Malibu City Commercial Property Regulations, Measure R (November 2014)

Voting on Business Regulation
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot
Local Local business regulation Fireworks Local GMO Rent control

A Malibu City Commercial Property Regulations, Measure R ballot question was on the November 4, 2014 election ballot for voters in the city of Malibu in Los Angeles County, California. It was approved.

Measure R adopted an ordinance that requires voter-approved plans for commercial and commercial-residential development projects larger than 20,000 square feet. The ordinance allowed formula retail businesses in tenant spaces between 1,400 square feet and 5,000 square feet in existing civic center shopping centers, but imposed stricter requirements on such businesses in new shopping center developments and shopping centers outside of the civic center, including a clause that permits only 30 percent of new shopping centers or centers outside of the civic center to be occupied by these formula retail enterprises. Measure R also imposed a size restriction on new businesses and businesses in certain areas, allowing a maximum of 2,500 square feet per store.

Aftermath

Lawsuit

  

Lawsuit overview
Issue: Constitutionality; whether the measure violates the U.S. Constitution by limiting national retail stores and violates the California Constitution's single-subject rule for ballot measures
Court: California Second District Court of Appeal
Ruling: Ruled in favor of the plaintiffs
Plaintiff(s): The Park at Cross Creek LLC et al	Defendant(s): City of Malibu
Plaintiff argument: Measure R violates the U.S. Constitution by limiting national retail stores and violates the California Constitution's single subject rule for ballot measures.	Defendant argument: Voters expressed their views on the matter by approving Measure R, and the city will uphold the election results.

  Source: California Second District Court of Appeal

Not long after election results for Measure R were certified, showing its decisive victory, the Malibu Bay Company and Steve Soboroff of The Park at Cross Creek LLC filed a lawsuit against Measure R seeking to prevent the city from enforcing it. David Waite, an attorney representing the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, explained that the case was based on two arguments:

1.) Measure R allegedly violates the United States Constitution by “limit[ing] national formula retail stores while local retailers are subject to no restrictions whatsoever.”

2.) Measure R, according to the lawsuit, violates California's single-subject rule, which requires initiatives to concern only a single subject matter, by (1) requiring voter approval for any project larger than 20,000 sq. ft. and (2) limiting commercial developments to only 30 percent formula retail businesses.

Concerning the first complaint, Waite said, “Measure R has the practical effect of eliminating the ability of many out-of-state businesses from operating in Malibu, while imposing substantial restrictions on other out-of-state businesses not borne by local merchants."

Next he addressed the alleged single-subject violation. Waite stated, "Measure R’s two components address different concepts and different alleged impacts. They are neither yoked to an articulated single subject matter, nor functionally related to one another.”

Rob and Michele Reiner, who were two of the most active backers of the Measure R initiative, responded to news of the lawsuit by saying, “Malibu voters spoke clearly on Election Day, with 60 percent voting for Measure R to help preserve the unique character of Malibu and combat increased traffic and the destruction of open spaces by giving voters a say on future development plans." They also seemed to think that the lawsuit is inappropriate and that corporate interests are simply grasping at straws, “In filing their complaint, the out-of-town opponents of R have confirmed that they do not trust the democratic process or respect the opinion of thousands of residents across Malibu. Measure R is based on other sound laws enacted throughout California.”

City Attorney Christi Hogin promised that the city would defend the voters' decision as well as it is able, saying, "The voters have exercised their constitutional right to propose and adopt legislation. The City will protect that right.”

Soboroff, defending his decision to get behind a lawsuit against Measure R, said, “This lawsuit raises fundamental questions about how far a law can go in constraining the rights of a select few property owners by altering detailed and legal land-use rules in a community."

The federal court dismissed the case. Plaintiffs, however, refiled the lawsuit in state court. In April 2016, Judge James C. Chalfant of the Los Angeles Superior Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, which voided the law imposed by Measure R. Chalfant stated that the measure violated state law by letting voters approve or reject retail development plans, which usurps the city's administrative authority. Supporters of Measure R then appealed the decision, which resulted in the measure going back into effect until the appeal process was completed. On June 21, 2017, the Second District Court of Appeals upheld the decision of the superior court, ruling that the measure was illegal. City Attorney Christi Hogin said she wouldn't be surprised if the city chose to appeal to the California Supreme Court.

Election results

Malibu City Measure R
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		2,698	59.58%
No		1,830	40.42%

Election results via: Los Angeles County Elections Office

Text of measure

Ballot question

The question on the ballot:

“

Shall an ordinance be adopted that (1) requires voter-approved specific plans for commercial and commercial-residential projects over 20,000 square feet; and (2) allows formula retail businesses in tenant spaces between 1400sf and 5000sf in existing civic center shopping centers but imposes stricter requirements (including 2500sf limit per business and limit of 30% of shopping center’s tenants) on some such businesses in any new shopping center or existing ones outside the civic center?

”

Similar measures

See also: Local zoning, land use and development on the ballot

a City of San Francisco Voter Approval of Waterfront Construction Exceeding Height Limits Initiative, Proposition B (June 2014)
d City of San Francisco "Golden Gate Park Athletic Fields Renovation Act" Preservation Initiative, Proposition H (November 2014)
d City of Santa Monica Voter Approval of Airport Development Initiative, Measure D (November 2014)

See also

• Local zoning, land use and development on the ballot
• Local business regulation on the ballot
• Los Angeles County, California ballot measures
• November 4, 2014 ballot measures in California

External links

Suggest a link

• Los Angeles County Clerk and Recorder website