Following Council Member David Cook’s suggestion to “use it or lose it”, Sonoma’s City Council last night voted to demolish the dilapidated cottage at the rear of the Maysonnave property on 1st Street East. The cost of demolition is estimated by the City Planning Department to cost $65,000.
The Maysonnave property was willed to the city for the purpose of public benefit by Paul Maysonnave. The main house was renovated in a cooperative agreement with the Sonoma League for Historic Preservation and became the league’s current headquarters; the cottage out back was for a time rented to a city parks caretaker.
The cottage was allowed by the city to deteriorate, to the point a number of years ago that demolition was considered. At that time the Design Review Commission recommended preservation and the upshot of that was that through a council process and negotiation, Benchmark-Hoover agreed to rent the property for 20 years and renovate it as a vacation rental.
Benchmark-Hoover worked with the city to bypass the prevailing wage ordinance by having the city not subsidize the project. The city further supported Benchmark Hoover by pledging money to pay up to a certain amount if the prevailing wage did become required.
However, insistence by the city building department that the Benchmark-Hoover vacation rental be ADA compliant, which would have resulted in a significant cost overrun for the developer, appears to have killed the rental plan. Other vacation rentals in town are not held to the same standard. Accordingly, though the planning department was working hard to make the Benchmark Hoover project succeed, the building department’s insistence on ADA compliance had a countervailing effect on the effort to save the historic structure.
The city and preservation advocates disagreed about the historic status of the cottage, with the city’s consultant declaring that the cottage was not historic and preservationists having a professional opinion that it was historic. “This happens every time.” Said League for Historic Preservation board president Robert Demmler.
City staff presented the council with four options.
- Option One: convert the cottage to an archival storage unit, for either the League or the Sonoma Valley Historical Society, for a cost of $414,000. Neither historical group has the available revenue to pay for that. Alternatively, the full renovation cost would fall upon the city.
- Option Two: demolish the cottage for $65,000.
- Option Three: pursue a vacation rental with a new partner. Given the significant ADA costs, this would pose problems for a developer.
- Option Four: subdivide the property and sell it through a process of “equitable deviation”, with a provision through a conservation easement that the cottage would need to be preserved. This way the cottage would be preserved, but not by the city. The Maysonnave will deeding the property would have to be amended for this option and legal costs would amount to $15- 25,000
Under council questioning, Rachel Hundley ascertained that there was no urgent need to act. During public comment, former Mayor Joe Costello said the local neighborhood association wants to keep the cottage and preserve it. Robert Demmler suggested putting the cottage in a “holding pattern,” to preserve it. Will Honeybourne, a member of the Sonoma Valley Historical Society advocated preserving the cottage and leasing it to the Society for archival storage, which fits the Society’s mission. Kelso Barnett, a member of the city’s Design Review Commission, provided some background context on the cottage’s history at the request of Mayor Gallian but in accordance with Brown Act advice from city attorney Jeff Walter, he did not comment otherwise.
When it was time for the vote, Council Member Cook offered his “use it or lose it” strategy; demolish the cottage and create a park setting. Council Member Hundley, in her first historical building decision, said she did not want it to be a “tear down.” She said history is an under-leveraged asset to the community, history brings the community together, and “why not get a second opinion, explore the options.” She pointed out that it was the city that let the property deteriorate, not a good example or precedent. Council Member Edwards, supported demolishing the structure, adding the space as a continuation of the Maysonnave House gardens to help the League hold events to earn back money to pay off their $300,000 share of developing the main Maysonnave house. A cottage replica could be built he suggested. Vice Mayor Agrimonti also indicated she supported demolishing the cottage. Finally, Mayor Gallian made a final appeal to her council to not tear down the cottage.
Council Member Cook made a motion to demolish, seconded by Vice Mayor Agrimonti. The vote: Hundley no, Cook yes. Edwards yes, Agrimonti yes, Gallian no – a three to two decision. Barring a reconsideration, the cottage will be demolished and staff will return to council with an explanation of how that process will work.
$65,000 to demolish that piece of shack?? Where does the City get these numbers??? Whose relative or campaign contributor is going to get this contract?? Get a landscaper to aim 5 leaf blowers at it for a half-hour & it’ll come down.
Yay for NO Way! He(she) easily found a huge flaw.