What has happened?
On February 17, 2009, the RPV City Council approved the St. John Fisher application for a new 17,000 sq. ft., 870 seat sanctuary at the corner of Crest Road and Crenshaw Blvd. This new structure will have 34% more seats than the existing sanctuary, external bells that ring 1,300 times a year, a 74 foot steeple (on a land pad more than 20 feet above Crenshaw), upward lighting creating unwanted nighttime light, a parking lot with 8% fewer parking spaces than currently available, and a large stairway at the corner of Crest and Crenshaw that will encourage parking and present potential traffic hazards on these streets.

On April 2, 2009 a nonprofit association, Rancho Palos Verdes Neighbors For Community Compatibility (RPVNCC), filed a lawsuit under California law to require the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to make an adequate assessment of the environmental implications of this massive structure.

What is RPVNCC?
RPVNCC is an unincorporated public benefit corporation devoted to preserving the community traditions, architecture and appearance of our neighborhood. It was formed to file the proposed legal action and to raise funds to pay fees and expenses related to filing the lawsuit. One reason for creating the association was to permit donations to be made privately, including those from church parishioners who have indicated that they oppose the wasteful expenditure of church resources. RPVNCC also was formed to prevent further harassment of its supporters as has occurred in the past. Only the names of several key officers and directors of the association will be made public.

What are RPVNCC’s objectives?
RPVNCC does not want to block construction of a church at the corner of Crest and Crenshaw. The association's supporters agree that a new sanctuary could be an excellent addition to the community. RPVNCC seeks only to assure that such a structure is compatible with the neighborhood surrounding it. What happened to the Santa Barbara type mission that was once proposed? The goal is to negotiate a compromise that meets the church's objectives while being compatible with the neighborhood.

Why are neighbors so upset with the proposed sanctuary?
The proposed project sets up a typical cost-benefit relationship...neighbors’ costs and parishioners’ benefits:
1) Neighbors will see the equivalent of an eight-story building (surrounded on all sides by one and two-story residences) numerous times each day; parishioners will see their church on the corner only when they attend church activities.
2) Neighbors will be affected by unwanted bells 1,300 times a year; parishioners will enjoy them perhaps 50 to 100 times a year.
3) Neighbors will see a lighted tower disturbing the night sky 365 evenings a year; many parishioners will rarely see these lights.
4) Neighbors may be forced to endure parking and traffic hassles on Crest and Crenshaw; parishioners will be given the luxury of convenient parking on these streets and easy access to the church via the stairs at this busy intersection.

It should not surprise anyone that nearly 90% of the nearby households submitting comments to the Planning Commission expressed concerns with the project. For a more thorough review of this analysis, see http://rpvncc-letters.blogspot.com/.

Why did RPVNCC file a lawsuit?
As early as last August RPVNCC supporters sought a meeting with Monsignor Sork to express their concerns. This overture was rebuffed. Despite public statements to the contrary, the church never made a serious effort to meet the neighbors' concerns. The only notable modification was a slight rotation of the steeple away from the view from one of the most seriously impacted neighbors. RPVNCC interprets early "revisions" that brought the structure down from a height of 88 feet (to 74 feet) as more of a tactic than a concession. The church's architect was prepared to submit these revisions at 2 AM during the first Planning Commission meeting, suggesting that 74 feet was actually the intended size of the sanctuary.

In its presentation to the City Council, RPVNCC supporters stated clearly that their desire was to reach a compromise. This overture was effectively ignored by the church and the City Council (most blatantly by Councilman Long). As noted in this presentation to the City Council, the RPVNCC supporters reserved their right to challenge the manner in which the City had proceeded in disregard of its obligation to protect the environment. RPVNCC supporters also believe that the City Council’s decision did not represent a fair consensus of the Council because two of its five members were absent.

What is the likelihood of RPVNCC’s success if the church forces the matter to adjudication?
What is significant in this litigation is that the environmental laws require a litigant to meet a far more lenient burden of proof than the normal preponderance of evidence or substantial evidence tests. The standard in this matter is whether the association can make a fair argument of its case. This has been likened to a one foot hurdle.

RPVNCC has engaged a well-respected environmental and land use lawyer who is assisting the group as an interested resident. He served on the planning commissions of both Rancho Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills Estates. RPVNCC believes that he has submitted a formidable opening document. To review it, please go to http://rpvncc-writofmandate.blogspot.com/.

Will this lawsuit take years to be resolved and will it be contentious?
The main reason this lawsuit makes sense, given RVPNCC’s desire not to prevent construction, is that it is not a typical lawsuit. There are no proceedings where witnesses are deposed or cross-examined, and no discovery is permitted. All of this can take an inordinate amount of time in normal litigation. The litigation simply involves an initial brief by RPVNCC, a responsive brief by the City and the Archdiocese, and a rebuttal brief by the association before a special environmental court. This unique law even requires a mandatory settlement conference. RPVNCC embraces this settlement conference.

Was the RPV City’s process flawed?
1) Anyone driving around RPV has seen silhouettes for proposed building sites in place for many months. The church was permitted to remove what was admittedly a flawed silhouette in two weeks. The decision by the RPV Director of Planning to give the church a virtually free pass on the silhouetting requirement forced the City Council to take extraordinary measures in an attempt to rehabilitate this clearly wrong decision.
2) A church parishioner who was a member of the City’s Planning Commission initially chose not to recuse himself and may have had dealings with the City staff on the matter.
3) The conduct of the planning staff is subject to a private complaint to the City’s manager.
4) Construction of this magnitude generally requires an Environmental Impact Report. We believe that the City erred in not ordering such a report.

What can I do to help convince the church to work with RPVNCC to resolve this matter amicably?
If you are a parishioner who supports construction of the new sanctuary, urge church leaders to meet with RPVNCC representatives and work to resolve outstanding issues.
Others can show their support for RPVNCC’s objectives by contributing any amount to its legal fund. Please send your contribution to: RPVNCC, 904 Silver Spur Road, #160, Rolling Hills Estates, CA, 90274.