The following is a copy of a letter to the Santa Clarita City Council.
There was an article in The Signal (Feb. 8) regarding the solar panels on the hillside in Canyon Country and it was very confusing. It stated that the owner placed them on property that was designated by the city’s conditional use permit as “open space.” However, although the City Council can demand it be demolished, the city would have to pay for the demolition!
This makes no sense at all to me. So, if I were to get a conditional use permit to build a building, and in constructing that building I violated that permit, that means the city could have it torn down but it would be at the city’s expense. Do I have that right? I can’t fathom any circumstance under which a council member would approve a conditional use permit that would include that phrase.
Was this actually spelled out in the permit, or was this some liberal interpretation? Who was this judge? What was the reasoning behind this decision?
What is the next step? Is there one? Are the panels going to just sit there and rot? Can they still be used by the park? Are the residents of the park going to benefit in any way from these panels? Is there a fine for the park owner? If this area is supposed to be part of “open space,” how is that commitment going to be met? Can the owner designate other areas to meet that requirement? How much has all of this cost the city (us taxpayers) already? How much more is it going to cost?
It seems to me there a lot of unanswered questions that we citizens of Santa Clarita ought to be able to get answered!
What say you?
Ron Perry
Canyon Country
