San Diego Is Sued in Move to Save Brewery, Artworks

A community group filed suit against San Diego on Thursday in a last-ditch effort to save the Aztec Brewery in Barrio Logan from demolition.

The Harborview Community Council, which is suing in San Diego Superior Court, wants to preserve the defunct brewery to house about 2,000 artworks that have been carted out of the building in recent weeks and stored at an undisclosed location.

The city attorney’s office, meanwhile, is investigating the removal of the art for possible violations of city ordinances on historical sites.

Harborview and the Save Our Heritage Organisation charge that, in its haste to get the area’s redevelopment off the ground and recover the art, the city failed to enforce municipal regulations requiring environmental impact reviews of the artwork removal and the building demolition before either took place. The suit also names the building’s owner and developer, and the firm that removed the art as co-defendants.

Everything seemed settled a month ago, when the owner of the 77-year-old building, Northern Automotive Co. of Arizona, and the developer, Ramser Development Co. of Los Angeles, struck a deal with the City Council.

In the compromise, the council overrode the recommendation of the city’s Historical Site Board to preserve both the building and the artworks and ruled that the building at 2301 Main St. could be demolished for a new concrete warehouse as long as the art was given to the city.

By that time, some of the art had already been removed by the

Mihos Construction Co., under contract to the other two companies. Kathryn Willets, chairwoman of the site board, said the works depicting Aztec and Mayan life are “being held hostage” to ensure that the city approved the building’s demolition.

“The board was just aghast,” she said. “Nothing like this had ever happened.”

Councilman Bob Filner, who proposed the council agreement, defended it as a needed response to Northern’s hardball tactics.

“The building would have been nice to save, but this project is going to be an anchor in the enterprise zone, and we wanted to save the artwork.

Filner Wants Artwork

“It may or may not be blackmail, but they own it (the art), and I’m trying to get it,” said Filner, who represents the district including the brewery.

But the community activists say the compromise went too far and negligently reversed the site board’s position on the building.

“The building is an important cultural and historical resource,” said SOHO board member David Swarens. And Al Ducheny, chairman of the Harborview group, called the tentative plan to move the murals and tile and glass works to a nearby Mexican restaurant, Chuey’s, “an insult to the artist and the architects.”

The artwork was done in the ‘30s by the late Spanish painter Jose Moya del Pino, and the building was designed by Charles and Edward Quayle, originally for the Savage Tire Co. The suit says the building is one of the few factories from the era still standing in San Diego.

The issue also centers on the timing of the art removal, which has prompted the investigation by the city attorney’s office.

Northern and Ramser hired Mihos to begin removing the artwork several months ago. The companies say they continued working after a written April 13 warning from the Planning Department that removal would violate the municipal code, and even after the City Council decision.

The site board historical designation of the building and its contents and the City Council’s designation of the artwork both should have triggered a review process and halted work, said Deputy City Atty. Allisyn Thomas.

Vandalism Noted

In a letter dated June 24--more than two weeks after the City Council resolution--Northern Vice President David LaBau informed San Diego’s city manager that, after signs of vandalism at the brewery, the company removed all but one of the artworks.

The letter continues, “We have just learned that the designation of the art ensemble may create significant roadblocks to that development, in that its designation may require environmental review of the project.

“As the Art Ensemble is removed from the buildings and no longer on the site, it is our impression that no such review should be required.”

Thomas, the deputy city attorney, said that, although no injunction was filed to prevent the company from removing the art, “they knew something (some kind of review process) was coming before then.

“They should have notified us. You can do it if you can show an emergency situation, but you have to contact the city first.”

She said the city investigation should be completed next week.

Further, Michael Mihos, owner of the company that removed the artworks, said Thursday that removal was completed just a week and a half ago, well after the letter was sent. Responded Thomas, “That’s news to me. We would be concerned about that.”

Beric Christiansen, a senior vice president at Northern, said he didn’t recall when or how the company learned of the reviews that should have been necessary.

But he said that no permission was needed for the removal. “People keep forgetting that this is property owned by the company. All we are doing is protecting the assets of the corporation, and we were going to move it anyway sooner or later.”

“I wish I’d never heard of this building,” Christiansen added.

Mihos agreed with the activists that the city should have moved more firmly against the company if they wanted to stop the removal. “The city should have moved faster,” said Mihos.

“The enterprise zones speed up the permit process, but the city has to take cultural elements more into account and act on them,” said SOHO’s Swarens.

A hearing on the injunction against work on the site is scheduled today in Superior Court, according to Harborview attorney Denise Moreno Ducheny.