Suit Targets ‘Streamlined’ Project : Development: City delays forced automatic approval of a Venice mini-mall. Foes say environmental laws should take precedence.

A group of Venice residents has filed a lawsuit against the city of Los Angeles challenging approval of a controversial beachfront mini-mall that the city was forced to approve because it failed to act on it in a timely manner.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of the Venice North Beach Coalition, is a test of a little-used state law, the Permit Streamlining Act, that was invoked by an attorney for developer Stephen Blanchard.

The lawsuit has statewide implications because it will be the first court test of what happens when the Permit Streamlining Act clashes with the California Environmental Quality Act, attorneys said.

If the streamlining act is ruled paramount, projects delayed by cities could be deemed approved under law without complying with environmental regulations.

“We’re really in uncharted waters,” said Deputy City Atty. William Childs.

Childs wrote the legal opinion for the city saying the project had to be approved immediately because the Planning Department had not made up its mind on the various permits and environmental clearances in time.

The streamlining act has no provision for appeals, leaving opponents of the project with no recourse except a lawsuit.

To the chagrin of some of his neighbors, Blanchard plans to build a 21,269-square-foot, three-story office and commercial building with 12 fast-food restaurants and about two dozen boutiques at 615 Ocean Front Walk in Venice.

The unconditional approval of the project means the developer got the go-ahead without completing the environmental review process, during which objectionable features of projects are often modified.

Blanchard will also automatically receive discretionary permits, such as those to sell alcohol, without going through the normal scrutiny and public hearings.

City planning officials said this is the first time the 1978 law has been invoked in Los Angeles. Land-use attorneys said developers typically endure the city’s delays, which have gotten longer as regulations have increased and more projects are challenged by community groups.

Since the Blanchard approval, officials have been overhauling their procedures to avoid a recurrence.

Blanchard’s attorney, Sherman Stacey, warned city officials in December, 1989, and again a few months later that he was prepared to use the law if the project remained stalled, as it eventually was for 20 months.

Under the law, the city has one year to decide on projects when a full environmental impact report is required and six months if a less comprehensive environmental review is needed.

Blanchard must still face the California Coastal Commission, which is on record as favoring visitor services at the beach.

In the lawsuit seeking to block the approval, attorney Barry Fisher argues that the Permit Streamlining Act was never intended to supersede the California Environmental Quality Act. This is, in effect, what took place in the Blanchard case because the project had not yet been been certified as complying with the environmental act.