Board learns more about apartment plan

County says it can’t stop laborer housing project south of MCAS

The Yuma County Board of Supervisors was given a lot of information about a 48-unit apartment complex for farm laborers under construction just south of Marine Corps Air Station Yuma during its Tuesday meeting, but members told concerned neighbors there are no actions it can take to stop the project.

“It’s been an overriding issue over the last couple of weeks to come up with some sort of way to push a little more your direction. Everyone on staff I’ve talked to feels pretty much the same way, that this is not a situation that you should be having to deal with,” said the board chairman, District 4 Supervisor Tony Reyes. “So it’s not a matter of not wanting to help you out with this problem.”

The property involved is a 10acre lot with rural zoning, until recently covered with date palms, at the end of Avenue 2 3/4E, an unpaved road not maintained by the county. It’s half a mile south of County 14th Street and the southern border of MCAS Yuma.

County officials say the apart- ments are exempt from county zoning, building and fire codes under a state law exempting uses “incidental to farming” from local laws if they are on a parcel of at least five contiguous commercial acres.

Yuma County’s zoning code also requires the land be classified as agricultural by the county assessor or the state Department of Revenue. The county lost a 2003 lawsuit brought by Braden Trust in the Arizona Court of Appeals after it wouldn’t allow construction of farmworker housing on Texas Hill Farms property in the east county.

Three landowners in the mostly light-industrial area first spoke publicly about the issue at the supervisors’ Feb. 6 meeting. MCAS

Yuma weighed in for the first time on Tuesday, with Paula Backs, a community planning specialist for the base, speaking in opposition for many reasons also cited by residents at the last meeting.

“Our legal counsel is now looking at this case,” she said. “By becoming ag exempt, this case would not have to abide by any regulations for noise reduction standards. They would not even have to notify their workers they were in a noise contour. This is putting those workers at risk of hearing or safety concerns,” she said.

More than half the apartments fall into the 75-decibel noise corridor, which under federal aviation guidelines are not considered compatible with residential development.

Backs said, “There are a lot of unanswered questions on this property that I think should have been answered before the ag exemption was granted. How many people are you going to put in the 48 apartments? Will they work on what is left of the 10-acre parcel

for the date crop, which is worth less than $900? That was given for the county assessor’s records. More than likely, these workers are not going to be working on this property.”

Greg Hoffmann, who lives next to the property on land zoned for light-industrial use, brought up the same issue, saying this situation is different from the Braden Trust case, where the housing was intended for people working on-site.

He said construction of the high-density apartments would essentially defeat the purpose of the county’s zoning law, which gives residents some idea what could be built next to them. “When I moved in, when I put my house up, that property’s zoned R-10, I’m going to have a house, on 10 acres, or its going to go to light industrial like everyone else. I wouldn’t have a problem with that.” he said.

However, farm laborer housing is also an allowed use on parcels with R-10 zoning without a permit, along with farms and ranches, nurseries, farm offices, kennels, roadside stands and storage of crops and equipment.

Light industrial zoning has a multitude of allowed uses, including offices, airport facilities, auto repair, manufacturing, hotels, convenience stores, heavy equipment or construction supply rental, printing and publishing and wireless communication towers. Homes for owners or caretakers of businesses, like Hoffmann’s, are allowed with a special use permit.

The land across from the planned apartments is farmed, and it is just north of stretches of citrus groves.

Hoffmann also raised concerns about increased crime, saying increased population in the area would raise the probability of some criminal element being brought in. He acknowledged the apartments’ water and sewer systems would be inspected and improved by the county environmental health department, but the lack of building and fire code regulations could create risks for the future residents, and surrounding areas.

Letting this project go ahead will open the floodgates to other, even larger complexes, he said. “I want to know at what point the county is going to say, ‘I re-

ally don’t think that’s what was meant by this law, that you could build high-density housing on an ag exempt permit, and rent it to farmers.’ How do you know they’re farmers? If they can’t get enough ag workers next year, who’s going to be in there?”

District 1 County Supervisor Martin Porchas said since these apartments were being built to be provided to workers in the country on H-2A visas for the growing season, they would be subject to federal regulations for their construction and occupancy.

The board members overall said they are sympathetic to the concerns of the approximately eight people at the meeting to listen to the item, but insisted the state statute had tied their hands.

District 2 Supervisor Russell McCloud said the case “brings up some very interesting issues, like what if somebody wanted to put in a six-story apartment complex? From what I hear today, it’s ‘OK, have at it.’ I think it would be good (under the law). The actual solution is a legislative solution, so I would encour-

age you to put your energy and your passion not at the county level, where it’s quite frankly misplaced, but with your state legislators.”

Hoffmann said he has been in touch with state legislators, but they can’t do much about the apartments already being built next door to him. When asked after the meeting what further action he might take, legal or otherwise, he said “I don’t know, I don’t know. Everything’s still on the table.”

No one in favor of the project spoke at the meeting, and Leticia Guillermo, a Yuma Realtor representing developers TLC Ready Mix, said she didn’t know the board would be talking about the project until after it was over. She would not say how many workers will be living in each apartment, but did say there would be about five or six bus trips a day transporting them to and from the fields, not enough to make a noticeable difference in traffic on Avenue 2 3/4 E. Completion of the project is tentatively scheduled for September, she added.

Many of the date palms

removed from the property will be back and will be harvested, she said: “We had to take the palms out because of the project, but once everything is completed, the same people who had the dates in there are going to go ahead and put new date palms there.”

She finds it hard to understand Hoffmann’s stance as a neighbor to the project, she said. “It’s hard to understand that it’s a light-industrial area, so somebody’s living there as a residential home. That to me, it’s unclear how they think they’re being affected when they live in a light industrial area.” Also Tuesday, the board: • Appointed R. Erin Farrar as justice of the peace pro tempore for Justice Court Precinct One.

• Postponed a work session scheduled for after Tuesday’s regular meeting for discussion about creating an annual inspection program for building/fire safety systems, due to the absence of District 3 Supervisor Darren Simmons and Reyes leaving the meeting after the regular session was over.