Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Yeah. Okay. Yeah.

Okay. Just here for the next one or that one. Go back. Thank you, sir. Okay. Yeah, absolutely.

Okay, good evening everyone. It is uh 5 o'clock. I want to welcome you to the uh planning commission meeting for the city of Victorville for September 10th, 2025. I'll uh call this meeting to order.

I'll take roll call. Thank you. You're welcome. Commissioner Marsh here. Commissioner Marshall here. Commissioner Thomas here. Vice Chair Messen here. Chair Kurt here. We have quorum.

Thank you. Next, if you'll please rise, we have the invocation led to us by Commissioner Thomas, followed by the pledge by Commissioner Marshall. Bow your heads, please. Heavenly Father, we come to you this evening, Father, thanking you for your many blessings to this city. Father, we come with heavy hearts about the young man that was shot today. Father, please comfort that family, those children, and Father, please just have us come to some solution to all of that madness. And Father, we ask that you bless this city. Father, bless the the council, the commissions, all of the committees working within this city and give us a mind toward serving you and doing good for our fellow man. In Jesus name I pray. Amen. Okay. Uh, I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Next up, I'll open up the uh general public comment section. This is the time that uh anyone could speak to the commission on items that are not on tonight's agenda. Do we have any cards for public comment? Speakers,

we have no cards for general public comment. Is there anyone here that would like to speak to us tonight for just general public comment? Okay, seeing no one, I will close the general public comments hearing. And that moves us on to uh item uh item number one. If we could have the staff report, please. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Associate Plan planner Mia Morgan authored this staff report and he will be preparing presenting this.

Thank you, Mr. Hodiki. Uh good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of planning commission, item one is plan case number PLN24-000017 is a site plan and a conditional use permit with an environmental exemption to allow for the development of church on two vacant parcels totaling approximately 29,000 square ft and zoned C1 commercial neighborhood service located at 15518 Village Drive. As proposed, the applicant is requesting approval to develop a church on 29,000 foot project site. The de the development will include a 3,664t church featuring a small assembly area, one classroom, an office, and related site and street improvements. The proposed development is planned to be completed in a single phase. This will include the construction of the church parking lot area, landscaping, sight lighting, and driveways in including a shared access driveway south of the property. Since the proposed the proposed church will occupy two separate vacant parcels, including parking area, landscaping, and both on-site and off-site improvements, a condition of approval has been added to require um the merger of these parcels into a single lot. Side access will be provided through two driveways. The primary access along Calgo Lane and a secondary shared driveway at the south southeast corner with the existing adjacent development. Landscaping is proposed throughout the site, including the entrances, parking lot, and along the building's frontage. This project requires a minimum of 29 parking spaces and a total of 33 parking spaces have been provided resulting in a surplus of four spaces which exceeds the minimum code requirement. The architectural design of the church aligns with the city's commercial design

guidelines and complements both the site and the surrounding area. The proposed uh church features modern architectural elements with standing seam roof, smooth finish stuckle, stone veneer accents, window trims, um tower element with varying heights and depth and stained glass doors and windows. As conditioned, the proposal meets the requirements of the C1 commercial neighborhood service outlined in title 16 of the development code, including site design, entryway design, landscaping, building design, and architectural treatment. With that, staff recommends that the planning commission conduct a public hearing, receive testimony regarding the proposed project, and take the following action. Find the project categorically exempt under section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act. Adopt resolution number P-25-022 approving the conditional use permit portion of case number PLN24-000017 and adopt resolution number P-25-023 approving the site plan portion of case number PLN24-000017 subject to that dash conditions of approval and that concludes my presentation. I'm available for any questions. Thank you. Thank you. Uh are there any questions from commission for uh regarding that staff report? Okay, seeing no one none. Thank you. Um I will uh open up the public hearing. Do we have any speaker cards for item number one?

We do. Our first speaker is Michael Bates. Welcome.

Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Michael Bates. I'm here. I'm representing the property owner for this project. And I just want to state that I appreciate all of the support that we received from from staff and thank you for for working with us. And uh we are definitely in agreement with staff's recommendation. We also agree with the fact that this new project is fits within the general plan and is a benefit to the community um overall. I just want to thank you all for your time.

Thank thank you for your comments. Our next speaker is T. Hello.

Well, good afternoon to the chair, distinguished members of the city council of our city of Victorville. I'm a proud uh residents of city of Victorville. Uh I stand before you all today because of the project that uh my good friends here has just uh put forth. Uh we have been trying to build this church for the last 12 years. And finally, uh, we were able to go to hopefully in the dugout, be prepared to go to bed, uh, and start our project. Uh, I'm a retired Marine. I served 30 years. I figured that after 30 years in the Marine Corps, I would like to serve our God for the rest of my life. Uh, I am for this project. It is our project. And, uh, I know there's nobody here from the neighborhood. I was gonna to to say to them, welcome. This is our church. Uh it's not just my church. It's God's church and you all can come and visit us. And I'm ecstatic uh standing before you all today. And uh I'm hoping that uh that you all can can approve this thing so we can move forth. And I want to thank you all of those who all of you guys who are here uh listening to my craziness and hopefully good things will come after it. Thank you very much. It's an honor to be here.

Thank you. There are no additional speakers. Okay. And with that, I will close the public hearing and agenda item number one. I'll bring it back to the commission for a determination. I'll make a motion. I'll make a motion to adopt a uh agenda item number one. Um according to staff recommendations. I second. I have a first by Commissioner Marsh and a second by Commissioner Thomas. I'll take a roll call vote. Commissioner Marsh. Yes. Commissioner Marshall. Hi. Commissioner Thomas. Yes,

Vice Chair Messen. Yes, Chair Kerr. Yes. Motion passes unanimously. Congratulations there. Good luck with your future project. That must that moves us on to agenda item number two. It looks like there's a request for continuence. However, I'll ask staff if they have any more uh further information on this item before we move forward.

Yes. Uh thank you, chair. Um, chairman, fellow commissioners, item number two is uh continuence request for plan case PL24-000024 uh which is a site plan with an addendum to a previously certified EIR to allow for the development of a multi-tenant commercial retail center, a conditional use permit to allow for the development of a car wash, a conditional use permit to allow for the development of a fuel station, and a conditional use permit uh for off-site alcohol sales on an undeveloped 30acre for project site zone civic commercial uh within the city's uh civic center commercial, excuse me, civic center uh community sustainability plan. Um the project is an expansion uh to the existing Desert Sky Plaza commercial shopping center. It's currently anchored by Home Depot. Uh the expansion is comprised of 11 new commercial buildings totaling approximately 311,000 square feet uh of which 148,000 uh square feet of the development is slated to be a target retail store. Uh the remainder of the approximately 162,000 square feet uh is to be developed for various retail, restaurant, and service uses. Uh the development will include three major retail units uh three restaurants with drive-through service. uh four pad buildings, a car wash, a banqu with drive-thru, and a fuel station with a convenience store. Uh as noted in the late edition memo presented to the commission this evening, uh the applicant has requested a continuence of this item to the next available planning commission meeting uh which is uh currently scheduled for October 8th of 2025. Uh this continuence has uh uh been requested to afford the applicant and the team additional time uh to evaluate the conditions of approval and uh more specifically the conditions pertaining to the annexation into the city's CFD. Uh staff supports the applicant's request and recommends the planning commission conduct a public hearing. Uh

receive testimony regarding the proposed project and leave the public hearing open and continue this item to the October 8th, 2025 planning commission meeting. U staff and the project's applicant are available should the planning commission have any questions. Thank you. Um any questions for staff? I do have quite a few questions, but I they can wait until if it's continued. Thank you. Okay. Yeah. Um even though this is a request for a continuence, this is an agendaized item. So, I will go ahead and open up the public hearing for testimony. Do we have any speaker cards? We do not.

Okay. Oh, we do have one individual. If you could uh give us your name and any information, please. your name and

good afternoon commissioners. My name is Greg Jwan from Ry Properties here on behalf of the applicant. Uh first I just like to say thank you to the staff. They they've been working really hard with us and trying to get uh this project forward and to this point and uh bealf of the development team and the ownership. It's greatly appreciated for all your efforts. Um, as uh Travis had mentioned that we are requesting a continuence until the October 8th planning commission meets so that we can better basically work with our tenants on the CFD issue so they can better understand it and approve it with uh as tenants in our shopping center. So Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. And if there's uh no one else, then I will um I'll close the public uh uh nope, I'll leave the public hearing open and then I'll make a motion um to continue this item to the October 8th, 2025 planning commission meeting. I second. I have a first by Chair Kurt and a second by Commissioner Thomas. I'll take a roll call vote. Commissioner Marsh, yes. Commissioner Marshall, I. Commissioner Thomas, I. Vice Chair Messen, yes. Chair Kurt, yes. Motion passes unanimously.

Thank you. Moves us on to number three, which is also a request uh for continuence as well. Um staff, please. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senior planner Daisy Kawasaki is author of this item and she can provide an update as to the continuence request.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the commission. Item number three is a proposed code amendment to the Victorville Municipal Code that introduces new and updated land use allowances and development standards related to statemandated housing types along with provisions for associated ministerial map approvals. At this time, staff is continuing to work through revisions to the draft resolution included in tonight's agenda. Um, in coordination with the city attorney, adjustments are being made to ensure the document complies with applicable state housing laws and is legally defensible should it be adopted. These revisions are focused on improving clarity, correcting formatting, and grammatical insistent inconsistencies and ensuring that the proposed policy framework supports compliance with the state mandates while preserving the city's development goals and neighborhood character to the extent allowed by law. Staff anticip ates that the revised resolution will be ready for presentation at the planning commission's next scheduled hearing on October 8th. Therefore, staff recommends that the planning commission conduct a public hearing, receive testimony regarding the proposed project, and continue this item to the October 8th, 2025 planning commission meeting.

Thank you very much. Are there any questions from the commission? Okay, thank you. Then I will open up the uh public hearing on item number three. Do we have any speaker cards? We do not. Anyone here to speak to us on item number three? Seeing no one no one. I will leave the public hearing open. I'll make the motion to continue this item number three. Second to the October 8th, 2024 planning commission meeting. Sorry. Second. We got it. I have a first by Chair Kurt and a second by Commissioner Marshall. I'll take a roll call vote. Commissioner Marsh. Yes. Commissioner Marshall, I. Commissioner Thomas, hi. Vice Chair Messen, yes. Chair Kurt,

yes. And did I did I read that as October 24th? If I did, uh, 2024, because that's what was written here. I I would like to amend that to 2025. Just technicality. Thank you. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. That moves us on to uh item um number four, staff introduction, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the commission, agenda item number four is a discussion item uh regarding single family residential wall and fencing standards for new track developments within the city of Victorville. As the planning commission uh may recall, representatives from the building industry association or BIA uh made a request at the planning commission's August 13, 2025 meeting uh to consider the initiation of a pilot program that would allow for the installation of vinyl fencing within uh new single family residential track development as opposed to masonary block wall standards that have been required in the city of Victorville since 2007. Um before uh I turn it over to the BIA representative to provide his presentation, I think it warrants a little history on the city's um uh requirements for block walls. Uh since uh 2000 January 2007, uh the city of Victorville has required masonry block walls along all interior side and rear property lines uh within single family subdivisions. Uh subsequently in 2011, ordinance number 2266 was adopted by the city council which affirmed the city's block wall standards as they exist today. And essentially this is all single family developments in R1 districts or single family residential districts. When there is two or more units by a single developer being prepared or approved for uh developed for approval, they're required to install perimeter block walls um of the entire subdivision and within interior property lines. career inside lot lines between the homes. Um in 2021, the planning commission and city council uh received a similar request from BIA uh to allow vinyl fence options in lie of the masonry block wall standards that we currently have. This resulted in no action uh by either of those bodies. Subsequently in 2022, the planning commission again reviewed the BIA's request um to allow for vinyl fencing options, voting 40 to maintain

the city's current standards requiring masonary block walls. Uh common themes discussed at these meetings by the planning commission and the city council revolved around aesthetics, strength, durability, longevity, safety, security, and maintenance of the block walls as compared to vinyl fencing options. Uh it's also important to note that um the city currently does allow vinyl fencing in certain limited installations. Uh specifically planned unit development zoning or specific plan zoning can request vital fencing in lie of masonry block walls as part of that overall development plan. So there is an option to allow for that in our code as it stands today. Uh currently since this was last reviewed by the planning commission in the three years of 2022 through 2024, the city uh Victorville has entitled over 1,600 single family homes and approximately 1,600 single family homes have been completed uh within the city of Victorville. Uh comparable cities in the city of Victorville such as our neighbor to the south, Hesperia, Lancaster, Fontana, and Rialto all have similar block wall standards as the city of Victorville. uh specifically with regards to block walls and interior lot lines. Um, additionally, I would note that uh single family home development in the city of Victorville continues to outpace our neighbors uh in neighboring communities. That's noted in the staff report with a sampling of uh uh communities in the region uh taken from our um annual progress report submitted to the housing and community development annually. And lastly, staff would note that um we continually try to address affordable housing options within the city of Victorville. Um recently the planning commission and city council adopted overlay districts within the general plan and zoning ordinance that allows uh increased density for single family developments. It uh streamlined requirements for PUD uh developments within the that core area of the city, the infill overlay district. And we also

increased dwelling unit densities for most of the multif family districts within the city uh in an effort to address our arena requirements or regional housing needs assessment. Um so with that I haven't provided a recommendation for the planning commission at this time. Uh no action is required to maintain the current municipal code wall and fence standards as they exist today. Uh and with that being said, I will turn it over to Carlos Rodriguez with the BIA who has a presentation available for the PL. Okay. And before we uh get into that um thank you for the initial presentation. Are there any initial questions from staff for the staff um also uh before we get too deep into this I do would like to take care of any kind of disclosures exparte disclosures? I I have a feeling some of us uh went out and met the um the applicant the BIA and some of the building uh members on site. So I'd like to say that I did attend that meeting. um they were kind enough to just show me basically uh the information that we have in our um staff report um tonight and there was no uh talk of of decision making at at that time. Does anybody else would like to disclose that they did the same?

I also would like to disclose the same um similar to the chair nothing was disclosed of any type of decision- making um but was able to see the location. I visited the site also. That was really about it. Same here. Uh factf finding, no decision. And lastly, I I uh visited the site as well. Excuse me. No uh decision making was tal talked about uh just showing us the product. Okay. Thank you. And with that, um we're welcome to uh give us your presentation. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair K. and honorable commissioners Carlos Rodriguez. I serve as a chief policy officer with the Building Industry Association of Southern California. It's good to see you all here uh this evening. Uh we respectfully request uh this uh evening that the planning care commission uh direct staff to bring forward a a code amendment uh for your October meeting to permit the limited use of vinyl fencing within track boundaries specifically for sideyard and rear yard fencing as part of a 24month pilot program. We see this in part as a step forward toward uh not only addressing uh good planning uh that is uh the preeminent approach throughout Southern California and to have the city of Victorville in alignment with that good planning, but also in practice to do everything possible in alignment with good planning uh to address the goals of the housing element in particular uh the REA obligations that have been put forth to the city uh and to uh remove any unintentional barriers uh to attainable housing which unfortunately uh the current uh requirements uh do pose that uh challenge for many of those who would be aspiring homeowners in the great city of Victorville. So what we wanted to highlight today in our in our presentation, I'll just give a quick uh uh preview. Uh this program uh would not eliminate uh block walls for new communities. Uh block walls would still be required along the perimeter uh of the community, street facing walls and front yard returns. Uh it's a narrow uh targeted code change focus on flexibility and good planning. And again, it would be a pilot program and

only temporary for 24 months to allow you for uh additional consideration. Vinyl fencing again is the industry standard for residential communities across Southern California. Uh respectfully, City of Victorville and a few others that were highlighted today are the exception to the rule and we would like to have the opportunity absent uh the PUB uh options to pursue this pilot across all residential development in your great city. Uh this would be uh the same type of vinyl fencing u but also enhanced. Uh the the typical type of vinyl fencing uh would be uh available in homes throughout Southern California in uh price ranges up upwards of $2 million. Uh so again, we're not wanting to cut corners at all. We want to bring great quality uh to in alignment with great planning for your consideration. We propose an enhanced hybrid product uh with steel reinforced posts, concrete footings, and a strength to withstand winds upwards to 95 miles an hour. It also includes UV protections, weathering performance, and will not rust, rot, splinter, or require painting. Uh it'll also ensure a long-term aesthetic appeal and low maintenance for homeowners. This product carries a 20-year warranty and includes a metal barrier of galvanized steel uh 8 in underground to prevent pets from digging out uh and also enhancing any public safety concerns that were previously addressed in years gone by. From a planning perspective, again, this proposal allows the city to test a high quality, proven product over decades while maintaining community design standards. From a housing perspective as well, it can reduce construction costs by upwards of $13,000

per home. And this is an important distinction because it gives the home building industry greater flexibility to reinvest those savings and incentives and improve affordability and help more families achieve home ownership in Victorville. We believe this pilot program, it's innovative, balanced approach. It maintains visual consistency, enhances durability, improves homeowner satisfaction, and supports the city's goals of increasing attainable housing. We respectfully request your support to direct staff to bring back a code amendment for your consideration in October. and we have a brief uh presentation prepared with further details and look forward to answering any questions. We do appreciate uh the time that you you took to to come out and look at the product. It would be hard for us to bring the vinyl fence here. So appreciate uh that opportunity to provide you information. Uh, and also I' I'd be remiss before I turn it over to Jennifer Chong with Pacific Communities to lead our presentation uh to thank Chair Kurt for your years of distinguished service as I understand tonight is your your last meeting. So, thank you again for your your service and we appreciate that and your consideration collectively. Thank you. And I'll turn it over to Jennifer Chum. Thanks.

Don't break your your screen here. Start it. Okay. Oh. Okay, I'm just going through the whole thing. If I could go backwards. Tada. It's all done. Yeah. Okay. Sorry. Uh, thanks again for letting us present tonight. Um, as you know, we're presenting the proposed final fence pilot program. It's a program specifically designed um in response to feedback from staff council and plan and this planning commission from the a few years ago. Let's see. Um vinyl fencing has been widely used throughout Southern California for decades and with good reason. It's durable, able to withstand the elements with long warranties. It's consumerfriendly, easy to maintain, repair, and customize. It's the industry standard for the residential fencing in much of the region. And importantly, as Carlos touched on, it's affordable, lowering costs, and helping us make home ownership more attainable. We know that the concerns have been raised in Victorville regarding strength, durability, wind, and animal control. In response, our builders together with our vendor partners have upgraded the product specifically for Victorville. This is not your offtheshelf vinyl fence. It is engineered to meet your concerns. First, we've added structural metal inserts inside the posts, the top rail, and the bottom rail. This reinforcement allows the fencing to withstand winds of 95 miles hour or more. Here you go. Second, we've increased rigidity by narrowing panel widths from 8 feet to

six feet on center and deepening footings. This reduces the flex and ensures stronger structural performance. Third, we've introduced a solution unique to Victorville, a galvanized metal barrier below grade. It's invisible above ground but extends 8 in deep to prevent pets from digging under fences and escaping. It's important to note all public facing walls remain block construction. Perimeter walls, front yard returns, and end of street sideyard walls remain block. Final fencing will only be used in sideyards and rear yards within the tracks. And this ensures consistency where the community sees it the most. Here you can see how vinyl fencing is applied within a track limited to non-public frontages. As you can see, the block walls shown in blue are still in all public facing areas. The perimeter, the house returns, and the end lots. These next slides highlight real life examples of the application we are proposing here in Victorville. This community in Lancaster, Pacific Lily, uses vinyl fencing successfully for rear and sideyards with block walls still used at all public facing frontages. This is what you can expect to see in a new community. Similarly, these homes in Pacific Crest in Hisperia show how vinyl can be used in tracks while maintaining a high quality appearance. From the front, you see the blocks block returns with the vinyl gates. And from the rear, you can see that the rear and sideyards have vinyl and how that would look in your community. These photos demonstrate what residents in Victorville could expect. Durable, attractive, and consistent fencing that blends seamlessly with block perimeters.

As you can see, vinyl fencing is already the industry standard across Southern California. Cities like Palmdale, Ontario, Rancho Cukamonga, Riverside, and San Bernardino among many others have embraced this solution, proving its durability and community acceptance. Victorville has the opportunity to adopt a stronger, enhanced version that has been designed specifically for local conditions. At this time, I'd like to introduce Tim Roberts with LGI, who will walk us through the remaining slides. Good evening, commissioners. Uh, good news is we only have one slide left, so it won't be long. Uh, Tim Roberts with LGI Homes. LGI is a publicly traded home builder based in Houston, Texas. And when we came to Southern California, we planted our flag right here in Victorville in 2019. Uh, we are three closings away from closing out our Desert Willow Village project, which is 265 of the units that was mentioned that have been built in the last several years. Uh several years ago we were doing six to eight sales and closings per month. Uh towards the end of the project we were down to about two struggling to get three closings per month. And that all comes to the affordability side of things. Uh we believe that Jennifer has just presented a a very strong product that meets the concerns uh of of vinyl fencing. Um we believe it's good community planning and it's been demonstrated throughout other cities uh in throughout Southern California. Outside of it be it being good community planning, we can't ignore the fact that it's built upon economics of affordability and home ownership. Uh, as Jennifer mentioned, the the prototype that we're looking at now is is an enhanced version of vinyl fence, but we believe that that even at that enhanced version, this product will save 6 to$13,000 per home in construction cost to builders. us builders, as we struggle to get more and more homeowners into their homes, that the obstacle we face is

affordability. Mortgage rates, as you all know, are stubbornly high. Um, land values aren't going down, uh, despite uh, despite what we wish. Uh, these type of savings allow us builders to find more and more creative ways to get more people into homes. We want to get back to selling six to eight homes per month per community instead of the two. Those savings allow us to buy down rates to more affordable, you know, 3% three or four percent uh five and a quarter. Those type programs are commonly being uh offered through public home builders. Uh allows us to give more incentives and more cover more closing costs. Uh and it also allows us to lower sales price. Uh so with those considerations, we believe that the planning side of things are good, but we don't believe that we can ignore the economics and we ask for your consideration uh for good planning to allow us to uh continue over the next couple years to demonstrate the quality of that product while we get more and more homeowners into this great city. And with that, I believe we have one more slide. Oh, I've got the clicker, don't I? I apologize. Yeah, I think uh staff has has presented the fact that uh a do nothing approach will allow the current code to stay in place, but we're requesting the commission uh to advance this one further step uh without necessarily maybe making a commitment, but we're asking the commission to recommend to staff uh a red line to city code for your consideration at next month's meeting. At that time, you would have a chance to review that code and make a firm a final decision on this program. And with that, I think we can take any questions.

Uh, yeah, the public hearing is open now. Um, does the commission have any uh questions based on this um presentation that they kindly just gave us? I have um I have one quick question. Uh when I was there visiting the site, you showed two different uh examples of the uh uh I think it was like the well the the dog barrier. Yeah, the dog barrier you uh there was like a mesh and the wire wire mesh and then you had the solid steel. So, you've done away with the wire mesh and just going to use the solid steel.

Yeah, if I if I may, uh this product is a solution that that us with uh with the industry vendors uh have been brainstorming to address the concerns that were raised a couple years ago. Uh we don't know of any other uh cities or towns in Southern California that do this. So, it was a progression of of ideas uh for that dog barrier. The mesh was the first idea that came along and I think as we put more thought to it as different purchasing members and and we worked with vendors uh put more ideas to it. We we believe that the the solid metal, the galvanized steel is is a better product. And so, we've we've advanced that as our proposed detail, but welcome any any consideration or discussions with with the commission or with staff on on solutions for pet barriers.

All right. Thank you. on the question in regarding the barrier at the bottom. Is that information that would eventually be disclosed to the owner who buys the home? So, should they have a dog that dicks and they see that there, they know what it is. Do you know that? I If you don't know that, it's fine. I'm just curious. I I certainly hadn't contemplated that, but we do draft disclosures unique to each community. So, if that's a recommendation of of the city, we can certainly do that. Thank you.

Yeah. as a pilot program, how would we monitor how well the uh construction, you know, is on on the uh panels and so forth? 24 months is two years, not a lot of time to look at it, but would there be some monitoring or reporting back as to uh how well they've held up?

Yeah, Jennifer, you want to take this or I want to take it? Well, in terms of with this regard to this product, I think Rick might be able to speak better because he's from Greenfield, one of our vendors, but of the 30 years that we've been using this product, uh, we've never had any customer complaints. Um, no customer service issues. So, we feel pretty strongly about the product that we're using. And it's there's a few large, I think, uh, manufacturers of this product. And so it's not that we're just grabbing it from Home Depot or another or a small vendor. These are all nationwide manu manufacturers of this product. Um and I don't know if Rick wants to speak to it a little bit, but um if you have further questions about the product itself, um he's here to answer questions. If I could add to that, uh, we believe that this product will stand the test of time that that the commissioners and and the city will u will will grow to have confidence with this product. We've proposed it as a 24-month program just to take a smaller bite at the apple uh to give a chance for us to prove that to you. Uh 24 months, we expect at the end of that 24 months, we'll be back in front of you and asking for uh an extension or or making it permanent. But we did take that 24 months just as a smaller bite to allow you to see some real world examples instead of one six foot panel to see in a few a few neighborhoods. Uh, of course you have the chance at that point to have homeowners who have moved in. So you'll have new constituents who have who have uh have that in their rear yards. Um, but that's ultimately the the the cause for the 24 months is just to make it not as big of a commitment for the commission to consider. Uh we welcome any opportunities to uh at the recommendation of of uh the commission or staff to come back and and annually meet back with you and and give you updates or or you know semiannually or anything else. We'd welcome the

opportunities to prove the the the durability and the quality uh and homeowner satisfaction to you during that 24-month period.

Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Uh yes.

I I would just say in closing, California homes are among the most uh resilient uh water efficient and energy efficient in the nation. Uh we're very proud as an industry to to build uh arguably the best homes housing stock in the nation. Uh part in alignment with that is again uh having the type of fencing uh that we're proposing uh today. Uh in addition, it's an enhancement as well. We uh again would appreciate your consideration for uh this uh trial opportunity. Uh again, it is in alignment with uh most of Southern California. Uh and again uh we'd be remiss if we didn't highlight uh this is in our view one part of a a good step forward to removing uh barriers to housing attainability as we are still in housing actually a dire housing shortage uh that is not Victorville centric by any means. Uh it's across the high desert Sanino County Southern California and the Golden State. And so uh these types of uh lowhanging fruit good policy opportunities are uh really the type of solutions that uh enable us to do everything we possibly can to ensure there are opportunities to have not only the h the the most outstanding housing stock in Victorville uh but also attainable. So thank you for your consideration and we appreciate any questions that you might have. We're glad to take that. Thank you.

Thank you.

Do we have uh any uh speaker cards? We do not.

Does anyone else here like to speak to us on item number four? Seeing no one, I'm going to um close the public hearing and then I'm going to bring it back to the commission. I'm curious to hear any thoughts uh concerns, etc. from uh the commission uh members on this item. Uh chair, I have a question for staff actually. Uh given that it's a 24-month pilot program, how would that work with recently approved developments? Would it apply to that? Would it not? Would it be something new that comes through? How how does staff see the pilot program in that sense?

Uh thank you, Commissioner Messen. I think that um the first step in this process as noted in the staff report should the planning commission make a consideration here. We actually before we can draft the code amendment, the planning commission has to formally resolve a resolution to direct staff to initiate that code amendment. So the October 8th meeting wouldn't be a meeting where we could actually consider something our code not in the staff report is section 16-2.01.02. Um they would if the planning commission were to direct staff to draft such a resolution um I would anticipate that there would be uh parameters that the planning commission would set in terms of items like that. Um which would then uh initiate the code amendment process and initiate staff to draft something that would clarify things such as you noted. But but any action does first require um the planning commission to direct staff to first draft the resolution just to initiate the amendment process without drafting the code itself. Um should that be considered?

I had I had a similar question um even though I won't be here for that um to look at that resolution. Um when that does happen, looking further out, assuming the commission uh tonight directed to take a look at a draft, assuming that went through, um at the 24 months of the pilot, at the 24-month point, um would you know, I I'm assuming the city would be looking um at how things uh went through um code any possible code complaints and would it be like things like animal control where they can look back and say, "Hey, we're seeing less, we're seeing more code enforcement notice that there are fence issues or non-fense issues. Is that kind of what would the city would be looking at at that time?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Absolutely. If that were something that we were um directed to do, we would take into account all those different types of types of items, security features, whether it be complaints with animals, um we would look at durability. Obviously, um masonry wall doesn't burn, but vinyl does. So, we would look at if there was any fires, where there was any security issues or safety issues with regards to things like that. Um, I I know there was a noted warranty. I don't know that warranties require installation of panels. I believe typically, and from our historical research on these items when they were presented before, the warranties cover the material and they stick with the first homeowner. Um, so they don't necessarily uh change hands with homeowners. And typically, it's again the material that's warrantied for that period of time, not the installation. Um, so I believe homeowners in homes are still on the hook at some level to um to install those panels even if they are under warranty and and take that cost whereas that's not an issue with a with a block wall. Um, those are types of things we would look at. would be all inclusive if we were directed to do such to really give the planning commission and the city council the best gauge of of all those concerns and notes that were were raised with regards to aesthetics, durability, safety, security, um so on and so forth that were discussed throughout previous uh attempts to adjust our code which ultimately were not did not proceed. One more on that on that same similar note in that same scenario but at the point of the building of the of the fence of the home. Um I assume it would be um it would be included in the building department's um final inspection. Uh when it comes to the underground metal inserts under these fences which will be under the dirt, the building department would during final verify that that that is there and built correctly

according to plan.

Uh yes, correct. If there was a plan that showed something installed in conjunction with the footing, a footing inspection of such wall would would ensure that all the materials are there per questions. Ju just one yesterday and uh yesterday I guess day before when we uh when I met with uh you I asked a question about all the builders coming in uh that would be using this uh vinyl fencing. Would they be using the same product, the uh 8 foot uh with the uh the metal uh on on the bottom two feet but buried below? Would they all have to use that? Okay,

I'll open the public hearing back up again. That's okay. uh happy to address that question. As it was mentioned uh by Alex, I think it would be the direction of the commission to staff to uh to draft as they would. But I think what we are we are intentionally being very specific and providing a an engineered detailed drawing that could be adopted as the city standard that goes with that vinyl fencing. So it could be the only thing allowed would be something like that. the reinforced metal inserts, the cross brace, the deepen footings, the six foot span. Uh if that's the detail that that we hope that we have uh sought, we hope that we've addressed all previous concerns in the years past, that standard could be adopted in the final fence uh ordinance to make that the only thing that's allowed. So, and no other builders could come in and do something different.

That would be all all new construction,

correct? I kind of have one. It's kind of a just for my clarification that um that galvanized dog barrier is buried and it's attached it's is attached to the post, right? So it's not just like buried separately and loose to where if I was the owner and I didn't want it there, I can just dig it up. So I mean it's attached to the actual fence post. as it's currently as the prototypes that you guys call came out and saw it that was not currently attached to the fence post. It's uh we went to that away from the mesh uh because it is buried and back filled around it to where it's rigid into the ground and it doesn't require screws or anything that makes an attachment to the fence panel. Um certainly uh any homeowner has the ability to to take anything down including vinyl fence posts or masonry block walls or anything else. Obviously different things are more difficult but we don't believe that would be very easy to dig up and remove but certainly to be honest yeah somebody could do that if they wish to do that.

So it so it wouldn't just naturally loosen up over time or I mean maybe we don't believe that 8 in deep is going to naturally loosen up. We we we uh throughout the process we again experimented with different solutions. At one point we were at I think maybe five inches or six inches and we deepened it to eight inches to kind of address that more permanent aspect to it. It's it's steep underground. Folks don't typically dig that deep right around and again this is directly under the fence. Uh so they would be digging with hand tools if they want to get that thing out. Thank you Mr. Chair. May

I think it's also important to note that's that's between a span of six feet on their posts whereas our current standard with a masonry wall has a continuous footing. So a continuous concrete footing with iron rebar across the entire span of the wall is our current standard under our current code. So although it is an attempt to address some concerns that were raised previously with re regards to dogs digging and animals, it still is in my opinion inferior to what our current standard is. If you're looking at that aspect of the footing, it doesn't compare to a continuous concrete foot

just just for my information, how how deep is the so with the the current mason walls, like how deep is the uh the current concrete footing? Like how deep does it go? Um, thank you. Thank you, Travis Clark. Mr. Clark, 12 in is our typical.

Yes. Sure. If I if I may speak on behalf of my colleagues, uh, the dog barrier is a work in progress to to address the dog concerns. Uh, as I mentioned, no other cities in Southern California have this concern. Uh, if the depth of the galvanized steel, uh, the rigidity of it, um, if the, uh, comparison to a structural engineered footing of a masonary block wall is the comparison. There are other options we can propose. Uh, one idea that has been discussed with with our various vendors is instead of a sheet metal, we can just shoot concrete. We can just dig a continuous trench through there and fill it with concrete. Uh, I don't know that that I don't personally know that that adds any value. But if if it's to address the concerns of somebody removing that sheet metal or if there's concerns of comparison to a structurally engineered footing of a masonry block, well, we can certainly entertain uh continue to progress ideas with the with the recommendation of the commission, including filling a a slot trench from footing from reinforced footing to reinforced footing with concrete. Yes,

on on that on that uh subject uh as far as cost. So what would be the difference? I mean because right now you're talking about 6 to 13,000 savings or you know potential savings. So if you did a concrete continuous concrete barrier, would what would be the would it cut into the savings by a lot or would it extend it or so that range from 6 to 13 when when we first started this discussion it was more like 13. If we did the same final detail that's that's acceptable throughout Southern California where we were in the kind of a $13,000 range. As we continue to add components to address concerns that savings comes down. Um, I don't believe in in our preliminary discussions with our purchasing managers that the concrete would add much cost to much cost different than the sheet metal. We think it's be about the same. So, I don't think we would change our range. It's probably still 16 6,000 to 13,000 savings. We don't believe that the concrete would be cost much different than the sheet metal insert. Is that fair? Yeah. Um just to to that point um are there other cities that require uh the concrete as as a base for vinyl or that you know of?

Yeah, we don't know of any other city that requires that. the the and this is this is not natively to your question but to add a little more color that the mesh the first prototype that you you you saw uh was our first questioning of of the fence vendors the contractors who install this and this is a product that I was told is put in in some places like Santa Clarita where you're up against the hillside and you've got snakes and you've got rodents that come into rear yards. uh that mesh was a product that was designed to kind of solve uh that you know critters uh coming in not necessarily dogs getting out but it was like okay well that's that's something and so let's build that first pro prototype and start looking at that so again I guess what what I'd like to reinforce is our flexibility to work with uh any other ideas that come out if there are concerns we are flexible to to address those we want to find a solution but we are uh we're innovating here in the city of Victorville there's no other cities that we're aware of that of uh these concerns that we're trying to address.

Thank you. I have a question for staff. So, if we were to direct staff to draft the resolution in that, could we ask to have comparisons of what we currently have um the pilot program they're offering and durability, lifelong, um I I guess how long it it will last, it it holds to wind, fire. Is that something that we would be able to do in that resolution?

Thank you, Commissioner Mson. Um that would be absolutely something that that within that resolution you could direct staff to look into those types of of concerns um and look to set standards and parameters and anything that came back before you for consideration of an actual code amendment. Um it's it's it's somewhat of a of a double-edged sword in terms of timing. Two years is is a very short time in the life of a wall.

Um I don't know that that's an applesto apples comparison. Um the the other side to that is the longer a pilot program goes on, the more alternate materials, alternative materials you have installed, um and taking into account the thousands of lots we've approved and developed since 2007 that have built to this standard, it becomes kind of a again a two-edged sword there. have to consider the length of the pilot program. Um how many homes could potentially be built um and then compare that to the amount of homes that have been built under the current standard who have developed. Um developers are aware of this from the prese stage before a tract has even been approved by the planning commission in its in its mapped out form. These these standards are written in our presubmitt stage from the very beginning. Um to our knowledge and and when we look at the data, this hasn't slowed down our housing development. Um understanding there's benefits to the development community and changing the the standards, but the data that we see hasn't stopped us from being a leader in housing development in the city of Victorville. Um we if it was something the commission considered another alternative that they could direct staff to um research is applicability. Uh perhaps if that was something that when we came back, if that's the direction that we received tonight, um there's alternatives where maybe it's not all new development, perhaps it's only applicable to half-built tracks that already had um perimeter block walls and wood uh side fences in lie of all new development. Um meaning new tracks could um that are brand new that haven't been developed at all would maintain our current standard as tracks have since 2007. but tracks that were half built that kind of got stuck in the recession that maybe they had perimeter walls and they had wood wood fences between property lines or rear yards which we do have a number of

in the city. Um perhaps there's options there to as a middle ground to allow that pilot program u for us to address options such as that in lie of every everything. But those are all things that depending on planning commission direction and staff if we are to come back with something um those are all standards and opport options we could provide you that then could be incorporated into an ordinance that subsequently directs us I'm sorry a resolution that subsequently directs us to draft something to um the liking of the planning commission.

Thank you. Okay. Well, my my thoughts on it, you know, when when we addressed this the last time, my concerns were just the the flexibility of the fence. I really didn't I I really didn't have a lot of evidence about dogs getting under and things like that, but it was the it was some fences that I've seen in my experience, existing fences, that when you pull on them, they go like this. And when we went out on that site, they had me pull on it and it didn't move. And they showed me the cutout that it has uh the structural reinforcements of steel. And then um the the fact that the panels are closer together at six feet, obviously engineering wise, that's going to be a tighter tighter, more solid feel. And then of course, you know, the underground inserts uh that that doesn't hurt. So, I I would lean towards still looking at a uh just a draft uh code amendment with, you know, the commission at that point being able to discuss what some of you commissioners have brought up some very good points tonight to to look at it. So, it may it may be a little bit of a growing document, but I wouldn't mind getting it started. Um but I'm going to let um one of my fellow commissioners uh make a motion. Um, I'll make the motion to direct staff to draft a resolution that would provide um options for what a potential pilot program could look like. Um, in addition including comparisons to our current standards. Is that how does that sound to the

and to staff? I don't know if that's clear. Is that is that Thank you, Mr. Chair. If if we could add to that language that that drafts a resolution to formally initiate the code and amendment process that considers the options you noted. Yes. Because we need the resolution first, right? That that draft resolution if if then adopted would then direct staff to further initiate and draft Yes. the code text. Okay. And I'll second that. I have a first by Vice Chair Messen and a second by Chair Kurt. I'll take a roll call vote. Commissioner Marsh,

yes. Commissioner Marshall, I. Commissioner Thomas, yes. Vice Chair Messen, yes. Chair Kurt, yes. Motion passes unanimously. Okay. Thank you all. And and it's understood that it'll be coming back and there'll be a resolution and overtime. Okay. Thank you. Um that brings us to uh item uh number five, staff report, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh item number five is a discussion of planning commission rules and the city council requested inclusion of provisions that address code of conduct and standards related to administrative procedures, communication protocols, and conflict of interest. Um at the May 20th, 2025 city council meeting, the council took action directing staff to work with respective boards and commiss commissions such as the planning commission to develop their own code of conduct tailored to their specific functions. Specifically, this direction was to address administrative procedures, communication protocols, and conflict of interest standards. Uh, while the PC maintains planning commission rules that generally ensure compliance with applicable laws governing meetings and hearings, the adopted rules do not address code of conduct topics outside of meetings, such as communication protocols and conflict of interest standards. Um, in order to address the directive of the city council, city staff has identified resources such as city council policies and procedures manual and the city council policy number CP-9-04 entitled ethics and anti-fraud policy that could be utilized as a model for an update to the planning commission rules. Those are attached to the staff report for your review. Um based on that and in order to address the directive of the city council, uh staff on this item recommends that the planning commission direct staff to update uh to draft an update to the adopted planning commission rules to address code of conduct and standards related to administrative procedures, communication protocols, and conflict of interest in accordance with city council direction for consideration at a future planning commission meeting. And although not part of the recommendation, I would note that that process would include consultation with our city clerk's office and our city attorney's office to ensure that any such proposal to the planning commission is in accordance

with council directives and state law. Staff is available for any questions you may have. Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions on um how you all are supposed to act with those updates? Not that there's issues with how we should act, but uh I just quit uh question if we would get a training. I know when we were first came on the commission, we you know had us training and kind of went over a couple rules, regulations, you know, Robert's rules. I think we had a joint one as well with council. I just wanted to know if that would also come back again and we would have a a small training on that.

Thank you, Commission Commissioner Mess. Absolutely. We could we could provide that to the to the planning commission. Uh the process for this um amendment if if if we receive directions tonight is a little different than how we've done it in the past for PC rules because the plan city council direction was very specific. Um essentially what would happen is staff would draft an updated set of rules uh to present back to the planning commission. However, on second uh or on that upon that presentation to the planning commission um the the action wouldn't be to adopt those rules. it would be to recommend to um move through the review process with the city attorney's office and the city council. Essentially, the motion by the city uh council asked that the city attorney route that through the city council to get their approval and then once they approve it, it would come back a second time for planning commission to formally adopt those regulations. But to answer the first part of your question, absolutely we can provide training because they may be um some in-depth changes to that mimic how the council policies.

Okay, I'll uh open the uh public hearing. Is there any uh speaker cards for item number five? There are not. And if no one's here to speak to us on number five, then I will close the public hearing on number five and I'll bring it uh back to the commission for a recommendation and a vote. I move for approval of staff recommendation. Second. I have a first by Commissioner Thomas and a second by Commissioner Marshall. I'll take a roll call vote. Commissioner Marsh, yes. Commissioner Marshall, yes. Commissioner Thomas, yes. Vice Chair Messen, yes. Chair Kerr,

yes. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. And then with that, that finalizes this uh any final reports from uh commission members. We'll start with Commissioner Thomas. Any Commissioner Messen, sorry, my mic wasn't working. No, just thank you to staff. I know it was a huge packet and also look forward to some of the things that are going to be coming back. Great. Thanks. Thank you, Mr. Marsh. No, I don't have anything. and Commissioner Marshall. Me neither.

Okay. I would like to um since this is the the last thing I'll do, if you'll allow me, I just wanted to uh read my um resignation letter that I did put into the city a few days ago since our last meeting. That's okay with y'all. And um what what I wrote was, "Dear fellow commissioners, city council, city staff, and Victorville community, it is with a heavy heart and profound gratitude that I announce my resignation from the city of Victorville Planning Commission, affected upon the conclusion of September 10th, 2025, tonight's planning commission meeting. After nearly 24 years of service on this esteemed body, I find myself at a bittersweet moment due to a personal move that places me outside of the city limits, making me ineligible to continue in this role. For almost two and a half decades, I've had the privilege of contributing to the growth and vitality of Victorville, a place that I've called home since my arrival at George Air Force Base in 1985. It's been a pleasure to work with such dedicated city employees whose professionalism and commitment have truly been inspiring and it's been an honor to serve alongside my fellow commissioners. I'm proud of the work we've accomplished together addressing a wide array of planning matters with each agenda item being an opportunity to serve and enhance the plan growth of Victorville. I will carry with me countless memories of the relationships I've built with the city staff, with developers, community members that have enriched my life and underscored the importance of collaboration in public service. I extend my I extend my heartfelt thanks to the city council for entrusting me with this responsibility, to the city staff for their unwavering support and expertise, and to the residents and businesses of Victorville for allowing me to serve you. I may be stepping away from this role, but my commercial real estate business remains firmly rooted in Victorville, and I look forward to continuing to work

with the city in this capacity, contributing to our community's growth. Thanks. It's been fun. And if there's any uh uh final comments or updates from staff, how can I follow that, Mr. Chair? Thank you for Just tell us what's coming up in the city. Parks, concerts, all the fun stuff.

Uh thank you for your years of dedicated service. Truly truly a remarkable span. Um I hope this isn't goodbye. We hope to have you back soon to to formally acknowledge your your years of service and dedication to the city of Victorville. Thank you. Well, then with that, I will uh say thank you all and uh meeting ajourned.