HOMEOWNERS LOBBY FOR ROAD; CHOOSE ROUTE OUTSIDE ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, GROUP URGES.

Byline: Cecilia Chan Daily News Staff Writer

Homeowners in unincorporated Rolling Oaks Estates plan to lobby the City Council tonight to pursue a road extension for residents to the west that would bypass their neighborhood and cross commercial property instead.

The City Council will view six options for a roadway extension that will give an emergency access route to residents in the Moorpark Road area south of the Ventura Freeway.

Businessman Robert Haaland has pitched the latest proposal to the city, referred to as Option 6, which calls for connecting the west portion of Rolling Oaks Drive to Rancho Road and using roadways in a commercial development to the north. Haaland was not available for comment Monday.

Haaland owns one of the buildings in the Rolling Oaks Office Center and escrow has opened for him to buy the remaining portion of the site. Part of the route also would be on land that was owned by Calvary Church until the city recently purchased it.

``We have something everyone can win and can live with and be happy with, and it's the least expensive,'' said Bruce Beckwith, who lives in the Rolling Oaks neighborhood. ``We had our homeowners meeting on Sunday . . . and agreed that we can support and would like to support Option 6.''

He said about half of the 60 property owners in Rolling Oaks plan to attend the council meeting tonight.

City staff officials say there are some problems with the proposal - for instance, the road would not be wide enough to meet city design standards for safely accommodating turns - but Beckwith has called the problems minor and said they can be worked out.

According to city staffers, the latest option would create more traffic problems on the road, but could be built sooner than others. It also would have the fewest environmental impacts.

``What we are looking for is a road cross-section that best meets the needs of the community, given the constraints we have,'' said Don Nelson, city public works director. ``We are looking for direction from the council based on input from the community. Different alternatives have different costs and different implications in terms of time.

``Any of those alternatives would work,'' he said. ``It's a question for the council as to which to proceed with, given what the community expectations are.''

Associated Transportation Engineers of Santa Barbara said in its report to the city that a direct connection through the Rolling Oaks neighborhood would be the safest of the options. The firm rated Option 6 as the least desirable in terms of safety.

``It's discouraging,'' said Mayor Linda Parks. ``It seems like a majority of the alternatives don't meet city standards.''

Haaland's proposal ``looks to be the most reasonable in terms of cost and the amount of grading necessary, but it does not meet city standards and brings in safety-issue concerns,'' Parks said.

``It has my eyebrows raised because it would enable greater development along the 101 (freeway) corridor,'' she added.

Beckwith said Rolling Hills residents would support any option outside their neighborhood, where they believe a road extension would disrupt the tranquil equestrian community.

``The thinking . . . should be a solution that everyone can live with,'' he said. ``And let's find that, as opposed to one that pits us against each other.''

OPTIONS PROPOSED FOR ROAD

The City Council tonight will consider the following alternate routes for the Rolling Oaks Drive extension:

Direct connection: Connect the east and west stretches of Rolling Oaks Drive. This would require right-of-way acquisition and upgrading of the eastern segment. Could be designed and built to meet city and county road standards. Cost: $1.4 million.

``L'' curve connection: Extend Rolling Oaks Drive to the north, then to the east, paralleling the Ventura Freeway, and then south to where it would connect with Rancho Road. This would avoid use of county roads but require some right-of-way acquisitions and fail to meet city standards. Cost: $3.2 million.

Low-impact connection: Extend Rolling Oaks Drive in a northeast direction, then east and south to Rancho Road. It would conform closely to contours of the land but require a significant number of right-of-way acquisitions and fail to meet city standards. Cost: $1.6 million.

Standard connection: Similar to the low-impact connection, but it would need more grading and right-of-way acquisitions. It would meet city and county standards. Cost: $2.3 million.

North/south connection: A tunnel would be built to connect the western segment of Rolling Oaks Drive, on the south side of the freeway, with Lombard Street on the north side of freeway. No right-of-way acquisition would be needed, but easements and permits from the California Department of Transportation would be required. It would not meet city road design standards. Cost: $9.4 million.

Adjacent property connection: Connect Rolling Oaks Drive west by using roadways in a commercial development to the north, then east to Rancho Road. No right-of-way acquisition would be needed, but city road standards would not be met. Cost: $1.3 million.

CAPTION(S):

Photo, Box

PHOTO (Color) This lot near Rolling Oaks Drive in Thousand Oaks could become part of a road.

Evan Yee/Daily News

BOX: OPTIONS PROPOSED FOR ROAD (See text)