Lungren Joins Lawsuit Against Redevelopment Plan : Santa Clarita: State attorney general enters fight with local, county and state agencies against $1.1-billion project.

Another powerful opponent has weighed in against a Santa Clarita redevelopment plan, producing an unusual array of local, county and state agencies fighting the controversial $1.1-billion project.

State Atty. Gen. Daniel Lungren this week joined Los Angeles County in a lawsuit filed by the Castaic Lake Water Agency aimed at halting the project.

Opponents complain that the city plans to use disaster funding for improvements classified as Northridge earthquake repairs, even though many existed before the temblor struck.

“I think it certainly adds a lot of credibility to our case,” said Laurie Odum, a spokeswoman for the water agency, in response to Lungren’s declaration.

Santa Clarita officials plan to use future property taxes to finance the redevelopment project during the next 30 years. The water agency claims it is entitled to some of those taxes and could lose up to $48 million needed to pay debts if the plan is implemented.

The city asserted it is exempt from environmental regulations because of the emergency nature of the repairs--a claim affirmed by a judge. Lungren joined in the water agency’s appeal of that ruling.

Lungren’s declaration supports an appeal the water agency is making in that lawsuit. A date has not been set for the appeal hearing.

Santa Clarita City Atty. Carl Newton said the proposed redevelopment project--which includes infrastructure improvements, low-cost housing and renovation of blighted areas--addresses shortcomings that became evident during the earthquake.

Road improvements, for example, are needed to prevent a repeat of the gridlock that ensued when two nearby freeways collapsed during the quake, he said.

“If the city has problems with it during an earthquake, as the city did twice during the Northridge earthquake, then it is a disaster,” Newton said. “It shuts down the city. It is a vulnerability that we think the disaster authorizes us to deal with.”

In a statement, Lungren also agreed with water agency officials who contend they did not have a fair chance to challenge the City Council decision at a public meeting because they were not notified that the issue was on the agenda.

Newton said the water agency was notified by mail of the topic at least 10 days before the hearing.

A second water agency lawsuit, scheduled for trial Oct. 16, challenges the wide variety of projects the city is trying to classify as disaster-related. The Board of Supervisors voted June 6 to support the agency’s lawsuit.

Newton said he doesn’t believe Lungren’s declaration will affect the outcome of the lawsuits, and the only opinions that matter are those reached in court.

“It doesn’t matter if all the state says we’re wrong,” he said. “We have a judge who says we’re right.”