Council adopts resolution of necessity to acquire parcel for Gooseneck landslide stabilization; property owners object

The Clear Lake City Council on Feb. 20 adopted Resolution No. 2025-07, a resolution of necessity to acquire portions of the parcel at 12105 San Joaquin Avenue to support the Gooseneck landslide stabilization project. The vote passed 4-1, with Council member Downey voting no.

City Attorney Pucci described the hearing procedures and said the council was presented with staff materials and correspondence from the property owners received earlier that afternoon. Construction Manager Hayes presented the project record: a February 2024 storm produced two landslides that threatened Lakeshore Drive, a principal route for local residents, and emergency stabilization included removal of debris and the construction of two permanent soil-nail walls, new guardrail, hydroseeding and other work.

"If only the city right-of-way portion of the landslide were to be repaired, it would have failed because the area of the landslide on private property would have still been unstable," Construction Manager Hayes said, explaining why the permanent retaining structures were constructed with some encroachment onto private parcels.

Hayes said the city seeks to acquire approximately 790 square feet of the Hewlett parcel at 12105 San Joaquin Avenue; the city previously acquired about 2,695 square feet from an adjacent parcel at 12115 San Joaquin Avenue. Hayes presented drone photos showing the landslide condition, excavation, installation of soil nails, shotcrete application and the finished walls. Hayes also said stakes were placed by a licensed surveyor on Feb. 18 to mark property lines and offsets.

Property owners Bailey and Andy Hewlett submitted a letter, read into the record, that did not dispute the necessity of the overall project but objected to the taking as currently configured. Their attorney'drafted letter requested a continuance and said the city had not provided a clear plot map showing the relationship between the proposed taking and existing improvements, including the home, decks and garage. The Hewletts said stakes did not clearly define the taking and asked for time to walk the property with a city representative.

City staff and the city attorney said staff had engaged with the property owners previously and recommended proceeding with the eminent domain step. City Attorney Pucci noted the procedural requirements and that the title of an exhibit needed a correction (easement to fee) before final documentation.

Vice Mayor Slooten moved to approve the resolution of necessity; the motion was seconded and carried on a supermajority vote (four of five). Councilwoman Naomi said she would vote no if the purpose of a negative vote was to give the Hewletts more time; she explained her intention to vote against the resolution to allow additional discussion and clarification with the owners. The city attorney said some conversations must be handled cautiously because of pending litigation between the Hewletts and the city, but staff said they can coordinate further property-walking and clarification where appropriate.

The resolution finds the acquisition exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act for purposes of the emergency stabilization project and authorizes staff to take steps consistent with eminent domain law. The council did not adopt a final map of the taking at the hearing; staff noted the need to correct exhibit titles and to continue coordination with the owners.