Venice Mini-Mall Plan Dealt a Setback : Development: The Board of Zoning Appeals voted to require environmental clearances from the city. The developer had received approval through a seldom-used state law.

A Board of Zoning Appeals member cast a tie-breaking vote this week that forces a Venice developer, who had received approval for an Ocean Front Walk mini-mall project without going through normal permit processes, to obtain environmental clearances from the city.

The vote by board member Daniel Lamaute, who was absent when the appeal was considered by the board two weeks ago, is another foray into uncharted waters for a case referred to by one attorney as a conundrum.

The project at issue is a 21,269-square-foot, three-story mini-mall planned by developer Stephen Blanchard for the Venice Boardwalk at Sunset Avenue.

Venice residents had been vigilant about following the progress of the mini-mall, which is designed to contain up to 28 shops, including about a dozen restaurants and fast-food outlets, some of them serving alcohol. Opponents, contending that such a development would overwhelm the neighborhood with noise, congestion and other problems, sought to pare down its size and impacts.

In mandating Tuesday that zoning administrators take back the case, board members acted against the counsel of the city’s legal advisers, who had recommended that project permits be granted because the city took too long to consider the matter, a violation of the state Permit Streamlining Act.

Under the little-used, 12-year-old law, a developer can demand that permits be issued if a city takes more than a year to decide on a project when a full environmental impact report is required, or six months when a modified environmental review is ordered. In the Blanchard project, the city missed both deadlines.

The approvals “as a matter of law” were particularly upsetting to community members because they were shut out of the process and had no appeal rights.

After Tuesday’s vote, Zoning Administrator James Crisp wondered loud to the board whether their “nice action” had any legal weight.

In explaining his action, Lamaute said that to vote otherwise would ignore the crucial third party in the matter--the public. “We must put the well-being of our residents of our community above all else,” Lamaute said.

The board also received conflicting advice from the state attorney general’s office. At the hearing two weeks ago, Deputy Atty. Gen. Gail Ruderman Feuer predicted “devastating results” statewide if the streamlining act could be used to avoid environmental regulations. Both the public and local government would lose control of the process, she argued.

The intervention of the state attorney general before the Board of Zoning Appeals was unusual--but so is this case. The city’s decision to allow the project permits to go through without adhering to the normal permit process because of untoward delays is unprecedented.

Opponents of the project, acting as the Venice North Beach Coalition, have filed a lawsuit saying the state streamlining act was never intended to act as a loophole by which projects could avoid the full environmental reviews required under the California Environmental Quality Act.

The decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals “shifts the legal burden on to someone other than the community,” said coalition leader Steve Schlein, who lives next door to the proposed mall site.

Now, the attorney for the developer is expected to sue to force the city to issue the permits. “The Board of Zoning Appeals is wrong,” said Blanchard’s attorney, Sherman Stacey. “Their own lawyer advised them (that) they had no jurisdiction.”

Stacey said he had been told he cannot appeal the board’s ruling to the Los Angeles City Council. After getting an official opinion on that, he said, he will ask the Los Angeles Superior Court to order the city to issue the permits because of the violation of the state Permit Streamlining Act.

Meanwhile, Stacey persuaded the California Coastal Commission to accept his application for a coastal permit, with a hearing scheduled for later this year. It is not clear how the Board of Zoning Appeals’ decision will affect the bid for a coastal permit. Normally, the Coastal Commission does not act until a project has received local clearances.

Barry Fisher, the attorney for the North Venice Beach Coalition, is seeking an opinion on whether the City Council can hear an appeal of the board’s ruling. “I’ve never seen something so confusing and happening on so many different fronts,” the land-use attorney said.

Fisher also called on Venice area Councilwoman Ruth Galanter to take a strong leadership role in this matter, which he said has significant environmental ramifications.

According to Jim Bickhart, Galanter planning deputy, the councilwoman is treating the case as a matter for the lawyers to iron out.

But Fisher was critical of Galanter’s decision to stay away from the issue by terming it a “legalistic” matter. “Every public official has to apply law to fact,” he said.