The Benicia City Council made a decision on the request by Amports to reschedule a rehearing of the Yuba demolition mediation at Tuesday night’s meeting.
The vote was part of a continuing debate over two buildings– collectively known as the Foundry and Office buildings– on East H Street which were once the site of Yuba Industries. Proponents of a demolition permit have argued that the buildings are in a state where an emergency collapse is imminent and should be demolished. Opponents have argued that the current state of the buildings is a result of negligence by property owner Amports and that demolishing the buildings would set a dangerous precedent for historic preservation.
The council last heard an update for the mediation on July 19. At that meeting, it was decided that Councilmember Tom Campbell would be replaced with Mayor Elizabeth Patterson on the mediation team, and the council would confirm the previous direction of continuing the mediation for 90 days. There was also a discussion by the council to form a smaller mediation group and expedite the process. Amports submitted a letter declining to go forward with the mediation group. It was recommended by staff to consider and grant Amports’ request and schedule the rehearing for Tuesday, Oct. 17.
During the public comment section of the meeting, Amports attorney Dana Dean came up to speak about the worry the company has about biases the council might have.
“The council’s decision and ultimate resolution far exceed the council’s jurisdiction and authority that’s detailed in our submission,” Dean said.
Campbell told Dean during the public comment period’s question and answer section that the council has taken steps to eliminate any potential biases and he would be voting to approve a rescheduling.
“It feels like a step backward,” Tim Reynolds, chair of the Historic Preservation Review Commission, said. “Instead of discussing alternatives, details and facts to potentially fall into the trap of having this discussion on ‘Well, is there an emergency and if there is an emergency, is it so dire that there is simply no time to require the applicant to provide documentation to bear the burden of responsibility to prove alternatives to complete demolition of the site?”
The council reconvened the debate of the agenda item following the conclusion of Reynolds’ speech. Councilmember Mark Hughes offered a motion to move forward with the staff’s recommendation. The motion was seconded and the council then voted to approve the motion 4-0. Patterson was not in attendance at the council meeting as she was on an informational trip in Colorado.
In other business, the City Council reviewed proposal drafts of cannabis-related ordinances in Benicia. The council voted on comments and changes to the proposal. They sent their recommendations to the Planning Commission, which review the ordinance proposal and make recommendations to the council. The Commission will discuss the cannabis ordinance on Oct. 12.

Sharing is caring!