Santa Clarita / Antelope Valley : City to Pay $50,000 Over Use of Housing Funds : Courts: Judge orders award to law firm that successfully challenged plan to finance bridges. But officials hail ruling.

A judge ordered the city Friday to pay about $50,000 to a Los Angeles law firm that successfully challenged Lancaster’s plan to use redevelopment housing funds to build two bridges over railroad tracks.

Nevertheless, city officials hailed the ruling as a victory because the sum was far less than the $370,000 requested by the law firm of Kane, Ballmer & Berkman, which represented a resident who contended that the city’s proposal was a misuse of redevelopment agency money reserved for housing projects.

Friday’s hearing before Burbank Superior Court Judge David M. Schacter was the latest development in a two-year legal battle waged by resident Dolores Dibley over the proposal to use redevelopment dollars to pay for overpasses at Avenue L and Avenue H.

These bridges were designed to carry cars over busy Sierra Highway and the adjacent railroad tracks. Lancaster officials had argued that they could use redevelopment money because the bridges would encourage developers to build more homes on the city’s east side, including dwellings for people with low and moderate incomes.

But Kane, Ballmer on behalf of Dibley sued the city over the plan. In August, 1992, Schacter ruled that the city’s plan was valid, but a state appellate court overturned the decision last November. The California Supreme Court has refused to consider the case.

The law firm then sought to recover its legal expenses, plus extra compensation permitted under state law when law firms set a precedent on an important public issue. In this case, the firm maintained that this court decision would discourage the misuse of redevelopment dollars.

The city’s attorneys contended that Kane, Ballmer’s expenses were inflated and that the case did not set a precedent entitling the firm to additional money.

The sum awarded Friday “matches what our papers indicated that we thought was a reasonable number,” Lancaster City Atty. David R. McEwen said. The funds will come from the redevelopment agency.

“We’re not surprised by the ruling of the court,” said R. Bruce Tepper of Kane, Ballmer, which has vowed to appeal Friday’s ruling. “At all times, we have been prepared to take this up again.”

He added, “We have found the attitude of the city, at least in regard to this motion, to be highly hypocritical.”

Lancaster spent far more on its own attorney’s fees--$160,000--than the sum Schacter ordered it to pay Kane, Ballmer, Tepper said.

After the legal challenge, Lancaster used other funds to build the $12.4-million Avenue L overpass, which opened in March. City officials said they do not plan to use housing funds to build the Avenue H bridge over the next year.