Conservancy Rejects Accord With Soka : Parks: Agency vows to press on with its lawsuit to seize part of campus for parkland. Battle now shifts to Superior Court.

Choosing combat over compromise, the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy early Tuesday rejected a tentative settlement with Soka University, vowing to press ahead with its lawsuit to seize part of the school’s campus for parkland.

The decision followed more than five hours of angry testimony from homeowners, environmentalists and elected officials who blasted the conservancy for even considering surrender in its fight to condemn Soka’s scenic property to use as a park visitors center.

Rejection of the compromise means lawyers for both sides will face off this morning in Los Angeles Superior Court to argue over whether the conservancy has the right to seize 245 of the school’s 662 acres at the corner of Las Virgenes Road and Mulholland Highway.

Conservancy Executive Director Joseph T. Edmiston said the decision marks the beginning of one of the toughest battles the 15-year-old agency has ever faced. It is the first time the conservancy has exercised its power of eminent domain.

“Our supporters have to understand the consequences,” Edmiston said. Edmiston warned conservancy supporters to expect drastic measures to raise money for the fight--including allowing current land acquisitions such as the Canyon Oaks deal in Topanga Canyon to fall apart, or selling off parkland.

Soka spokesman Jeff Ourvan said the school will continue to work with the community, but will aggressively defend itself against the condemnation lawsuit, which already has dragged on for two years.

Both sides have suggested that the case may ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Until late last week, it appeared that the board would approve the proposed settlement with Soka, and thus free the conservancy--a state agency that acquires parkland--from a high-stakes court case that will cost the public millions of dollars regardless of which side wins.

But after a barrage of criticism from the conservancy’s traditional supporters--including Rep. Anthony C. Beilenson, (D-Woodland Hills), state Sen. Tom Hayden, (D-Santa Monica), and Los Angeles City Councilman Zev Yaroslavsky--the deal fell out of favor with board members, many of whom are political appointees.

Hayden said a settlement would be a “betrayal of the conservancy’s mission as defender of public park space and ecological restoration.” Yaroslavsky labeled it “public policy at its worst.” And Beilenson, who wrote the legislation that created the recreation area, said the deal “makes no sense.”

Critics of the settlement, which also included a broad coalition of environmentalists and homeowners, applauded and cheered when the conservancy board rejected the proposal about 1 a.m. Tuesday--after 141 speakers for and against the proposal testified.

*

Minutes later, the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority, the arm of the conservancy actually pursuing the condemnation, convened in executive session to consider the settlement. About 2 a.m., the authority’s board emerged from closed session and announced that it, too, had rejected the settlement.

Parks officials have long coveted Soka’s campus for use as a visitors center for the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area. Tokyo-based Soka, on the other hand, wants to expand its small language school there into a 3,500-student liberal arts college.

Two years ago, the conservancy launched eminent domain proceedings in Los Angeles Superior Court to force the school to sell the part of its campus once owned by razor magnate King Gillette.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the conservancy would have dropped its condemnation lawsuit against the school. In turn, Soka would have sold 173 acres--including the historic King Gillette mansion and grounds--to the conservancy.

The school would have applied to build a smaller, 2,500-student university on property it owns east of the present campus. The deal would have taken effect only if the expansion were approved by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors.

Critics of the deal said that tying sale of the land to development permits virtually guaranteed that Soka would be able to build its university because supervisors would be loathe to cross the conservancy.

Conservancy officials had hoped to avoid the need for today’s court hearing by settling the case. But now, lawyers for both sides will argue whether the conservancy has the right to seize Soka’s land. If Judge Barnet Cooperman rules in favor of the conservancy, a jury will decide how much Soka should be compensated.

*

If the jury orders the conservancy to pay more than it can afford--roughly $20 million--then Soka would be able to sue for damages. Edmiston said the conservancy may be forced to sell other properties to raise enough money to finish a purchase.

Even if the conservancy can afford the jury’s price, Soka lawyers have threatened to attempt to force the agency to buy all of their property at a price beyond the conservancy’s reach. If such a tactic is unsuccessful, Soka would still be able to apply to Los Angeles County for a larger development on its other property.

And if the conservancy loses the case, Soka probably will sue for damages and proceed with plans for the larger university.