Appeals Court Upholds Ahmanson Ranch Ruling : Litigation: Opponents of the development vow to continue the fight. Backers say environmental laws have been complied with.

A state appeals court Tuesday refused to block construction of the massive Ahmanson Ranch housing project astraddle the Ventura-Los Angeles county line at Calabasas, but opponents quickly vowed to fight the plan in the state Supreme Court.

The California 2nd District Court of Appeal upheld a decision by Ventura County trial Judge Barbara Lane, who ruled that the 3,050-home golf course community can be built in the rolling Simi Hills.

“They’re giving private developers the right to build a small city, which will mess up everybody’s traffic, and the public has to pay for the traffic . . . and the cost of delays and the air pollution that goes along with it,” said Rosemary Woodlock, an attorney for Ahmanson opponents. “We’ve decided we’ll appeal it to the [California] Supreme Court.”

Woodlock said she will ask the appeals court for a rehearing and, if denied, will take the case to the higher court.

Ahmanson opponents--including the Los Angeles County government, the city of Calabasas and homeowner groups from Agoura Hills to Malibu--had sued the Ventura County Board of Supervisors and the developers for approving the plan in 1992.

The suit claimed that the Ahmanson Land Co.’s environmental impact report failed to fully address the housing project’s impacts on nearby neighborhoods.

And the suit charged that while traffic and pollution would be felt most in Los Angeles County, Ventura County would reap most of the tax revenue and other benefits. Park agencies stand to gain 10,000 acres of mountain land--much of it in Ventura County--as a result of a complex development agreement with the county.

But in March, 1994, Lane ruled that the Board of Supervisors had complied with all state environmental laws when it approved the project.

Opponents then filed an appeal, which was rejected Tuesday by the Ventura-based appeals court.

The vow to continue the fight to the state Supreme Court was expected by an attorney for the county government.

“What a surprise,” Assistant County Counsel Andrew Gustafson said. “It’s obvious they’re going to do whatever they can to prevent it going through.”

Gustafson said the parkland gained by the public fits state environmental guidelines requiring such measures to outweigh the unavoidable effects that the development will have on neighboring communities.

And the Ahmanson Ranch project--if built--would be massive: 3,050 homes, 400,000 square feet of commercial and industrial uses, two schools, two golf courses, and a 300-room lodge interspersed with public parks and open space.

The appeals court’s ruling Tuesday shot down the opponents’ arguments on several counts.

The court ruled that:

* Ahmanson Land’s environmental impact report fully and legally outlines the goals of the project--to build a self-contained, master-planned community while preserving natural open space.

* The benefits of the project--including new jobs, property tax income and public parkland--outweigh its environmental impacts.

* And the proper decision was already made in the proper venue for public review of such large projects--in front of the Board of Supervisors.

The court cited a state Supreme Court decision, which ruled that “the task of balancing the need for land use against adverse environmental impacts has been delegated by the Legislature to local governmental officials and public hearings . . . and not the courts.”

The appeals court decided against publishing its decision, which would have entered it in law books to make it available for future legal arguments on similar cases.