Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/01/2007

Home

Page 2 Z.B. Equal Protection - Only department stores allowed to sell furiliture in zone Smaller retailers banned Citation: Hernandez v. City of Hanford, Court of Appeal of California, 5th, App. Dist., No. F047536 (2006) CALIFORNIA (03/28/06) - Country Hutch Home Furnishings and Mattress, Gallery was a sinall store that ope:r:ated in a zone with restrictions that were designed to p~otect the downtowiLafea and its smaller merch~ts. Although furniture sales were not allowed wi~ the zone" Country Hutch wanted to add some furniture sales to its business. ' Importantly, unde~ ~e ,~oning oniinap.ce, a stqfe with retail space of 50,000 square feet or more. could have furniture sales within the zone. This,distinction was designed to' attra~t larg~r retailers such a,s'Target, Wal-Mart" and ~ears. Country Hutch sued, arguing that the ordinance denied it equal protection. The trial court ruled in favor ,of the city. Country Hutch appealed, ,arguing that the ordinance had no rational basis for its restriction based on size. ' DECISION: Reversed. The appeals court agreed with Country Hutch's claim that the part of the ordinance that based permission to sell furniture on a store having 50,000 o~ more square feet was unconstitutiomil as a denial of equal protection: Country Hutch sold mattres~es and home furnishings, both permitted in the zone. Country Hutch also wante~ to include a limited furniture. department. The department stores were in the same l'osition. They wanted to devote a portion of their floor space to furniture. Unde.r these circumstances, the differ- ence in total floor space was largely irrelevant. Here, Country Hutch and the larger retailers posed the same potential threat, if any, to the downtown merchants. Thus, limiting the furniture sales exception to stores with more than 50,000 square feet was arbitrary.Arational relationship between the size classification and the goal of protecting the downtown mer- chants simply did not exist. see also: Elysium Institute Inc. v. County of Los Angeles, 232 CalApp.3d 408 (1991). see also: Friends of Davis v. City of Davis, 83 Cal.App.4th 1004 (2000). Lease - Lease requires, diligence for obtaining permits After ongoing problems with development, restaurant breaks lease Citation: 27th & Girard Limited Partnership v. McDonald's Corporation, 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Nos. 04-3839 & 04-3840 (2005) The 3rd U.S. Circuit has jurisdiction over Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and the Virgin {slands. PENNSYLVANIA (12/13/05) - 27th & Girard Limited Partnership and Mc- Donald's Corporation entered into a 20-year lease to operate a restaurant. The @2006 West, a Thomson business. Quinlan™ is a Thomson West brand. Any reproduction is prohibited. 36