A recent proposal to redefine Old Mission Santa Inés from a land use perspective faced backlash from one Solvang official who feared the change would infringe on the church owner’s property rights.
At the Solvang City Council’s July 8 meeting, Councilmember David Brown argued against staff’s recommendation to redesignate the mission’s grounds to open space/recreational and its indoor facilities and parking lot to public/institution. Both parts of the property—owned by the Archdiocese of Los Angeles—were formally designated as agriculture.
“It is not really ag in nature at this point. It functions more as a quasi-public facility, because it is a full functioning Catholic parish,” Solvang Planning Manager Rafael Castillo said at the meeting.
After halting a motion for the City Council to approve the change with a no vote, Brown described the proposal (which needed to pass 3-0, due to one absence and one recusal) as overreaching.
“It’s private property. … To call it any kind of public use on private land just doesn’t make sense to me,” Brown said. “I’m just saying it’s not intended to be a public entity or for public use. We’re there at their convenience or their pleasure, not by right.”
“I would disagree. … We can agree to disagree,” Castillo responded. “A church is a quasi-public function … whether it’s a Catholic church or any other type of church facility. It is a community facility.”
Brown initially argued that, by that logic, venues like the Solvang Festival Theater, “which also could be said is a public gathering place,” should be redesignated as well.
“I wouldn’t offer the same designation to Bethania Church as a public gathering space, and I don’t see why you’re trying to employ that here,” Brown said. “I don’t want to handcuff the private landowner with such a designation. … I don’t want to take away private rights in any way for this designation.”
Castillo said the shift wouldn’t take away “any property rights from a land use designation standpoint,” before City Attorney Chelsea O’Sullivan described the goal of the redesignation as “to just reflect what’s currently happening on the property.”
“None of this stops the property owner from submitting a development application later that requests a zoning or general plan amendment,” O’Sullivan added.
After O’Sullivan’s comments, Brown agreed to vote in favor of the land use shift, which passed 3-0 (Councilmember Elizabeth Orona was absent and Councilmember Claudia Orona recused herself from voting due to a potential, financial conflict of interest).
Shortly before the vote, Councilmember Robert Clarke asked staff whether being a parish member at the mission warrants a recusal.
“I want to know if I need to recuse myself,” Clarke asked O’Sullivan, who answered no.
“I have no financial interest other than my tithing,” Clarke added.
This article appears in Jul 11-21, 2024.