Controversial RPV Project Gets Approval From Council : Development: Environmental group plans to appeal, claiming that the ocean bluff golf course will destroy wildlife habitat and an endangered species.

The Rancho Palos Verdes City Council unanimously approved a controversial ocean bluff golf course and residential development Tuesday, but opponents vowed to appeal the decision in a bid to derail the project.

“Absolutely, we will appeal this to the (California) Coastal Commission because (the council) totally disregarded all of the legal problems with the project,” said Andrew H. Sargent, speaking for the Coastal Conservation Coalition, a group of organizations that banded together to try to preserve the remaining open space on the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Opponents contend that the project will destroy wildlife habitat and wipe out a rare species of songbirds.

Developers and city officials contend that the project meets all coastal protection laws, and any negative environmental impacts will be mitigated as required.

The 258-acre, $35-million project is on one of the last large open coastal bluff areas left in the state. Orange County developer Barry Hon and Ken Zuckerman, a Palos Verdes builder, are proposing an 18-hole, world-class golf course and 83 lots for high-priced homes.

Four pairs of California gnatcatchers have been found nesting in the coastal sage scrub habitat in the dry, hilly area along Palos Verdes Drive South. These birds and some cactus wrens nesting in the area may soon be classified as threatened or endangered species, wildlife experts report.

A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service review of the project’s environmental impacts warned that a golf course would eliminate three of the four pairs of gnatcatchers and recommended rejection of a golf course in the area. But the developers emphatically denied that any birds would be killed.

Another negative report, this one by a California Coastal Commission staff planner, contended that the current project design fails to adequately protect the environment, wildlife and public access to the coast. In a letter to the developers last month, the staffer said state and local guidelines call for more open space, more public access roads and more trails.

Both reports were introduced into the record by opponents at the council’s long, stormy public hearing Tuesday night. Sixteen people appeared to oppose the project and 11 testified in favor of it, including representatives of several homeowner associations.

Gar Goodson, a coalition spokesman, contended that the two government reports “explained all the reasons why a golf course is a very bad idea” for the land. The coalition wants the golf course area left as open space but it does not oppose the residential development, he said.

Although both government reports strongly opposed the golf course, the documents are only advisory. Neither agency has a legal standing to challenge the project. However, if the coalition does appeal the project, as expected, the plans will be reviewed by the Coastal Commission to determine whether the project conforms to state and local coastal planning regulations.

The developer heatedly denied accusations that the project would wipe out the three nesting pairs of gnatcatchers.

“That’s exactly the opposite of what our plan calls for; we are deliberately preserving three of the four pair. The project does not destroy nests,” said Michael Mohler, project manager for the Hon-Zuckerman interests. “In fact, we are adding more habitat than we take out.”

There are seven small patches of coastal sage scrub habitat on the site and four of these have nesting gnatcatchers. Mohler said the development will protect all but one of the sites where the birds nest and the disturbed habitat will be replaced by twice the amount lost.

A second, equally stormy issue focused on coastal access and a city requirement that a bluff top road be built to give the public access to the headlands.

Opponents, the Coastal Commission staff and city planners recommended that some kind of bluff road be built. However, such a road would interfere with the planned golf course, and the council, siding with the developer, rejected such a road.

The planning department must now write a final environmental impact report and a formal resolution approving the project, including the changes ordered by the council. Final council approval could come as early as June 1.