the building.
Among the first plantings on the site were palm trees, which are still extant. Two Mexican Fan Palms were
planted along the south elevation of the building in November 1939, and in a curved row at the northern
border of the property. Windmill Palms were planted in 1939‐1940 along the foundation at the west front of
the building. Canary Island Date Palms were planted at the northeast corner of the Council parking area.
Foundation plantings were first installed in 1939 after the building was completed. Initial plantings
occurred in November and December for the City Hall dedication, and additional plantings were installed
during the following year, as indicated in the historic photographs. Over the years as the plantings matured
and tastes changed, the plantings and gardens were replaced. Comparison of the historic photographs with
the existing conditions shows that most of the original plantings are no longer extant, with the exception of
the original palms; however, the planting beds remain in their original locations and are contributing
features.
The 1939 rectangular planting bed in the entrance walk is an original landscape feature of the City Hall site,
as documented in the historic photographs. There is an original four‐inch concrete curb around the
rectangular garden bed. The bed is surrounded by a rectangular grass border. There is an original six‐inch
concrete curb around the grass border. Original eight‐inch brick pavers laid in two rows and flush with the
11.A.f
Packet Pg. 702 Attachment: City Hall Historic Designation documents (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Character Defining Features Analysis April 2011
City of Santa Monica Santa Monica City Hall
PCR Services Corporation. 50
surface of the side walk form a border around the outer edges of the concrete curb, bordering the entrance
walk. The garden contains a relocated metal flagpole set in a concrete base. A row of regularly placed
noncontributing concrete‐block stepping stones in the rose bed provide access from the grass border to the
relocated flag pole. Noncontributing lighting fixtures in the planting bed light the flagpole at night.
There are two symmetrical planting beds that flank the main entrance walk at its outer north and south
edges. They are long rectangular beds which retain original 1939 six‐inch concrete curbing along the edges
of the entrance walk. However, the other edges of the planting beds are bordered with non‐original L‐
shaped concrete edging blocks. The planting beds contain symmetrically planted junipers which are non‐
contributing later additions. The other plantings are later replacements and are also noncontributing.
Ornamental tree plantings occurred during the 1940s along the sidewalks bordering the front lawn, however
relatively few of these trees are still remaining today. Two Carob trees still exist in their original locations at
the north entrance to the front lawn from the parking lot; one of the two trees appears to be an original
planting while the other appears to be a later replacement. A large Bunya‐Bunya tree planted during the late
1950s or 1960s is located in the North Garden, at the northwest corner of the City Hall building; it was
described by Grace Heintz in 1976 and was mature at that time. Other tree plantings appear to have
occurred more recently along the border of the lawn surrounding the parking lot and are non‐contributing.
The main entrance features a large rose garden flanked by symmetrical entrance walks. Known as the
Veterans Rose Garden (1951), this is a contributing landscape feature important for its historical
associations with site and not as a design element. It contains 52 rose bushes regularly spaced in four rows
with 13 bushes in each row. Two markers are located in the rose bed, symmetrically placed at each end of
the rose garden: (1) the concrete marker at the east end of the rose bed has a bronze plaque upon which is
inscribed the following words, “This Rose Garden is dedicated in loving memory of those men of our community
who have given their lives in the service of our country. November 11, 1951. The Gold Star Mothers. The City of
Santa Monica;” (2) the concrete marker at the west end of the rose bed has a concrete plaque upon which is
inscribed these words, “Erected by the Sons of the Revolution in the State of California in memory of
distinguished member Eugene Warren Biscailuz 1883‐1969 A Peace Officer for Los Angeles County For Half a
Century Memorial Day 1970.” The second marker is a non‐contributing addition to the rose garden, reflecting
the garden’s continued function as a community memorial in the 1970s.
Character Defining Features
The result of the landscape analysis is illustrated on Figure 28, which identifies existing contributing historic
landscape features dating from between 1938‐1939 when the initial landscaping effort was completed for
the City Hall dedication ceremony, and continuing through 1940 when most of the original improvements to
the City Hall landscape were completed. Figure 28 also includes contributing landscape improvements made
during the 1940s‐1950s, prior to the 1958 alteration of City Hall, which marks the end of the period of
significance for the historic landscape. The fully developed historic appearance of the landscape is depicted
on historic Figures 18 and 19, prior to the 1958 additions to City Hall. Since 1958, there have been two
changes to the landscape which have attained significance and are contributing features. The first is the
Bunya‐Bunya tree planted at the northwest corner of City Hall during the late 1950s or 1960s, described by
Grace Heintz in her 1976 description of the gardens. The second is the flagpole, an original architectural
feature which was relocated to the Veterans Rose Garden from the roof of City Hall during the 1970s.
11.A.f
Packet Pg. 703 Attachment: City Hall Historic Designation documents (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
April 2011 Character Defining Features Analysis
City of Santa Monica Santa Monica City Hall
PCR Services Corporation. 51
The front façade of City Hall is presently articulated by seven of ten original Windmill Palms (two are missing
from the north garden and one from the south) planted there in 1939 [Map Key No. 1]. The original concrete
planters flanking the front entrance of City Hall are extant, and they contain mature Junipers that appear to
have been replanted there about 1958 (Figure 22) [Map Key No. 2]. The dedication marker for City Hall is
located in the concrete pavement at the front of the building [Map Key No. 3].
The rectangular planting bed (1939) depicted in the historic photographs (Figure 14) is extant in the center
of the main entrance walkway [Map Key No. 4]. To the north and south, original concrete curbs (1939)
bordering the lawn remain extant [Map Key No. 5].
The original concrete sidewalks (1939) remain in the western portion of the site, in the north and south
courts, and against the building on the interior of the rear east court [Map Key No. 6]. Original concrete steps
provide a transition from the sidewalks to the building entrances [Map Key No. 7]. The original lawn areas
laid out in 1939 remain extant in the western, northwestern, and southeastern portions of the site [Map Key
No. 8]. The Council Parking lot located to the north of City Hall retains its original configuration at the
building’s north court [Map Key No. 9]; however, the entrance driveway has been widened and the
remainder of the original vehicular parking area and circulation formerly behind the building to the east has
been substantially altered.
The three Canary Island Date Palms planted in 1939 in the Council Parking area remain extant [Map Key No.
10]. Likewise, the gracefully curving row of five original Mexican Fan Palms still lines the brow of the hill
overlooking the Santa Monica Freeway (previously Olympic Boulevard) [Map Key No. 11]; and two original
Mexican Fan Palms are still located along the south elevation of the building [Map Key No. 11]. The steeply‐
graded hill to the north is still extant and remnants of the original terracing and retaining walls appear to be
underneath the overgrowth [Map Key No. 12]; a new non‐contributing retaining wall/barrier has been
constructed along the edge of the freeway and the northeast corner of the site has been reconfigured for the
4th Street Bridge and new Public Safety Building. One of three Carob trees that lined the lawn during the
1940s along the south side of the Council parking lot appears extant [Map Key 13].
Narrow, linear planting beds, ca. 1940s, containing relatively symmetrical non‐original low‐profile
ornamental plantings border the north and south lawns along the original main entrance walk [Map Key 14].
The original planting beds at the foundations of City Hall still remain along the front of the building and in
the side and rear courts [Map Key No. 15], although the majority of the existing plantings are later alterations
after 1958. For example, the existing plantings in the north court, including the Giant Bird of Paradise,
Junipers and Queen Palms, and the Queen Palms in corner of the rear east court were planted most likely
during the 1970s and are non‐contributing. The foundation plantings along the south elevation and in the
front north and south gardens are more non‐contributing recent alterations.
The relocated flagpole presently situated in the Veterans Rose Garden was moved from its original location
on top of City Hall during the 1970s [Map Key No. 16].75 As such, it is a contributing feature associated with
the City Hall building where it was originally located. The flagpole continued its original function after its
75 Due to potential hazards to workmen, the flagpole was moved from atop the City Hall to the east lawn in the early 1970s.
“Christmas Flag Gets Relocated,” Evening Outlook, Dec. 18, 1972, p. 11.
11.A.f
Packet Pg. 704 Attachment: City Hall Historic Designation documents (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Character Defining Features Analysis April 2011
City of Santa Monica Santa Monica City Hall
PCR Services Corporation. 52
relocation to its present location. Therefore, the flagpole is an original contributing feature of City Hall that
has retained its significance because it continued its original use after its relocation and remains associated
with the City Hall property. The Veterans Rose Garden located in the 1939 planting bed in front of City Hall
was dedicated in 1951 and contains a bronze marker commemorating the dedication [Map Key No. 17].
The curved hedgerow presently located on the brow of the hill in line with the Mexican Fan Palms appears to
be in the same location as a hedge shown on Figure 18 [Map Key No. 18]. The Bunya‐Bunya tree located at
the northwest corner of City Hall in the north garden was depicted in the 1975 aerial view (Figure 23) and
described by Grace Heintz in 1976. Mature at the time, it was most likely planted sometime during the
1960s, after the 1958 improvements to City Hall [Map Key No. 19].
The original oval traffic circle in the rear east court was demolished in 1958 when the police department
additions to City Hall were constructed. However, several segments of the pedestrian walkway and the
entrance steps to the building, in rear east court still remain near the east elevation and were not demolished
for the 1958 additions. The historic appearance of the building was restored sometime after the removal of
the rear additions in 2003, probably around 2006 and the oval traffic circle was partially reconstructed at
that time [Map Key No. 20], retaining the original segments of the pedestrian walkway and the entrance
steps. Originally a key landscape feature, the courtyard oval retains some of its original elements and
although it was partially demolished, it was later partially reconstructed in a manner that conveys the
original design intent; therefore, this is a character‐defining feature.
11.A.f
Packet Pg. 705 Attachment: City Hall Historic Designation documents (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
FIGURE
Source: PCR Services Corporation, 2011.
0 70 140 Feet
Character Defining Features Analysis, Landscape and Grounds,
Santa Monica City Hall, Santa Monica, California
Landscaping
X
Project Boundary Mai
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
4t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
Olympic Drive10
1
3
2
2
1
1
Map Key
1) 7 of 10 original Windmill Palms (1939)
2)Concrete Planters (1939) containing replacement Junipers (c. 1950s)
3) Dedication marker (1939)
4) Rectangular planting bed (1939)
5) Concrete curbs for linear planting beds (1939)
6) Sidewalks (1939)
7) Entrance steps (1939)
8) Lawn areas (1939)
9) Council Parking Lot (1939)
10) Canary Island Date Palms in parking lot (1939)
11) Mexican Fan Palms (1939)
12) Original terracing and retaining walls
13) Carob tree (1940s) and one replanted Carob tree
14) Linear planting beds (1940s)
15) Original planting beds (1939)
16) Flagpole (1939; relocated 1970s)
17) Veterans Rose Garden and dedication marker (1951)
18) Curved hedgerow at brow of hill (1950s)
19) Bunya-Bunya tree (c. 1950s-60s)
20) Oval traffic circle (partially reconstructed 2003)
15
15
15
1
1 1
1 1
6
7
8
8
9
111111
11
11
10 10
13
13
11
11
14
14
15
15
17
19
16
4
18
5
5
12
66
6
6
6
6
6
6
10
8 20
7
7
7
7
11
28
6
6
6
8
15
11.A.f
Packet Pg. 706 Attachment: City Hall Historic Designation documents (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Character Defining Features Analysis April 2011
City of Santa Monica Santa Monica City Hall
PCR Services Corporation. 54
Figure 29. General view from northwest corner of site toward main entrance, view to southeast
Figure 30. General view from southwest corner of site toward main entrance, view to northeast
11.A.f
Packet Pg. 707 Attachment: City Hall Historic Designation documents (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
April 2011 Character Defining Features Analysis
City of Santa Monica Santa Monica City Hall
PCR Services Corporation. 55
Figure 31. General view of main entrance, view to southeast
Figure 32. Veterans Rose Garden (1951) in original Planting Bed (1939), view to east
11.A.f
Packet Pg. 708 Attachment: City Hall Historic Designation documents (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Character Defining Features Analysis April 2011
City of Santa Monica Santa Monica City Hall
PCR Services Corporation. 56
Figure 33. Planting Bed along north side of Main Entrance Walk, view to east
Figure 34. Planting Bed along south side of Main Entrance Walk, view to east
11.A.f
Packet Pg. 709 Attachment: City Hall Historic Designation documents (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
April 2011 Character Defining Features Analysis
City of Santa Monica Santa Monica City Hall
PCR Services Corporation. 57
Figure 35. Intersection of Main Entrance Walk with sidewalk along Main Street, view to north
Figure 36. Entrance to City Hall, view to southeast
11.A.f
Packet Pg. 710 Attachment: City Hall Historic Designation documents (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Character Defining Features Analysis April 2011
City of Santa Monica Santa Monica City Hall
PCR Services Corporation. 58
Figure 37. Foundation plantings along south elevation, view to east
F
11.A.f
Packet Pg. 711 Attachment: City Hall Historic Designation documents (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
April 2011 Character Defining Features Analysis
City of Santa Monica Santa Monica City Hall
PCR Services Corporation. 59
Figure 38. Foundation plantings along west elevation, view to south
Figure 39. Foundation plantings along west elevation, view to north
11.A.f
Packet Pg. 712 Attachment: City Hall Historic Designation documents (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Character Defining Features Analysis April 2011
City of Santa Monica Santa Monica City Hall
PCR Services Corporation. 60
Figure 40. Curved row of mature palms at northern border of site, view to northwest
Figure 41. Mature palms and one tree at northeast corner of parking area, view to northeast
11.A.f
Packet Pg. 713 Attachment: City Hall Historic Designation documents (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
April 2011 Character Defining Features Analysis
City of Santa Monica Santa Monica City Hall
PCR Services Corporation. 61
Figure 42. Remaining tree plantings at north entrance to lawn from parking lot, view to north
Figure 43. Mature exotic tree in North Garden, view to south
11.A.f
Packet Pg. 714 Attachment: City Hall Historic Designation documents (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Character Defining Features Analysis April 2011
City of Santa Monica Santa Monica City Hall
PCR Services Corporation. 62
Figure 44. Ornamental tree plantings near parking area, view to northwest
11.A.f
Packet Pg. 715 Attachment: City Hall Historic Designation documents (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
City of Santa Monica Santa Monica City Hall
PCR Services Corporation.
APPENDIX A ‐ LANDMARK DESIGNATION FOR SANTA MONICA CITY HALL
11.A.f
Packet Pg. 716 Attachment: City Hall Historic Designation documents (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
11.A.fPacket Pg. 717Attachment: City Hall Historic Designation documents (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Santa Monica City Council
Santa Monica, CA
February 25, 2023
To the City Leadership of Santa Monica,
It comes to our attention that the controversial mural is going to be once again displayed in
City Hall due to the pressure by those ignorant of our people's painful history. Ironically the
image portrayed is not one of historical accounts, but instead, an artist's conception based on
which we and the State of California know as disturbingly inaccurate storytelling.
Conception is just that: an idea that is left to the interpretation of those who view it. So let
us tell you how it is perceived and interpreted by those descendants whose ancestors were
held in captivity at the supposed era this image depicts. While you may see my ancestors
drinking water, we see slaves granted a drink while under guard. We see slaves being used for
a water contamination test while the sword of the mounted conquistador pointed directly at
the neck of the native as he condescendingly sits above, for it was those swords that struct
down many of my ancestors who were unwilling to worship a foreign religion.
What you leaders need to ask yourselves is, "what if one is to replace the natives with black
men, and Junipero Serra with a slave owner? Would it still be as appropriate? Would it still be
acceptable art?” The answer is NO. Because it brings the same content to our minds as it
would a black man if he were to see that imagery in a place where all men are supposed to be
considered equal. Or if you can, imagine the Spaniard Soldiers replaced with any other
military that had a history with the natives here and it would STILL be of negative
connotations at ANY past historical level. We ask you to please reconsider your intentions to
display this mural and have the common decency to think of those who this image offends
and help move us forward not backwards.
Chairman Nicholas Rocha
Gabrielino-Shoshone Nation of Southern California
11.A.g
Packet Pg. 718 Attachment: 2.25.23 Letter from Gabrielino Shoshone Tribe (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
May 12, 2023
To Whom it May Concern:
The purpose of this email is to provide the Tribal response to the Santa Monica mural. Our tribe, the San
Gabriel Band of Mission Indians is the tribe immemorial of the Los Angeles and Orange County. We are
Gabrieleno/Tongva and likely the Natfve Americans depicted in the mural.
We understand the mural has created conversatfon and varied views. To that point, the mural has
proved to be a point of educatfon. It has created conversatfon that extends beyond the First People of
Los Angeles to also look at the lack of inclusivity the mural provides. We support educatfon about our
people and increased visibility of our ancestors and contfnued presence.
Rather than focus on the mural itself we view this as an opportunity to discuss additfonal educatfon that
can assist in promotfng the awareness of our Tribe, history, and culture.
There are ways the Tribe can partner with the City Santa Monica, this is not an exhaustfve list however it
does present a few ideas to extend the conversatfon beyond the mural:
• Land Acknowledgement: We recommend the City adopts a Land Acknowledgement
• Art: Hire First People Artfsts to create art
• Educatfon: Partner with our Tribe for educatfon about our people on our ancestral land
• Land Back: Evaluate areas of the city that can be used for Land Back to the tribe, like the Santa
Monica Airport
• Landscape: Evaluate areas where landscape can be cultfvated by Natfve Plants and partner with
our tribe to allow for gathering
• Historical Society: Create a connectfon with the First People and acknowledge our presence
• Provide Museum Space to allow our people to display about our people
• Kuruvungna Springs: Although it is owned to LAUSD, facilitate the land return to our tribe
• Tribal Office Liaison: Create a staff positfon that allows for the city to thoughtiully consider the
First People
Santa Monica specifically is a city that is committed to justfce. This was exhibited with Bruce’s Beach.
Although our tribe does feel over looked in the reparatfons and lack of acknowledging the First People, it
does provide hope of a moral conscious that can guide future conversatfons to create space and visibility
for our people on our ancestral land.
11.A.h
Packet Pg. 719 Attachment: 5.12.23 Letter from Gabrielino-Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall
1
David Yakobson
From:Judith Meister <judith.meister7@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 13, 2024 3:33 PM
To:councilmtgitems; advocacy@smconservancy.org
Subject:I Support the Meztli Report - Item 11A
EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
I urge you to approve the Staff recommendation to accept all the recommendations of the Meztli Project report and
authorize staff to begin implementation.
I had earlier urged the Council to not cover the City Hall lobby mural, and rather, begin an inclusive community process
to address the issues raised about the content of the mural and find a solution that would retain the mural, explain its
history, and identify ways to engage voices of First Peoples in the community.
The outcome of that process is Phase I, the Meztli report. This process took place over a year and is one of the more
successful public processes that I have observed and participated in during my time as an employee and resident of
Santa Monica. The consultant team took the time to engage the community in a thoughtful and reiterative process that
built consensus slowly and has resulted in the first step of a larger process of healing and sharing.
I support all of the recommendations of the report and believe that authorizing staff to begin the process of
commissioning a new artwork should happen immediately, as well as the work on developing interpretive panels for the
mural. The commitment to follow through on all the recommendations is crucial to creating trust and allowing the
community to move ahead to consider other issues raised during this process. The report provides a framework for what
will be hard work. Please accept this challenge and provide the leadership needed to look back on our history, and
welcome all voices to build a more inclusive present and future.
Thank you,
Judith Meister
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
11.A.i
Packet Pg. 720 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
2
David Yakobson
From:sonja hernandez <sonjaher@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 13, 2024 12:52 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Culture
Subject:supporting a yes vote on agenda item #11
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
My name is Sonja Hernandez, and I am submitting a public comment supporting a yes vote on agenda item #11,
“Approval of the Reframe: City Hall Mural Project Phase I Report Recommendations.”
This issue is important to me because, as an Indigenous person, I have experienced the gross misrepresentation of us in
many facets of society, for example, art, school curriculums, film, and TV, among other areas of life. These false
representations of Indigenous people have led to the highest rates of suicide for young people.
I fully support the recommendations in the report as they focus on the healing and reparative efforts needed to bridge
the Santa Monica of today, the city’s values which are vastly different than the ideals reflected in the mural, which
centers a white supremacist view of the city and society, and because as a city we need to do much better in repairing
the harms done to First Peoples. Most recently, the county released the “We Are Still Here,” A Report on Past, Present,
and Ongoing Harms Against Local Tribes detailing the long list of injustices our cities and county have inflicted on
Indigenous people.
I encourage the city council to vote yes and join other cities across the Nation in taking steps to build a more inclusive
society that equitably supports and nurtures First Peoples.
Thank you,
Sincerely,
Sonja Hernandez
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
11.A.i
Packet Pg. 721 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
3
David Yakobson
From:Mike Bravo <miguel@bravo1.la>
Sent:Tuesday, February 13, 2024 12:36 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Culture
Subject:Yes on agenda item #11, “Approval of the Reframe: City Hall Mural Project "
EXTERNAL
My name is Miguel Bravo, from Venice, CA.. and I am supporƟng a yes vote on agenda item #11 — Approval of the
Reframe: City Hall Mural Project Phase I Report RecommendaƟons.
As a 5th generation Chicano of Purhepecha heritage, I am reaching out to express the significance of this issue to
me on a personal level. As someone of Indigenous heritage, I have repeatedly encountered the gross
misrepresentations of our culture across various institutional spaces such as art, government, education and
media. These easily addressable issues have contributed to the psychological harm as well as high rates of
suicide among Indigenous youth.
I am in full agreement with the recommendations outlined in the report. It places focus on healing and reparative
actions essential for bridging the current state of Santa Monica with its values, which starkly contrast with the
outdated ideals depicted in the mural—a portrayal rooted in white supremacist perspectives. It is imperative that
as a community, we strive to rectify the injustices inflicted upon First Peoples. The recent release of the "We Are
Still Here" report by the county underscores the urgent need for acknowledgment and action regarding past,
present, and ongoing harms against local tribes.
I urge the city council to vote YES and join the ranks of other cities and institutions nationwide in taking meaningful
steps towards creating a more inclusive society that genuinely supports and uplifts Amerindian First Peoples.
Thank you.
Miguel Bravo
Venice, CA
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
11.A.i
Packet Pg. 722 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
4
David Yakobson
From:Zora Zajicek <zorazajicek@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 13, 2024 12:28 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Culture
Subject:Reframe: City Hall Mural Project
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
My name is Zora, and I am submitting a public comment supporting a yes vote on agenda item #11, “Approval
of the Reframe: City Hall Mural Project Phase I Report Recommendations.”
This issue is important to me because, as an Indigenous person, I have experienced the gross
misrepresentation of us in many facets of society, for example, art, school curriculums, film, and TV, among
other areas of life. These false representations of Indigenous people have led to the highest rates of suicide for
young people.
I fully support the recommendations in the report as they focus on the healing and reparative efforts needed
to bridge the Santa Monica of today, the city’s values which are vastly different than the ideals reflected in the
mural, which centers a white supremacist view of the city and society, and because as a city we need to do
much better in repairing the harms done to First Peoples. Most recently, the county released the “We Are Still
Here,” A Report on Past, Present, and Ongoing Harms Against Local Tribes detailing the long list of injustices
our cities and county have inflicted on Indigenous people.
I encourage the city council to vote yes and join other cities across the Nation in taking steps to build a more
inclusive society that equitably supports and nurtures First Peoples.
Thank you,
Sincerely,
Zora
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
11.A.i
Packet Pg. 723 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
1
David Yakobson
From:paulina sahagun <ixcan7@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 13, 2024 11:54 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Santa Monica Mural Reframe Project
EXTERNAL
To the Santa Monica City Council,
The Reframe : City Hall Mural report has provided many opinions on the mural by Stanton W. Mcdonald.
I understand that this is only the first phase of the project, as of now the mural will not be taken
down. However as this process continues it’s removal will still be considered.
For the second phase I expect this process to move quickly to stop the perpetual
emotional assault and the historical inaccuracies directed toward our Native People of the Los Angeles
Basin and other Mesoamerican Indigenous descendants.
This is an opportunity for the city to lead the way toward the implementation of a DEI training for the city
staff, that truly supports and promotes the termination of structural racism.
Paulina Sahagun
Removed from Santa Monica by 10 Freeway
Theater Artist Educator
Santa Monica Community Volunteer
Films on Santa Monica:
“90404 Changing”
“We Were All Here”
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
11.A.i
Packet Pg. 724 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
2
David Yakobson
From:liana rios <lianajrios@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 13, 2024 11:42 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Culture
Subject:Recommendation 8: Facilitate Land Back in Santa Monica
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
My name is Liana, and I am submitting a public comment supporting a yes vote on agenda item #8: Facilitate Land Back
in Santa Monica.
This issue is important to me because, as an Indigenous person, I have experienced the gross misrepresentation of us in
many facets of society, for example, art, school curriculums, film, and TV, among other areas of life. These false
representations of Indigenous people have led to the highest rates of suicide for young people.
I fully support the recommendations in the report as they focus on the healing and reparative efforts needed to bridge
the Santa Monica of today, the city’s values which are vastly different than the ideals reflected in the mural, which
centers a white supremacist view of the city and society, and because as a city we need to do much better in repairing
the harms done to First Peoples. Most recently, the county released the “We Are Still Here,” A Report on Past, Present,
and Ongoing Harms Against Local Tribes detailing the long list of injustices our cities and county have inflicted on
Indigenous people.
I encourage the city council to vote yes and join other cities across the Nation in taking steps to build a more inclusive
society that equitably supports and nurtures First Peoples.
Thank you,
Sincerely,
Liana
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
11.A.i
Packet Pg. 725 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
1
David Yakobson
From:Alexandria Ybarra <alexandriasonja@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 13, 2024 11:33 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Culture
Subject:Public comment concerning city hall mural
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
My name is Alexandria, and I am submitting a public comment supporting a yes vote on agenda item #11,
“Approval of the Reframe: City Hall Mural Project Phase I Report Recommendations.”
This issue is important to me because, as an Indigenous person, I have experienced the gross
misrepresentation of us in many facets of society, for example, art, school curriculums, film, and TV, among
other areas of life. These false representations of Indigenous people have led to the highest rates of suicide for
young people.
I fully support the recommendations in the report as they focus on the healing and reparative efforts needed
to bridge the Santa Monica of today, the city’s values which are vastly different than the ideals reflected in the
mural, which centers a white supremacist view of the city and society, and because as a city we need to do
much better in repairing the harms done to First Peoples. Most recently, the county released the “We Are Still
Here,” A Report on Past, Present, and Ongoing Harms Against Local Tribes detailing the long list of injustices
our cities and county have inflicted on Indigenous people.
I encourage the city council to vote yes and join other cities across the Nation in taking steps to build a more
inclusive society that equitably supports and nurtures First Peoples.
Thank you,
Sincerely,
Alexandria
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
11.A.i
Packet Pg. 726 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
2
David Yakobson
From:angel villasenor <avillasenor196@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 13, 2024 11:17 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Public Comment Item 11
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
First and foremost I'd like to thank the REFRAME team for their work. They were methodical, intentional and
culturally grounded which is refreshing.
Although I still strongly believe that the mural needs to be removed for all the points raised in the
comprehensive 106 pg report, I do support the recommendations outlined. We definitely need an educational
component around colonialism and the embodied advantages and disadvantages it produces for all nonwhite
groups in America, especially the Native American community.
We need to fund and create 'anti-colonial projects of resistance' (art, and media- based interventions
advocating and celebrating the collective identities and insurgent histories of particular peoples of color
appeared all in the effort to express and invent emancipatory concepts of racial/national identity) which are
expressed to help raise and expand consciousness by highlighting the counter stories of resilience and self-
determination by nonwhite groups in America.
The current murals highlight what sociologist Michael Omi and Howard Winant would call White Racial
Nationalism, which according to them, means the following:
"white racial nationalism both built and fractured the United States. It unified whites across tremendous
chasms of class and culture/ethnicity, precisely because it allowed them to claim their whiteness, sometimes
with ease and sometimes only after passing through extended “probationary” periods. The racial cleavages we
see in the nation are the products of the exploitative and exclusionist commitments of the white nation: its
deracination (uprooting) of the indigenous inhabitants of North America; its capture, killing, transport in chains,
and enslavement of millions of Africans; its conquest of adjacent territories and its relegation of their
inhabitants to lesser status; and its massive dependence on immigration, mostly on the part of people not
considered (or not yet considered) white. Thence cometh the divided and hierarchical peoplehood, the
stratified and conflictual nation, the United States of America." (1986)
The recommendations will allow us to truly begin the work of disrupting and educating our community around
the legacy of colonialism and their continued effects in our City and institutions.
In community,
Angel Villasenor
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
11.A.i
Packet Pg. 727 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
3
David Yakobson
From:Cheyenne Green <cheyenne.green0@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 13, 2024 11:16 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Culture
Subject:Written Comment
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
My name is Cheyenne, and I am submitting a public comment supporting a yes vote on agenda item #11,
“Approval of the Reframe: City Hall Mural Project Phase I Report Recommendations.”
This issue is important to me because, as an Indigenous person, I have experienced the gross
misrepresentation of us in many facets of society, for example, art, school curriculums, film, and TV, among
other areas of life. These false representations of Indigenous people have led to the highest rates of suicide for
young people.
I fully support the recommendations in the report as they focus on the healing and reparative efforts needed to
bridge the Santa Monica of today, the city’s values which are vastly different than the ideals reflected in the
mural, which centers a white supremacist view of the city and society, and because as a city we need to do
much better in repairing the harms done to First Peoples. Most recently, the county released the “We Are Still
Here,” A Report on Past, Present, and Ongoing Harms Against Local Tribes detailing the long list of injustices
our cities and county have inflicted on Indigenous people.
I encourage the city council to vote yes and join other cities across the Nation in taking steps to build a more
inclusive society that equitably supports and nurtures First Peoples.
Thank you,
Sincerely,
Cheyenne
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
11.A.i
Packet Pg. 728 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
4
David Yakobson
From:Batisse Le Tenoux <letenoux@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 13, 2024 11:15 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Culture
Subject:Written Comment 02/2024
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
My name is Batisse Le Tenoux, and I am submitting a public comment supporting a yes vote on agenda item #11,
“Approval of the Reframe: City Hall Mural Project Phase I Report Recommendations.”
This issue is important to me because, as an Indigenous person, I have experienced the gross misrepresentation of us in
many facets of society, for example, art, school curriculums, film, and TV, among other areas of life. These false
representations of Indigenous people have led to the highest rates of suicide for young people.
I fully support the recommendations in the report as they focus on the healing and reparative efforts needed to bridge
the Santa Monica of today, the city’s values which are vastly different than the ideals reflected in the mural, which
centers a white supremacist view of the city and society, and because as a city we need to do much better in repairing
the harms done to First Peoples. Most recently, the county released the “We Are Still Here,” A Report on Past, Present,
and Ongoing Harms Against Local Tribes detailing the long list of injustices our cities and county have inflicted on
Indigenous people.
I encourage the city council to vote yes and join other cities across the Nation in taking steps to build a more inclusive
society that equitably supports and nurtures First Peoples.
Thank you,
Sincerely,
Batisse Le Tenoux
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
11.A.i
Packet Pg. 729 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
5
David Yakobson
From:Jay Lamars <jay.lamars@icloud.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 13, 2024 11:06 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Culture
Subject:Public Comment
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
My name is Jay Lamars, and I am submitting a public comment supporting a yes vote on agenda item #11, “Approval of
the Reframe: City Hall Mural Project Phase I Report Recommendations.”
This issue is important to me because, as an Indigenous person, I have experienced the gross misrepresentation of us in
many facets of society, for example, art, school curriculums, film, and TV, among other areas of life. These false
representations of Indigenous people have led to the highest rates of suicide for young people.
I fully support the recommendations in the report as they focus on the healing and reparative efforts needed to bridge
the Santa Monica of today, the city’s values which are vastly different than the ideals reflected in the mural, which
centers a white supremacist view of the city and society, and because as a city we need to do much better in repairing
the harms done to First Peoples. Most recently, the county released the “We Are Still Here,” A Report on Past, Present,
and Ongoing Harms Against Local Tribes detailing the long list of injustices our cities and county have inflicted on
Indigenous people.
I encourage the city council to vote yes and join other cities across the Nation in taking steps to build a more inclusive
society that equitably supports and nurtures First Peoples.
Thank you,
Sincerely,
Jay Lamars
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
11.A.i
Packet Pg. 730 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
6
David Yakobson
From:Isaac michael Ybarra <isaacm.film@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 13, 2024 10:35 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Culture
Subject:Agenda item #11
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
My name is Isaac Michael Ybarra, and I am submitting a public comment supporting a yes vote on agenda item #11,
“Approval of the Reframe: City Hall Mural Project Phase I Report Recommendations.”
This issue is important to me because, as an Indigenous person, I have experienced the gross misrepresentation of us in
many facets of society, for example, art, school curriculums, film, and TV, among other areas of life. These false
representations of Indigenous people have led to the highest rates of suicide for young people.
I fully support the recommendations in the report as they focus on the healing and reparative efforts needed to bridge
the Santa Monica of today, the city’s values which are vastly different than the ideals reflected in the mural, which
centers a white supremacist view of the city and society, and because as a city we need to do much better in repairing
the harms done to First Peoples. Most recently, the county released the “We Are Still Here,” A Report on Past, Present,
and Ongoing Harms Against Local Tribes detailing the long list of injustices our cities and county have inflicted on
Indigenous people.
I encourage the city council to vote yes and join other cities across the Nation in taking steps to build a more inclusive
society that equitably supports and nurtures First Peoples.
Thank you,
Sincerely,
Isaac Michael Ybarra
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
11.A.i
Packet Pg. 731 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
7
David Yakobson
From:Danielle Mayen <mayen.marie.dm@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 13, 2024 10:28 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Culture
Subject:In Support of Agenda Item #11
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
My name is (NAME), and I am submitting a public comment supporting a yes vote on agenda item #11,
“Approval of the Reframe: City Hall Mural Project Phase I Report Recommendations.”
This issue is important to me because, as an Indigenous person, I have experienced the gross
misrepresentation of us in many facets of society, for example, art, school curriculums, film, and TV, among
other areas of life. These false representations of Indigenous people have led to the highest rates of suicide for
young people.
I fully support the recommendations in the report as they focus on the healing and reparative efforts needed
to bridge the Santa Monica of today, the city’s values which are vastly different than the ideals reflected in the
mural, which centers a white supremacist view of the city and society, and because as a city we need to do
much better in repairing the harms done to First Peoples. Most recently, the county released the “We Are Still
Here,” A Report on Past, Present, and Ongoing Harms Against Local Tribes detailing the long list of injustices
our cities and county have inflicted on Indigenous people.
I encourage the city council to vote yes and join other cities across the Nation in taking steps to build a more
inclusive society that equitably supports and nurtures First Peoples.
Thank you,
Sincerely,
Danielle Mayen
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
11.A.i
Packet Pg. 732 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
1
David Yakobson
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Tuesday, February 13, 2024 8:10 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: council meeting Feb 13, 2024 item 11A murals
From: jim gerstley <jimggers@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2024 3:48 AM
To: Phil Brock <Phil.Brock@santamonica.gov>; Lana Negrete <Lana.Negrete@santamonica.gov>; Gleam Davis
<Gleam.Davis@santamonica.gov>; Christine Parra <Christine.Parra@santamonica.gov>; Jesse Zwick
<Jesse.Zwick@santamonica.gov>; Caroline Torosis <Caroline.Torosis@santamonica.gov>; Oscar de la Torre
<Oscar.delaTorre@santamonica.gov>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: council meeting Feb 13, 2024 item 11A murals
EXTERNAL
I disagree with the Metzli findings.
The message to me is the murals reflect badly on the conquerors, not the indigenous people,
because of how badly the conquerors treated the latter. A total lack of tolerance; forcing their religion
on the conquered, turning them into slaves, stealing their land, and a lack of understanding and
appreciation of the native American culture that existed prior to the arrival of the conquerors.
Lets not change history to beautify it. Let's use the history to learn its lessons. It could even lead to
discussions on the morality of what was done to the indigenous people; possible alternative
interactions; what else should be done now to enable the native culture and to teach tolerance of
cultures we don't understand.
And it isn't limited to Santa Monica or even California. Throughout the US, native American treaties
have been broken by white men and the indigenous people forced off their land to less desirable
areas.
Today we enjoy the land we stole from the indigenous people, while subjugating them and leaving
them with very little. It's a sad commentary on our history and on our values, but still it is the history of
the interaction of the whites and the natives throughout the US. Let's learn from it.
Thank you
Jim Gerstley
Santa Monica CA
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
11.A.i
Packet Pg. 733 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
2
David Yakobson
From:Gil Leib <gilrleib@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 13, 2024 5:40 AM
To:councilmtgitems; advocacy@smconservancy.org
Subject:I Support the Meztli Report
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
EXTERNAL
Gil Leib
601
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
11.A.i
Packet Pg. 734 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
3
David Yakobson
From:Miriam Faugno <mfaugnos@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 13, 2024 1:38 AM
To:councilmtgitems; advocacy@smconservancy.org
Subject:I Support the Meztli Report
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
EXTERNAL
Miriam Faugno
Playa del Rey, CA
90293
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
11.A.i
Packet Pg. 735 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
4
David Yakobson
From:Thomasine Rogas <teharvin@aol.com>
Sent:Monday, February 12, 2024 5:34 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Item 11A
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
I support all nine recommendations of the Meztli Projects Report regarding the City Hall Mural. I am
hoping that you will do the same at your February 13 meeting.
Thank you for your service to our city.
Thomasine Rogas
Cell: (310) 913-3671
teharvin@aol.com
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
11.A.i
Packet Pg. 736 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
5
David Yakobson
From:Lucy Padilla <lucyluconsulting@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 12, 2024 5:20 PM
To:councilmtgitems; advocacy@smconservancy.org
Subject:I Support the Meztli Report
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
EXTERNAL
Dear Council:
Support the report because it’s art and it shares
our history. It also is a great source if not
immediate reminder to not repeat our mistakes!
Best regards,
Lucy Padilla
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
11.A.i
Packet Pg. 737 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
6
David Yakobson
From:cedwards630@roadrunner.com
Sent:Monday, February 12, 2024 4:07 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Meztli Report
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
EXTERNAL
We have read the Meztli report and support all 9 recommendations. We encourage each of you to give it a YES vote.
Thank you. Bill and Carolyne Edwards
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
11.A.i
Packet Pg. 738 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
7
David Yakobson
From:Charlotte Wolter <techlady@techlady.com>
Sent:Monday, February 12, 2024 3:46 PM
To:councilmtgitems; advocacy@smconservancy.org
Subject:I Support the Meztli Report
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
EXTERNAL
I believe this well-researched and -reviewed report and the actions that it recommends
are the nest solution for the murals at City Hall.
Charlotte Wolter
927 18th Street, Apt. A
Santa Monica, California
90403
Home: 310-597-4040
Mobile: 310-663-3699
techlady@techlady.com
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
11.A.i
Packet Pg. 739 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
8
David Yakobson
From:Frankie Fleming <ffleming@oxy.edu>
Sent:Monday, February 12, 2024 3:27 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Culture
Subject:Submitting public comment: Acknowledge + Reframe Together (Reframe) Initiative
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
My name is Frankie Fleming, and I am submitting a public comment supporting a yes vote on agenda item #11,
“Approval of the Reframe: City Hall Mural Project Phase I Report Recommendations.”
This issue is important to me because, as a guest residing in Tovaangar, I have witnessed the heavy impacts as a result of
the gross misrepresentation of Indigenous Peoples across the many facets of society, for example, art, school
curriculums, film, and TV, among other areas of life. These false representations of Indigenous Peoples have led to the
highest rates of suicide among young Indigenous people.
I fully support the recommendations in the report as they focus on the healing and reparative efforts needed to bridge
the Santa Monica of today, the city’s values that are vastly different than the ideals reflected in the mural, that center a
white supremacist view of the city and society, and because cities must do much better in repairing the harms done to
First Peoples. Most recently, the county released the “We Are Still Here,” A Report on Past, Present, and Ongoing Harms
Against Local Tribes detailing the long list of injustices our cities and county have inflicted on Indigenous Peoples.
I encourage the city council to vote yes and join other cities across the Nation in taking steps to build a more inclusive
society that equitably supports and nurtures First Peoples.
Thank you,
Frankie Fleming
--
Frankie Fleming | Manager of Education and Community Engagement
ffleming@oxy.edu | c. 213 631 8844 / o. 323 341 4195
Pronouns: She/Her/Hers
OXY ARTS | Occidental College
4757 York Blvd | Los Angeles, California 90042
oxy.edu/oxy-arts | Instagram | Facebook | Twitter | Newsletter
OXY ARTS occupies the ancestral, traditional, and contemporary
Lands of the Tongva people [what is land acknowledgment?]
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
11.A.i
Packet Pg. 740 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
9
David Yakobson
From:Debra Scacco <debra@debrascacco.com>
Sent:Monday, February 12, 2024 3:05 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Culture
Subject:In favor of mural recommendations
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
My name is Debra Scacco, and I am submitting a public comment supporting a yes vote on agenda item #11, “Approval
of the Reframe: City Hall Mural Project Phase I Report Recommendations.”
This issue is important to me because, as a guest residing in Tovaangar, I have witnessed the heavy impacts as a result of
the gross misrepresentation of Indigenous Peoples across the many facets of society, for example, art, school
curriculums, film, and TV, among other areas of life. These false representations of Indigenous Peoples have led to the
highest rates of suicide among young Indigenous people.
I fully support the recommendations in the report as they focus on the healing and reparative efforts needed to bridge
the Santa Monica of today, the city’s values that are vastly different than the ideals reflected in the mural, that center a
white supremacist view of the city and society, and because cities must do much better in repairing the harms done to
First Peoples. Most recently, the county released the “We Are Still Here,” A Report on Past, Present, and Ongoing Harms
Against Local Tribes detailing the long list of injustices our cities and county have inflicted on Indigenous Peoples.
I encourage the city council to vote yes and join other cities across the Nation in taking steps to build a more inclusive
society that equitably supports and nurtures First Peoples.
Thank you,
Sincerely,
Debra Scacco
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Debra Scacco
+1 310 699-5724
DebraScacco.com
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
11.A.i
Packet Pg. 741 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
10
David Yakobson
From:Xavier Mota
Sent:Monday, February 12, 2024 2:03 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:FW: SM Arts Commission letter of support for Meztli Projects' recommendations re
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report
Attachments:SMAC letter to City Council re Metzli Projects recommendations.pdf
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
From: Naomi Okuyama <Naomi.Okuyama@santamonica.gov>
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2024 2:43 PM
To: Xavier Mota <Xavier.Mota@santamonica.gov>
Subject: FW: SM Arts Commission letter of support for Meztli Projects' recommendations re Reframe: City Hall Mural
Phase I Report
Looks like it went to Council Mailbox…
Naomi
From: Mary-Elizabeth Michaels <Mary-Elizabeth.Michaels@santamonica.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2023 1:40 PM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Cc: Sofia Klatzker <Sofia.Klatzker@santamonica.gov>; Laurie Yehia <Laurie.Yehia@santamonica.gov>; David White
<David.White@santamonica.gov>; Susan Cline <Susan.Cline@santamonica.gov>; Jenny Rogers
<Jenny.Rogers@santamonica.gov>; Lisa Parson <Lisa.Parson@santamonica.gov>; Naomi Okuyama
<Naomi.Okuyama@santamonica.gov>
Subject: SM Arts Commission letter of support for Meztli Projects' recommendations re Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I
Report
Dear Mayor Brock, Mayor Pro Tem Negrete, Councilmember Davis, Councilmember de la
Torre, Councilmember Parra, Councilmember Torosis and Councilmember Zwick,
Please find below and attached a letter sent on behalf of the Santa Monica Arts Commission regarding
that body's full support of the recommendations drafted by Meztli Projects as part of Reframe: City Hall
Mural Phase I Report. Please feel free to reach out to me with any questions.
Best,
Mary-Elizabeth
Mary-Elizabeth Michaels
Chair, Art Commissioner, City of Santa Monica
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
11.A.i
Packet Pg. 742 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
11
___________________
December 26, 2023
The Honorable Phil Brock and
Members of the Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Dear Mayor Brock and Councilmembers,
On behalf of Santa Monica's Arts Commission, this letter is to advise the City Council regarding the
recommendations drafted by Meztli Projects as part of Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report.
The Arts Commission recognizes that art is a powerful means of communication that can be perceived from a multitude of
individual and societal perspectives and fully appreciate that when people come to City Hall to conduct business that they
should feel that they will be treated respectfully, fairly and equitability regardless of their socio-economic status or ethnic
heritage. Thus, we strongly support and affirm the importance of the process the City undertook to engage with
community regarding the continued display of the Stanton Macdonald-Wright murals in Santa Monica City Hall.
We think that Metzli Projects conducted a successful community engagement process to assess the range of people’s
perceptions of and attitudes about the City Hall Mural. To that end, the Commission voted unanimously, at the
December 12, 2023 meeting, to support the adoption of the recommendations drafted by Meztli Projects as part of
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report.
While the Commission supports all of the recommendations, we fully endorse and advocate for the implementation of
Recommendations 1 to 4 as they directly address the Arts Commission’s area of responsibility: in this case, expanding the
City’s diversity of public artwork and educational resources to contextualize interpretations of the Mural’s imagery and
history. Recommendations 1 to 4 also fall within the purview of and further engagement would be overseen by Cultural
Affairs. We also support the remaining recommendations, which would be led by Equity and Inclusion.
The Arts Commission fully endorses the recommendations in Meztli Projects Phase I Report for Reframe: City Hall Mural
and re-commits to participating in the process to ensure that the priorities of the arts community are kept in mind as the
plan moves forward to implementation.
Thank you for your consideration.
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
11.A.i
Packet Pg. 743 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
12
Sincerely,
Mary-Elizabeth Michaels Laurie Yehia
Chair, Santa Monica Arts Commission Vice Chair, Santa Monica Arts Commission
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
11.A.i
Packet Pg. 744 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
December 26, 2023
The Honorable Phil Brock and
Members of the Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Dear Mayor Brock and Councilmembers,
On behalf of Santa Monica's Arts Commission, this letter is to advise the City Council regarding the
recommendations drafted by Meztli Projects as part of Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report.
The Arts Commission recognizes that art is a powerful means of communication that can be perceived from
a multitude of individual and societal perspectives and fully appreciate that when people come to City Hall to
conduct business that they should feel that they will be treated respectfully, fairly and equitability regardless
of their socio-economic status or ethnic heritage. Thus, we strongly support and affirm the importance of the
process the City undertook to engage with community regarding the continued display of the Stanton
Macdonald-Wright murals in Santa Monica City Hall.
We think that Metzli Projects conducted a successful community engagement process to assess the range of
people’s perceptions of and attitudes about the City Hall Mural. To that end, the Commission voted
unanimously, at the December 12, 2023 meeting, to support the adoption of the recommendations
drafted by Meztli Projects as part of Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report.
While the Commission supports all of the recommendations, we fully endorse and advocate for the
implementation of Recommendations 1 to 4 as they directly address the Arts Commission’s area of
responsibility: in this case, expanding the City’s diversity of public artwork and educational resources to
contextualize interpretations of the Mural’s imagery and history. Recommendations 1 to 4 also fall within the
purview of and further engagement would be overseen by Cultural Affairs. We also support the remaining
recommendations, which would be led by Equity and Inclusion.
The Arts Commission fully endorses the recommendations in Meztli Projects Phase I Report for Reframe:
City Hall Mural and re-commits to participating in the process to ensure that the priorities of the arts
community are kept in mind as the plan moves forward to implementation.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Mary Elizabeth Michaels Laurie Yehia
Mary-Elizabeth Michaels Laurie Yehia
Chair, Santa Monica Arts Commission Vice Chair, Santa Monica Arts Commission
cc: David White, City Manager
Susan Cline, Assistant City Manager
Jenny Rogers, Director, RAD
Lisa Parson, Equity and Inclusion Manager
Santa Monica Arts Commission
Mary-Elizabeth Michaels, Chair
Laurie Yehia, Vice Chair
Michael Baroff
Kathleen Benjamin
Michelle Edgar
Federico Galavis
Staci Griesbach
Michael James Masucci
Deepa Subramanian
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
11.A.i
Packet Pg. 745 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
13
David Yakobson
From:Katie Janss <katie@thechapterhouse.org>
Sent:Monday, February 12, 2024 2:00 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Culture
Subject:Support for “Approval of the Reframe: City Hall Mural Project Phase I Report
Recommendations.”
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
My name is Katie Janss, and I am submitting a public comment supporting a yes vote on agenda item #11,
“Approval of the Reframe: City Hall Mural Project Phase I Report Recommendations.”
As a guest residing in Tovaangar and as a volunteer at The Chapter House, an Indigenous arts and community
space based on this land, I have witnessed first-hand the heavy impacts as a result of the gross
misrepresentation of Indigenous Peoples across the many facets of society; for example, sports mascots, art,
school curriculums, film, and TV. These false representations of Indigenous Peoples have led to the highest
rates of suicide among Indigenous youth, as well as high rates of poverty, unemployment, and poor academic
performance. These representations perpetuate inaccurate and damaging stereotypes about Indigenous
Peoples to non-Indigenous Peoples.
I fully support the recommendations in the report as they focus on the healing and reparative efforts needed
to heal the Santa Monica of today. The city’s values are vastly different from the ideals reflected in the mural,
which center a white supremacist view of the city and society. Cities must do better in repairing the harms
done to Indigenous Peoples. Most recently, the county released the “We Are Still Here,” A Report on Past,
Present, and Ongoing Harms Against Local Tribes detailing the long list of injustices our cities and county have
inflicted on Indigenous Peoples. Santa Monica has a unique opportunity to set an example that many more
cities across the nation can follow.
I encourage the city council to vote yes and join the cities across the Nation that have already taken first steps
to build a more inclusive society that equitably supports and nurtures Indigenous Peoples.
Sincerely,
Katie Janss
--
Katie Janss | Director of Operations
The Chapter House
m: +626.348.6402
The Chapter House recognizes all land that is claimed by the United States is Indigenous land. The land I occupy is home to the Tongva people, the
original stewards of this territory in the so-called Los Angeles Basin, who exist here today. To learn more about whose land you occupy, please visit
https://native-land.ca/.
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
11.A.i
Packet Pg. 746 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
14
David Yakobson
From:Khayra Mentado <khaymentado@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 12, 2024 1:56 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Culture
Subject:Public Comments for Agenda Number 11
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
My name is Khayra Shakibah Mentado, and I am submitting a public comment supporting a yes vote on
agenda item #11, “Approval of the Reframe: City Hall Mural Project Phase I Report Recommendations.”
This issue is important to me because, as an Indigenous person, I have experienced the gross
misrepresentation of us in many facets of society, for example, art, school curriculums, film, and TV, among
other areas of life. These false representations of Indigenous people have led to the highest rates of suicide for
young people.
I fully support the recommendations in the report as they focus on the healing and reparative efforts needed to
bridge the Santa Monica of today, the city’s values which are vastly different than the ideals reflected in the
mural, which centers a white supremacist view of the city and society, and because as a city we need to do
much better in repairing the harms done to First Peoples. Most recently, the county released the “We Are Still
Here,” A Report on Past, Present, and Ongoing Harms Against Local Tribes detailing the long list of injustices
our cities and county have inflicted on Indigenous people.
I encourage the city council to vote yes and join other cities across the Nation in taking steps to build a more
inclusive society that equitably supports and nurtures First Peoples.
With Gratitude,
Khayra Mentado
--
Khayra Shakibah Mentado (They/She)
Sent from the unceded Gabrieleno Tongva lands
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
11.A.i
Packet Pg. 747 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
15
David Yakobson
From:Diane Citron <d.m.citron@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 12, 2024 1:54 PM
To:councilmtgitems; advocacy@smconservancy.org
Subject:I Support Meztli Report
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
EXTERNAL
I support the Meztli recommendaƟons regarding the beauƟful painƟngs depicƟng historical events in our city's history.
Thank you
Diane Citron
Mid-city
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
11.A.i
Packet Pg. 748 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
16
David Yakobson
From:Mary Patricia Dougherty <treehouse123@mac.com>
Sent:Monday, February 12, 2024 1:32 PM
To:councilmtgitems; advocacy@smconservancy.org
Subject:I Support Meztli Report
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
EXTERNAL
Ms. Mary Patricia Dougherty
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
11.A.i
Packet Pg. 749 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
17
David Yakobson
From:Caroline Kanner <c.k.kanner@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 12, 2024 1:23 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Culture
Subject:Aprove Item 11
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,My name is Caroline Kanner, and I am submitting a public comment
supporting a yes vote on agenda item #11, “Approval of the Reframe: City Hall Mural Project Phase I
Report Recommendations.”This issue is important to me because, as a guest residing in Tovaangar, I
have witnessed the heavy impacts as a result of the gross misrepresentation of Indigenous Peoples
across the many facets of society, for example, art, school curriculums, film, and TV, among other areas
of life. These false representations of Indigenous Peoples have led to the highest rates of suicide among
young Indigenous people.I fully support the recommendations in the report as they focus on the healing
and reparative efforts needed to bridge the Santa Monica of today, the city’s values that are vastly
different than the ideals reflected in the mural, that center a white supremacist view of the city and society,
and because cities must do much better in repairing the harms done to First Peoples. Most recently, the
county released the “We Are Still Here,” A Report on Past, Present, and Ongoing Harms Against Local
Tribes detailing the long list of injustices our cities and county have inflicted on Indigenous Peoples.I
encourage the city council to vote yes and join other cities across the Nation in taking steps to build a
more inclusive society that equitably supports and nurtures First Peoples.Thank you,Sincerely,Caroline
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
11.A.i
Packet Pg. 750 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
18
David Yakobson
From:Susan McCarthy <susan.mccarthy68@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 12, 2024 1:06 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Meztli Recommendations 11A
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
EXTERNAL
Council Members: Please direct staff to implement all of the recommendations recommended in Meztli's final
report. They stem from a thoughtful, inclusive process and they reflect a nuanced approach to the issues Meztli was
engaged to explore and address.
Thank you for your service to our community.
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
11.A.i
Packet Pg. 751 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
19
David Yakobson
From:Chris Van Hook <ccvanhook@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 12, 2024 12:55 PM
To:councilmtgitems; advocacy@smconservancy.org
Subject:I Support the Meztli Report
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
EXTERNAL
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
11.A.i
Packet Pg. 752 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
20
David Yakobson
From:Mario Fonda-Bonardi <mario@fbharchitects.com>
Sent:Monday, February 12, 2024 12:19 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Reframe: City Hall Mural (agenda item #11A)
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
EXTERNAL
Dear Council members,
I’m writing to you in support of the upcoming Reframe: City Hall Mural (agenda item #11A).
This item has been widely studied by the Working Group and the Meztli Project's report has created 9
recommendations, While all are a valid, I would like to highlight three for your specific consideration and or earliest
implementation:
1. Commission New Artwork for the City Hall Lobby and Courtyard: this would reintroduce the lost historical voices of
our original inhabitants.
2. Commission new interpretive panels: this would promote education and context about the murals.
9. Facilitate Kuruvungna Springs relationships: this would link us both back to the historical oral roots of our name and
forward to the problem that all peoples have faced and will face in the West: the availability of water.
Your support for this agenda item is greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Mario Fonda-Bonardi AIA
Mario@fbharchitects.com
310-699-0374
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
11.A.i
Packet Pg. 753 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
21
David Yakobson
From:Jo Baxter <jobaxter@roadrunner.com>
Sent:Monday, February 12, 2024 11:37 AM
To:councilmtgitems; advocacy@smconservancy.org
Subject:I Support the Meztli Report
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
EXTERNAL
Sent from my iPad
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
11.A.i
Packet Pg. 754 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
22
David Yakobson
From:shoshana90291@aol.com
Sent:Monday, February 12, 2024 11:12 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Meztle
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
EXTERNAL
I am in agreement with the item on February 13th agenda 11a
Sent from AOL on Android
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
11.A.i
Packet Pg. 755 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
23
David Yakobson
From:Catherine Azimi <catazimi@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 12, 2024 10:45 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:advocacy@smconservancy.org
Subject:Please Support the Meztli Report and Recommendations
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
I support the recommendations presented in Meztli Projects’ Report, developed during Phase 1 of Reframe: City
Hall Mural. Please vote to accept all nine recommendations and to direct City Staff to begin implementation.
It is clear that these murals cause harm to members of the Indigenous community and others. The Meztli
Recommendations stand to address this harm in a significant and structural way that goes far beyond performative
statements of support and land acknowledgement. I believe in earned hope, meaning that we possess the collective
ability to overcome structural racism, violent conflict and climate change IF we are collectively willing to address
those who have and are being harmed in our society. This is the right thing to do and a path to healing which we
urgently need.
These recommendations are the product of significant community engagement and present a set of informed,
thoughtful, and actionable solutions to a complex issue. Therefore it is important that the recommendations be
accepted together, to retain the integrity of the full report and the public process that informed it.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Catherine Azimi
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
11.A.i
Packet Pg. 756 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
24
David Yakobson
From:Kristina von Hoffmann <kvonhoffmann@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 11, 2024 8:46 PM
To:advocacy@smconservancy.org; councilmtgitems
Subject:I Support Meztli Report
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
I support the recommendations presented in Meztli Projects’ Report, developed during Phase 1
of Reframe: City Hall Mural. I urge you to accept all nine recommendations and to direct City Staff to
begin implementation.
These recommendations are the product of significant community engagement and present a set of
informed, thoughtful, and actionable solutions to a complex issue.
It is important that the murals not be covered but remain visible for public understanding and
learning. As Meztli notes in their report, "removing the mural obscures the systems that made the
mural possible." The images reflect the history of Santa Monica and are opportunities to address the
lived experiences and histories of Indigenous people, and others who have been excluded from the
imagery altogether. These collective histories are all potential themes for interpretation, education,
and future public art.
It is important that the recommendations be accepted together, to retain the integrity of the full report
and the public process that informed it.
Again, please support Meztli’s Report and Recommendations.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Kristina von Hoffmann
Resident of 28th St, Santa Monica
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
11.A.i
Packet Pg. 757 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
25
David Yakobson
From:Gil Leib <gilrleib@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 11, 2024 12:58 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:I Support Meztli Report
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
I support the recommendations presented in Meztli Projects’ Report, developed during Phase 1 of Reframe: City
Hall Mural. I urge you to accept all nine recommendations and to direct City Staff to begin implementation.
These recommendations are the product of significant community engagement and present a set of informed,
thoughtful, and actionable solutions to a complex issue.
It is important that the murals not be covered but remain visible for public understanding and learning. As Meztli
notes in their report, "removing the mural obscures the systems that made the mural possible." The images reflect
the history of Santa Monica and are opportunities to address the lived experiences and histories of Indigenous
people, and others who have been excluded from the imagery altogether. These collective histories are all potential
themes for interpretation, education, and future public art.
It is important that the recommendations be accepted together, to retain the integrity of the full report and the public
process that informed it.
Again, please support Meztli’s Report and Recommendations.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Gil Leib
601 California Ave. Apt. 104
Santa Monica, CA 90403
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
11.A.i
Packet Pg. 758 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
26
David Yakobson
From:Susan Leary <learysusan0624@icloud.com>
Sent:Saturday, February 10, 2024 11:32 AM
To:councilmtgitems; advocacy@smconservancy.org
Subject:I Support the Meztli Report
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
EXTERNAL
Thanks
Susan Leary’s
Sent from my iPad
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
11.A.i
Packet Pg. 759 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
27
David Yakobson
From:Bruria Finkel <bruriafinkel@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, February 9, 2024 4:47 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:The murals at City Hall
Attachments:Bruria Finkel ltr Meztli Report.docx
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
EXTERNAL
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
11.A.i
Packet Pg. 760 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Bruria Finkel 1225 Hill Street Santa Monica Ca 90405
Phone: 310-251-4299
Website: bruriaFinkel.com
Feb. 13, 2024, Item 11A
For Mayor Phil Brock and City Council Members
My name is Bruria Finkel I have lived in Santa Monic more then 65 years.
I have been deeply involved volunteering my time to the city by being one of the
founders of the “Arts Commission” in 1982 served for 15 years. Elected to Rent
“Control Bord “ in 1993 for 7 years and sitting on the “Downtown Bord“ (DTSM)
for 8 years until 2022.
My four children attended the school system, and my husband David Finkel has a
long and fuller CV than mine of his time volunteering for the City of Santa Monica.
I am happy to send you my comments on the City Hall Murals.
This has been a process over a span of time that some will find helpful, and some
will find it a waste of time and waste of money.
I Believe I attended every public session that was held on this subject and learned
some new information but none of it convinced me to change my mind.
Artworks should never be removed because of someone’s feelings imposed on by
the artwork. Since art can look at life as it is through the artists renderings.
Art works gain significance in time, Historic art works are always up for new or
other interpretations, it seems to me that none of the interpretations I heard
during the meetings really addressed the fact that the mural was conceived to
address the first meeting of our indigenous people with the Spaniards in
California.
misinterpretation of time can create a problem.
Here we can enlarge the story of the first people and talk about history after the
first meeting with the Spaniards and the American Pilgrims that was brutal and
irresponsive and disrespectful to the belief systems the original people had.
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
11.A.i
Packet Pg. 761 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
History tells us that what seems insignificant at its time is important to
understand and allow an opportunity to gain information and education on what
these murals are telling us.
The City Hall murals were created in 1937 at a time of great change in our country
and the idea of Art inclusion into communities was a way to both teach and
address the history of our country and envision the future. The WPA was that
moment in time when the Federal government assigned and paid artists to create
these murals and other works were created like the Saint Monica statue in our
Palisades Park and many works of art which our schools had displayed in the
classrooms.
On the right on your page
When you look at this Mural there are 5 persons who represent a symbol of that
time (l-r) Standing priest and a Spaniard solder in front of them the Indigenous
people who are showing them the water source is good to the touch and one
drinks the water.
In the distant on the person on the horse is the future: the coming of Rancheros
owners, of the land, will occupy the area and their children and grandchildren of
both groups are still here with us today.
The scenery is done with great care and good knowledge of the place, the spring flowing
down the cliffs.
On your left on your page
The artist depicts the symbols of his time Horsemen and 2 tennis players to signify
the activities of the time when he lived and worked in Santa Monica.
To this day sports are the activities people engage in here.
The future: the artist symbolizes with the child who plays with a wooden plane
and the dog. At the very top of the mural a plane in flight and the boats in the bay
(I saw the boats in the bay in 1959 when I came to Santa Monica , unfortunately
were destroyed by the 100-year storm in the 1980’s, we should try to bring it
back).
Not only sailing and sports activities were always symbolized Santa Monica it is
the main activities at the beach and our parks today.
I encourage you not to disturb the serenity of this wonderful entrance to City Hall
and try to interfere with what is present for almost 100 years. There are many
opportunities around city hall, in the space between the Government buildings to
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
11.A.i
Packet Pg. 762 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
excite the imagination for a good artwork that will tell the story of our time with
an eye to the future.
Bruria Finkel
Santa Monica
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
11.A.i
Packet Pg. 763 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
28
David Yakobson
From:Kaitlin Drisko <kaitlin@smconservancy.org>
Sent:Friday, February 9, 2024 3:47 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Tom Cleys
Subject:2/13/2024 Item 11A - SM Conservancy Letter of Support for City Hall murals - Meztli
Recommendations
Attachments:2024-02-13 Ltr City Hall Murals-Meztli Report SM Conservancy.pdf
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
EXTERNAL
Attached please find our letter of support for the Meztli Report recommendations for the City Hall murals.
Kaitlin Drisko
Executive Director
Santa Monica Conservancy
kaitlin@smconservancy.org
mobile: 310.948.5311
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
11.A.i
Packet Pg. 764 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
P.O. BOX 653
SANTA MONICA, CA 90406
310-496-3146
www.smconservancy.org
February 13, 2024
Item 11A
Mayor Brock and Councilmembers,
The Santa Monica Conservancy has been engaged in discussions and education regarding the
City Hall murals for many years. We were invited to join the Acknowledge + Reframe initiative
led by Meztli Projects as members of the Working Circle. Two of our Board members were part
of the Working Circle: Ruthann Lehrer, who served three terms on the Landmarks Commission;
and Sharon Reyes, seventh generation descendant of Ysidro Reyes, co-owner of Rancho Boca de
Santa Monica, whose name is inscribed on the text panel adjacent to the History mural.
The Conservancy supports the nine recommendations in the Meztli Report and would like to
share with you some thoughts on moving forward. We’re commenting on those
recommendations that interface with the Conservancy’s mission and role in Santa Monica.
Recommendation 1: Create New Murals in City Hall Lobby.
The historic murals can serve as a touchstone for a contemporary response centered on cultural
and social groups who were not represented in the 1939 depictions. The City Hall lobby is not
only a location reflecting civic authority but is also an artistic environment that conveys the best
of the New Deal Federal art programs. In addition to the large scale petrachrome murals, this
environment consists of colorful geometric tile by the renowned firm of Gladding McBean;
decorative terrazzo floors; geometric metal railings and overall coloristic harmonies, all unified
as a vision of New Deal Modernism. We hope that the new murals will respect this historic art
environment and maintain visual harmony. It may be appropriate to include the Landmarks
Commission in an advisory role to help navigate the integration and compatibility of the new
murals into its historic environment. While the City Hall lobby as a whole is not officially
designated as historic, artistic compatibility between new and old will signal a positive dialogue
instead of conflict.
Recommendation 2: Commission New Interpretive Panels
Regarding the History mural panel, we strongly support the creation of new interpretive panels
that reflects the perspective and voice of the Gabrielino/Tongva people, the Indigenous group
that was impacted by the arrival of Spanish colonialists in this area, setting in motion centuries
of displacement, oppression and even genocide. This traumatic story is regrettably part of our
Santa Monica and California history. The Gabrielino/Tongva community should take the lead in
deciding how their story is presented to the public.
But there is more to interpret that is important for public understanding:
§ Why are these murals there? What was the historic context and the artist’s intentions?
§ The image of the Kuruvungna Springs links the historic Portola Expedition to the recent
reclamation of the site by Gabrielino/Tongva people, who have made it a focal point to
revitalize and share their cultural heritage through the Kuruvungna Springs Foundation.
The springs image connotes a message about survival, rebirth and pride of the
Gabrielino/Tongva.
§ The history of the Mexican ranchos and their displacement, loss of land and community.
While the Recreation panel depicts activities of the dominant white culture, the artist’s
intentions are documented and should be presented as part of the interpretation. However, the
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
11.A.i
Packet Pg. 765 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
2
opportunity exists to respond to these portrayals by depicting recreation and leisure among
people of color and the working class in new public artwork.
The Santa Monica Conservancy, having done considerable research into these topics, hopes to
participate in the development of the new interpretive panels.
Recommendation 4: Create Additional Educational Materials About the Mural
This recommendation was one of the reasons for City Council’s interest in launching the
Acknowledge + Reframe initiative, as the themes inherent in the mural narrations are rich
sources for educational exploration.
We see this recommendation as an adjunct to Recommendation 2 and would like to offer the
services of the Santa Monica Conservancy in implementing this task. We are currently
collaborating with the Santa Monica Unified School District on a number of projects, including
curriculum relating to history and research, and project-based-learning. Education is a
fundamental part of our mission and we believe we can contribute to this goal.
As an example, the Conservancy is embarking on site-specific projects that recognize the history,
people and places important to African-Americans and the Mexican presence in our City, and
their displacement due to freeway construction and redevelopment.
Conclusion:
The Metzli Report marks an important milestone in a long journey of public engagement with
the historic public art in City Hall. It has been challenging and emotional for many. There was
extensive public outreach and debate during this process. Considering the complexities and
numerous stakeholders, the Meztli Projects Acknowledge + Reframe process and the final
recommendations are notable achievements.
The Conservancy is enthusiastic and motivated by the opportunities emerging with the Meztli
Report recommendations for Phase I, and we hope to play a constructive role in their future
implementation during Phase II.
Thank you,
Tom Cleys, President
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
11.A.i
Packet Pg. 766 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
29
David Yakobson
From:Margaret Bach <mnlbach@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, February 9, 2024 12:14 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Agenda item !!A -- Reframe City Hall Mural Phase 1 Report
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
EXTERNAL
To the Santa Monica City Council,
I have both watched and participated in the comprehensive reframe process with regard to the City Hall murals. The
process has been exemplary -- a community process at its best -- and warrants the full support of the City Council.
Santa Monica has joined many other communities in grappling with complex cultural and historical issues that are raised
in public art works, and I am gratified to see the broad consensus that has emerged from our process reflected in the
Meztli Projects' report.
I urge you to adopt the recommendations contained in the report, which calls for retention of the historic WPA-era
murals, with the addition of additional public art and interpretative programs and bring new levels of reconciliation
between our present and our past.
Sincerely,
Margaret Bach
Former Landmarks Commissioner
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
11.A.i
Packet Pg. 767 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
30
David Yakobson
From:Mary Jo Stirling <mjsbills33@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, February 9, 2024 11:31 AM
To:councilmtgitems; advocacy@smconservancy.org
Subject:I Support the Meztli Report
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
I support the recommendations presented in Meztli Projects’ Report, developed during Phase 1 of Reframe: City Hall Mural. I
urge you to accept all nine recommendations and to direct City Staff to begin implementation.
These recommendations are the product of significant community engagement and present a set of informed, thoughtful, and
actionable solutions to a complex issue.
It is important that the murals not be covered but remain visible for public understanding and learning. As Meztli notes in
their report, "removing the mural obscures the systems that made the mural possible." The images reflect the history of Santa
Monica and are opportunities to address the lived experiences and histories of Indigenous people, and others who have been
excluded from the imagery altogether. These collective histories are all potential themes for interpretation, education, and
future public art.
It is important that the recommendations be accepted together, to retain the integrity of the full report and the public proc ess
that informed it.
Again, please support Meztli’s Report and Recommendations.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Mary Jo Stirling
310-995-9708
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
11.A.i
Packet Pg. 768 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
31
David Yakobson
From:Achee Stevenson <acheestevenson@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, February 9, 2024 10:30 AM
To:councilmtgitems; advocacy@smconservancy.org
Subject:I Support Meztli Report
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
I support the recommendations presented in Meztli Projects’ Report, developed during Phase 1 of Reframe:
City Hall Mural. I urge you to accept all nine recommendations and to direct City Staff to begin
implementation.
These recommendations are the product of significant community engagement and present a set of informed,
thoughtful, and actionable solutions to a complex issue.
It is important that the murals not be covered but remain visible for public understanding and learning. As
Meztli notes in their report, "removing the mural obscures the systems that made the mural possible." The
images reflect the history of Santa Monica and are opportunities to address the lived experiences and
histories of Indigenous people, and others who have been excluded from the imagery altogether. These
collective histories are all potential themes for interpretation, education, and future public art.
It is important that the recommendations be accepted together, to retain the integrity of the full report and the
public process that informed it.
Again, please support Meztli’s Report and Recommendations.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Achée Stevenson
E: acheestevenson@gmail.com
T: 310-428-5574
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
11.A.i
Packet Pg. 769 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
32
David Yakobson
From:Robin Venturelli <robinvolunteers@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, February 9, 2024 7:18 AM
To:councilmtgitems; advocacy@smconservancy.org
Subject:I Support the Meztli Report
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
EXTERNAL
I urge you to accept the recommendation of the Mezti Report in full and to direct City Staff to
begin implementation. It is important to me that the recommendations be accepted together,
to retain the integrity of the full report and the public process that informed it.
Thank you
Robin Venturelli
Santa Monica Conservancy Volunteer at the ACBH
ROBIN VENTURELLI | MUSIC, TRAVEL, PHILANTHROPY, MERRIMENT
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Phone: (310) 383-2323
To
help
pr
To
help
pr
To
help
pr
BlueHairedBlonde.com
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
11.A.i
Packet Pg. 770 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
33
David Yakobson
From:Mary Ann Hays <mahays2@mindspring.com>
Sent:Thursday, February 8, 2024 4:32 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Santa Monica Conservancy
Subject:I Support Meztli Report
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
I support the recommendaƟons presented in Meztli Projects’ Report, developed during Phase 1 of Reframe: City Hall
Mural. I urge you to accept all nine recommendaƟons and to direct City Staff to begin implementaƟon.
These recommendaƟons are the product of significant community engagement and present a set of informed,
thoughƞul, and acƟonable soluƟons to a complex issue.
It is important that the murals not be covered but remain visible for public understanding and learning. As Meztli notes
in their report, "removing the mural obscures the systems that made the mural possible." The images reflect the history
of Santa Monica and are opportuniƟes to address the lived experiences and histories of Indigenous people, and others
who have been excluded from the imagery altogether. These collecƟve histories are all potenƟal themes for
interpretaƟon, educaƟon, and future public art.
It is important that the recommendaƟons be accepted together, to retain the integrity of the full report and the public
process that informed it.
Again, please support Meztli’s Report and RecommendaƟons.
Thank you for your consideraƟon.
Mary Ann Hays
534 21st Street
Santa Monica, CA 90402
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
11.A.i
Packet Pg. 771 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
34
David Yakobson
From:Jo Baxter <jobaxter@roadrunner.com>
Sent:Thursday, February 8, 2024 4:08 PM
To:councilmtgitems; advocacy@smconservancy.org
Subject:I Support the Meztli Report
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
EXTERNAL
Sent from my iPad
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
11.A.i
Packet Pg. 772 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
35
David Yakobson
From:Kathy Knight <kathyknight66@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, February 8, 2024 11:58 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:I Support the Meztli Report Re: City Hall Mural
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Members:
I want to let you know that I support the Meztli Report, including all nine recommendaƟons.
I like it because it does not call for removal of the artworks. Instead it recommends development of interpreƟve
informaƟon and educaƟonal programs around the murals.
I like the murals and think they are very important.
Thank you,
Kathy Knight
Sunset Park Resident
kathyknight66@gmail.com
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
11.A.i
Packet Pg. 773 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
36
David Yakobson
From:Randall Klarin <rwklarin@yahoo.com>
Sent:Thursday, February 8, 2024 11:26 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:City Hall Mural
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
EXTERNAL
I support the Meztli recommendaƟons.
Randall Klarin
RW Klarin
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
11.A.i
Packet Pg. 774 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
37
David Yakobson
From:mmoody <mmoody424@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, February 8, 2024 8:46 AM
To:councilmtgitems; advocacy@smconservancy.org
Subject:I Support Meztli Report
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
I support the recommendations presented in Meztli Projects’ Report, developed during Phase 1 of Reframe:
City Hall Mural. I urge you to accept all nine recommendations and to direct City Staff to begin
implementation.
These recommendations are the product of significant community engagement and present a set of informed,
thoughtful, and actionable solutions to a complex issue.
It is important that the murals not be covered but remain visible for public understanding and learning. As
Meztli notes in their report, "removing the mural obscures the systems that made the mural possible." The
images reflect the history of Santa Monica and are opportunities to address the lived experiences and
histories of Indigenous people, and others who have been excluded from the imagery altogether. These
collective histories are all potential themes for interpretation, education, and future public art.
It is important that the recommendations be accepted together, to retain the integrity of the full report and the
public process that informed it.
Again, please support Meztli’s Report and Recommendations.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Sally Hibbard
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
11.A.i
Packet Pg. 775 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
38
David Yakobson
From:Edgar Sernas
Sent:Thursday, February 8, 2024 7:42 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:FW: Call to Action! Tell City Council You Support Meztli Projects’ Reframe: City Hall
Mural Recommendations
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
Edgar Sernas
Staff Assistant III – Records & Election Svcs
(310) 458-8211 x5782
santamonica.gov
Facebook | Twitter | Instagram
Subscribe to City of Santa Monica Email Updates
From: Santa Monica Conservancy <advocacy@santamonicaconservancy.ccsend.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2024 5:30 PM
To: Clerk Mailbox <Clerk.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Call to Action! Tell City Council You Support Meztli Projects’ Reframe: City Hall Mural Recommendations
EXTERNAL
Send Your Letter In Time for the 2/13 City Council Meeting
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
11.A.i
Packet Pg. 776 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
39
Call to Action!
View as Webpage
Tell City Council You Support Meztli Projects’
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase 1
Report & Recommendations
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
11.A.i
Packet Pg. 777 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
40
Image: Page 1 of Meztli Projects' Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase 1 Report. Credit: Meztli Projects.
Read the full Report here.
On February 13, City Council will review and vote to accept the
recommendations (see full list below) contained within Meztli
Projects' Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase 1 Report, and to direct City Staff to
start the implementation phase of the project . Santa Monica Cultural Affairs
and Meztli Projects worked together to develop and execute Phase 1 of the
project, which focused on intensive community engagement to “consider the
meaning, impact and potential responses to the WPA-era mural History of
Santa Monica and the Bay District in Santa Monica's City Hall,” according to
the project statement.
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
11.A.i
Packet Pg. 778 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
41
We endorse Meztli’s report, including all nine recommendations, and
urge you to do the same by voicing your support directly to council
before next Tuesday’s meeting. Taken in full, the report does not call for
removal of the artworks, rather it recommends development of interpretative
information and educational programs around the murals themselves, and
that the murals be used as a springboard for exploring urgent issues of
repair, inclusive representation in public art and restorative justice. Read the
Meztli Report here.
Send Message
Meztli’s Report reflects their year-long process as the city’s public
engagement consultant, including intensive outreach and debate in which
the Conservancy played an active role. Feedback from hundreds of people
including, “local First Peoples, Marquez family descendants, students, young
adults, local educators, conservationists, the Santa Monica Arts and
Landmarks Commissions, city employees and others who work and live in
Santa Monica,” helped shape the report (City Press Release, November 9, 2024).
Again, please take a moment to tell City Council they should accept the
recommendations in full and direct City Staff to begin implementation.
It is important that the recommendations be accepted together, to
retain the integrity of the full report and the public process that
informed it.
Public comment can also be made in person before the item (11A) is
called via the kiosk in the lobby of City Hall at 1685 Main Street in
Santa Monica. Read the full agenda here.
Below are some suggested talking points, but it’s always better to use your
own voice. Your letter should be addressed
to councilmtgitems@santamonica.gov, and should reference the agenda
item 11A. Please bcc advocacy@smconservancy.org in your email.
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
11.A.i
Packet Pg. 779 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
42
Dear Councilmembers,
I support the recommendations presented in Meztli Projects’ Report, developed during
Phase 1 of Reframe: City Hall Mural. I urge you to accept all nine recommendations
and to direct City Staff to begin implementation.
These recommendations are the product of significant community engagement and
present a set of informed, thoughtful, and actionable solutions to a complex issue.
It is important that the murals not be covered but remain visible for public
understanding and learning. As Meztli notes in their report, "removing the mural
obscures the systems that made the mural possible." The images reflect the history of
Santa Monica and are opportunities to address the lived experiences and histories of
Indigenous people, and others who have been excluded from the imagery altogether.
These collective histories are all potential themes for interpretation, education, and
future public art.
It is important that the recommendations be accepted together, to retain the integrity of
the full report and the public process that informed it.
Again, please support Meztli’s Report and Recommendations.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
[Your name]
Send Message
List of Recommendations (See page 66 of the Report)
1. Commission New Artwork in City Hall Lobby
2. Commission New Interpretive Panels
3. Ensure that Santa Monica’s Public Art and Commemorative
Landscape Center Equity and Belonging
4. Create Additional Educational Materials About the Mural
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
11.A.i
Packet Pg. 780 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
43
5. Expand DEI+ Trainings for City Staff
6. Adopt a Citywide Land/Territory Acknowledgment Initiative
7. Improve Representation on Santa Monica Committees
8. Facilitate Land Back in Santa Monica
9. Facilitate Kuruvungna Springs Relationships
The Conservancy anticipates our continuing participation in implementation
of the next phase of this project, which will be managed by the Department
Cultural Affairs for numbers 1-4, and by the Office of DEI for numbers 5-9.
Santa Monica Conservancy
www.smconservancy.org
rsvp@smconservancy.org
310-496-3146
Stay connected!
Santa Monica Conservancy | 2520 2nd Street, Santa Monica, CA 90405
Unsubscribe clerk@smgov.net
Update Profile | Constant Contact Data Notice
Sent by advocacy@santamonicaconservancy.ccsend.com powered by
Try email marketing for free today!
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
11.A.i
Packet Pg. 781 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
44
David Yakobson
From:Cynni Murphy <cynnimurphy@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, February 8, 2024 6:14 AM
To:councilmtgitems; advocacy@smconservancy.org
Subject:I Support the Meztli Report
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
EXTERNAL
As an archivist and former Image Archives Librarian with the Santa Monica Public Library. I support educational
interpretive panels being installed to explain the historic murals in City Hall. I do not support the removal of
the murals. They are a part of history themselves created with funds from the WPA (Works Progress Administration) in
the 1930s and should be seen in the context of their time. They were painted by an important American artist, Stanton
MacDonald-Wright whose murals chronicled American history, industry and arts. The murals he painted for the Santa
Monica Public Library Main Library in 1935 (also WPA) were stored by the Smithsonian Institution for more than 40
years until they could be returned to the new Main Library for its opening in 2006 demonstrating their national
relevance and the relevance of his work to the history of American Art. The City Hall murals are part of that same
canon.
--
Cynthia C. Murphy
cynnimurphy@gmail.com
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
11.A.i
Packet Pg. 782 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
45
David Yakobson
From:Cheryl Downey <cheryld2520@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, February 7, 2024 10:19 PM
To:councilmtgitems; advocacy@smconservancy.org
Subject:I Support the Meztli Report
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
EXTERNAL
Please move this report's recommendation forward!
Thank you, Cheryl Downey, Proud Citizen of Santa Monica
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
11.A.i
Packet Pg. 783 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
46
David Yakobson
From:clint burdette <burdettecj02@yahoo.com>
Sent:Wednesday, February 7, 2024 9:08 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Reframe: City Hall Mural
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
I support the recommendations presented in Meztli Projects’ Report, developed during Phase 1 of Reframe: City
Hall Mural. I urge you to accept all nine recommendations and to direct City Staff to begin implementation.
These recommendations are the product of significant community engagement and present a set of informed,
thoughtful, and actionable solutions to a complex issue.
It is important that the murals not be covered but remain visible for public understanding and learning. As Meztli
notes in their report, "removing the mural obscures the systems that made the mural possible." The images reflect
the history of Santa Monica and are opportunities to address the lived experiences and histories of Indigenous
people, and others who have been excluded from the imagery altogether. These collective histories are all potential
themes for interpretation, education, and future public art.
It is important that the recommendations be accepted together, to retain the integrity of the full report and the public
process that informed it.
Again, please support Meztli’s Report and Recommendations.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Clinton Burdette
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
11.A.i
Packet Pg. 784 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
47
David Yakobson
From:Cristi Walden <cristi@seacrestnursery.com>
Sent:Wednesday, February 7, 2024 8:32 PM
To:councilmtgitems; advocacy@smconservancy.org
Subject:I Support the Meztli Report
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
EXTERNAL
I wholeheartedly support the Meztli report recommendations.
Please vote to implement them.
Cristi Walden
Cristi Walden
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
1420 Anderson Ln - Physical Address
5299 Shoreline Dr - Mailing Address
Santa Barbara, CA 93111
(805) 964 1643 - Office
(805) 868 8654 - Mobile
seacrestnursery.com
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
11.A.i
Packet Pg. 785 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
48
David Yakobson
From:suzanne Verge <vergesuzanne@me.com>
Sent:Wednesday, February 7, 2024 6:17 PM
To:councilmtgitems; advocacy@smconservancy.org
Subject:I Support the Meztli Report
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
I support the recommendations presented in Meztli Projects’ Report, developed during Phase 1 of Reframe: City
Hall Mural. I urge you to accept all nine recommendations and to direct City Staff to begin implementation.
These recommendations are the product of significant community engagement and present a set of informed,
thoughtful, and actionable solutions to a complex issue.
It is important that the murals not be covered but remain visible for public understanding and learning. As Meztli
notes in their report, "removing the mural obscures the systems that made the mural possible." The images reflect
the history of Santa Monica and are opportunities to address the lived experiences and histories of Indigenous
people, and others who have been excluded from the imagery altogether. These collective histories are all potential
themes for interpretation, education, and future public art.
It is important that the recommendations be accepted together, to retain the integrity of the full report and the public
process that informed it.
Again, please support Meztli’s Report and Recommendations.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Suzanne Verge
Sent by my rotary phone via carrier pigeon so please excuse any typos or grammar errors
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
11.A.i
Packet Pg. 786 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
49
David Yakobson
From:floself@aol.com
Sent:Wednesday, February 7, 2024 5:56 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:I Support Meztli Report re agenda item 11A
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
EXTERNAL
Re agenda item 11A
Dear Councilmembers,
This is an exciting project and I support the recommendations presented in Meztli Projects’ Report, developed
during Phase 1 of Reframe: City Hall Mural. I urge you to accept all nine recommendations and to direct City Staff to
begin implementation.
These recommendations are the product of significant community engagement and present a set of informed,
thoughtful, and actionable solutions to a complex issue.
It is important that the murals not be covered but remain visible for public understanding and learning. As
Meztli notes in their report, "removing the mural obscures the systems that made the mural possible." The images
reflect the history of Santa Monica and are opportunities to address the lived experiences and histories of
Indigenous people, and others who have been excluded from the imagery altogether. These collective histories are
all potential themes for interpretation, education, and future public art.
It is important that the recommendations be accepted together, to retain the integrity of the full report and the public
process that informed it.
Again, please support Meztli’s Report and Recommendations.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Flo Selfman
floself@aol.com
I live in West LA but lived in Santa Monica with my parents back in the '60s and '70s. My parents owned a small bbq
restaurant at 424 Wilshire, across from Zucky's, from 1961-65. It was called Jordan's (my dad didn't change the
name when he bought it) and it was written up numerous times in the SM Outlook and the Independent by David
Sheehan ("The Lamplighter") and Nelson Hughes, who called it "the little U.N." because of its often international
clienteled, including flight crews from the French airline who stayed at the Miramar. My dad would cook special food
for them; they came in as a big group after closing time.
I bought a brick with my parents' names and the restaurant name and years; it's on the brick fence on Main St.,
down at the bottom. Santa Monica history is so important, especially with all the construction that tears down parts
of our history.
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
11.A.i
Packet Pg. 787 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
50
David Yakobson
From:ccvanhook@gmail.com
Sent:Wednesday, February 7, 2024 5:50 PM
To:councilmtgitems; advocacy@smconservancy.org
Subject:I Support Meztli Report
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
EXTERNAL
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
11.A.i
Packet Pg. 788 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
51
David Yakobson
From:Jenny Lipson <jlipson2003@yahoo.com>
Sent:Wednesday, February 7, 2024 5:45 PM
To:councilmtgitems; advocacy@smconservancy.org
Subject:I Support Meztli Report
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
I support the recommendations presented in Meztli Projects’ Report, developed during Phase 1 of Reframe: City
Hall Mural. I urge you to accept all nine recommendations and to direct City Staff to begin implementation.
These recommendations are the product of significant community engagement and present a set of informed,
thoughtful, and actionable solutions to a complex issue.
It is important that the murals not be covered but remain visible for public understanding and learning. As Meztli
notes in their report, "removing the mural obscures the systems that made the mural possible." The images reflect
the history of Santa Monica and are opportunities to address the lived experiences and histories of Indigenous
people, and others who have been excluded from the imagery altogether. These collective histories are all potential
themes for interpretation, education, and future public art.
It is important that the recommendations be accepted together, to retain the integrity of the full report and the public
process that informed it.
Again, please support Meztli’s Report and Recommendations.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Jenny Lipson
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
11.A.i
Packet Pg. 789 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
52
David Yakobson
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Wednesday, February 7, 2024 3:12 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: Support for City Hall Mural Recommendations - 11a
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
From: MEYER_WALTER <Meyer_Walter@smc.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2024 9:34 AM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; Clerk Mailbox <Clerk.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Cc: Naomi Okuyama <Naomi.Okuyama@santamonica.gov>; SILVER_EMILY <Silver_Emily@smc.edu>; Mary-Elizabeth
Michaels <Mary-Elizabeth.Michaels@santamonica.gov>; Laurie Yehia <laurieyehiaart@gmail.com>
Subject: Support for City Hall Mural Recommendations
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council Members,
I have read the Reframe: City Hall mural Phase I report and wanted to voice my support for the recommendations.
As the chair of the Art Department of Santa Monica College, the recommendations demonstrate a prioritization of
marginalized voices that is so important in the equity work we are pursuing and the report is a great example for
our faculty and students in handling difficult, sensitive and important conversations while also providing a way
forward that balances the needs/desires of multiple and at times conflicting constituencies and values.
As the former chair of the Public Art Committee and Vice Chair of the Arts Commission for Santa Monica, I am
proud of the City’s willingness to take on this project and invest in finding solutions forward. Particularly,
Recommendation 3 which provides the arts commission guidelines to center equity and belonging.
As a longtime resident and parent whose three children went k-12 through our public school system, I am
impressed with the recommendations to expand voices with new artwork, new didactic panels to provide more
context and education for our citizens and facilitating Land Back initiatives.
I will not be able to attend the council meeting, but I am readily available to discuss the matter in greater detail via
phone or zoom.
Thank you for your service to our City and I appreciate all the good things that you do for our community!
All the BEst,
Walter
Walter J. Meyer
smc.edu/resources
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
11.A.i
Packet Pg. 790 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
53
Department Chair- Art
Center for Art History and the Digital Humanities
Support the SMC Art Department Here!
Office- ART 216
310.434.8266
Finance Director- Art Historians of Southern California
My goal as chair of the art department is to serve students and close equity gaps while placing art & its history at the
center of all things SMC.
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
11.A.i
Packet Pg. 791 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
54
David Yakobson
From:Robert Knight <bknight1815@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, February 7, 2024 1:00 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fwd: City Hall Murals :: Letter of Support for Reframe Recommendations
Attachments:City Hall Murals_Robert Knight_Letter of Support_20240207x.pdf
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
EXTERNAL
Please enter the attached letter into the Public Record for the City Council February 13 meeting, for the item regarding
the City Hall Murals.
Thank you, Bob Knight
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Robert Knight <bknight1815@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 12:54 PM
Subject: City Hall Murals :: Letter of Support for Reframe Recommendations
To: <Clerk.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>, <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Please find attached my Letter of Support for the City Hall Murals Reframe Recommendations.
Thank you,
Bob Knight
1815 Washington Ave, Santa Monica, CA 90403
310-948-5309
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
11.A.i
Packet Pg. 792 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
11.A.i
Packet Pg. 793 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
55
David Yakobson
From:Clerk Mailbox
Sent:Tuesday, February 6, 2024 4:52 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:FW: Support for City Hall Mural Recommendations
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
From: MEYER_WALTER <Meyer_Walter@smc.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2024 9:34 AM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; Clerk Mailbox <Clerk.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Cc: Naomi Okuyama <Naomi.Okuyama@santamonica.gov>; SILVER_EMILY <Silver_Emily@smc.edu>; Mary-Elizabeth
Michaels <Mary-Elizabeth.Michaels@santamonica.gov>; Laurie Yehia <laurieyehiaart@gmail.com>
Subject: Support for City Hall Mural Recommendations
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council Members,
I have read the Reframe: City Hall mural Phase I report and wanted to voice my support for the recommendations.
As the chair of the Art Department of Santa Monica College, the recommendations demonstrate a prioritization of
marginalized voices that is so important in the equity work we are pursuing and the report is a great example for
our faculty and students in handling diƯicult, sensitive and important conversations while also providing a way
forward that balances the needs/desires of multiple and at times conflicting constituencies and values.
As the former chair of the Public Art Committee and Vice Chair of the Arts Commission for Santa Monica, I am
proud of the City’s willingness to take on this project and invest in finding solutions forward. Particularly,
Recommendation 3 which provides the arts commission guidelines to center equity and belonging.
As a longtime resident and parent whose three children went k-12 through our public school system, I am
impressed with the recommendations to expand voices with new artwork, new didactic panels to provide more
context and education for our citizens and facilitating Land Back initiatives.
I will not be able to attend the council meeting, but I am readily available to discuss the matter in greater detail via
phone or zoom.
Thank you for your service to our City and I appreciate all the good things that you do for our community!
All the BEst,
Walter
Walter J. Meyer
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
11.A.i
Packet Pg. 794 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
56
smc.edu/resources
Department Chair- Art
Center for Art History and the Digital Humanities
Support the SMC Art Department Here!
Office- ART 216
310.434.8266
Finance Director- Art Historians of Southern California
My goal as chair of the art department is to serve students and close equity gaps while placing art & its history at the
center of all things SMC.
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
Item 11.A.
February 13, 2024
11.A.i
Packet Pg. 795 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Refra me: City Hall
Mural Project
Phase I Report
February 13, 2024
11.A.j
Packet Pg. 796 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
AGENDA
•Review the Recommended
Actions from Staff
•Discuss the Community
Process
•Discuss Proposed
Implementation Priorities
2
Purpose of Tonight’s Meeting
11.A.j
Packet Pg. 797 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
1.Review and accept the report ’s community recommendations presented by Meztli Projects
2.Direct City Staff to begin the implementation phase of the Reframe: City Hall Mural project, starting with planning fo r the 9 recommendations included in the report.
3
Recommended Actions
11.A.j
Packet Pg. 798 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Meztli
Projects
4
Community Engagement
11.A.j
Packet Pg. 799 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
•Content
Phase I: City Hall Mural Project, Facilitators
11.A.j
Packet Pg. 800 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Engagement
Approach
6
City Hall Mural Community Engagement
11.A.j
Packet Pg. 801 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Public
Engagement
7
City Hall Mural Community Engagement
11.A.j
Packet Pg. 802 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Wo rking Circle
8
City Hall Mural Community Engagement
11.A.j
Packet Pg. 803 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
9
• 123 respondents to March 2022 survey
• 100 youth participants in Summer 2022
Belonging in Santa Monica
• 13 Working Circle members selected from 32
applications
• Approximately 270 participants at 9 public
events featuring 12 guest speakers
• 15 interview participants
• Approximately 240 participants at 14
presentations or listening sessions
• 200 Feedback Activity sheets distributed at 5
additional community events
• 337 respondents to the Reframe: City Hall Mural
Feedback Activity
City Hall Mural Community Engagement
Public
Engagement
11.A.j
Packet Pg. 804 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
10
About the Mural -Perspectives
11.A.j
Packet Pg. 805 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
It reminds me not only how unwelcome
my history is in the story this place
wants to talk about itself, but also how
the real experiences of my family and
friends need to be made invisible to
make this story make sense. It reminds
me that City Hall is not accountable to
me at all, which I think is a relatively
true fact about the way that Santa
Monica city governance behaves.
Unfortunately, this mural’s revisionist
histories tell some actual truths about
it.
The beauty of Santa Monica’s coastline
shows through time, connecting us to
this place and to people who have come
before us. I am intrigued to learn more
about the water portrayed in different
ways -the rivers, the waterfalls, and the
engagement of the birds, horses and
people with water. Technically I am
intrigued by the tile formations of the
mural itself -the horizontal and vertical
lines -I’ve read about petrachrome and
would like to know more about how the
artist created this
About the Mural -Perspectives
11.A.j
Packet Pg. 806 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
12
About the Mural -Perspectives
11.A.j
Packet Pg. 807 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
13
Phase I: Mural-based Recommendations
11.A.j
Packet Pg. 808 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
14
Phase I: Equity-based Recommendations
11.A.j
Packet Pg. 809 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
1. Commission New Artwork(s) in City Hall Lobby
2. Commission New Interpretive Panels
3. Ensure that Santa Monica’s Public Art &
Commemorative Landscape Centers Equity and
Belonging
4. Create additional educational materials about
the mural
5. Expand DEI+ Trainings for City Staff
6. Adopt a Citywide Land/Territory
Acknowledgment Initiative
7. Improve Representation on Santa Monica
Committees
8. Facilitate Land Back in Santa Monica
9. Facilitate Kuruvungna Springs Relationships
15
Phase I: Recommendations
11.A.j
Packet Pg. 810 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
New Artwork Placement Considerations
11.A.j
Packet Pg. 811 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
17
Anticipated Initial Implementation Timeline
March 2024
Develop process for:
New artwork
commissions
Interpretive and
education material
creation and
Other priorities
June 2024
RFPs released to
further community
engagement around
new artwork for the
lobby.
manage process to
synthesize input from
community
stakeholders
June-Aug 2024
Selection and
Procurement process
fo r new artworks and
panels
Develop RFP for
citywide cultural
assessment
Aug 24-Aug 25
Implementation of art
project(s) approved by
the Arts Commission
and
Implementation of the
Interpretive panel
production.
11.A.j
Packet Pg. 812 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
1.Review and accept the report ’s community recommendations presented by Meztli Projects
2.Direct City Staff to begin the implementation phase of the Reframe: City Hall Mural project, starting with planning fo r the 9 recommendations included in the report.
18
Recommended Actions
11.A.j
Packet Pg. 813 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Refra me: City Hall
Mural Project Phase I
Report
THANK YOU!
Questions?
11.A.j
Packet Pg. 814 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
11.A.j
Packet Pg. 815 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Blank slide, extra content behind around engagement
11.A.j
Packet Pg. 816 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
The artist and muralist Glenna Avila was commissioned to lead workshops with local elementary, middle and high school youth.
Students discussed the artworks at Historic City Hall and City Hall East and considered questions about representation and belonging.
The result is a collection of original artworks reflecting young people’s thoughts on their home and communities.
22
Yo uth Poster Project, Summer 2022
11.A.j
Packet Pg. 817 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
This precursor event took place at
photographer Matika Wilbur's Project 562:
Changing the way we see Native
America"exhibit at SMC's Barrett Gallery.
The event focused on the multiplicity of Native
and Indigenous voices, and the setting, which
showcased contemporary people from a
variety of tribes around the country, was a
strong affirmation of this theme.
The event sparked deep conversation, aired
differing viewpoints and tensions,and raised
important issues around the representation of
Indigenous Peoples in public space.
23
Prisms of Indigeneity, December 2022
11.A.j
Packet Pg. 818 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
A tour through of three
significant places in Santa
Monica history: City Hall,
Historic Belmar Park, and
Kuruvungna Springs.
Accompanied by a
discussion of how we
address memory in
public space.
24
Sites of Memory Tour, February 2023
11.A.j
Packet Pg. 819 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
A virtual workshop and walk
through of the public
feedback activity,
accompanied
by background resources for
considering the Macdonald-
Wr ight mural.Presented in
partnership with the Santa
Monica Public Library.
25
What do you see here?February 2023
11.A.j
Packet Pg. 820 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
New approaches to telling
stories about the places we
live,featuring technologist
and storyteller idris brewster
and artist Christine Wong Yap.
Presented in partnership
with the Santa Monica Public
Library.
26
Memory Work Today, March 2023
11.A.j
Packet Pg. 821 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Small group work
with facilitator Anu
Ya dav for community
members to share
their diverse views on
the Santa Monica City
Hall Mural.
27
Community Listening Workshop, April 2023
11.A.j
Packet Pg. 822 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
An opportunity fo r all to
stop by the Historic City
Hall lobby, view the
mural and give feedback.
28
City Hall Mural Open House, May 2023
11.A.j
Packet Pg. 823 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
A dive into the histories of the
communities and locales not
represented in the mural.
Speakers were: Mona Morales
Recalde, enrolled member of the
Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band
of Mission Indians; Jaime Cruz, lifelong
resident of Santa Monica’s Pico
neighborhood and history professor at
Santa Monica College; and Carolyne
Edwards of the Quinn Research
Center.
Presented in conjunction with the
Santa Monica History Museum.
29
Other Histories of Santa Monica, June 2023
11.A.j
Packet Pg. 824 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
Screening of a documentary
about the WPA-era murals at
George Washington High
School in San Francisco, with
facilitated discussion by
Meztli Projects. Presented in
conjunction with the Santa
Monica Public Library.
30
Screening of To wn Destroyer, July 2023
11.A.j
Packet Pg. 825 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
A second open house event
at City Hall, where attendees
viewed the
Recommendations that
arose from the Phase I
process. A forum for
the sharing of thoughts
and informal conversations.
31
Open House and Mixer, November 2023
11.A.j
Packet Pg. 826 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)
•123 respondents to March 2022 survey distributed to
Santa Monica residents and employees
•100 youth participants in Summer 2022 Belonging in
Santa Monica workshops with Glenna Avila
•Approximately 270 participants at 9 public events
featuring 12 guest speakers/facilitators
•Approximately 240 participants at 14 presentations or
listening sessions with community groups
•337 respondents to the Reframe: City Hall
Mural Feedback Activity
•At least 200 Feedback Activity sheets distributed at 5
additional community events
•13 Working Circle members selected from
32 applications
•15 interview participants
•9 mass email newsletters
•Many SaMoNews and City social media mentions
•Press coverage from SMDP, SM Mirror, Spectrum
NewsTwo City blog posts
32
Communications about the Project
11.A.j
Packet Pg. 827 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5982 : Report and Recommendation for City Hall Murals)