SANTA CLARITA / ANTELOPE VALLEY : High Court Ends 2-Year Bridge Fight : Finances: The jurists refuse to hear Lancaster’s appeal of a ruling that shot down the city’s funding plan for the Avenue L Overpass.

The simple dirt and concrete bridge that will soon carry cars over busy Sierra Highway and the adjacent railroad tracks hardly looks like the sort of project that would hurl Lancaster into the center of a fierce legal battle.

But the city’s creative financing plan for the $13.6-million Avenue L Overpass did indeed trigger a two-year legal tussle that was resolved only last month by the state Supreme Court.

To pay for the bridge, Lancaster wanted to use redevelopment funds reserved for housing projects. The city argued that the project would encourage the construction of dwellings on the city’s east side.

The California Supreme Court, however, announced in February that it would not reconsider a lower court ruling that shot down the city’s plan.

To guard against such a setback, the city long ago allocated other money to pay for the bridge, which is scheduled to open next week. But city officials continued to defend the original funding plan in court, and they have not ruled out the use of a revised version in the future.

The high court’s decision handed a victory to Kathryn Reimann, a Los Angeles attorney whose law firm represents other redevelopment agencies in the state.

“It was a diversion of funds that should be used for affordable housing,” Reimann said of the city’s original plan. “This was a matter of an abuse. It was illegal in the first instance, and a resident of Lancaster heard about it and asked us to represent her.”

The legal challenge originated after the City Council, as directors of the Lancaster Redevelopment Agency, voted in late 1991 to approve a $24-million plan to build two new bridges. One was to be at Avenue L, near the southern end of the city; the other at Avenue H, in the north.

The bridges were to cross Sierra Highway and more importantly the railroad tracks that run beside it and bisect the city. When trains use these tracks, east-west traffic in the city--including emergency vehicles--comes to a standstill.

City officials said these bridges would make it easier for deputies and paramedics to respond to calls on both sides of the tracks. In addition, they said the bridges would be key components of a “peripheral loop” that would carry traffic around the outskirts of Lancaster, relieving congestion on the city’s interior streets.

The now completed Avenue L Overpass is 2,542 feet long, including a bridge structure that is 350 feet long, 100 feet wide and 25 feet high. Two ramps, with traffic signals, were built to connect Sierra Highway to the overpass.

Construction of the Avenue H Overpass has not yet begun.

To pay for these projects, the city originally proposed using redevelopment funds that, under state law, must be used to build, assist or improve housing for people with low and moderate incomes.

Lancaster officials argued that the bridges would encourage development on the east side of the city. In addition, they said the financing plan included incentives for builders who agreed to reserve at least 15% of their housing units for families with low or moderate incomes.

When the plan drew criticism from the public, the city asked a Superior Court judge to rule on its validity. Resident Dolores Dibley asked Reimann’s firm to contest it.

“It was a scam and still is,” Dibley said in a recent interview. “There’s a lot going on there that the public doesn’t know about. When I saw the fraud that was being perpetrated, I thought it was best to act to put a stop to it.”

But the first court ruling in the case went against Dibley. In August, 1992, San Fernando Superior Court Judge David M. Schacter ruled that the city’s plan was valid because the bridges would open an inaccessible area where new housing would be built.

His decision was overturned, however, by the 2nd District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles. In an opinion filed in November, the three-judge panel said Lancaster’s plan provided “no assurance . . . that any affordable housing will be built.”

Judge Miriam Vogel, who wrote the opinion, concluded: “There is nothing to suggest this entire plan is anything more than a scheme to divert restricted housing funds to the city to pay for the construction of the overpasses.”

The city appealed that ruling to the state Supreme Court, which declined to review the case. The high court also denied the city’s bid to keep the Court of Appeal’s opinion from being published. That means the decision can be cited as a precedent if similar financing plans are challenged in court.

“It is important,” said Reimann. “There may have been other cities tempted to do something like this.”

David R. McEwen, Lancaster’s city attorney, stands by the original financing plan for the bridge. Although there are no immediate plans to do so, he said the city could revise the plan and try to pay for another project with it. The revised proposal might include documents proving that builders do plan to use the affordable housing incentives, he said.

“The program, based on the concepts we used, I think is valid,” McEwen said. “I think we need to reflect a bit and make sure what we are doing fits within the guidelines set by the Court of Appeals.”

He disputed that court’s conclusion that Lancaster’s plan was merely a scheme to divert housing funds to a bridge project. “I strongly disagree with their comment on that,” McEwen said. “What we were doing was designed to produce housing.”

Because of the principles at stake, Reimann said her firm challenged the bridge plan for Dibley without charge. Now that the case is decided, Reimann said her firm may ask a judge to order Lancaster to pay her firm’s legal expenses, which could exceed $100,000, Reimann said.

McEwen said he has asked for an accounting of how much the city spent on the bridge financing case, but he declined Friday to estimate the figure. “I wouldn’t want to guess what it is,” he said.