Mini-Mall on Venice Beach Awaits 1 Vote : Development: A Zoning Appeals Board member may break the tie on the project. At issue is unconditional approval of plans that cities have failed to act on in a timely manner.

Despite extraordinary intervention by the state attorney general’s office on their behalf, opponents of a proposed beachfront mini-mall in Venice were unable this week to overturn a controversial city decision to approve the project.

The approval was based on a little-used state law that forces cities to unconditionally approve projects that they fail to act on in a timely manner.

In its intervention, the attorney general’s office told city officials it fears the case could have “devastating results” statewide by allowing projects to go forward even though they have not complied with state environmental regulations.

“Citizens would be deprived of their ability to participate in the decision-making process,” Deputy Atty. Gen. Gail Ruderman Feuer wrote in a letter she personally submitted Tuesday to the city’s Board of Zoning Appeals. “Cities would be stripped of all power to protect the environment.”

City officials described Feuer’s appearance before the board, which rules on local zoning and land-use disputes, as extremely unusual. “It is the first time I’ve ever seen someone from the attorney general’s office, and I’ve been here 10 years,” said board member Nikolas Patsaouras.

But neither Feuer nor members of the Venice North Beach Coalition were able to persuade the Zoning Appeals Board Tuesday that the city is not required to approve the Venice project under the state law, as maintained by both the developer and the city attorney’s office.

Feuer and coalition attorney Barry Fisher argued that the law does not apply to projects that have not yet complied with the California Environmental Quality Act, which sets a broad range of environmental requirements for developments. Environmental clearances for the Venice project were still pending when the project was deemed approved by the city.

The board deadlocked 2 to 2 on the issue, leaving the fate of the three-story project in the hands of a fifth member, who missed the meeting. Board member Daniel Lamaute has until Oct. 18 to review tapes of the 2 1/2-hour hearing and cast his vote. If he does not, the city’s approval of the project stands.

“It sickens me that such a project would go through,” said Board President Ilene Olansky. But she voted against overturning the approval, saying, “I must tell you that nobody gave me the authority . . . to change what currently is in the law.”

A lawyer for developer Stephen Blanchard invoked the state Permit Streamlining Act in May to force approval of the proposed office and commercial building at 615 Ocean Front Walk. The project had been stalled in the city’s environmental review process for 20 months.

Attorney Sherman Stacey warned city officials as early as last December that he would use the law if the city did not act on the development proposal.

Under the 13-year-old statute, cities are required to unconditionally approve projects that have been languishing in the city bureaucracy for one year. In certain cases, the law is even more restrictive, forcing cities to act within six months when a full environmental review of a proposal is not necessary.

“Yes, there is a tremendously important public policy of public participation and examination of the environmental effects,” Stacey told the Zoning Appeals Board Tuesday. “But there is a also a public policy that says we want to be able to have people who must deal with government be treated in a reasonable period of time. This was the manner in which the Legislature chose to balance those things.”

Despite Stacey’s warnings to the city about invoking the streamlining act, planning officials did not move forward on environmental matters related to the project. Zoning Administrator James Crisp, who had held a public hearing on several permits needed for the development, told the board Tuesday he could not make a final decision on the project because of the planning staff’s inaction.

When Crisp received a letter from Stacey invoking the streamlining act, he forwarded the matter to the city attorney’s office, which issued an opinion favoring automatic approval of the project. Crisp complied, which allowed the developer to automatically receive several discretionary permits, such as those to sell alcohol and eliminate setbacks, without going through additional public hearings and further city scrutiny.

The Venice North Beach Coalition, led by activist Steve Schlein, appealed the zoning administrator’s action to the Zoning Appeals Board, which has the final say on such matters within the city. Although the board did not side with Schlein Tuesday, members said they were outraged by the city’s handling of the matter.

“I seriously hope that there are better policies in place in this city that will protect the citizens from this kind of catastrophic lack of processing and lack of action,” said member Katherine Diamond, who voted to uphold the approval. “I really and truly am sorry.”

Patsaouras, who voted to overturn the approval, described the city as “screwed up” and said the development was moving forward because of “negligence, indifference and incompetence” on the part of the city staff.

“I don’t know what is happening here, I really don’t,” Patsaouras said, shaking his head.

Blanchard wants to build a 21,000-square-foot mini-mall with 12 fast-food restaurants and about two dozen shops. But even with the city approval, he cannot yet begin construction. Because the development falls within the state coastal zone, Blanchard needs separate approval from the state Coastal Commission.

The coastal panel was scheduled to consider the matter next week, but the hearing will be delayed until a final decision by the city’s Board of Zoning Appeals. Blanchard also faces a court challenge by the Venice North Beach Coalition, which has sued to block city approval of the project.