El Cajon needs to respond to ECPAC document

COLORAlbert F header.jpg

On Sept. 4, the Citizens’ Oversight Project (COPs) held a rally and press conference in front of the East County Performing Arts Center in El Cajon. Headed by Ray Lutz, Save ECPAC Committee, and COPs, the events intent was to deliver a 31-page document to City Hall for Mayor Bill Wells, the El Cajon City Council, City Manager Douglas Williford and El Cajon City Attorney Morgan Foley to review.

On Sept. 4, the Citizens’ Oversight Project (COPs) held a rally and press conference in front of the East County Performing Arts Center in El Cajon. Headed by Ray Lutz, Save ECPAC Committee, and COPs, the events intent was to deliver a 31-page document to City Hall for Mayor Bill Wells, the El Cajon City Council, City Manager Douglas Williford and El Cajon City Attorney Morgan Foley to review.

This document is in regards to COPs issues concerning the current negotiations between the city and Rock Church in the church’s proposal in utilizing the ECPAC as a major long-term tenant and building an adjacent building with a 35-year lease for Rock Church offices.

Lutz said that since the city is only in the negotiation stage that it is premature to go into litigation with the city, but if the negotiations go through, that it will not hesitate to counter the city’s action in court.

City Council voted 4-0 (with Councilmember Gary Kendrick abstaining) on Aug. 12, for the city manager to move forward with negotiations with the Rock Church as a major tenant to utilize ECPAC for religious services and events throughout the year. Rock Church’s current proposal is use of the facility for approximately 132 days per year. They are asking for every Sunday of the year to support its five services, bringing in an estimated 4,500 into downtown each Sunday, Tuesdays for music rehearsals and one Friday per month (sometimes rolling into Saturday) for church conventions and seminars. It also wants to lease the adjacent land for $4,000 per month to construct a two-story 20,000 sq. feet office/classroom/meeting space for the church, which after 35 years would become city property. This building will be designed with an event space on the roof, catering kitchen and a VIP/Reception room available for use by the city. The lease agreement for the use of the ECPAC center now stands at a daily rental cost of $1,636 per day.

Through a public request by COPs, there is an email string that puts discussions between the Rock Church, Williford and Kerry Schimpf, Sr. vice president of Cassidy Turley San Diego about Rock Church’s interest in ECPAC. Through these emails it appears as these talks were initiated by Schimpf on behalf of Rock Church, but in a Sept. 20, 2013 email from Williford he asked Schimpf, “What is going on with Rock and ECPAC?”

This led to the Rock Church viewing the inside of ECPAC on Sept. 23, 2013.

Filed with the city on Sept. 4, it was too soon to be placed on the Sept. 9 agenda for review. COPs requested that the entire document be evaluated and the issues of concern addressed at the nearest council meeting available.

Major issues this document brought out in the tentative agreement between the city and Rock Church are:

Issue 1: A theater manager should be hired first.

Issue 2: Long-term lease exclusively to one religious organization is unconstitutional and unlawful.

Issue 3: Regular church use incompatible with other uses.

Issue 4: Under market rates proposed.

Issue 5: Annex unconstitutional; will trigger California Environmental Quality Act (concerning traffic and parking).

The entire document submitted by COPs can be found at www.CitizensOversight.org.

This commentary is only about the document that the city of El Cajon received on Sept. 4. It is not reflective of the entire story by both sides of the issue, those pro and those against. After due review and consideration of this document, the city of El Cajon and its supporters will have full opportunity with the East County Californian to state its case and be represented fairly and accurately along with those that oppose these current negotiations.

2 COMMENTS

Comments are closed.