Why Didn’t City Act on Venice Mall Plan?

The Times’ article on the automatic approval of a Venice beach mini-mall touched on an unexplained aspect of the city’s role in this novel land-use case: Why did the city fail to act on this project?

Briefly, the Permit Streamlining Act requires the city to approve or disapprove projects within a specified time. If no decision is made, a project is “deemed approved” as is. In this instance, no decision was made and a maxed-out, high-intensity three-story mall was “deemed approved” on the ocean front without public input, city planning or environmental impact assessment. The mall also violates zoning laws and other ordinances.

Associate Zoning Administrator James Crisp is the city-designated decision-maker who failed to act. He told me that he had never heard of the Permit Streamlining Act and could not find any record that Planning Department staff had been informed about it. But this explanation was not accepted by the chief zoning administrator. He said: “The city and the Planning Department have been aware of the Permit Streamlining Act since its approval in 1978.”

According to The Times’ article, city officials offered another explanation: the project was held up in the department’s environmental unit, which is particularly understaffed. But this delay had no bearing on Mr. Crisp’s responsibility to make a decision before time ran out. He should have denied the project without prejudice.

When asked by The Times to comment on this case, Mr. Crisp said he had no comment.

The city owes the Venice community an explanation for its failure to make a timely decision on this project. Councilwoman (Ruth) Galanter, who last year announced her support for this mall, has not shown any interest in finding out exactly why this happened. I call upon Mayor Bradley to initiate an impartial investigation.

STEVE SCHLEIN

Venice