Belvedere eases penalties for construction delays at home
The Belvedere City Council has denied an appeal challenging $698,400 in construction time limit penalties, but it agreed to give the property owners some relief.
The owners of 431 Golden Gate Ave., Marshall Miller and Linda Applewhite, were fined because city staff said they missed the construction deadline for the remodel of their home by 627 days.
The owners appealed, saying the delays were caused by 17 factors out of their control. Based on the factors the homeowners submitted, city staff recommended that the council deny the appeal but reduce the overrun by 287 days, thus cutting the assessment to $344,400.
The council heard the appeal at its meeting on Feb. 9. The municipal code states the city is only allowed to reduce penalties for problems “beyond the applicant’s control” such as “extreme weather events, labor stoppages, natural disasters, and/or acts of war or terrorism.”
Staff recommended the council lower the penalties to allow for delays from a Marin Municipal Water District main break, a Pacific Gas & Electric Co. issue and family illnesses. The residents wanted all the penalties rescinded, saying the remaining delays were also uncontrollable.
The reasons for the other delays, according to the appeal, included complications from the COVID-19 pandemic; unexpected dry rot and additional construction; issues with the contractor and staffing problems; delays from the city’s holiday schedule; water leaks, extreme weather and flooding; and the construction of an additional dwelling unit, which they said they were “highly encouraged” by city staff to build.
The project began construction in April 2021 and was meant to be completed by November 2022. The homeowners were granted a six-month extension in October 2022, which set a new construction deadline of May 2023. Following a 30-day grace period, the homeowners began accruing penalties on July 8, 2023. The project was deemed finished on March 26, 2025.
Councilmember Pat Carapiet asked about the request for the extension, which included several changes to the home’s original remodel, including the addition of an elevator to the home.
“That was approved in October of ’22, and you were going for your six-month extension at the time,” she said. “Were you aware that all these expansions and changes were going to put you in the situation you ended up in?”
“I would not characterize it as expanding the timeline of the project, these were all minor things,” Miller said.
The council also noted that the owners acted as “owner-builder” for much of the project, overseeing the work while their contractor was receiving a general contractor license. Miller said they had decided to keep the contractor even when they had problems because they thought switching would be a worse move.
“For me, I feel that this project was your responsibility,” said Councilmember Jane Cooper. “You hired your team. You made your decisions on the type of team you wanted.”
The council did grant 12 additional days of relief for impacts from the city’s holiday schedule.
In total, the owners were given 299 days of relief and charged $339,600 for the remaining 328 days.