Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement Abatement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Clear Lake council denies appeals, approves CalRecycle-funded abatement for 14 nuisance properties
Summary
At a May 2025 meeting the Clear Lake City Council denied appeals and adopted a resolution to proceed with abatement work on 14 properties using a CalRecycle grant, citing persistent illegal dumping, fire hazards and failed voluntary compliance.
The Clear Lake City Council on May 2025 voted to deny appeals and authorize city-led abatement of 14 properties under a CalRecycle grant, after staff described long-running illegal dumping, structural damage and wildfire risks at the sites.
Lieutenant Peterson, the staff presenter, told the council the city was awarded a $477,469 CalRecycle grant in summer 2024 to remove debris, illegal dumping and hazardous conditions that pose health and fire risks. "The purpose of this grant is to combat widespread illegal dumping," he said, adding that many targeted parcels had failed repeated attempts at voluntary compliance and several sites were red-tagged or structurally unsafe.
Staff described the Phase 2 list as including parcels across the city — addresses in the Avenues, Old Highway 53 and Eastlake Drive among them — and presented photos that they said showed little or no meaningful cleanup since initial inspections. The recommended action was adoption of Resolution 2025-16 to uphold abatement orders for the listed properties.
Council members heard details on individual parcels. Examples cited in staff materials included a burned, structurally unstable house at 15893/30 Third Avenue (case CE24-0065), a long-running deteriorated site on Cache Creek Lane originally inspected in 2019 (CE19-0180), and multiple properties near Yerington Court where volunteer cleanups had temporarily reduced debris but conditions returned. Staff said Phase 1 abatement work began in April 2025 and that approximately $204,640 remained in the CalRecycle award for Phase 2 work after contracts and Phase 1 costs.
Council asked how the city evaluates which properties to include. Lieutenant Peterson said staff weighs the length of time a case has been open, the number and severity of violations, imminent danger to public safety or wildfire risk, and visibility of the nuisance in the community. City Manager Alan Flora explained the procurement timeline for city-led abatement would likely require 45 to 60 days to put the work out to bid and sign a contractor, a schedule meant to preserve grant spending on the highest-priority sites.
The council voted to deny the appeals and adopt Resolution 2025-16, authorizing the city to proceed with CalRecycle-funded abatement on the listed properties. The motion passed unanimously among council members present.
The action does not change the separate administrative citation process. City staff and the city attorney reminded the council that fines and citations remain subject to separate appeal procedures and that the city may seek cost recovery after abatement.
The resolution lists specific properties, associated case numbers and the staff findings that led to the abatement orders. Staff told the council that properties removed from the abatement list could free grant funds to be applied to other prioritized properties.
