Chris Kronner, owner and operator of Kronnerburger, the highly anticipated restaurant coming to Oakland, has run afoul with some Piedmont Avenue neighbors over the partial removal of a beloved mural.

Dubbed the Key Route Plaza mural, the work was painted in 2005 along one wall of the building at 4063 Piedmont Ave., which formerly housed the since-defunct Key Line trolley station. Painted by then Oakland-based artist Rocky Rische-Baird, the New Deal era–style mural was ripe with meaning and Oakland history, including a large portrait of the electric rail system’s original benefactor, Francis Marion “Borax” Smith. Rische-Baird also painted several neighborhood residents within the work’s lively street scene and helped fund the mural in part by depicting the likeness of local donors as passengers in the trolley car.

Some residents, however, discovered late last week that the mural, which had been covered by a blue tarp to protect it from the rain, had been partially destroyed when a large chunk of the wall had been taken out to expose and reinforce a previously covered-up window.

“Horrified. Absolutely horrified and shocked,” Valerie Winemiller from the local neighborhood association, the Piedmont Avenue Neighborhood Improvement League (PANIL), says of her reaction to hearing the news. “It was a mural that was paid for by community donations, and it was just horrifying and shocking that someone would cut a hole out of middle of it without coming back to community first without any notification.”

For his part, Kronner says that particular section of the mural absolutely needed to be removed, as it was painted over a rotting, unsupported window and the inside wall had been infested with black mold.

“We had an architect give us a recommendation of what could be done, and they said it was not reclaimable, without damaging the mural, without incurring significant amount of costs,” Kronner says.

He says that he proceeded with the work only after consulting with his landlord Hal Brandel (who owns the neighboring Caffe Trieste and Bar Cesar), plus the building owner, architect, and contractor to determine that it was his only recourse. The building owner was unwilling to assume liability for an unsupported wall, Kronner says, and the neighborhood association had not come to the table with a viable solution to save the mural, nor any way to pay for it if one had been found.

The original agreement for the mural, according to landlord Hal Brandel, was between the building’s owner and the artist, in which the artist agreed to take full responsibility for the maintenance of the mural and not hold the tenants responsible for any liability. Efforts were made to track down the artist, who relayed that he did not have the ability to take responsibility for maintaining the mural.

“First and foremost, this was not my decision; it was the decision of the person who owns the building and the muralist when they entered into an agreement,” Kronner says. “I simply took it on in a condition that it was not restorable.”

“We removed that portion of the mural because it was actually dangerous to people walking by, it was a legitimate hazard. When the rotted plywood was gone you could actually see into the parking lot and the window was literally hanging off the wall. I had a 65-year-old man who’s been working in construction since his 20s saying it needed to come out or it would fail … It’s very interesting; the neighborhood association never expressed any interest in the mural, and the fact that it was visibly degrading, before I took over the space. All we’re trying to do is refurbish this really cool building that had been vacant and covered up for three years. We’re doing something that is, I believe, good for the neighborhood.”

Added Brandel, “It would have taken a long time, and a lot of money, and since [building’s owner] wasn’t willing to put up money, we didn’t see why we should inherit that obligation. We’re talking about tens of thousands of dollars.”

Winemiller, however, paints a different scene. She says that she referred Kronner to a muralist friend with experience in restoration and indicated she was willing to kick-start a community fundraising effort to pay for the work, but that she never received a response.

“It’s easy enough to say it was hopeless, but that decision process needed to be more transparent,” she says. “It’s really hard to just accept that at face value. We were doing our best to communicate, and there should have been some better communication coming back from other side. There were other ways to handle this.”

Kronner disputed Winemiller’s claims of possible funding, saying, “there was never any legitimate suggestion of how to [perform restoration work] from the neighborhood association, nor was there ever once any indication that there would be any money or effort to pay for it.” Still, he acknowledged that the decision could result in hard feelings, saying that they did think about alerting the neighborhood to his plans.

“We did consider making some sort of announcement, but after the laughably aggressive interactions with the neighborhood association, it seemed like it would have just invited more problems and would not have been to anyone’s benefit,” he says. “Yes, it would have been nice for people who wanted to, to say good bye to the mural, but there wasn’t any realistic plan offered up to save it. A decision had to be made, because we needed to move forward … It’s a bummer that it’s gone, but there wasn’t anything that could be done. I did my best.”

Kronner says that the removed section of the mural had been taken down in larger pieces, which were delivered to the artist’s relatives, who live nearby. In addition, he and Brandel are exploring finding a location nearby for a possible new mural.

So what’s next? Kronner says that he’ll proceed with renovation and hopes to open Kronnerburger in January of next year. Winemiller, meanwhile, says she has contacted the local district council member, Dan Kalb, in an effort to set up a mediation to come to some sort of resolution—whether that would be restoring the original mural, painting another one, or possibly even restitution.

As for the artist himself, Rische-Baird responded via email, stating he was “so disgusted that it’s hard to find words.” His wife, Erica, however, penned a long statement expressing anger and disappointment that a solution could not be found.

“I feel so sad and angry about all of this. It simply is not fair,” she wrote in part, adding, “there WAS a choice. And they made the choice, without letting the community or artist have a say. A choice to save it would have taken a bit of effort and time, which the mural was WORTH.”

Kronnerburger: 4063 Piedmont Ave., Oakland, kronnerburger.com.

** 4:45 pm: This post has been updated to include Kronner’s statements on the interior condition of the wall and the original agreement between the building’s owner and the artist.