The historic Foundry and Office buildings will stay standing…for now. After a split 1-1 decision by the Building Code Board of Appeals on Wednesday, no immediate action was taken on the decision to issue an emergency demolition permit for the buildings, which means it could go before the City Council in the future.

The two buildings at the end of East H Street— separated into the “Shipping” building and “Office” building— were constructed in the 1850s as the home of the Pacific Mail Steamship Company, which helped build ships used by the Arsenal and helped establish in Benicia what many consider the first industrial complex west of the Mississippi River.

The buildings were once owned by Yuba Industries, but have been unused for many decades. More than 30 years ago, the property was purchased by automobile import company Amports.

What many would describe as proud symbols of Benicia’s heyday as an industrial port have fallen on hard times. Due to the lack of utilization, they have seen numerous structural damage and vandalism. Following further damage from a fire in December of 2015, Chief Building Official Rachel O’Shea determined that an inspection needed to be done. Chris Gale of 4 LEAF Inc. performed an inspection on Dec. 17 of that year and found various structural problems, including a collapsed roof, a rotted floor above the basement, rotted structural floor framing, several sections of a brick wall with no mortar remaining, corroded steel beams and more. The buildings had been red-tagged to prevent entry.

“Once I made the decision to red tag and restrict access, I felt there was enough visual damage and sign of possible collapse that we needed a more in-depth safety evaluation of the building,” O’Shea said at the hearing.

An update was provided in December, 2016 by Fred Cullum, a chief business official for 4 LEAF for 40 years. On Oct. 28 of that year, Amports filed an application for an emergency demolition permit of the buildings. The move was appealed by the Historic Preservation Review Commission (HPRC), which resulted in Wednesday’s public hearing.

The HPRC, which had unanimously voted to block an application from Amports to demolish the buildings in 2006 following a fire, contended that the city violated California Environmental Quality Act guidelines by not providing an Environmental Impact Report. The city argued in its staff report that the project would be exempt from CEQA because the action would be taken to prevent an emergency and the exemption does not apply to ministerial projects, i.e., governmental decisions that involve little or no personal judgment by the public official as to the wisdom or manner of carrying out the project.

Board member and chair for the evening Joseph Wilder asked O’Shea if there was a concern before the fire in 2015 and if she knew what caused it. O’Shea said she had been with the city for only two years and had only become aware of the buildings after the fire. She said she did not know the cause.

Board member David DeLong asked when the red tag was issued and if there had been any previous red tags. O’Shea said it was issued the day after the fire and that she was not aware of any previous red tags.

In his appeal, HPRC member Jon Van Landschoot went over the history of the buildings and brought up other buildings that had been slated for demolition in recent decades and saved, including a building constructed by Robert Semple in the 1840s and the Lido building where Jack London used to hang out.

“We can do better to preserve these two buildings,” he said.

Van Landschoot recommended approving the appeal and suggesting that Amports take better care of the buildings.

HPRC Chairman Tim Reynolds expressed concern that the evaluations weren’t done by engineers with historical backgrounds. He also did not agree that the project constituted an emergency because of the amount of time spent on the project without any emergency.

Amports attorney Dana Dean said the company had been doing what it could to salvage the buildings. Following the 2006 fire, Amports went before the HPRC with a Mitigated Negative Declaration, but the HPRC turned it down.

“We offered a number of mitigations,” she said. “Some of the HPRC members— some of whom are in the audience— and the other historical society members turned me down flat on all of these.”

She said some of these offers included a pictorial history, salvaging some of the bricks to be used as a walkway and moving the office building to be donated to the city.

Dean mentioned how she talked to the city attorney and O’Shea after the 2015 fire and corresponded with the inspectors.

She also took issue with the notion that the project did not constitute an emergency exemption.

“It’s very clear that the emergency exception does apply where there’s a circumstance where the collapse could come forward at any time,” she said.

Dean expressed understanding of the concerns being raised to protect Benicia’s heritage.

“I recognize that history means a lot in this town,” she said. “These historical resources are significant and we want to hold on to them when we can, but you can’t always hold on to them and this is a circumstance where we can’t.”

She also assured that Amports would do what it could to salvage and move what it could from the property.

When the public comment portion opened up, all the speakers expressed concerns about demolishing the buildings. Some speakers suggested Amports should have been more responsible in maintaining the property. Christine Meade, who lives across the street from the buildings, said teenagers have frequently broken through the fences and gone in the buildings to use them for partying. Likewise, Jane Curl, who also lives near the buildings, said she has called the police numerous times over people entering.

“It’s not a concern for safety when you allow kids to routinely go into a building,” Meade said. “If you really thought it was a place that was going to fall down, you would secure it.”

David Hyde, a PhD student at UC Berkeley, suggested that approving the permit would set a dangerous precedent.

“What we’re asking for is Amports to follow the established, agreed upon and required city-approved process that every historic property in the city must undertake,” he said.

This process, he noted, included putting together an EIR, putting the case before the HPRC and exploring alternatives to demolition.

Dean responded by saying that security is provided at the site, including three fences.

“I’m distressed to hear yet again that there’s a hole in the fence because it was just repaired,” she said.

She noted that such arguments made the case that the site is an “attractive nuisance,” which was one of the reasons for going forward with the demolition permit. She also had clarified that the permit has not been issued and is only in the application stages.

“The reality is that I didn’t learn that the demolition permit was gonna be approved until the day I learned there was gonna be an appeal,” she said.

She also noted that “a sudden, unexpected occurrence is not required under California law for an emergency demolition” and cited the 2002 appellate case of CalBeach Advocates v. City of Solana Beach.

Wilder contended that the issue was not property negligence but public safety and voted to deny the appeal. DeLong felt a structural engineer with a historic background should have been involved in the inspections and voted to uphold the appeal. The board usually has three members, but following the death of board member Mike Pretzer on Feb. 12, no consensus was reached on the two-member board. The decision has the opportunity to be brought to the City Council in the future.