TOWN OF APPLE VALLEY
TOWN COUNICIL NOVEMBER 18, 2025
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Dear Mr. Robertson and Mr. Bodem,
(cc: Town Attorney’s OƯice, Mr. Pedersen, Ms. Montano, Mr. Acevedo, Ms. Daugherty, Mr.
Davis, and the Apple Valley Planning Commission)
I am writing to formally request Administrative Review for Tentative Parcel Map No. 20825, as the Town has not provided any written response to my letter dated October 23, 2025, or the multiple prior requests I have made since early September.
This request comes after nearly two months of good faith attempts to resolve my questions and concerns administratively, including legal clarification regarding the applicability of the Nollan (1987), Dolan (1994), Koontz (2013), and Sheetz (2024) U.S. Supreme Court decisions to my small, rural four-lot land division located on the outskirts of Apple Valley.
To date, the Town has neither:
1. Produced the required project-specific nexus and proportionality findings,
2. Provided any waiver or deferral of the disputed public improvement requirements, nor
3. Scheduled TPM 20825 for Planning Commission consideration, despite multiple formal requests.
Summary of Issues
The improvement conditions imposed—street paving, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, streetlights, and full urban-level improvement plans—are disproportionate and lack an essential nexus to the limited impact of my small, non-infill subdivision.
Per controlling Supreme Court precedent:
Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987): Any exaction must have an essential nexus to a legitimate government interest directly created by the proposed project.
Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994): Any condition must also be roughly proportional—in both nature and extent—to the project’s actual impact, not generalized Town goals or systemwide deficiencies.
Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist. (2013): Monetary exactions or “in-lieu” payments must meet the same nexus and proportionality tests.
Sheetz v. County of El Dorado (2024): These requirements apply even to generally applicable ordinances, meaning local codes or Subdivision Map Act provisions cannot override the constitutional limits established by these cases.
Requested Administrative Actions
I am requesting the following:
1. That the Town produce written, project-specific findings demonstrating the constitutional nexus and proportionality for each disputed condition.
2. That any unsupported or disproportionate conditions be waived or deferred to a future building permit stage, if homes are ever proposed; and
3. That if the Town cannot or will not provide such findings, TPM 20825 be placed on the next available Planning Commission agenda with the Town Attorney and my counsel, Keith C. Davis, Esq., present for review and discussion
For the Record
I am also requesting that all previous correspondence between myself and the Town—from January 2025 through the present—be made part of the oƯicial administrative record and forwarded in full to the Planning Commission ahead of any meeting. This will allow Commissioners suƯicient time to review every email and document, to understand the full extent of my eƯorts to resolve this matter administratively before pursuing any judicial options.
Final Administrative Deadline
Please provide, by Friday, November 21, 2025, one of the following:
1. The project-specific Nollan/Dolan/Sheetz/Koontz findings.
2. Written confirmation of waiver or deferral of the disputed conditions; or
3. A confirmed Planning Commission hearing date for Administrative Review.
If no response is received by that date, I will consider all administrative remedies exhausted and proceed with filing a Writ of Mandate under CCP §§ 1085 and 1094.5 to compel compliance and protect my rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Thank you again for your time, professionalism, and attention to this matter. My only goal is to complete this subdivision lawfully, fairly, and eƯiciently.
Respectfully,
Tony Contreras
Town of Apple Valley,
I am writing as a concerned resident of the Waalew Road area to formally oppose approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the proposed Waalew Road Truck and Trailer Facility. After reviewing the environmental document, I believe substantial evidence exists that the project may have significant environmental impacts, particularly on nearby residential areas, and therefore a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is legally required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
1. Proximity to Residences – “Fair Argument” for Significant Impacts The MND acknowledges that occupied homes are as close as 40 feet from the project’s eastern boundary. The facility would store and move 426 diesel trucks and trailers, generating noise, exhaust, and lighting directly adjacent to single-family homes. CEQA requires preparation of an EIR whenever there is a fair argument that significant impacts may occur — and this proximity clearly meets that threshold.
2. Air Quality and Health Risks Understated
The Health Risk Assessment found a cancer risk of 9.76 in one million, just below the MDAQMD significance threshold. This narrow margin, combined with assumptions of limited idling and “overflow” use, represents an underestimate. In reality, multiple nearby truck facilities already contribute to cumulative diesel particulate exposure in a nonattainment area for PM10 and ozone. CEQA prohibits segmenting or minimizing cumulative health impacts.
3. Noise Impacts Minimally Analyzed
Although the report estimates construction noise up to 71.8 dBA at property lines, it fails to analyze peak operational noise from engine starts, coupling, air brakes, and truck movements. Such sounds can easily exceed 85 dBA, disturbing residential quiet. These omissions render the noise analysis inadequate.
4. TraƯic and Safety Concerns
The MND assumes the facility will be an “overflow” lot generating limited trips. However, no enforceable conditions restrict the frequency or timing of truck movements. The intersection of Waalew Road and Navajo Road already experiences heavy truck activity, and this facility would exacerbate congestion, diesel idling, and pedestrian safety risks near residential driveways.
5. Lighting, Visual, and Aesthetic Impacts
The plan calls for twenty-foot-tall light poles and truck headlights oriented toward homes.
No photometric study or shielding plan was provided. The result would be significant light trespass and glare incompatible with the residential character of the area and Apple Valley’s “wide skies” aesthetic.
6. Cumulative and Growth-Inducing EƯects Ignored
Multiple existing and proposed truck yards lie within one mile of this site. The Town must analyze their combined impacts on air quality, noise, traƯic, and visual character. The MND’s conclusion that cumulative eƯects are “less than significant” because thresholds are not exceeded misinterprets CEQA’s intent. Additionally, the reports do not account for the recently approved 15,000 sq ft addition to RTI, a business located very close to the proposed site, that will increase the cumulative burden even more.
Conclusion
Given these deficiencies, the MND fails to provide adequate environmental disclosure. The Town must deny adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and require preparation of a comprehensive Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that fully examines air quality, health, noise, traƯic, lighting, and cumulative impacts aƯecting nearby homes.
Thank you for considering the concerns of residents who will bear the direct consequences of this project. I request that this letter be entered into the oƯicial record for CUP 2024-004.
Respectfully,
Matthew Malady
Dear Town of Apple Valley,
I am writing to formally express my strong opposition to the proposed truck and trailer facility in our rural community of Apple Valley. While I understand the need for economic development, this particular project poses significant and unacceptable risks to the safety, health, and quality of life of local residents.
First, the existing road infrastructure in our area is not designed to handle heavy industrial traƯic. The roads are narrow, lack shoulders, and are already in poor condition. Introducing a steady flow of large trucks will create hazardous driving conditions, increase wear and tear on the roadway, and lead to costly repairs that taxpayers would ultimately be responsible for.
Second, this community includes many families with school-aged children, and large trucks sharing the same narrow roads as school buses presents a serious safety risk.
Children waiting at bus stops or walking along the roadside would be placed in immediate danger due to the increased volume of heavy commercial vehicles.
Additionally, the increase in traƯic will introduce higher levels of noise, air pollution, and emissions—conditions that are incompatible with a rural, residential environment. Our community values its clean air, quiet surroundings, and natural landscape. A truck and trailer facility would undermine these qualities and diminish the character of our town.
Furthermore, the proposed facility would negatively impact property values and deter future residential growth. Families choose to live in rural communities to escape industrial congestion, not to be surrounded by it.
For these reasons, I respectfully urge the Planning Commission to deny approval of this project. I ask that you prioritize the safety, well-being, and long-term interests of the residents who call this community home.
Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter. I appreciate your consideration and hope you will act to protect our community.
Sincerely,
Bonnie Fraterrigo
To the Apple Town Valley Council,
I am writing to bring urgent attention to what is happening at the Apple Valley Animal Shelter. According to their own website, they currently list 39 cats in their care — yet only 2 of them are made available in the public adoption area. The remaining cats are kept out of public view, which denies them any real chance at being adopted and getting a fair second chance at life.
By withholding these cats from the adoption floor and keeping them in a back room, the shelter is eƯectively blocking them from finding homes. This is despicable. If these animals are then euthanized once their holding period expires, this is not responsible sheltering — it is a direct failure of humane care and transparency. It shows the lack of empathy that is sorely not present.
This practice is disheartening, unacceptable, and reflects poorly on the shelter’s leadership as well as the council that oversees it. These cats are living, sentient beings, not inventory to be hidden and discarded. The community expects ethical treatment of animals, and what is occurring right now does not meet that standard.
I strongly urge the council to look into this immediately, require answers, and take action to stop these practices. These animals are being denied the chance they deserve, and the council has a responsibility to ensure this does not continue.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
ellie. [email protected]
Apple Valley Town Council Members,
The overwhelming majority of cats remain kept out of sight in the back rooms and are often scheduled for euthanasia promptly once their stray hold period ends. 70% of cats labled feral in AVAS turned out to be friendly when rescued or adopted. As a concerned citizen I would like more transparency from AVAS and all these innocent animals deserve a chance, especially if they are mislabeled and these innocent animals are just scared and confused in this shelter environment.
Thank you,
Guadalupe Guardado