Group Turns to State in Its Fight Against Resort Plan : Development: An environmental group will ask the Coastal Commission to reverse a decision by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council allowing the resort.

Environmentalists seeking to squash plans for a fancy 450-room resort complex on the rugged Palos Verdes Peninsula coastline say they will press their opposition before the state Coastal Commission.

Leaders of the group Save Our Coastline 2000 say they will ask the commission to overturn Tuesday’s unanimous decision by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council to allow the resort to be built on the site of the former Marineland.

“As far as we can tell, the people of Rancho Palos Verdes are against this project,” said Gar Goodson, chairman of Save Our Coastline 2000. “I’m angered the council ignored us.”

However, a majority of the council members disagreed about the amount of community support. “I think this is what the community has said that it wants,” Councilwoman Jacki Bacharach said. She said that the resort would give residents a facility that they, too, could use and that it would provide jobs for area youngsters.

The debate before the state commission is likely to focus on whether the resort conforms to the city’s own development guidelines for coastal areas, and provides enough public access.

Whereas the city contends that both criteria are met by plans for the resort, Save Our Coastline argues that the complex violates local planning laws and would hamper the public’s ability to enjoy the area.

The council’s vote to give Arizona developer James Monaghan the go-ahead for the project ended years of debate among council members over what should take the place of the aquatic park on the 102-acre oceanfront site.

Since the park closed four years ago, council members have maintained that a resort was an appropriate use for the site, but have wrangled among themselves over how big it could be without creating pollution and other environmental problems. The council scoffed at a preliminary plan by Monaghan to put 1,070 hotel rooms on the land.

After the Planning Commission approved a 450-room hotel and resort, Save Our Coastline appealed to the council.

The council was ready to make a decision two weeks ago, but held off when Save Our Coastline lawyers delivered a letter arguing that it would be illegal for the city to approve the project. The letter said the city’s General Plan--the document that guides development citywide--is not specific about how the land can be developed and appears to prohibit a resort complex.

But after a review of the letter by Rancho Palos Verdes City Atty. Carol Lynch and Monaghan’s own attorneys, council members said they are confident that there are no legal impediments to building the resort. The land is zoned for commercial and recreational uses.

“I would like to say, at least for myself, I am comfortable with this decision” to approve a hotel and resort, said Rancho Palos Verdes Mayor Douglas Hinchliffe.

Monaghan purchased the property from Harcourt Brace Jovanovich after the publishing company closed the park and trucked its killer whales, dolphins and other animals to other aquatic parks.

Monaghan has said he has been talking to potential operators of the resort, and has predicted he would have little difficulty signing an agreement with one. However, he has declined to name anyone he talked to.

Speaking Tuesday of the environmentalists, Monaghan said, “There are no grounds for their claims. We’ve met all the guidelines of the Coastal Commission.”

After city officials notify the commission that the council has approved a hotel for the site, Save Our Coastline has 10 days to file an appeal with the state body, according to a commission spokesman.

He said the commission attempts to determine how a specific project fits within a city’s own guidelines for coastal development, the impact it will have on local roads and other city services, and how much public access to the site is provided.

Bob Benard, Rancho Palos Verdes’ director of environmental services, said the “lion’s share” of the property that the resort will be built on will be accessible to the general public. Numerous trails for hiking, bicycling and riding horses will be scattered through the site, and free public parking will be provided, he said.

“The public will overrun this project,” Benard said. “I think the only thing you can reasonably say would not be open to the general public would be the hotel rooms.”

Save Our Coastline members, however, have argued that the project, besides violating the city’s planning laws, will make it harder for the public to enjoy the area, endanger natural habitats on bluff areas, and create traffic jams on local roads as tourists and others make their way to and from the facility.

“We’ve got a pro-development council,” said Lois Larue, a member of the environmental group. “They are supposed to be defending the interests of the community, and they are not doing that.”

Before casting their votes, several council members expressed hope that the resort, which is expected to generate $1.7 million annually in new city revenues, would, like Marineland, become an area landmark.

Said Councilman Mel Hughes: “I simply would like to say this project . . . should become a focal point in our community.”