Clear Lake council upholds abatement order for 14525 Lakeshore Drive, gives owner until Aug. 1 to submit engineered plans

The Clear Lake City Council voted to deny an appeal from property owner Rupa Shekhar and affirmed the hearing officer's May 9, 2022, decision that the commercial building at 14525 Lakeshore Drive constitutes a public nuisance and may be abated if the owner does not obtain required permits by Aug. 1.

Greg Palmer, an attorney representing the city, told the council the appeal is governed by Clear Lake Municipal Code section 10-3.5 and that the body must decide whether to uphold, modify or overturn the hearing officer's order. Lee Lambert, code enforcement supervisor, summarized the case history: the case opened Dec. 26, 2018, an order to abate issued March 23, 2022, and the hearing officer denied the appellant's appeal on May 9. Lambert described the building as an exterior eyesore with boarded windows and interior deterioration, including mold and damaged structural components, and said staff views demolition as possible given the condition.

Appellant Rupa Shekhar presented her account of work completed and steps underway toward rehabilitation. She said she has completed an "as-built" plan, obtained an asbestos/air-quality inspection and engaged an architect and engineers to produce engineered structural plans but that some contractors were unable to submit permit applications until plans were stamped. "I have made improvements to it," Shekhar said, and asked the council for more time to finalize engineering and obtain permits.

Council members pressed for documentary proof and emphasized that letters from potential contractors are not the same as executed contracts or stamped engineered plans. Several members noted a Bennett Engineering inspection report dated Nov. 7 (submitted to staff) that identified deteriorated floors, potential overloaded beams and other structural concerns and recommended further inspection. Councilmember Kramer and others said engineered structural plans are the key requirement for the council to consider additional leniency.

After discussion, Councilwoman Overton moved and Councilman Kramer seconded a motion to deny the appeal and affirm the hearing officer's order to abate. The clerk recorded a voice vote of ayes from Overton, Kramer, Claffey, Vice Mayor Purdock and Mayor Slooton; the motion passed. The council directed staff to prepare a resolution adopting findings and to set a compliance timetable. The council specified Aug. 1 as a target date for the owner to have engineered plans approved and building permits issued; if the permit is issued by that date, staff will not execute an abatement contract. If the owner fails to obtain permits by Aug. 1, the city manager is authorized to proceed with abatement contracting under the existing order.

Council and staff also clarified that routine enforcement of other code provisionsfor example, removal of weeds or compliance with the city's vacant commercial building and boarding ordinanceswould continue during the compliance period. City staff advised that if a permit is issued and then revoked for inaction, staff may need to reopen abatement steps at that time.

The council's action ends the appeal process at the council level; the body asked staff to return with a resolution that memorializes the findings and the timeline and adjourned the special meeting.

What happens next: the owner has until Aug. 1 to present stamped engineered plans and secure building permits. If the owner meets those conditions, enforcement will revert to normal permitting and inspection processes; if not, staff will proceed with abatement contracting per the hearing officer's order and the council's resolution.