Santa Clarita / Antelope Valley : Law Firm Seeks $367,000 From City After Funding Battle

A Los Angeles law firm that blocked Lancaster’s plan to use redevelopment housing funds to pay for two bridges over railroad tracks is trying to collect $367,000 in legal fees from the city.

A hearing on the request, scheduled Friday in San Fernando Superior Court, was postponed until May 27 and moved to Burbank Superior Court.

City officials are contesting the fee request, arguing that the law firm of Kane, Ballmer & Berkman deserves no more than $50,000 to cover its expenses.

“We think that’s what the reasonable amount is for this case, based on what they spent,” said David R. McEwen, Lancaster’s city attorney. “We think their billing rates are too high, clearly higher than what they charge their public law clients.”

The dispute stems from a two-year court battle over Lancaster’s plan to use redevelopment dollars reserved for housing projects to pay for overpasses at Avenue L and Avenue H. The bridges were designed to carry cars over busy Sierra Highway and the adjacent railroad tracks.

City leaders argued that the bridges would open the city’s eastside to new home construction, including dwellings for people with low and moderate incomes.

But the Los Angeles law firm, representing Lancaster resident Dolores Dibley, asserted that it was a misuse of redevelopment money.

A Superior Court judge ruled in favor of the city in 1992, but the 2nd District Court of Appeal overturned that decision last year. In February, the California Supreme Court refused to consider the case, allowing the appellate court’s decision to stand.

When the court battle began, Lancaster officials decided to use other funds to pay for the two bridges. The $12.4-million Avenue L overpass opened last month, and construction of the Avenue H overpass is expected to begin later this year.

Despite the change in financing, the city continued to defend its original plan in court, and attorneys for Kane, Ballmer & Berkman say the city’s Redevelopment Agency should cover their expenses.

In addition, they say state law allows them to receive additional compensation for setting a precedent that could prevent other agencies from misusing redevelopment funds.

“We do think this is an important case,” said Kathryn Reinmann, an attorney with the firm. “It’s the first time in California that someone has ruled on the use of housing trust funds. It’s going to give guidance for cities.”