New Fast-Food Restaurants Blocked for a Year in Los Angeles Low-Income Neighborhoods

The One Sentence Summary: An ordinance banning new fast-food establishments for a one-year period has been approved unanimously by the Los Angeles City Council for certain areas in South Los Angeles.


Full Posting:

The moratorium on issuance of building permits for new stand-alone restaurant projects affects a 32-square-mile area in South Los Angeles, including Southeast Los Angeles, West Adams, Baldwin Hills and the Leimert Park community planning areas. The Director of City Planning has discretion to approve a project permit upon the demonstration of a number of factors including size of the project, parking availability, litter control, and absence of a “Drive-through Window”.

Proponents of the measure, Council members Jan Perry and Bernard Parks, hope to use the time to encourage new development, including grocery stores and sit-down restaurants, in their districts. They expressed the hope of encouraging more healthy food alternatives in the area. The measure can be extended for as much as an additional 12 months if the two 6-month extension options are triggered.

“Fast Food Restaurant” is defined in the draft “Interim Control Ordinance” submitted to the City Council as “Any establishment which dispenses food for consumption on or off the premises, and which has the following characteristics: a limited menu, items prepared in advance or prepared or heated quickly, no table orders, and food served in disposable wrapping or containers.” ICO 07-1658.

This updates the earlier blog entry
http://www.retaillawobserver.com/2007/12/proposed-ban-on-fast-food-restaurants.html

Click here to read more.

Proposed Ban on Fast-Food Restaurants Moves Ahead

The One Sentence Summary: The ordinance proposed last summer to ban new outlets of fast food chains from opening in certain areas of the City of Los Angeles has gained approval from the Planning and Land Use Management Committee of the City Council, clearing the way for consideration of the ordinance by the City Council.

Full Posting:

Details of the proposed draft ordinance, sponsored by Councilwoman Jan Perry, are described in the September 26, 2007 post on this blog (see the link below). The ordinance, if adopted as proposed, would institute a one-year moratorium on the issuance of building permits for the targeted establishments. On December 11, the City Council’s Planning and Land Use Management Committee considered the Report from the City Planning Commission on the Interim Control Ordinance. Concerns about the ordinance were aired by other members of the City Council, and objections from the food industry were made. The Committee acted to recommend that the City Council approve the moratorium.

We will continue to monitor this proposed ordinance.

http://www.retaillawobserver.com/2007/09/ban-on-new-fast-food-restaurants.html

Click here to read more.

Ban on New Fast-Food Restaurants Proposed for Los Angeles

The One Sentence Summary: A member of the Los Angeles City Council has proposed an ordinance prohibiting all building permits for up to two years for “fast food establishments” in South Central Los Angeles, where worries about an obesity epidemic and an alleged “overproliferation” of fast-food chain eateries are spurring what amounts to “health zoning”.

Summary of Draft Ordinance:

• Councilwoman Jan Perry has proposed a draft ordinance to impose a moratorium on the issuance of permits for building, grading, foundation work, and use permits, for one year (with the possibility of two 6-month extensions) while the City of Los Angeles works to adopt regulatory controls that regulate the establishment of fast food outlets within a specified area of south Los Angeles. The draft ordinance includes an urgency clause, allowing the measure to take immediate effect.
• Hearings have been held at the level of the Planning and Land Use Management Committee of the City Council, to be followed by a hearing on September 27, 2007, before the City Planning Commission. Staff has recommended adoption of the measure, Interim Control Ordinance CPC.2007.3827.
• Objections from the restaurant industry and comments from affected neighborhoods and local businesses may result in modifications to the proposed ordinance, particularly with regard to the definition of “fast food establishment”. The California Restaurant Association is on record in opposition to the action.
• The definition of “fast food establishment” in the draft ordinance does not refer to chain establishments, but sweeps in “any establishment which dispenses food for consumption on or off the premises, and which has the following characteristics: a limited menu, items prepared in advance or prepared or heated quickly, no table orders, and food in disposable wrapping or containers.”
• Exceptions to the building ban listed in the draft ordinance include construction requiring a building permit (1) to comply with a public safety order to repair, remove, or demolish an unsafe building, (2) to rebuild following a natural disaster, fire, or earthquake, and (3) tenant improvements which do not increase the floor area or involve a change in use. A hardship exemption would also be allowed.
• Alternative ways to achieve a greater variety of restaurants could emerge during the legislative process, including the adoption of a conditional use permit system which other cities employ to vary the mix of businesses competing in commercial districts.

Implications for Other Cities and States:

• Land Use Controls regulating property uses in many jurisdictions already affect the number and type of businesses that may operate in particular commercial districts and zones. Examples include ordinances aimed at protecting smaller businesses and limiting “big box” stores, and regulations imposing restrictions on signage and other aesthetic features. Using land use controls as a means for regulating consumer health and for “social engineering” remains rare, but some see in the fast-food restaurant ban a growing trend in this type of governmental activity.
• We will continue to monitor this proposed ordinance.

Click here to read more.

California Supreme Court Upholds City's Zoning Ordinance Restricting Retail Sales in Designated Districts

Case: Hernandez v. City of Hanford, No. S143287 (Cal. Sup. Ct. 6/7/07)

The One Sentence Summary: California Supreme Court held that City of Hanford's zoning ordinance restricting the sale of furniture in shopping mall district in order to protect retail furniture stores deemed vital to economic viability of city's downtown commercial district was not unconstitutional.


What They Were Fighting About: The challenged zoning ordinance generally prohibited the sale of furniture in the city's Planned Commercial (PC district) area, which contained a large shopping mall anchored by several department stores. There was a limited exception that permitted department stores with more than 50,000 square feet of floor space in the PC district to sell furniture within a prescribed area of no more than 2,500 square feet. City of Hanford enacted this zoning ordinance in 2003 to protect the economic viability of its downtown commercial district, which featured many retail furniture stores. Plaintiffs were owners of a home furnishing and mattress store in the PC district who wanted to sell bedroom furniture in their store. Their lawsuit asserted equal protection clause challenges to the validity of the ordinance under the United States and California Constitutions. Although the trial court rejected plaintiffs' constitutional challenges, the court of appeal struck down the ordinance.

Court Holdings: In reversing the court of appeal's decision and upholding the city's zoning ordinance, the California Supreme Court held:

• The legislature had two legitimate purposes in enacting the zoning ordinance: (1) protecting and preserving the economic viability of the city's downtown commercial district, by generally prohibiting in the PC district the retail sale of furniture, and (2) attracting and retaining for the PC district large department stores, which typically carry furniture and which the city deemed essential to the viability of the PC district.


• Limiting the exception for sale of retail furniture within the PC district to only large department stores is rationally related to the legislature's second purpose in enacting the challenged zoning ordinance. Rational basis test applies to such economic legislation. Differential treatment of large department stores and other retailers in the PC district was rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose.


• The Court also rejected the plaintiffs' sweeping challenge to the ordinance as improperly "regulating economic competition." A zoning ordinance is legal despite affecting economic competition so long as its primary objective is to achieve a valid public purpose such as futhering a city's plan for controlled growth or localized commercial development, rather than an impermissible anticompetitive private purpose such as favoring or disfavoring a particular business or individual. A city may divide land into districts and reasonably regulate the uses permitted therein in exercising its policy power.

Click here to read more.