Ledger-Dispatch

By Jerry Budrick (jbudrick@ledger-dispatch.com= )=20

Rancher Ken Deaver has struggled to get = county-approved permit waivers for farm labor housing he has = erected on=20 his property.

Photo by: Jack=20 Mitchell
On Sept. 9, the Amador County = Planning=20 Commission approved a boundary line adjustment for Shenandoah Valley = grape=20 grower, rancher and businessman Ken Deaver. Hidden beneath the surface = of this=20 seemingly innocent approval is an issue with statewide = ramifications.

The=20 Amador County Board of Supervisors, at a Tuesday morning public hearing, = voted=20 to support an appeal by its planning department of the planning = commission's=20 September approval - sort of.

"This appeal is not asking to = overturn the=20 Deaver action," said Planning Director Susan Grijalva. "Deaver did = receive his=20 boundary line adjustment."

The appeal was asking to reverse the = planning=20 commission's action that removed the requirement of use permits for farm = labor=20 housing units on Deaver's parcel, up to the number of units - presently = 12 -=20 allowed under the California Health and Safety Code.

It is = written in the=20 code that, "No conditional use permit, zoning variance, or other zoning=20 clearance shall be required of this employee housing that is not = required of any=20 other agricultural activity in the same zone." It is the planning = department's=20 contention that Amador County's policy of requiring use permits for = other=20 activities - i.e. farm labor camps and forestry labor camps - empowers = it to=20 require use permits for farm labor housing units.

That conflicts = somewhat=20 with the proposed guidelines of an updated general plan housing element=20 supervisors adopted in 2005.

In that updated 305-page housing = element,=20 along with its myriad proposed implementation measures, a section titled = "Encourage Farm Worker Housing" directed the county to remove a = potential=20 constraint to farm worker housing - the requirement for a conditional = use permit=20 with a public hearing."

Potential funding is to come from the = general=20 fund and/or Community Development Block Grant Planning/Technical = Assistance=20 Grant. The time frame is stated as Dec. 31, 2005.

Deaver contends = that=20 the county should long ago have implemented the program, thereby = removing the=20 need for a conditional use permit for the farm labor housing. According = to the=20 planning department staff report pertaining to their appeal to the board = of=20 supervisors, the board has initiated the process to consider code = revisions. The=20 report further states that "any such code changes must proceed through = the=20 proper process that ends up before the board of supervisors which makes = the=20 final determination as to what requirements may be imposed."

"It = appears=20 we're in conflict with state law," said District 5 Supervisor Brian = Oneto. "The=20 state code states clearly that we are not supposed to require use = permits. What=20 is the easiest and quickest way to go?"

All suggestions for = action of any=20 sort were quickly discouraged by Assistant County Counsel Evelyn = Shapiro.=20 "Everything has to be properly noticed and agendized," she said. "You = also have=20 to go through the code and pick out what needs to be = changed."

District 4=20 Supervisor Louis Boitano added that any changes would require time and = public=20 hearings.

"The last thing I'd like to see is taking this to a = court of=20 appeals and spending many thousands of dollars," said Deaver attorney = Bob=20 Biegler. "It's just a misallocation of funds. I'd be the only one who'd = be=20 happy."

Future resolution of this issue can go in many = directions. In=20 granting the planning department's appeal, the board of supervisors = included a=20 proviso that staff move forward as quickly as possible to make changes. = The=20 exact nature of those changes remains in doubt.

"The changes in = 2005 did=20 envision a ministerial permit, but we are not precluded from having a = use permit=20 requirement," Grijalva said. "What we have in place right now is not in=20 violation of state law."

Biegler remained insistent that use = permits are=20 specifically forbidden. "State code says, 'Don't do it!' Don't ask for = use=20 permits for farm labor quarters."

Not surprisingly, money rears = its ugly=20 head, in that fees charged for construction of farm labor housing under = the use=20 permit requirement differ widely from those attached to ministerial = permits.=20 According to Jeanne Deaver, the difference between fees charged with and = without=20 use permits is in the neighborhood of $15,000 per unit. Grijalva = confirmed=20 Deaver's statement that construction fees for single family dwellings = and farm=20 labor quarters are the same, while pointing out that some of those fees = are=20 construction permit fees or impact fees, not use permit fees, which = currently=20 total $575.

Grijalva also did a rough count of existing permits = for farm=20 labor quarters, finding 55 such permits in the county's agricultural=20 districts.

Jerry = Budrick