Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation Demolition Fee topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Committee considers a demolition fee to fund historic preservation and resiliency; staff to return with options

2677616 · March 18, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Land Use and Sustainability Committee considered establishing a demolition‑fee charged when more than 50% of a single‑family home is demolished and directed staff to return with more detailed options, including sliding scales and allocation of proceeds.

City staff and stakeholders debated a proposed demolition fee for single‑family dwellings and asked for additional analysis before final action.

The administration presented a draft ordinance that would create a flat demolition fee applied prospectively when more than 50% of a single‑family structure is being demolished. Staff said the fee would initially be collected as an additional charge on demolition permits and would be placed into a historic‑preservation fund; exceptions were proposed for lower/moderate income housing projects. Planning staff had benchmarked other cities and initially recommended $15,000 as an average comparand; after community outreach the committee sponsor asked staff to evaluate a $25,000 fee. Committee members requested more work on fee structure and distribution before adopting a fixed charge.

Why it matters: Committee members and public commenters identified two aims: (1) create funds to mitigate impacts from demolition that erode the city’s architectural fabric; and (2) consider environmental and resiliency impacts tied to demolition and new construction. Speakers urged a range of options — a flat fee, a sliding fee based on assessed value or square footage, or a geographic allocation — and asked staff to return with concrete comparisons and options for administering and spending the funds.

Concerns and next steps: Residents and preservation advocates supported a larger fee than previously proposed by staff; developers and others urged caution about unintended consequences. Staff will return to the committee with additional analysis on options such as variable fees tied to square footage or assessed value, mechanisms to track and disburse funds, and a proposed allocation between historic preservation and potential resiliency/environmental uses. The committee continued the item to its July meeting.