Coastal Panel to Rule on Resort : Rancho Palos Verdes: Appeal by foes of the project on the Marineland site exasperates city officials.

Rancho Palos Verdes officials reacted with a mixture of anger and resignation Thursday to news that their approval of a 102-acre shoreline resort has been appealed to the state Coastal Commission.

The appeal, filed Wednesday by attorneys for the group Save Our Coastline 2000, contends that the council’s endorsement July 2 of plans for a 450-room luxury resort complex goes against the city’s coastal plan.

City officials portrayed the appeal--expected to come before the coastal panel this fall--as a futile attempt by out-of-towners to override the will of Rancho Palos Verdes residents. They also expressed concern that if the appeal fails, the project’s opponents will probably take the issue to court, further delaying construction of the resort.

“When these folks were little kids and didn’t get their way, they must have laid on the floor and screamed, or run home to Mom,” fumed Councilman Melvin W. Hughes. “This is nothing more than spoiled folks acting like spoiled kids.”

“I can’t believe (the Coastal Commission) will find any merit to this appeal,” said Mayor Douglas M. Hinchliffe, adding, however, that he had expected the action. “If (the opponents) go the next step and file a legal challenge and throw us into court, that could significantly delay the project.”

Gar Goodson, chairman of Save Our Coastline 2000 and a Palos Verdes Estates resident, said the group has not decided whether it would file a lawsuit if the appeal fails. Mark Weinberger, the group’s lead attorney, said speculation about that possibility is premature.

“We’re hoping that the decision by the Coastal Commission will be in our favor,” Weinberger said.

At issue is whether Arizona developer James Monaghan should be allowed to build a resort on 102 oceanfront acres formerly occupied by Marineland. According to Rancho Palos Verdes officials, the complex would eventually generate about $2 million a year in tax revenues for the city, mainly through bed, property and sales levies.

After the Ranchos Palos Verdes Planning Commission approved plans for the project, Save Our Coastline appealed the matter to the council. But to no avail: The July 7 council vote in favor of the project was unanimous.

Weinberger said this week’s appeal contends that the resort project would limit public access to the shore. The appeal’s central contention, he said, is that the project violates the intent of Rancho Palos Verdes’ coastal plan. The plan provides for commercial development at the site, but only because Marineland was there at the time the plan was drafted, he said.

“With Marineland closed, it is now necessary for local government and the Coastal Commission to take a comprehensive look at future uses for the property,” Weinberger said.

City Council members express confidence that the Coastal Commission will reject such arguments on grounds that a hotel complex is at least as valid a use of the property as Marineland was.

Underlying their land-use battle with opponents of the resort is disagreement about what Rancho Palos Verdes residents want.

Citing what they said was strong community support for the resort at public hearings on the issue, council members criticized the project’s opponents for trying to eclipse local decision-making.

“I think it’s unfortunate that these people, many of whom don’t live in our city, are blocking something that went through extensive public hearings and won a unanimous vote,” said Councilwoman Jacki Bacharach. “But maybe that’s just life in Rancho Palos Verdes.”

She added: “These people don’t believe in the public process. They probably will continue no matter what our community will like.”

Councilman Hughes also portrayed those pushing the appeal as interlopers who are out of step with the wishes of city residents.

“What they want to do is delay the project and make it cost more and delay the city from using it as a reasonable source of revenue,” Hughes said. “(Getting revenue from the project) is what the majority of the people of Rancho Palos Verdes want.”

Save Our Coastline’s Goodson disagreed, saying the recent effort to recall Bacharach, although unsuccessful, reflected widespread community opposition to her support for the resort project. Bacharach’s opponents, accusing her of being pro-development, gathered 4,866 signatures--409 short of the 5,275, or 20% of the city’s registered voters, needed to hold a recall election.

“This is really being shoved down the city’s throat by business, and residents are scared to death about the traffic that’s going to result,” Goodson said. “Residents are real shook up.”

In considering the Save Our Coastline appeal, the Coastal Commission will first decide whether the environmental group has raised a substantial issue, commission spokesman Jack Liebster said Thursday.

“If the commission determines there is a substantial issue raised, then they would require a public hearing,” he said, adding that the panel would then make a final decision on the project.

Weinberger, the attorney for Save Our Coastline, declined to forecast the outcome.

“No predictions here,” he said Thursday. “I think we expect a receptive hearing by the Coastal Commission, but you’re not going to catch me making predictions.”