Coastal Panel Staff Opposes Golf Course Development : Rancho Palos Verdes: The plan for the bluffs does not meet laws requiring public access and wildlife habitat protection, the report says.

The staff of the California Coastal Commission is recommending that the panel reject a $35-million project to build a golf course and 83 homes in Rancho Palos Verdes on one of the few remaining open coastal bluffs in Southern California.

Plans for the 258-acre development fail to meet state laws requiring public access to the coast and wildlife habitat protection, the commission staff said in a report released Thursday.

The project, proposed by developers Barry Hon of Orange County and Ken Zuckerman of Palos Verdes Estates, was approved by the city of Rancho Palos Verdes in May over the objections of local environmental and coastal protection groups.

Headed by the Coastal Conservancy Coalition, these groups appealed the city’s decision to the Coastal Commission, contending the project would violate state environmental and coastal protection laws. The appeal will be heard at the commission’s meeting Wednesday in Huntington Beach.

Three of the 11-member coastal panel have joined the appeal--Thomas W. Gwyn of Oakland, Diana Doo of Beverly Hills and Gary Giacomini of Marin County. State law allows commissioners to question a city- or county-approved project that might pose a threat to state coastal protection policies, officials explained.

The staff report and recommendations brought an enthusiastic response from the project’s opponents.

“We’re delighted,” said Andrew H. Sargent, spokesman for the Coastal Conservancy Coalition.

The coalition and other appellants contend the proposed golf course would destroy the nesting habitat of a rare songbird, the California gnatcatcher. They also say the project would block public access to the seashore.

The developers strongly defended the project, saying it is environmentally sound and will offer the public full coastal access. No harm will come to the nesting gnatcatchers or other wildlife, they said.

“That staff report is not objective, it just restates the opponents’ claims, which are not factually or legally supportable,” Zuckerman said Thursday.

The development would include both an 18-hole, Pebble Beach-style golf course and 83 lots for high-priced homes along the oceanfront property, Zuckerman said. In addition, the builders would provide several small bluff-top parks and trails and public access to beaches.

Zuckerman contends the commission staff report is riddled with factual errors. For example, he said the report contends the golf course will cut off public access to Halfway Point, a promontory on the bluff, and other shoreline areas.

“That simply isn’t true,” Zuckerman said. The developers plan a 3.2-acre public park at Halfway Point, complete with picnic tables, restrooms, water fountains and beach access for even the handicapped. In addition, all of the existing public trails to the beach will remain, he said.

City officials expressed surprise at the commission staff findings. They agreed with Zuckerman, saying the project would provide adequate public access to the coast.

“You can walk from one end of the project to the other on coastal trails,” said Dudley Onderdonk, director of planning and environmental services.

According to an environmental impact report that the developers filed with the city, there are four nesting pairs of gnatcatchers and maybe twice that many cactus wrens within the development area. Both species may soon be classified as endangered, experts say.

The developers have contended they will protect the birds and their habitat.

But opponents disagree. In their appeal, they cited the concerns raised in two government reports on the development project last spring.

A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologist warned that the proposed golf course could eliminate some gnatcatcher nesting areas. And a Coastal Commission staffer told the city in April that the project not only failed to protect the environment and wildlife, but did not provide enough public access to the coast.

These concerns foreshadowed the report released Thursday by the commission staff. In that report, staff members asserted that the project would disrupt the public’s use of the rugged coastal property for picnicking, bicycling, jogging and nature walks.

In addition, the project deviates from the Local Coastal Plan developed in 1980 by the city and certified by the commission, the commission staff said. That plan called for a bluff-top road paralleling the shoreline and a 15-acre strip of public open space on the seaward side of the road.

The proposed development has no such road or public open space, according to the report.

“The project . . . attempts to accommodate too much development on the site, leaving little room for public access and recreational opportunities expressly required by the city’s certified Local Coastal Plan,” the staff concluded.

After what promises to be a stormy public hearing, the commission can either reject the appeals, clearing the way for the development, or disallow the development.

If the decision goes against the developers, they could appeal to the courts or ask the city to modify its coastal plan. Either way, the development will be subject to additional lengthy hearings and debate, most officials agree.