This story has been revised. See editor’s note below.
The City Council on Monday voted 4-0 to accept 1,400 of the 2,300 signatures submitted for a formula retail initiative petition, commonly referred to as the Reiner Initiative, although public comment at the meeting suggests controversy over the petition is far from over.
It is yet unclear whether the initiative will be cleared for the upcoming November election, but that could be decided at the Council’s next meeting on July 14.
However, it’s more than just the timing of that election that has caused local stakeholders to weigh in. Proposed restrictions on formula retail businesses would place a 30 percent limit on the number of chain stores permitted to operate in Malibu shopping centers. It would also require a citywide vote on all commercial development over 20,000 square feet if the project is granted variances for not complying with city code.
But many have argued that wording in the proposed initiative could exempt certain spaces in shopping centers, specifically the Malibu Village, from chain store restrictions, while placing tougher regulations on others.
“I cannot understand or explain why we would have neighboring shopping centers where one is restricted and the other is exempted,” said Malibu Chamber of Commerce Executive Director Mark Persson during public comment, summing up the feelings of many at the meeting.
The passage in question states that a conditional use permit will not be needed for “A formula retail establishment that occupies a space that is at least 1,400 square feet of gross floor area but does not exceed 5,000 square feet of gross floor area.”
In other words, retail spaces between 1,400 and 5,000 square feet would be exempt from the formula retail restrictions. Many of the spaces in the Malibu Village, according to critics of the initiative, fall between the 1,400-5,000 mark.
But proponents said the language and square footage have nothing to do with any back room dealings or conspiracy theories.
“The goal of the measure is to create a retail mix in Malibu between local merchants and formula retailers,” said Felix Schein, a representative for the authors of the initiative, in response to the questions over why the exemption exists.
Paul Grisanti, a resident and real estate agent, believes otherwise though, and implied that new Malibu Village owner Jamestown was purposely granted exemption from the initiative.
“I have a sneaking suspicion that there isn’t a perfectly good reason for this but that somebody needed a favor,” said Grisanti, who spoke Monday at the council meeting. Grisanti noted that the paragraph in question did not appear until a second draft of the initiative.
Schein countered by saying the second draft was updated to include community input.
“Once we released the first draft, we got a whole bunch of feedback from different folks, and we made changes based on that,” said Schein, who added that the people giving feedback included community members, other organizations and legal experts.
Mayor Pro Tem John Sibert voiced his concern over the legality of accepting signatures for a petition that may have not been thoroughly explained.
“Did anybody see that when they signed it? Did they have to see that when they signed it?” asked Sibert.
But, as City Attorney Christi Hogin explained, the wording was available when the petition was signed, which is the legal obligation.
Councilwoman Laura Rosenthal expressed hope that those who proposed the initiative, none of whom spoke at this week’s meeting, would be there at the next regularly scheduled City Council meeting on July 14.
“I really hope that people that were involved in [drawing up the initiative] come in two weeks, so that when we do get [reports] we will have people who put the initiative together to tell us what their thoughts were and what they were thinking,” said Rosenthal.
Reports will continue to be collected for the next couple of weeks, until they are prepared for review at the July 14 meeting. At its June 9 meeting, the City Council ordered the reports be prepared at an estimated cost of $42,000.
Editor’s note: A prior version of this story incorrectly stated that the City Council had accepted 2,300 signatures. The Council accepted 1,400, the minimum number necessary.