Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 23CHCP00383, Date: 2023-10-24 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F47, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2247.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

Case Number: 23CHCP00383    Hearing Date: October 24, 2023    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 10/24/23

Case #23CHCP00383

ORDER TO SHOW RE: DISMISSAL

On 9/14/23, Petitioner/Plaintiff Rigoberto Lopez-Reyes (Petitioner), representing himself, filed a “Petition to Initiate Proceedings” “pursuant to Title 7-Chapter 4.3 Section 65915(d)(3).”  The petition prays for the following relief:

“1.  Order the Los Angeles County Planning department to concede to my petition of density bonus waiver for Zoning and other regulations that may impede the physical erection of the project for Permanent Supportive housing for homeless veterans.  APN 3211001040

2.  Monetary compensation for 250,000.00 for legal fees, since they knowingly violated the law, after presented with the law they colluded to block state law with bad faith actions including the denial letter.”

(See Petition, p.2:8-14)

On 9/21/23, because no hearing on the petition had been reserved and because the Court is unable to determine what Petitioner intended to file, the Court set an Order to Show Cause as to why Petition should not be dismissed for Petitioner's failure to reserve a hearing date and/or failure to state a cognizable claim on 10/24/23.  (See 9/21/23 Minute Order).

Additionally, the Court ordered Petitioner to file a written declaration at lease ten calendar days before the 10/24/23 hearing.  Id.

On 10/13/23, a letter (not signed under penalty of perjury) was received from Petitioner which again references “Title7- Chapter 4.3 section 65915(d)(3)” and indicates that Petitioner is trying to build supportive permanent housing for disabled veterans and claims that Petitioner is following all laws and guidelines.  Despite, the foregoing, Petitioner claims that the “planning department” is improperly denying his request for a “Zoning regulations waiver in order to get [the] project permitted.”

Petitioner has still not reserved a hearing date on the petition nor has a proof of service showing the petition has been served on Respondent/Defendant County of Los Angeles Department of Regional Planning been filed. 

Because the petition and letter submitted by Petitioner does not cite the body of law in which the cited section (65915(d)(3)) appears (i.e., Government Code, Business & Professions Code, etc.), it is not clear what authority Petitioner claims provides the basis for the petition.  If Petitioner intended to rely on subsection (d)(3) of Government Code 65915, “Applicants seeking density bonus; concessions or incentives; conditions, agreements and submission requirements; duties of local officials; legislative findings, declarations and intent,” it provides:

“The applicant may initiate judicial proceedings if the city, county, or city and county refuses to grant a requested density bonus, incentive, or concession. If a court finds that the refusal to grant a requested density bonus, incentive, or concession is in violation of this section, the court shall award the plaintiff reasonable attorney's fees and costs of suit. This subdivision shall not be interpreted to require a local government to grant an incentive or concession that has a specific, adverse impact, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5, upon health or safety, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact. This subdivision shall not be interpreted to require a local government to grant an incentive or concession that would have an adverse impact on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources. The city, county, or city and county shall establish procedures for carrying out this section that shall include legislative body approval of the means of compliance with this section.”

While this statute provides authority for an applicant to initiate judicial proceedings, the applicant has the burden of doing so in a manner that sets forth a cognizable claim which Petitioner has failed to do in this case.  If Petitioner intended to seek relief through a writ of mandate under CCP 1094.5 it appears that such a filing must be made in the Central District.  See LASC Local Rule 2.3(a)(1)(A).

Based on the failures to set forth a cognizable claim, reserve a hearing date and serve the petition, the petition is dismissed without prejudice.