Recent Development Projects:

 

News about the Flow Kana cannibis project off Uva Drive (former Fetzer property):

August 16, 2018--The Planning Commission (Redwood Valley representative: Marilyn Ogle) met today to consider the permit application and "mitigated negative declaration" for the Environmental Impact Report. These actions were discussed most recently in the July and August RVMAC meetings. The permit application documents and the RVMAC's comments (submitted to the County Planning and Building Dept. by Alex de Grassi on behalf of the MAC) were sent out by email from Chris Boyd (RVMAC Chair) the week of August August 13, along with a draft Traffic Study submitted by Flow Kana on August 15, 2018. [We'll get these documents posted on the website ASAP, when our web expert can fit in some time--the County website also has them posted.] The most significant "condition" for approval: the re-sealing and minor maintenance of the .62 mile section of Bel Arbres Drive from Uva Dr. to the end (where private road to Flow Kana-FK commences). At the hearing, FK proposed to share the these maintenance costs with the County, as FK's traffic study had demonstrated that less than 40% of the roadway traffic will be from FK. The director of the County Dept of Transportation (DoT), Mr. Howard Dashiell, stated that his 18 year plan for County road improvements, much to his regret, can only address 330 of the many hundreds of miles of county roads--DoT simply doesn't have the budget for more. Bel Arbres isn't even in the 18 year plan at all. There is no way DoT could comply with FK's request except to defer other roads of higher priority. That is the reality of the county's budget these days. FK pointed out that their biggest trucks forecast for use now are 2 axle trucks that are about the size of a UPS truck; any semis on that road now are from other facilities, not from FK. As to whether other users (commercial, industrial, residential) could share in the road improvement costs, It was pointed out in public comments that existing developments and operating businesses have, presumably, been paying our fair share of taxes for years, which in theory should be going to maintenance services of all kinds. In other counties, the shortfall between general funds, other funds, and infrastructure costs of new developments are often absorbed by the new development projects--and that often means not just roads, but all the other services we typically consume as residents and businesses in a community. This could entail a whole new set of user fees on new development--and would require Board actions and lots of research to put in place. For now, an ad hoc, but fair, approach needs to suffice; or else the creation of benefit assessment districts (for example, for roads) that would require a 2/3 vote of the public. Clearly, these are big challenges. The DoT stated that the road maintenance condition is a fair one. Compromise was agreed to: the Planning Commission voted to approve the permit for Flow Kana, and the road upgrade/maintenance would be required by FK to begin 2 years from the date of the business license, without County funding. Michael Steinmetz, FK, agreed to comply and appreciated that the company would be able to accumulate 2 years of income from harvest production during that interim period. There was much more information about the FK processes, employment information, etc., and interested parties are invited to listen to the full hearing via the County website.

Residential Fire Sprinkler and California Codes

Below is a citation from the State Fire Marshal about the law requiring installation of fire sprinkler systems for the interiors of 1 and 2 family dwellings, etc. These requirements WILL APPLY to homes rebuilt after the Redwood Complex Fire. This requirement does not apply to "manufactured" homes--that is the second citation, below. Here is the requirement cited by the Office of the State Fire Marshal:

1.     "The California Building Standards Commission approved the State Fire Marshal's Building, Fire and Residential Code adoption packages for the 2010 California Building Standards Codes at the hearing on January 12, 2010. The 2010 California Building Standards Codes published July 1, 2010, with an effective date of January 1, 2011. A key component in the 2010 code adoption is the addition of residential fire sprinklers in all new one-and two-family dwellings and townhouse construction statewide. For many years, installation of fire sprinkler systems has only been required in office buildings and multi-family dwellings (i.e. apartments). These sprinkler systems are proven to save lives and extinguish fires. Prior to the adoption of the 2010 California Building Standards Codes, more than 150 jurisdictions in California had a local residential fire sprinkler ordinance."

2.    "DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS
TITLE 25. DIVISION 1. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER 3.

UBCHAPTER 2. MANUFACTURED HOMES, MOBILEHOMES, MULTIFAMILY MANUFACTURED HOMES, COMMERCIAL MODULARS, AND SPECIAL PURPOSE COMMERCIAL MODULARS
ARTICLE 2.5. FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS

§ 4300. Application of Design and Installation Requirements; Preemption of Local Design and Installation Requirements.

(a) The requirements of this article apply to the design and installation of a fire sprinkler system -

(1) in new or used mobilehomes or manufactured homes that are used or intended for use as a dwelling, and

(2) in new or used multifamily manufactured homes with two dwelling units.

(b) The requirements of this article preempt all other requirements, including those of any ordinance or rule adopted by any city, county, city and county, or special district, as well as a fire district, that establish standards and requirements for the design and installation of a fire sprinkler system including, but not limited to those ordinances or rules adopted pursuant to section 18691 of the Health and Safety Code in the Mobilehome Parks Act -

(1) in new or used mobilehomes or manufactured homes that are used or intended for use as a dwelling, and

(2) in new or used multifamily manufactured homes with two dwelling units.

(c) This article does not require the installation of a fire sprinkler system in mobilehomes or manufactured homes or in multifamily manufactured homes with two dwelling units including those installed or reinstalled in a mobilehome park.

(d) A residential fire sprinkler system shall not be required as a condition for approval of additions or alterations to existing manufactured homes, mobilehomes or multifamily manufactured homes that do not already contain a residential fire sprinkler system,

Note: Authority cited: Sections 18015, 18025, 18029 and 18029.5, Health and Safety Code. Reference: Sections 18015, 18025, 18029.5, 18030.5, and 18691, Health and Safety Code". 


RECENT NEWS AND PROJECTS:

The Redwood Valley MAC has an Ad Hoc Committee that meets when needed to review proposed developments in Redwood Valley. The Development Review Committee then submits information to the full RVMAC membership for consideration. The RVMAC is the conduit to the County for these projects, giving community members the opportunity to weigh in with their opinions on proposed projects. The Chair of this Standing Committee is Alex De Grassi, with members Debra Ramirez and Cassie Taaning also on the committee. Here are some current and/or recent projects that the RVMAC has reviewed:

  • Flow Cannabis Institute on former Fetzer Property--See the HOME page for information on April 9 Open House hosted by Flow Cannabis Institute at the former Fetzer property. Recap: A "pre-application" meeting was held Dec. 9 at Planning and Building Services to coordinate this application for a cannabis processing, distribution, and growing center. The project is characterized as a cooperative for small farmers. A MAC-sponsored Public Workshop on the project was held on Thursday evening, February 9, 2017 at the Guild/Grange at 6:30 p.m. Over 150 local residents and interested parties learned more about the plans and brought their perspectives to the developers. Many residents, especially those living in the Bel Arbres area, asked questions and expressed concerns about the development. A summary of some of the comments is below (Q and A). As of April, 2-17, the property closed escrow and an open house has been held.