Homeowners Want to Stop Apartments at the Gate : Development: Rancho Conejo Village residents support builder’s proposal to move a planned 268-unit complex out of their neighborhood.

Homeowners in Rancho Conejo Village in Thousand Oaks paid good money for their little piece of heaven, and the last thing they want is to share their private pool and spa with “renters.”

“People paid $260,000 to $410,000 for their homes,” said Melinda Copeland, one of about 60 homeowners who live in the gated community. “They don’t want apartment people here.”

Copeland said she had no idea when she moved into the upscale tract a year and a half ago that an apartment complex would be part of the subdivision, which is still being developed. Neither did many other residents.

“I suppose I should have asked,” Copeland said.

Still, homeowners, who pay monthly assessment fees of $99, said they don’t think it’s fair that they should have to share their private security and recreation center with apartment renters who would pay nothing.

“It’s not that I have anything against people who live in apartments or that they are unwelcome,” said Dora Nowicki, who moved into the subdivision three months ago. “It’s just that what’s the point of having a gated community when it’s going to be a free-for-all?”

With the strong support of the Rancho Conejo Village Homeowners Assn., developer Shapell Industries is asking the city for permission to relocate a planned apartment building outside the gated neighborhood. Under a 1989 agreement with the city, the 268-unit building would have to include at least 40 units with rents that would be affordable for people with “moderate” incomes.

Shapell is proposing to develop 268 apartment units on nearby vacant land the developer owns and that is now zoned for industry. The Planning Commission is scheduled to hear the issue at its meeting beginning at 7 tonight.

But the developer’s proposal has come up against strong opposition from adjacent businesses and land owners, including United Parcel Service and Northrop Corp.

At a hearing last month, officials of the aerospace company told the commission that if the city approves Shapell’s proposal it will hurt Northrop’s efforts to sell its property. They said potential buyers would be concerned about restrictions limiting noise, traffic and hours of operation.

Northrop officials said this would in turn hurt the city, which has been trying to attract new businesses to replace Northrop ever since it closed its facilities in 1991.

Don Clay, facilities manager for Northrop, declined to comment on Monday’s hearing. However, in a letter to the commission, Clay said if the apartment building must be moved outside the complex that another site should be found.

Planning Commission Chairman Forrest Frields said he is not convinced that Northrop or UPS would be hurt by a zoning change.

Frields pointed out that Northrop’s manufacturing building, the largest building on its lot, does not even face Rancho Conejo Boulevard and is farthest away from where the apartment buildings would be located.

“They’re concerned that this would remove some of their flexibility” to market their property, Frields said. “I think it may slow down their efforts (to sell), but it’s not necessarily going to hurt them.”

He also pointed out that UPS is not right next to the areas where the apartment building would be built, and so would be less affected by such development.

As for the homeowners, Frields said they may be overreacting a little to the idea of having renters in their neighborhood.

“It’s like renters have dog poop on their shoes,” he said. “People in Thousand Oaks are so worried about overcrowding that they tend to associate multifamily residences with overcrowded slums. And they’re not connected.”

Besides, Frields said there are ways the developer can control potential problems in the apartment complex. He said Shapell could still collect money for security and restrict access to its community recreation center with a card key system.

“They can put rules and regulations in place to make sure things don’t happen,” he said.

Perhaps, but Rancho Conejo Village homeowners would prefer that the apartment building be built outside their gated neighborhood and are strongly urging the commission to approve Shapell’s request.

“We like the security of a gated community,” Ping and Judy Wong wrote in a letter to the commission. “To have an apartment dwelling within our gated community would defeat the reasons why we made the move. We would not feel safe, nor would we want to use the recreation center with people who could care less about upkeep.”

Jeanne L. Brady, an official with Transpacific Management Co., which manages Rancho Conejo Village for the homeowners association, said residents have serious concerns about safety and overcrowding in their neighborhood.

“People buy into this kind of community because they want a protected community,” Brady said. “Renters don’t usually care as much as someone who owns part of the community. The two lifestyles just wouldn’t be compatible.”

Shapell, which ultimately plans to build about 1,000 homes in Rancho Conejo Village, originally planned to include a 400-unit apartment building in its development.

However, if the Planning Commission approves the zoning change and the relocation of the apartment buildings, the developer said it would only build 268 units that would front Rancho Conejo Boulevard on a 14-acre site near Lawrence Drive.

The developer is also requesting rezoning for an adjacent 21-acre parcel, originally slated for a 400-unit apartment complex, to accommodate 95 single-family homes.