Malibu Considers Temporary Ban on Chain Stores

Monday’s City Council meeting featured a discussion regarding a opening their doors in the city of Malibu.

Outgoing councilmember Pamela Conley Ulich proposed an “urgency ordinance banning chain stores in Malibu,” stating that she has become aware of a number of chain stores and restaurants that are seeking to converge upon Malibu, such as Sephora and Chipotle.

“It seems like there are a lot of chains coming,” Ulich said. “What I’d like to do…is do what we did with the pot dispensaries and just take a little time out.”

Ulich referenced the city’s mission statement when addressing the audience, stating that Malibu must remain “unique.”

“When you come to Malibu, you need to buy into the vision and mission statement that we as a city drafted 20 years ago to be a unique city,” Ulich said. "We do not want our town to look like every other town."

Over the past year, protection of small businesses has been a hot button issue in the Malibu community, a button that Ulich hopes the city has not taken its finger off of.

Ulich maintains that new businesses should employ unique signage and at least 51 percent unique merchandise.

An outspoken opponent of Ulich’s proposed ordinance was Michael Koss, owner of the Malibu County Mart. Koss told the City Council and residents in attendance at Monday’s meeting that a decision on limiting chain stores should not be rushed.

“This is not an emergency,” said Koss, who maintained that 80 percent of businesses in Malibu are locally owned. “I was under the impression that fires and floods are emergencies, not an ordinance to address people’s preference in stores.”

Councilmembers John Sibert and Lou La Monte agreed that the temporary ordinance is worth consideration, but they said an extensive amount of research should be done prior to a decision.

“As far as I'm concerned, I will not take a position on this prior to a public hearing, before we discuss it and hear all the issues,” Sibert said.

“The problem I have is it’s 20 years too late and two weeks too early,” La Monte said of the proposed ban. “If we did this 20 years earlier, we would have no problem. But if we wait two weeks, we know more about it.” 

The council scheduled further discussion on the the temporary ban for its March 26 meeting.