Sherrif’s investigator enters crime scene Wednesday morning on Bonneau Road. Photo: Ryan Lely
Neal Ross
A Chico man was arrested this afternoon in connection with the murder of his grandfather Tuesday night on Bonneau Road.
Sean Patrick Mooney, 20, is being held without bail in Santa Rosa. The victim, 77-year-old Robert Ferris Deming, was killed by a close-range shotgun blast to the back of his head. Sheriff’s Lt. Robert Giordano said Mooney was found at the scene after having called 911 around 9:21 p.m. to report that two suspects had shot his grandfather and fled in a vehicle.
But after assembling evidence and witness reports – and interrogating Mooney most of Tuesday night – investigators concluded that wasn’t true, Giordano said.
“There’s evidence that he planned this event,” Giordano said, adding that the case is still being investigated. “We’re just trying to put the details together, but there appears to be money involved in the motive.”
Giordano said the murder weapon did not belong to the victim. He said that Mooney, who was spending the night, appeared to have acted alone and had “planned out a statement to try to take the focus off of him.”
He added that Mooney came voluntarily to the sheriff’s headquarters in Santa Rosa Tuesday night and would likely be arraigned Friday morning.
Bonneau Road was closed to all but local traffic until just before 10:30 this morning. A neighbor who declined to give her name said Deming was a longtime resident who suffered from undisclosed medical difficulties. She said his wife had died about five years ago but his daughter and son-in-law lived with him in the small yellow house in Bonneau Road’s 400 block. The neighbor added that the near-ceaseless Big Bend winds prevented her from hearing anything Tuesday night.
“He’s certainly not someone you’d expect to find murdered,” she said.
Anyone with any information in the case is asked to call the sheriff’s investigation bureau at 565-2185.
What can be done with the old Clemente Inn?
Bonnie Durrance
It is the essence of a conundrum.
Built in 1912, the Clemente Inn was – through the 1920s – part of the fashionable hubbub of the “springs” resort culture. Vacant now for the last 30 years, its lines still look good but its innards have crumbled; and in the fall of 2007, neighbors complained of the safety hazard – and the PRMD code enforcement office slapped a 30-day condemnation notice on it – forcing Marty Edwards, its owner of four years, into a maze of entangled and conflicting regulations, restrictions and possibly regret.
Last week Edwards, the Landmark Commission and the county Redevelopment Agency met to try to determine a way to move forward and remove what is deemed an eyesore and a danger to the community. Simple solutions – tear it down – meet with simple resistance: No! It’s a landmark! Complex solutions – ttear down part, maintain key walls, get redevelopment assistance – meet with complex resistance: Which walls? Is it one or two walls? Where is the plan for the hotel? – and if its not to be a hotel, then there’s a zoning problem. Redevelopment Manager Boris Sztorch said after a preliminary meeting last month, “It’s her decision. I said we’d help her and assist her. But if she wants anything other than demolition, she’ll have to have a business plan. We have to have an assurance any money we put in is going to be 100 percent secured.” At the same time, he noted, “Blight removal is considered a priority.”
Lisa Posternak, Landmark Commission staff member who has been working on the project for the last four months, said the county wants a resolution quickly because of hazard and liability issues. They’re pressing Edwards to make a decision about how she wants to proceed. “So it’s in her court.” But not entirely. “If she wants to demolish it, the approach PRMD would like to take is to give some indication to the Landmarks Comission that the PRMD would like to see that the Landmarks’ decision approve it.” The Landmarks Commission may not do that, given the importance of the building as an “anchor location” to the area and its history. But then, said Posternak, she could appeal. “Or it could be that code enforcement might appeal that.”
“The crowning blow to all this,” said Edwards, “was at the meeting the other day they said that if I could manage to save the façade and then attach it to all new construction behind, all up to today’s code, that that would be viewed as a rehabilitation permit at PRMD and Landmark. And everybody would be happy. And I heard from Sztorch that sure, I could come in and get funding to make the building safe, meaning shoring and partial demolition, that I could apply for that and then apply for additional rehab funds late.” That would mean a dream come true for all parties – the historic aspect would be maintained, the safety aspect would be corrected and the permits and rezoning requirements could proceed apace. But… “Then he [Sztorch] called and said, No, if I’m just leaving the façade that there would be no redevelopment funds available because they view it as new construction.” In a recent interview, Sztorch said, “Redevelopment funding could be provided for demolition and reconstruction with the board of supervisors’ approval.”
Even if the construction problem should be resolved, the issue remains as to the ultimate sustainable use of the building. A hotel in that location right now does not “pencil out,” said Edwards. However, when the Springs redevelopment comes into flower, the building could be the landmark of elegance it once was, in a thriving community. Time, money, hazard, regulations and dreams all continue chasing each other through the maze.
A public meeting will discuss the issue at 6:30 p.m. Wednesday at the PRMD meeting room, 2550 Ventura Ave, Santa Rosa.
