Victorville planning commission approves second modification to allow youth shelter and drop-in center without 24-hour guard

The Victorville Planning Commission on Feb. 12 approved a second modification to conditional use permit ADMN24-00154 to allow two co-tenants to operate at 14049 Amargosa Road: a 30-bed emergency shelter for transitional-aged youth (ages 18–24) and a drop-in youth center serving ages 14–24. The commission voted unanimously to adopt staff’s Option A, approving the project based on the applicants’ security plan without a mandatory 24-hour licensed security guard.

The modification, which alters CUP-18-94, was presented by planning staff as a proposal that would allow the existing tenant, IDESR Homeless Services, to operate alongside a second tenant providing targeted services for transitional-aged youth. Staff described proposed operations: daily drop-in hours of 8 a.m. to 8 p.m.; a 30-bed shelter for 18–24-year-olds providing meals, counseling, case management and life-skills training; and proposed staffing of roughly 5–8 employees from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., two staff from 8 p.m. to 10 p.m., and one night-shift manager from 10 p.m. to 8 a.m.

The commission heard several public commenters, including the applicant and nonprofit partners, who urged approval without the added security guard requirement. Jimmy Waldron, executive director of Bridal Home Services and the applicant, told the commission his organization has operated at the site for “31 years” and said the proposal narrows the client population to 14–24 and 18–24 age bands. Waldron said the organization already uses staff to monitor cameras and conduct perimeter checks and argued that a 24-hour contracted security guard would cost roughly “$250,000 a year,” funds he said would be better used for services. “Their whole job would be to sit there and observe and report,” Waldron said.

Carly Kulinic, a security professional who provided a letter supporting the applicant’s plan, said her vulnerability assessments did not indicate a demonstrated need for a standing guard at the site and echoed the applicant’s cost estimate for 24-hour guard coverage: about $200,000–$250,000 per year. Board president Michael Grabhorn of High Desert Homeless Services and staff from Family Assistance Program (FAMSpot) — including youth drop-in center manager Jose Chavez and board member Stevana Evans — described the population as vulnerable and argued that trauma-informed care and staff oversight, rather than visible armed security, best promote safety and engagement.

Planning staff discussed two approval options: Option A to approve the project based on the submitted security plan without requiring a licensed security guard, while retaining authority for the zoning administrator to require a guard later if adverse impacts occur; and Option B to require a licensed security guard 24 hours per day. Staff recommended the commission take either action after the public hearing. Commissioners’ remarks highlighted familiarity with local shelters, operations at the site and the details of the security plan. Several commissioners said they were persuaded by the applicants’ long operating history and the plan’s intake and staffing details and expressed comfort that staff could require further modifications if problems arose.

The commission’s action: Vice Chair Messon moved to approve Option A and Commissioner Marshall seconded. The vote was unanimous: Commissioner Marsh — yes; Commissioner Marshall — yes; Commissioner Thomas — yes; Vice Chair Messon — yes; Chair Kurth — yes. The resolution associated with approval was listed in the staff report as PDash25Dash001 (Option A version) and staff said the approval would be conditioned on the attached conditions of approval and CEQA exemption under CEQA Section 15301 (Existing Facilities).

Planning staff and the applicant clarified operating details on the record: intakes are expected to occur during drop-in center hours rather than via 24-hour intake; the facility will maintain a single locked/monitored entry; camera monitoring and on-site staff positions are described in the security plan; and required monthly reports to staff would allow staff to review compliance and, if necessary, require amendments to the security plan or other conditions or pursue permit modification or revocation. Staff noted the conditional use permit remains enforceable and could be revisited at the zoning administrator level or returned to the planning commission for further action if noncompliance or adverse community impacts were documented.

The commission’s approval allows the co-tenancy and the proposed youth-focused services to proceed subject to the conditions of approval and staff oversight. The file lists the site as zoned IPD (Industrial Park District) and the project materials include the applicant security plan, staffing plans, intake and assessment forms and monthly reporting requirements to planning staff. The commission moved on to other business after the unanimous vote.