The Benicia City Council voted to continue Amports’ request for a rehearing regarding an emergency demolition permit for two historic buildings and possibly form a subcommittee at Tuesday’s meeting.

The meeting was another entry in a long series of debates over the preservation of the Foundry and Office buildings on West H Street, which were constructed in 1850 and were once the hub of the Pacific Mail Steamship Company. However, the condition of the buildings had deteriorated in recent decades and after a fire in 2015, the buildings were red-tagged by the city. In October, property owners Amports filed 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 council meeting. The council also directed that Amports work to secure the property. At the April 18 meeting, the council narrowly voted to adopt the resolution.

However, prior to the April 18 meeting, Amports attorney Dana Dean made a request for a rehearing on several grounds: that the council did not rule on a previous request to disqualify Mayor Elizabeth Patterson or Councilmember Tom Campbell due to perceived bias, councilmembers allegedly failed to disclose ex parte communications, considered information outside the record, violated Amports’ due process rights and that the decision to direct Amports to secure its property went beyond the scope of the hearing.

City Attorney Heather McLaughlin disagreed with the points raised in the request and felt that there was no legally required reason for a rehearing but other options could be taken.

“That being said, it does appear that this project could benefit from a more measured approach that would be a ‘win-win,’” McLaughlin wrote.

One of the suggested approaches was the formation of a subcommittee to meet with Amports and discuss a solution that satisfies all parties. The members would be appointed through the council and would likely consist of Campbell and Vice Mayor Steve Young, one member of the Planning Commission, a member of the Historic Preservation Review Commission, a member of the Benicia Historical Society, a member of the Benicia Historical Museum and an ex officio member of the Benicia Fire Department. The subcommittee would have to be set up within 60 to 75 days.

Young said he sent out a memo to McLaughlin and City Manager Lorie Tinfow regarding the State Historic Building Code’s section on imminent threats, in which an agency must consult with the State Historic Building Safety Board (SHBSB) when an emergency is declared before a historic building or property. He asked if city staff had consulted with the board. Community Development Director Christina Ratcliffe said they tried but never received a response.

Dean denied accusations that Amports was trying to stall the appeal, and she clarified that the company was following procedures laid out by the city.

“We have done everything asked of us by the city, and we have done it as quickly as we could,” she said. “When the city said we have to be out there to inspect, we went out there. When the city red-tagged the buildings, we furthered our security. When the city required us to wait to file for the demo permit, which the city was requiring until we had an SAP report, we waited patiently.”

Dean affirmed that Amports is willing to go through a mediation process with the various parties.

“If we can work together with the people who we believe have their heart in this, then we want to do that,” she said.

Dean also mentioned that she felt that a tolling agreement, neutral third party and timely process would be essential.

“It helps to have someone in there who doesn’t have skin in the game,” she said.

Additionally, Dean said that Amports did get in contact with the SHBSB’s chief operating officer.

“We could appeal your old determination to them, or they will do a mediation,” she said.

Young asked Dean if she would be willing to have the board act as a mediator. She said her only known concern was with the timeline, especially after talking with Executive Director Derek Shaw.

“Similar to the Building Board of Appeals, I think these folks don’t necessarily meet regularly enough, so we would have to pay a special fee,” she said.

Patterson said the city would work to find a qualified mediator within a recommended timeframe, per the city attorney’s request.

During the opportunity for public comments, HPRC Chair Tim Reynolds urged the council to deny the request for a rehearing and expressed a desire for the council to talk to Amports about efforts to increase security.

“Now there’s an opportunity to have a discussion that has not occurred,” he said. “That’s a discussion to take demolition off the table momentarily and sit down with Amports to talk about reasonable stabilization opportunities.”

Fellow HPRC board member Jon Van Landschoot agreed with Reynolds’ sentiments.

“Let Amports know they need to shore that building up,” he said.

Van Landschoot said he and his wife, Donnell Rubay, went by the property earlier in the day to take pictures, which Rubay submitted in a memo to the council to document some of the issues with the property’s security. Among the items they noted: the lack of barbed wire on certain fences, a dip in the fencing by a slanted hill, and a gap in the front gate being held together by a chain and lock.

“I could squeeze through that gate,” Van Landschoot said.

Van Landschoot argued that denying the request for a rehearing would send a message that the city was determined in its decision to save historic buildings.

Ultimately, the council voted 4-to-1 to continue the request for a rehearing and form a subcommittee. The lone dissertation on the council came from Campbell who felt there was not a legitimate reason for a rehearing as the eight points could be rebutted. Patterson felt it would be a good chance for dialogue and cooperation amongst the parties.

In other business, the council unanimously voted to adopt the city’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.

The council will next meet Tuesday, May 2 at 7 p.m.