Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Appeal Outcome topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Belvedere Council denies appeal, affirms $300,000 construction time‑limit penalty for 339 Golden Gate Avenue

Belvedere City Council · December 3, 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

After a rehearing ordered by the Marin County Superior Court, the Belvedere City Council denied the Flahertys' appeal and affirmed a $300,000 cap on construction time‑limit penalties for the 339 Golden Gate Ave remodel, while granting limited relief days for specific events.

The Belvedere City Council on Dec. 3 denied an appeal of construction time‑limit (CTL) penalties assessed to 339 Golden Gate Avenue and affirmed a $300,000 maximum fine. Council members adopted the staff findings and granted limited relief days for specific events, but rejected broader relief requested by the appellant.

City staff had told the council that the adjusted CTL end date for the project fell in late 2019 and that the CTL cap of $300,000 was reached on Nov. 23, 2020 after accounting for enumerated relief days. City Attorney Andrew Shen told the council that the project did not qualify for the statewide AB 1561 extension and that staff’s proportionality analysis supported the penalty. "AB 15 61 was enacted on 09/28/2020 with the intent of providing a uniform statewide entitlement extension for certain housing development projects impacted by pandemic related issues," Shen said during the staff presentation.

Appellant counsel argued the bulk of construction activity ended in March 2020 and that later entries in the administrative record were inaccurate; he also urged that the city should have pursued code‑enforcement measures for the planning conditions (not CTL fines). "This is false and fraudulent," the appellant's counsel said at one point when disputing staff summaries. Council members reviewed inspection records, permit history and the planning conditions; several members concluded that, even taking some relief days into account (Tubbs fire, COVID guidance, landscaping allowance), the penalty cap had been reached before planning finalization.

On motions recorded at the meeting, the council moved to deny the appeal and oppose reduction of the $300,000 CTL penalty. The council directed staff to prepare a final resolution reflecting findings discussed at the rehearing; the resolution will return to the council as a consent item in January.