HUNTINGTON BEACH : 252-Unit Project Near Wetlands OKd

The City Council approved a controversial 252-unit condominium project Monday near the Bolsa Chica wetlands after the developers agreed to revise their plans so that the development will not encroach on the site of a future park.

Under the agreement, Urban West Communities would reduce its proposed Surfcrest North project by 32 units.

However, many residents who had called for a greater reduction in the number of units accused officials of “flip-flopping” and of giving in to the wishes of developers in approving the project.

They complained that the Surfcrest North project, which will include 25 units per acre, would be too crowded. It would also encroach on a proposed regional park designed to serve as a narrow buffer for the Bolsa Chica wetlands, opponents said.

The number of units allowed in the Surfcrest North project located on 9.8 acres at Palm and Seapoint avenues also is twice the density allowed in neighboring developments, residents said.

“Tonight’s action is typical of what’s rotten in our city,” said Dave Sullivan, president of the Huntington Beach Tomorrow citizens group and a City Council candidate. “In June, the council instructed the developer to cut the density in half. But then the big developer pulls the puppet strings and the council . . . gives him the high-density project.”

But Urban West Communities officials said that the developers have acted in good faith and met all city requirements.

Initially, Vice President Tom Zanic told city officials that the developers would not modify the project but later agreed to a number of concessions. These included maintaining a 20-foot setback from the Bolsa Chica Linear Park and dropping plans for one of three seven-story buildings, among other things.

The project will be built by a partnership of Pacific Coast Homes and Urban West Communities.

Mayor Jim Silva and Councilmen Don MacAllister, Peter M. Green, Earle Robitaille and Jack Kelly voted to approve the project. Councilwomen Linda Moulton-Patterson and Grace Winchell, who had appealed prior Planning Commission approval, voted against it.