Appeals Court Questions Both Sides in St. Vibiana’s Legal Battle

A state Court of Appeal panel closely questioned both sides Tuesday in the legal dispute over the proposed demolition of St. Vibiana’s Cathedral, the 120-year-old Los Angeles landmark that the Roman Catholic archdiocese wants to replace with a new and larger church.

The three justices did not rule on the archdiocese’s request to overturn a Superior Court’s preliminary injunction against immediate razing of the downtown cathedral. The appeals court is not expected to decide the matter until after July 30, the deadline for final legal papers on whether state environmental laws should apply to churches.

The justices at times appeared skeptical of the archdiocese’s claims that the city’s landmark ordinance, which can delay demolition for a year, violates freedom of religion. But archdiocese attorney John P. McNicholas later described the questioning as “very fair and very friendly.”

Jack H. Rubens, attorney for the Los Angeles Conservancy, which opposes demolition of the cathedral without environmental review, said he was “cautiously optimistic” that the appeals panel would uphold the June 19 ruling by Superior Court Judge Robert H. O’Brien and allow the case to go to a full Superior Court trial.

In deciding in the conservancy’s favor, O’Brien declared that demolition of a city landmark required environmental review under state law and that earthquake damage at the cathedral was not severe enough to merit an emergency exemption. The church bell tower was partly dismantled June 1, before a city inspector and another judge halted the work.

Saying that he is frustrated with legal delays and the high price of adjacent land, Cardinal Roger M. Mahony has set July 22 as a deadline to announce whether he will build a new cathedral at the site of the old one, at 2nd and Main streets, or choose another location, possibly outside downtown. McNicholas said he did not know if that deadline would be affected by the wait for a ruling by the appeals panel presided over by Justice Charles S. Vogel.

The Los Angeles City Council today is expected to strip the church of its landmark status as a way to hasten demolition. The city contends that state environmental rules will be fulfilled by saving artifacts from the church. Preservationists say that de-landmarking requires much more thorough review.

During Tuesday’s court session, which lasted more than two hours, Justice J. Gary Hastings noted that Los Angeles landmark rules can delay demolition but not ban it. So, given the likelihood of eventual demolition, he asked why the conservancy continues to fight.

Conservancy attorney Rubens replied that other threatened buildings have been saved during such “cooling-off periods.” Besides, he contended that the legal precedent is important. “The Roman Catholic archdiocese wishes to pick and choose the laws that apply to it,” Rubens told the court.

McNicholas suggested that the archdiocese would be liable for any injuries that intruders might suffer in the church during a prolonged delay in demolition. The church has been closed to the public since May 1995.

Further delays, he said, might interfere with plans to have a new cathedral dedicated on Sept. 4, 2000, on the feast of Our Lady of the Angels.

McNicholas again complained that the conservancy was interfering with the design of a new cathedral. “We don’t think they know the seven sacraments from the Seven Dwarfs,” he said.

Two representatives of the city attorney’s office spoke at the hearing in favor of quick demolition of the bell tower, which city inspectors have declared an imminent hazard.