Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Construction Time Limit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Belvedere council reduces $330,000 construction‑time penalty for 1 Blanding Lane to $210,000
Summary
After a lengthy appeal hearing that reviewed claims of weather, a municipal water leak, PG&E delays and permit timing, the Belvedere City Council reduced the assessed construction‑time‑limit penalty for 1 Blanding Lane to $210,000 and instructed staff to finalize a resolution reflecting specific relief findings.
The Belvedere City Council voted on Oct. 13 to reduce the assessed construction‑time‑limit (CTL) penalty for the project at 1 Blanding Lane to $210,000, after a public hearing in which the property owner and contractor asked for substantially more relief than staff recommended.
Planning and building staff told the council the project was valued at $3.5 million, carried an 18‑month CTL (with a six‑month extension) and finalized on 04/08/2025, leaving the work 320 days past the prescribed date and exposing the owner to a $330,000 penalty. Staff recommended partial relief totaling 55 days — 10 days to account for Tiburon Fire Protection District training and 45 days for a Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) leak above the property — citing documentation gaps for other claimed delays. City legal counsel also urged the council to find the ordinance constitutional and proportional to the city’s interest in limiting construction impacts.
Appellant counsel Amber Morrison of Fenimore LLP argued the ordinance, as applied, was disproportionate and urged the council to waive or substantially reduce the penalty, saying the owner sought 94 days relief for the MMWD leak and additional days for weather and PG&E-related delays. The property owner, Chris Henry, and contractor Peter Dorzia described what they said were 110 days for the water leak, PG&E equipment issues that delayed connection, foundation revisions and other site-specific constraints. Henry said, “All these items were out of my control,” and asked the council to consider the project’s complexity when deciding penalty relief.
Council members pressed for documentary specifics — exact dates, inspection requests and utility‑service records — before granting relief. Several members accepted staff’s recommended 10 days for the fire‑department training and found additional support for more days related to the MMWD leak; they declined to grant relief for the broad 'unrealistic timeline' claim and for several permit or weather claims for which the appellant had not provided precise documentation. After deliberation, a motion to reduce the assessed penalties passed; staff and legal counsel were directed to prepare a final resolution reflecting the council’s findings and the $210,000 assessed penalty.
