Police chief says he's confident that independent investigation "will find the answers to many of the questions that have been raised and provide us all with an understanding as to what happened."
I received the following reply from City Manager Michael Chandler yesterday to the question of the 24/7 security guard requirement raised in the final item of this post:
"I learned that our prior Police Department command staff collaborated separately in 2019-2020 with Velvet – and then in 2021 with Embarc – on their respective security plans (which are confidential of course, for very legitimate safety reasons). Notwithstanding what the ordinance says to the contrary, the Police command staff at those times supported the position that the dispensaries would not provide 24-hour on-site security guards, but instead use other means of surveillance (primarily remote video) to monitor these premises after hours. The Police command staff’s position at the time included concerns for the safety of any security guards left on site after hours.
"I’ve attached for reference the Council meeting minutes from October 2, 2019, which included a discussion about Velvet’s security not including guards on site 24 hours a day during the public hearing item to consider award of Velvet’s conditional use certificate. Here is an excerpt from the discussion about Velvet’s security (pages 12-13):
"Councilmember Ross expressed his concern for the tenants next door. He asked about the security plan. Mr. Light stated there would be 24 hour a day security monitoring and 4 security guards on site during the day. Councilmember Ross asked Chief of Police Manjit Sappal if he has reviewed the security plan. Chief Sappal stated he has reviewed the plan and it was fairly adequate and robust. He stated the quality of the camera system and security should be sufficient.
"Chief White and I want to reevaluate the position that was taken and decide if it warrants any change. I’ve already mentioned this to both dispensaries and they are receptive to another review of their security plans."
No, Velvet was approved by the city. It was controversial at the time because a gym serving youths was located next door, just as the Embarc approval was controversial because of its location near the high school. When the city council approved the zoning for the dispensaries, it excluded the Main St. area out of deference to the downtown business community but was fine with placing them near schools and youth facilities.
I have the same questions, as well as why the 24/7 on-site security provision was written into the ordinance if there wasn't an expectation that dispensaries would comply with it or a commitment to enforcing it? It's hard for me to envision so many successful burglary attempts occurring at Velvet over the last three years if there had been two guards on duty 24/7. I didn't follow the Velvet approval closely, but I did attend the meeting where Embarc was approved (over the objections of the school district for placing it so close to Alhambra High), and the issue of security in general and 24/7 on site security specifically came up prominently as I recall.
Thank you, Craig, for this analysis and new info regarding the incident on Sunrise. I gave been curious about the findings and the lack of transparency about it. Now we know at least something! My fear was that the victim was black and that has now been confirmed. I will not cast judgment until all of the facts are in but...
I received the following reply from City Manager Michael Chandler yesterday to the question of the 24/7 security guard requirement raised in the final item of this post:
"I learned that our prior Police Department command staff collaborated separately in 2019-2020 with Velvet – and then in 2021 with Embarc – on their respective security plans (which are confidential of course, for very legitimate safety reasons). Notwithstanding what the ordinance says to the contrary, the Police command staff at those times supported the position that the dispensaries would not provide 24-hour on-site security guards, but instead use other means of surveillance (primarily remote video) to monitor these premises after hours. The Police command staff’s position at the time included concerns for the safety of any security guards left on site after hours.
"I’ve attached for reference the Council meeting minutes from October 2, 2019, which included a discussion about Velvet’s security not including guards on site 24 hours a day during the public hearing item to consider award of Velvet’s conditional use certificate. Here is an excerpt from the discussion about Velvet’s security (pages 12-13):
"Councilmember Ross expressed his concern for the tenants next door. He asked about the security plan. Mr. Light stated there would be 24 hour a day security monitoring and 4 security guards on site during the day. Councilmember Ross asked Chief of Police Manjit Sappal if he has reviewed the security plan. Chief Sappal stated he has reviewed the plan and it was fairly adequate and robust. He stated the quality of the camera system and security should be sufficient.
"Chief White and I want to reevaluate the position that was taken and decide if it warrants any change. I’ve already mentioned this to both dispensaries and they are receptive to another review of their security plans."
It was my understanding that Velvet was not inside the city limits and received County approval. Is this not true?
No, Velvet was approved by the city. It was controversial at the time because a gym serving youths was located next door, just as the Embarc approval was controversial because of its location near the high school. When the city council approved the zoning for the dispensaries, it excluded the Main St. area out of deference to the downtown business community but was fine with placing them near schools and youth facilities.
Just as predicted. Both dispensaries have been targets and in this case a violent end.
This leaves me with one question while the investigation by the DOJ continues.
How will this City Council take action if these dispensaries are NOT in compliance. Large fine ? Revocation of their business license ?
Community safety should always be a priority no matter the business or income.
I have the same questions, as well as why the 24/7 on-site security provision was written into the ordinance if there wasn't an expectation that dispensaries would comply with it or a commitment to enforcing it? It's hard for me to envision so many successful burglary attempts occurring at Velvet over the last three years if there had been two guards on duty 24/7. I didn't follow the Velvet approval closely, but I did attend the meeting where Embarc was approved (over the objections of the school district for placing it so close to Alhambra High), and the issue of security in general and 24/7 on site security specifically came up prominently as I recall.
Thank you, Craig, for this analysis and new info regarding the incident on Sunrise. I gave been curious about the findings and the lack of transparency about it. Now we know at least something! My fear was that the victim was black and that has now been confirmed. I will not cast judgment until all of the facts are in but...