Santa Monica
Traditional Reporting for A Digital Age

Santa Monica Real Estate Company, Roque and Mark
2802 Santa Monica Blvd.
Santa Monica, CA 90404

Home Special Reports Archive Links The City Commerce About Contacts Editor Send PR

PART I -- City Leaves Public in the Dark Over Loss of Iconic Mural

Bob Kronovetrealty
We Love Property Management Headaches!

Have Extra Room for the Holidays 2019

Santa Monica Apartments

Santa Monica College
1900 Pico Boulevard
Santa Monica, CA 90405
(310) 434-4000


By Jorge Casuso

First of two parts

January 16, 2020 -- Santa Monicans may never know how their City came to lose the iconic mural "Pleasures Along the Beach," after repeated requests for documents by a former Arts Commissioner failed to reveal how the behind-the-scenes decision was made.

Citing California law, the City withheld or redacted key documents requested under the Public Records Act that could explain why it turned down the large mosaic that stood at the corner of 26th and Wilshire for 50 years.

"PleasuresAlong the Beach" by Millard Sheets
"Pleasures Along the Beach" by Millard Sheets ( Photo by Peter Leonard Courtesy of Santa Monica Conservancy)

The documents the City did not redact heavily contain brief email exchanges, mostly between staff; long news articles on similar projects and descriptions and pictures of the mosaic by renown California artist Millard Sheets.

They also contain the settlement agreement with the owner of the building, Mark Leevan and Wilshire-26, approved by the City Council on August 28, 2018, that reversed the landmark status protecting the building and its artwork.

But none of the documents indicates whether any deliberations took place or how the decision was reached, or why the public -- including the Arts Commission mandated with making the final decision -- was kept in the dark.

In the City's responses to information requests, Rebecca Katsura, the City's public records coordinator, cited the reasons for withholding the information.

California law, Katsura said, exempts from disclosure "records that contain internal City staff deliberations that reflect thought processes, opinions, analysis, and recommendations concerning issues of concern."

Although the City can waive those exemptions, it made the decision not to do so.

"In weighing the public interest," Katsura wrote, "the City finds that the public interest served by nondisclosure of (the requested documents) clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure."


The documents that were released under the public records act indicate that Santa Monica arts officials were initially caught off guard by the City's settlement with the mosaic's owner.

One week after the City Council publicly voted to approve the settlement, Cultural Affairs Director Karen Ginsberg expressed surprise.

"This is the first that I'm hearing about this settlement," Ginsberg wrote in a September 4 email sent to Cultural Affairs Manager Shannon Daut.

"I think the first step would be to go see the artwork don't you?"

Redacted emailSample of redacted email from the City

Daut responded with a brief email whose first two lines have been redacted.

"It's not part of our collection," Daut wrote. "We don't really have the bandwidth to take on the accession and placement/installation of new works right now.

"I would hope the owner would be on the hook for any costs associated with resiting the work!"

Ginsberg quickly replied seeking a copy of the settlement.

"Not sure what the timing is for removing these artworks," she wrote. "I believe they are trying to redevelop the site.

"I have to say that I am a bit annoyed that while you were consulted on treatment of the works, we were not in the mix re: donation of the works Grrrr....."

Immediately following Ginsberg's request, Daut sent an email to Lesley Elwood, the City's public arts consultant, who had discussed the project with Deputy City Attorney Brandon Ward.

"I wasn't anticipating that it would fall back on our lap to oversee any re-siting of the work!" she wrote. "Would you have time to hop on a call this week to discuss this?"

After receiving a response, Daut emailed an update to Ginsberg.

"I just heard back from Lesley and she said Brandon made no mention of us receiving/re-siting the work when she talked with them about the Settlement," Daut wrote.
Sample of redacted email

Shortly before the end of the day, Ginsberg emailed Daut again, "This settlement agreement better have some money attached to it."

Daut responded the following morning, "The work looks like it will be very difficult to re-site properly."

Subsequent emails sent on September 5 and 6 have been heavily, and in some cases completely, redacted.

After the initial flurry of emails in September, there is a lull in unredacted correspondence until December, when the City's three-month period to accept the artworks had technically elapsed.

Leevan, however, had not yet found a recipient, although he had retained expert conservator Rosa Lowinger & Associates to remove "Pleasures Along the Beach" and the accompanying sculptures from the entrance to the former Home Savings building.

The City still had a chance.

PART II -- How the City Failed to Pursue "Pleasures Along the Beach"

Back to Lookout News copyrightCopyright 1999-2019 All Rights Reserved. EMAIL Disclosures