Antioch council-commissioned historic mural removed from Rivertown building wall
UPDATE: “We’re going to update it” – building owner Sean McCauley.
Antioch residents, business owners, former councilmembers upset
The first Facade Mural Easement on private property recorded in the State of California.
“Part of the easement agreement was the City agreeing to maintain the murals” – Elizabeth Rimbault
By Allen D. Payton
Good news UPDATE! – Building owner, City working on new, historic mural for 4th Street wall in Antioch’s downtown Rivertown. (See article)
The historic mural on a privately owned building wall in Antioch’s downtown Rivertown is being removed beginning Thursday, June 19, 2024, to the dismay of residents, business owners and former Antioch Council members. Commissioned by the council in 1997 and paid for with private funds, the mural, located on the W. 4th Street side of the brick building at the corner of G Street, was no longer being maintained by the City at staff’s direction after some of the paint was pealing and cracking. Before the new owners purchased the building in 2021, they were given permission to remove the mural instead of the City repairing it. To maintain the mural would have been cost-prohibitive for the new owner according to the property manager who chose to remain anonymous.
Former Antioch Councilwoman Elizabeth Rimbault was instrumental in bringing to life both the murals on W. 4th Street and W. 2nd Streets. As a former member of the Antioch Friends of the Arts and former leader with the Antioch Historical Society, she was the one who led the effort for the mural’s approval by the council after she was no longer serving, raising the funds and working with the muralist.
“What a travesty,” she said first learned its removal. “That was the first Facade Mural Easement on private property recorded in the State of California. How low the City has come.”
A Certificate of Acceptance dated March 3, 1998 was signed by the city attorney states, “This is to certify that the interest in real property conveyed by Grant of Façade Mural Easement…from” the building owners at that time, “to the City of Antioch…is hereby accepted by the undersigned officer…pursuant to authority conferred by Resolution of the Antioch City Council adopted on May 10 1983, and the grantee consents to recordation thereof…”
Rimbault then offered some background to the mural which depicted a scene of the telephone company that was located inside during the 1950’s that included the late Don and Helen Meagher who were talking to the office manager, a real woman, as new residents at the time.
“Don came to work as a teacher in Antioch,” she shared. “Helen later became the leader of the former Antioch Friends of the Arts, and it was her dream to have a mural community for residents and others to appreciate in the city’s downtown.”
“I worked on that just prior to Helen’s death,” the former councilwoman shared. “Becoming a mural community and attracting visitors was Helen’s dream. City Attorney Bill Galstan and I put it together. Then I did all the negotiations with the owners and obtained their signatures. So sad. She died before we were able to get the first one approved.”
The mural also depicted an actual woman who worked as an operator at the switchboard as well as a telephone truck and the man leaning against it was an actual employee who literally installed all the phones in Antioch, at the time.
The mural also included a painting of the late Dr. Thomas Dozier, a local physician who practiced medicine from the 1930’s through the late 1980’s and one of the namesakes of Antioch’s Dozier-Libbey Medical High School.
“He walked by the building each day between his home and office a block away,” said Rimbault.
On the right end of the mural was a depiction of the late Bob Beswick, who owned Beswick Insurance in downtown, holding an American flag.
“He was the unofficial Mayor of Rivertown who greeted people,” she shared. “His office was in the nearby building that fronts W. 4th Street next to the auto repair building that houses Pantell’s Music Box, today.”
Rivertown business owner Vicky Galloway was not happy, saying, “I’m just upset that they took it down without trying to preserve it. It’s just another part of downtown gone.”
Antioch Historical Society Director Kay Power said when she learned of the mural’s removal, “Oh, no! That was nice. It just needed some repair.”
When informed of the matter, former Councilwoman Norma Hernandez said, “Anything to do with art that goes up should stay forever. The City can’t back away on historical art. This is a sad day. I don’t agree with anything they’re doing and they should uphold their contract. You can’t trust the City and they’ve proven it again.”
Former Antioch Public Works Director and City Engineer Stan Davis, who was on the Antioch Historical Society’s Board of Directors for 20 years until he resigned a few years ago, offered his perspective.
“I know the city was responsible for it and they (the building owners) got permission to remove it. The problem is the city hasn’t maintained it,” he stated.
“There was a paint problem with the building before they put it on,” Davis continued. “The paint was coming off and it was taking the mural with it. The wall should have been scraped and painted, first. They’re taking it down to the wall and then painting it
“No one has talked to us about it as a Historical Society. The decision was made without us. But I’m no longer on the board,” he stated. “It’s too bad but I don’t really know what they could do.”
Background
The mural was commissioned by the council, and the second to be painted following the Sesquicentennial Mural on the wall of 505 W. 2nd Street depicting early scenes of Antioch from the 1800’s including the July 4th, 19851 picnic when the town was renamed from Smith’s Landing to Antioch, the coal train and a coal miner, Antioch’s first mayor and his daughter, the first teacher in the community.
“After we had the easement, all the council decided they wanted the Sesquicentennial mural on 2nd Street first as that was coming up the following year,” Rimbault continued. “So, then I had to get the artist to design another, larger mural, negotiate with another owner of the old Fontana building and raise $165,000 of private money to pay for it. A minor contribution was made by the City. The minute the Sesquicentennial mural was done the fences were moved to the 4th Street site and the artist started painting.”
“Throughout its history the City has been a poor partner in the mural projects,” she stated. “All rights and obligations were turned over to the Historical Society when Friends of the Arts disbanded. The Historical Society should be hammering the City about maintenance as now this places the Sesquicentennial mural in jeopardy, as well.”
“Interesting the city I have moved to, Manteca, is a mural community and very proud of it,” Rimbault shared. “People drive all over downtown trying to see all the murals and they are historic about the community’s early beginnings or honoring military and heroes. They are beautiful and well maintained. Dozens of them covering entire business buildings walls, some on the second story.”
“Antioch’s crap attitude wins again,” she added.
“The 4th Street mural was paid for 100% with private funds,” Rimbault stated. “The council approved the easement agreement and permit for the mural.
“Part of the easement agreement was the City agreeing to maintain the murals,” she explained. “The conditions are the owner of the building can never paint over the mural and cannot disrupt the wall in any way, such as putting in a window or door.
In exchange, the City agreed to perpetually maintain the murals including removing any graffiti and repairs.”
“It was a recorded easement, and the new owner would have had to obtain a signature from the Historical Society and it would have had to be on the council agenda to get signatures from the City,” allowing removal, said Rimbault who was also a signatory to the easement agreement.
“The Friends of the Arts maintained both murals on two occasions because the City was not stepping up to fulfill their obligations,” she continued. “The City sent a contractor who used the wrong cleaning agent which resulted in one of the faces being blurred. He stopped as soon as he realized what was happening, but the damage was done. Before disbanding, the Friends of the Arts turned over their money, rights and responsibilities to the Historical Society.”
“The mural on the Antioch Library wall on E. 18th Street was the first one allowed on a County-owned building,” Rimbault shared. “The County has done an honorable job of maintaining that mural, unlike the City.”
City Staff Determined Mural “Cannot Be Restored”, Took Photos, Video for Archive
Emails December 2020 and January 2021, provided by the new building owners, among the real estate advisors for the owner selling the building and with city staff, and forwarded to the buyers, show there was a desire to restore the mural and that there was an easement in place.
In an email on Dec. 17, 2020, then-Parks and Recreation Director Nancy Kaiser informed the property manager for the owner selling the building and copying then-Assistant City Manager Rosannna Bayon Moore, that the mural could not be restored.
Kaiser wrote, “The City of Antioch has analyzed the mural located on the building (you manage) located at 4th and G Streets. Unfortunately, the mural in its current condition cannot be restored. It saddens me to acknowledge this situation and provide this report, since we know how beloved this mural is for many residents.
The City would like to preserve the place in history that this mural offers, and is moving forward to capture high quality images/video of the mural so that we can tell the story.
I am retiring and tomorrow is my last day at work. I am pleased to connect you with Rosanna Bayon-Moore, Assistant City Manager. Rosanna will work to see that the image/video project moves along in a timely manner.”
An email dated Jan. 2021 read, “we have been working with the city and historical society to get the mural restored. They currently have an easement. They have indicated they may no longer want that easement or the responsibility to maintain the mural. This might be a benefit to the buyer. We don’t have any agreements or commitments, but I will send you the contract we have been working with so the buyer can follow up with them.”
Questions for Council, Current and Former City Staff, Historical Society President
Questions were emailed on Friday, June 21, 2024, to all five current members who were serving on the city council in 2021, plus, Acting City Manager Kwame Reed, City Attorney Thomas L. Smith, Historical Society president Shari Gayle and former city manager Ron Bernal were informed of the easement agreement and asked about the mural’s removal, if the both the City and Historical Society signed off in 2021, if the council gave city staff that direction, when the City stopped maintaining it and why, what could have been done to repair and preserve it, and if there will be any efforts to secure another Rivertown building wall to replace and repaint the mural.
They were also asked what has been done to preserve and maintain the other murals in Rivertown and other parts of the city, including one at the Veterans Memorial at the end of L Street near the Marina, and the other on A Street next to the Chevron station, and if there is a fund in the City’s budget to pay for it.
Ogorchock responded, “Individuals came to me when the building was purchased. It was never shared with me that we had an easement on it and were supposed to maintain the mural. I asked the city manager about it at that time what could we do to make sure the mural stays. I was told it was in disrepair and the new owner could paint over it.”
“We as council never approved this. It’s my understanding, we as a city were not supposed to maintain the art and the owner was to put a coating on it every two years. Obviously, the previous owner didn’t. City staff made the decision. I was not aware of the easement. It was not brought to council. We should have maintained it but we didn’t. That was not brought to council. That was a decision made without us.”
“We need to make sure that we have funds set aside to maintain and repair the murals and utility boxes in the city. I will address it as the next city council meeting,” she added.
District 2 Councilman Mike Barbanica replied, “I don’t recall any knowledge of this.”
Second Mural on the Building
“It was the second mural on that building,” he shared. “I remember the first time as a kid with my parents seeing that mural being painted. The Honey Sweet Donuts shop was located inside.”
“That mural included a guy, laying on his stomach, reaching out for something. It was a very unusual mural. But it was beautiful,” Barbanica added.
Former Antioch City Manager Ron Bernal responded, “Yes, the City decided it was too expensive to rehabilitate the mural.”
He reiterated what was written in the email by Parks and Recreation Director Kaiser writing, “The mural was however professionally photo documented to preserve the artwork.”
Acting City Manager Reed was then asked to locate the photos and video of the artwork.
Additional efforts to reach Gayle of the Historical Society were unsuccessful and no responses were received from them or the other council members prior to publication time.
Please check back later for any updates to this report.
the attachments to this post:
Photo taken on 6-24-24 Ronn Carter
More scenes of the telephone office & Bob Beswick being removed
Telelphone office scene removed
308 324 G Street Mural Street Easement.pdf
Historic mural removal 06-21-24 ADP
