Cases

In 1984, GMSR’s client, Canyon View, obtained a use permit to construct a mobilehome park.  The permit required 50% of the park’s land to be maintained as “open space.”  Three decades later, Canyon View obtained permits and installed a solar energy system.  The City of Santa Clarita repeatedly disclaimed any jurisdiction over the project.

Years later, the City abruptly changed position, claimed that the project was a public nuisance violating the use permit’s open space requirement, and sued GMSR’s client to require removal of the panels.  It claimed the solar panels violated the use permit’s 50% open-space requirement.  Canyon View opposed and argued that the private yards located within the mobilehome park constituted “open space” and therefore the land was still in compliance with the open-space requirement.

The trial court agreed with the City, finding that private yards are not “open space” under the use permit.  It found, however, that because the City had repeatedly disclaimed jurisdiction, and Canyon View had spent millions of dollars on the panels in reliance on those disclaimers, the City would need to pay Canyon View millions of dollars to remove the panels.

After both parties appealed, the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment requiring panel removal.  The court agreed with GMSR that the private yards within the park were open space.  Because there was no permit violation within the park, the City could not require the client to remove the panels.  As a result of its holding, the court declined to address Canyon View’s other arguments, including that state law fully preempted the city’s power to regulate the panels inside the mobilehome park, and the city’s argument that it should not have to compensate Canyon View for the forced removal of the panels.

To read the Court of Appeal Opinion, click HERE.