Aware that opposition to a proposed Temecula apartment complex had sharply intensified, the Temecula City Council agreed Tuesday night, Feb. 26, to postpone a decision for more than a month. But the delay didn’t stop a trio of lawyers, a handful of consultants and about a dozen residents from spending the next two hours dissecting plans to wedge a 120-unit apartment project onto a 7.2-acre site east of Interstate 15.

The spirited debate, which at one point drew a council rebuke for an audience outburst, was reminiscent of similar clashes over density and growth that occurred prior to a development industry meltdown five years ago. In the end, the council echoed many of the issues raised by public speakers during the hearing and gave no clues over whether a density increase may be granted when the project resurfaces on April 9.

"I think you’ve got some food for thought and a lot to work on," Mayor Mike Naggar told the developer’s attorney and planning consultant as the hearing wound down.

Councilman Ron Roberts said he took note of the escalating level of public interest in the project that would flank Mira Loma Drive and Rancho Vista Road near Vail Elementary School.

"It’s good to see all the people here," Roberts said. "It’s obvious this is something important. Of course it is. They (speakers) live there and don’t want their quality of life changed."

As he did at a Nov. 13, 2012, hearing on the project, Councilman Jeff Comerchero noted that the city about a decade ago crafted a so-called growth management plan that called for lower-density projects to be approved unless a developer could identify some broader benefits to the community.

Comerchero and several of his colleagues have questioned whether the apartment project offers any community benefits that would offset its potential impacts of increased noise, traffic congestion and parking space shortages.

"They (density controls) are as valid today as they were when we set them," Comerchero said.

These growth debates could be repeated because of the economic rebound and because most of Temecula’s large open tracts have been developed and future planning reviews will largely focus on so-called "in-fill" development. Many of those remaining development sites are flanked by existing neighborhoods.

The controversial apartment plan calls for eight three-story residential buildings consisting of 40 one-bedroom units and 80 two-bedroom units. Those buildings, as well as a 2,660-square-foot recreational center, would fill much of the site that contains the shuttered Carden Academy educational facility.

A seasonal stream that swells during heavy storms separates the project site from Vail Elementary School. Besides the nearby school, the development site is surrounded by existing homes and apartments. The proposed density change would require a general plan amendment.

In 2007, the council approved a zoning change for the site that would have allowed the construction of 62 single-family condominiums. That Advertisement

[ Metalography ] project would have a density of 8.4 units per acre, according to a city staff report. The proposed apartment project would nearly double that density.

At the Nov. 13, 2012, hearing, most of the concerns raised over the project came from the owners of two nearby existing apartment complexes. One of them, Robert Oder, was again represented by a pair of attorneys who cited traffic, environmental and density concerns. One of Oder’s attorneys had peppered the city with letters prior to Tuesday’s hearing. Noise and traffic consultants hired by Oder also took turns at the lectern speaking to the council.

Oder, who cited his decades of property ownership in the community, said this was the first time he has opposed an apartment complex since Temecula became a city in December 1989.

"We believe it is dangerous," Oder said of the traffic conditions near the school and several existing apartment complexes.

A.G. Kading questioned why his Temecula Ridge apartment complex was required to pay for costly amenities – such as resident parking garages, balconies and an Olympic-size swimming pool – more than a decade ago and the proposed Rancho Vista Village project is not.

Opposition from nearby residents had swelled since the Nov. 13, 2012, hearing and several speakers submitted petitions that together contained more than 230 signatures.

The development company upped its visibility since the Nov. 13, 2012, session by adding Larry Markham, a longtime Temecula-area development consultant, and Samuel Alhadeff, a prominent land use attorney, as project representatives.

Markham, Alhadeff and other supporters said the project’s density is similar to existing apartment complexes nearby and the quality of the proposed apartments is higher than the previously-approved condominium plan for the site.

They assured the council that the project would have sufficient parking and none of its residents would want or need to park along the loop road that connects with Rancho Vista. They said the anticipated removal of 15 existing parking spaces from the loop road would ensure that traffic would flow smoothly and area drivers and pedestrians would be safe.

At the Nov. 13, 2012, hearing, Patrick Richardson, Temecula’s director of development services, recommended a delay that opened the door for more study to occur. The project was initially expected to return to the council in December or January, but a flurry of attorney letters, consultant reviews and a detailed written city response triggered an extended delay.

Naggar capped Tuesday’s hearing by saying he hopes that all the lingering questions over parking, traffic, land use density and development amenities are carefully examined by city staff and the developer before the project returns to the council for a decision.

"I don’t want there to be any speculation that we made our decision without all the facts that are out there," he said.