Hernandez v. City of Hanford
41 Cal.4th 279, 159 P.3d 33, 59 Cal. Rptr. 3d 442 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A zoning ordinance that regulates economic competition is a valid exercise of a city's police power so long as its primary purpose is to achieve a legitimate public objective, such as preserving the economic viability of a downtown commercial district, rather than an impermissible private anticompetitive goal.
Facts:
- The City of Hanford maintained a downtown commercial district known for its numerous retail furniture stores.
- In 1989, to protect the downtown district, Hanford created a new Planned Commercial (PC) district for malls and large retailers, and generally prohibited furniture sales there.
- In 2002, Adrian and Tracy Hernandez, who owned a furniture store downtown, leased space in the PC district to open a new store called Country Hutch Home Furnishings.
- The Hernandezes planned to sell mattresses, home accessories, and some bedroom furniture at their new PC district location.
- Before the store opened, a city official informed Tracy Hernandez that the zoning ordinance prohibited the sale of furniture in the PC district.
- After opening, a city inspector cited the Hernandezes for selling furniture, prompting them to complain to the City Council that large department stores in the PC district were also selling furniture.
- In response, the City of Hanford enacted Ordinance 03-03, which codified the general ban on furniture sales in the PC district but created a specific exception.
- The exception allowed only 'department stores' (defined as retail stores of 50,000 square feet or more) to sell furniture in a single, designated area of no more than 2,500 square feet.
Procedural Posture:
- Adrian and Tracy Hernandez sued the City of Hanford in a California trial court, challenging the constitutionality of the zoning ordinance.
- The trial court conducted a bench trial and entered judgment in favor of the City of Hanford, upholding the ordinance.
- The Hernandezes, as appellants, appealed to the California Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's decision, holding that the ordinance's exception for large department stores violated the equal protection clause.
- The City of Hanford, as petitioner, was granted review by the Supreme Court of California.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a city zoning ordinance that prohibits furniture sales in one commercial district, but creates an exception for large department stores (50,000+ sq. ft.) to sell furniture in a limited space (2,500 sq. ft.), violate the Equal Protection Clause by irrationally distinguishing between large department stores and other retailers?
Opinions:
Majority - George, C. J.
No, the ordinance does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. The court's analysis must consider the multiple legitimate purposes of the ordinance, which were both to preserve the economic viability of the downtown furniture district and to attract and retain large, economy-boosting department stores in the newer PC district. The Court of Appeal erred by focusing only on the first purpose. The ordinance's differential treatment of large department stores and other retailers is rationally related to the second legitimate legislative purpose of attracting and retaining those key stores, as these stores typically carry furniture and their presence is considered vital to the PC district's success. The classification is not arbitrary because the city's interest in attracting large department stores does not extend to smaller specialty stores.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that a municipality's zoning power can be used to directly and intentionally regulate economic competition, provided the regulation's primary purpose serves a legitimate public interest rather than a private anticompetitive one. It affirms that preserving the economic health of a specific area, like a traditional downtown, is a valid public purpose. By allowing differential treatment of businesses based on size and type to achieve multiple, sometimes competing, planning goals, the court grants municipalities significant flexibility in economic and land-use planning. This precedent strengthens the ability of local governments to protect established business districts from new, potentially disruptive commercial developments.
Unlock the full brief for Hernandez v. City of Hanford