Ahmanson Site Suggested for Soka : Development: The Calabasas campus could be motivated to make such a move because it faces the prospect of land condemnation by the state.

In a plan that even supporters describe as far-fetched, some community and environmental activists are pushing to join two of the west San Fernando Valley region’s most controversial developments by building a Soka University campus on Ahmanson Ranch.

Although none of the key players wholeheartedly supports the plan, neither do any of them reject it outright, particularly after Friday’s rejection by Ventura County planning commissioners on the mini-city proposed for the property by Ahmanson Land Co.

“I wouldn’t write it off,” said Melissa Kuckro, legislative director for Rep. Anthony C. Beilenson (D-Los Angeles). “We just have to see what happens.”

The beauty of the plan, according to its proponents, is that it would solve two thorny problems.

Soka’s plan to build a 3,400-student campus at the site of the former King Gillette Ranch has been opposed for six years by most of the neighbors of Soka’s nearly 600-acre holding in rural Calabasas. Ahmanson’s development--which would house 8,700 residents and include two golf courses and a commercial and government center--also has been the subject of a six-year unpopularity contest with many of its neighbors.

But on the more than 5,400 acres now owned by Ahmanson, Soka University would be a mere postage-stamp-sized development, according to Bill Bell, a resident of the nearby Mountain View Estates. Bell said the best location for the school would be a 200-acre flat area near the end of Victory Boulevard known as Lasky Mesa.

“It would be a marvelous thing, if it could be done,” Bell said.

As far as motivation goes, Soka is now faced with the prospect of having its land condemned by an arm of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, the state parks agency that wants to turn the property into a headquarters for national and state parks services.

Although Soka spokesman Jeff Ourvan reiterated the school’s past statement that it can beat the condemnation action in court, he said the school would not rule out any alternatives.

Ourvan said he was contacted by Kuckro of Beilenson’s office regarding the possibility and told her that the school would “be happy to” talk further. He said he made a similar statement to Ahmanson Land Co. President Donald Brackenbush, who he said called “trying to gauge our interest.”

“It doesn’t really make our heart beat that fast,” Ourvan said. “We’re open for discussion, but we don’t really take it seriously at this point. . . . Why would Ahmanson be motivated to do this when they’re . . . .days away from approval” of the development project.

But in the uncertain wake of Friday’s Planning Commission denial, many of those involved said the picture could be rapidly changing for Ahmanson. Even if the project is approved by Ventura County supervisors, several plan proponents raised questions about Ahmanson’s willingness to be dragged through the lawsuits that probably would follow approval, and about whether such a large project would be marketable in a recession.

“They may be willing sellers,” Kuckro said.

Brackenbush did not return telephone calls on Friday.

There are various theories about the origin of the plan. Bell said Beilenson first suggested it. Beilenson and others attribute the idea to Bell. Some say they first heard it from state parks officials, who raised the subject half-jokingly.

Bell has been joined at the forefront of the effort to push for the project swap by Juliette Anthony, an environmentalist and former member of the religious group linked with Soka, the Soka Gakkai. Some other homeowner representatives from the Calabasas area have indicated that they would support such a plan if it became viable.

The greatest obstacle is the difference in value of the two parcels. The mountains conservancy has offered $19.7 million for 244 acres of Soka’s land, which the school says is far too little. The Ahmanson property is thought to be worth as much as $90 million, or more, particularly if the development project is ultimately approved.

One proposal, floated by Bell and others, is that the mountains conservancy could pay for part of the Ahmanson land with the $19.7 million offered for the Soka land and the $29.5 million earmarked for purchase of future parkland from entertainer Bob Hope. Bell said the remainder of the land’s value could be given to the conservancy as a gift, which would give Ahmanson a hefty tax write-off.

In a three-page letter to Bell, Joseph T. Edmiston, executive director of the mountains conservancy, said making such a complicated land deal work probably would take the intervention of a fairy godmother. In particular, Edmiston objected to Bell’s suggestion that the money intended for the Hope land be sidetracked.

“The Hope land is essential to the wildlife corridor habitat linkage” in the area, Edmiston wrote, and the conservancy has contractual obligations to buy it.

Edmiston said, however, that once the Hope property is acquired, he would be more than happy to help in any negotiations between Ahmanson and Soka. “I am personally interested in a solution to the Soka problem that would both lessen the ultimate impacts of development on Lasky Mesa and lead to National Park Service ownership of the King Gillette Ranch,” he said.