The Benicia City Council narrowly voted to adopt a resolution denying an emergency demolition permit for two historic buildings ahead of a potential rehearing on the property at Tuesday’s meeting.

At the March 28 meeting, the council voted 3 to 2 to uphold an appeal of a demolition of the Foundry and Office buildings on West H Street. The buildings, dating back to the 1850s, were once the hub of the Pacific Mail and Steamship Company and are widely considered the first industrial complex west of the Mississippi River.  The buildings were purchased by automobile import company Amports a few decades ago. However, they had fallen into disarray in recent decades and have been subject to vandalism, squatters and even fires, causing a lot of structural damage. In 2016, Amports applied for an emergency demolition permit, but members of the Historic Preservation Review Commission appealed the permit and that appeal was narrowly upheld at the March 28 meeting. The council also directed that Amports work to secure the property.

In an April 11 letter, Amports attorney Dana Dean made a request for a rehearing on several grounds. First, she felt the council did not rule on a previous request to disqualify Mayor Elizabeth Patterson or Councilmember Tom Campbell due to perceived bias. At the March 28 meeting, City Attorney Heather McLaughlin stated that she did not feel the two had a strong bias, but Dean wrote that “‘Bias is not a relative concept within the context of ethical duties and disqualification…in other words, for disqualification purposes, any bias will do, weak or strong.”

Dean also argued that councilmembers failed to disclose ex parte communications, considered information outside the record, the council violated Amports’ due process rights and that the decision to direct Amports to secure its property went beyond the scope of the hearing.

Vice Mayor Steve Young said that Dean’s request had raised “substantive points” and felt it would make more sense to postpone taking action on the findings of the resolution until a rehearing was held.

“I think some of those questions are compelling and in need of a response,” he said. “If we open it up again and have a new hearing, we could have a different result.”

Councilmember Mark Hughes agreed.

“I just don’t think it’s a good use of time knowing that we’re going to be coming back to discuss this in the future,” he said.

Patterson felt it was important to vote on the findings that evening so that staff could have on record the reasons for the decision ahead of the rehearing.

“I think it’s important to have a record that’s clear why we made the decision that we made,” she said. “If there’s future litigation, it gets really muddled and messy and muddy if we don’t do the findings now. I really want to advocate strongly. It does not mean I have a bias or a prejudice for reconsideration for the request on the revisitation.”

Young again questioned the necessity of adopting the findings that night if the case was going to be reheard in a week. McLaughlin said it was to make the record clearer.

Councilmember Alan Schwartzman felt it would not make sense to delay the findings until the night of the rehearing because two decisions would need to be made: the necessity for a rehearing and the potential action to take.

Ultimately, the council voted 3 to 2 to adopt the findings, with Young and Hughes dissenting. The request for a rehearing is on the agenda for the April 25 meeting. If approved, it could be scheduled as an agenda item in May.

In other business, the Community Sustainability Commission delivered its annual report and the council discussed what should be included in the draft ordinance for the city’s cannabis regulations. The meeting was also the first for new City Manager Lorie Tinfow, the former city manager of Pacifica.

The council will next meet Tuesday, April 25.

Sharing is caring!