Conservancy Is Talking With Soka About Settling Lawsuit : Calabasas: Short of funds, the preservation agency may have to curtail its grand vision for the costly land in the Santa Monica Mountains.

Less than a year after similar negotiations were quashed by harsh public criticism, the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy is again talking to Soka University about settling a controversial lawsuit to seize the school’s scenic Calabasas campus, sources say.

The conservancy faces a tough choice: Whether to press ahead with its condemnation of Soka’s campus--an expensive move that could seriously undermine the agency’s finances--or to accept a compromise that would secure part of the property for parkland but allow the Japan-based school to remain.

The decision comes at a difficult time for the conservancy, which for the past 15 years has mixed moxie with favorable politics to acquire thousands of acres of parkland in the Santa Monicas. But with traditional funding sources drying up in Washington and Sacramento, the agency seems to have no choice but to curtail its grand vision.

The lush Soka property, long regarded as a potential crown jewel in the conservancy’s collection of environmental treasures, illustrates the hard decisions ahead. Following through with the Soka condemnation could so severely drain the conservancy’s coffers that many other planned acquisitions would have to be deferred indefinitely or canceled altogether.

Even if the conservancy is able to finish the multimillion-dollar condemnation, there is concern within the agency that it could not afford to maintain the property and its centerpiece, the historic mansion of razor magnate King Gillette.

Already, the conservancy is delaying payment of $5.7 million it owes a Disney family trust for a section of Topanga Canyon known as Canyon Oaks, figuring the money may be needed for a court battle against Soka. Sources said that the conservancy will continue to make interest payments on the note held by the Disney heirs, who had hoped to turn part of the 662-acre site into a golf course and luxury housing.

Key players in the negotiations declined to discuss the talks publicly. But sources who spoke on the condition of anonymity said the conservancy is so anxious to avoid costly litigation with Soka that it may well settle for a piece of the coveted property. The settlement may differ considerably from past plans for the campus.

And for Soka, settling the lawsuit with a generous transfer of land--whether an outright donation or a discounted sale--would generate positive public relations, if not with nearby residents, then at least with some of the public officials whose approval is required for the school’s development proposals.

Soka’s plans to expand its campus from a 200-student language program to a full liberal-arts college are tied up in Los Angeles County’s Regional Planning Department, and a hearing on the proposal has been postponed indefinitely.

Meanwhile, as school and conservancy officials try to hammer out a settlement, several scenarios are under preliminary discussion, though none have been formalized, the sources continued. Possibilities include the university’s retaining most or all of the buildings on the site and continuing operations with a small educational facility. In return, the school would donate or sell cheaply much of the open space to the conservancy.

Unlike last November’s unsuccessful deal that proposed using the site for both a university and a park headquarters, the sources said, current negotiations have abandoned the notion of so-called “joint use.”

One thing is clear, though: Almost everyone involved understands that little may be gained by pursuing the condemnation fight to the bitter end. Although some in the environmental community want the conservancy to win outright or die trying, others acknowledge that compromise may be the smartest option.

“I prefer to have a resolution to this,” said Los Angeles County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky. “If we can get what we’ve been fighting for without having to go through a lengthy court fight and get the same result through discussion, I think that’s preferable.”

Conservancy staff counsel Laurie Collins said spending almost all the agency’s savings on a single property, not to mention millions of dollars in legal fees, may not be the wisest use of public funds, particularly at a time of fiscal austerity.

“There are so many other things to buy,” she said.

Neighbors of the campus agreed and said they are not opposed to settling the lawsuit. But, they said, they want to make sure that any agreement preserves the bucolic campus and serves a purpose beyond freeing the conservancy from its predicament.

“Any proposal would be completely unacceptable unless there is an absolute, legally enforceable cap on the number of students at Soka,” said Monte Nido resident Les Hardie, former president of the Las Virgenes Homeowners Federation. “The smell of desperation and panic that surrounds the conservancy is palpable. . . . But our job is not to preserve the conservancy.”

For years, state and federal parks officials have coveted Soka’s Calabasas property at the corner of Las Virgenes Road and Mulholland Highway, hoping to use the Gillette Ranch as a visitors center for the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area.

Late in 1992, an arm of the conservancy--the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority, or MRCA--filed the agency’s first condemnation lawsuit to force Soka to sell 245 of its 660 acres. After two years of legal wrangling, the MRCA late last year won the right to condemn Soka’s property as a government agency with a public use in mind.

Now, a jury must determine how much Soka should be paid for the land. The conservancy is prepared to pay about $19.7 million, but Soka lawyers are expected to argue for more. Whatever the jury decides, the conservancy must pay within 30 days.

If the conservancy cannot pay within that time, Soka can sue for damages. Such a failure would not only be embarrassing for the conservancy, but it would also undermine both its political support and its ability to negotiate with property owners in the future. Delaying the Canyon Oaks payment--part of a deal reached last summer after 14 years of fighting--allows the conservancy a cushion for a court decision.

But conservancy officials hope they never end up in court. Much has changed in the nearly three years since the condemnation lawsuit was filed, and pressure has mounted over the past year to abandon it.

Ventura County officials want the conservancy to settle, and Ventura County supervisors this year threatened to rescind their support unless the conservancy negotiates an end to the dispute. Ventura County actually oversees two-thirds of the MRCA, which officially consists of the conservancy and two Ventura County parks agencies.

Soka, meanwhile, this year announced plans to develop another 100-acre campus in the Orange County community of Aliso Viejo. That project, already approved by Orange County officials, includes plans for 2,500 students, a library focusing on Pacific Rim research, a performing arts center and an art gallery, in addition to playing fields and classroom buildings.

Soka spokesman Jeff Ourvan said that the school’s plans in Calabasas remain on track, but also that the Orange County site allows the university more flexibility.

“Our Calabasas property remains not for sale, but the time is ripening for a settlement,” he said. “Both sides are more willing to be accommodating in a negotiated settlement.”

At the same time, the conservancy board has changed. Two new members are said to be more willing to negotiate a settlement than their predecessors and recognize that to allow the conservancy to continue with the case could be its undoing.

Last November, a tentative deal between Soka and the conservancy fell apart in the face of harsh criticism from environmentalists and local politicians, largely because it included proposals to allow the university to expand as well as the development of a visitors center.

At that time, the conservancy board was urged to stay the course by critics who argued that the settlement gave too much away and did not adequately protect the site from intense development.

“The settlement they negotiated last year sucked, to put it bluntly,” Yaroslavsky said.

Just last year the conservancy’s executive director, Joseph T. Edmiston, stood in the middle of the Gillette Ranch and extolled its virtues as the perfect site for a visitors center. He has been on vacation and unavailable for comment for this story.

This time, however, the conservancy seems to be focusing on preserving as much open space as possible--perhaps without a visitors center. Any center would be operated by the National Park Service, but with little money of its own, the service would be unable to lease the existing buildings from the conservancy.

Without that revenue stream, the conservancy would probably not be able to afford the $1 million Soka said it spends every year to maintain the buildings and site.

“Our bigger goal,” said lawyer Collins, “has always been the open space.”