Much has been made of the so-called "residential exemption" from the Stream Setback Ordinance. This was Supervisor Dodd's attempt to placate the majority of people opposed to the ordinance. However, even though it was well intended, it did not turn out to be the exemption that Supervisor Dodd envisioned, and did not eliminate resistance to the ordinance.
First of all, rural living and farming overlap greatly, so trying to separate "residential" users from agricultural users is really just a hypothetical exercise. Most people who live in the country do so because they want more room for activities other than just a house, and in Napa County those activities often include growing a few grapes. Everyone who enjoys country living wants to be able to farm a little bit, even if he might never actually get around to it. It is the potential that is important. Most people agree that the potential for vineyard development, even if it is just an acre or two, is a desirable amenity that enhances any property's value, and that withdrawing that amenity will adversely impact the property's value.
Furthermore, crops are not the only things prohibited within the proposed setbacks. What about cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, chickens, dogs, and horses? Allowing a rural dweller to add bedrooms but prohibiting horse stalls, chicken coops or dog kennels is hardly exempting him from the ordinance if animals happen to be his hobby or sideline business. So the "residential exemption", even if it were a true exemption for human dwellings, would not really exempt rural residents from the ordinance.
However, the "residential exemption" is not really even an exemption for human dwellings. Rather, it applies a different set of setbacks to residences than it applies to crops and roads and related activities. Worst of all, it applies those setbacks to a great many more streams than are included under the 1991 "Hillside Ordinance". While the 1991 ordinance establishes setbacks only from blue line streams and other streams over four feet deep from top of bank, the SSO applies those setbacks to all class 1 and class 2 streams, which for practical purposes may include all streams in Napa County (3,200 miles of them according to planning staff).
The problem is that, according to County Planning staff, the County lacks the resources to classify all streams. Therefore, according to staff, the county will claim that any stream is at least a class 2 until the property owner establishes that he has a class 3 by hiring a biologist to examine his part of the watershed. Unfortunately, this does not mean examining just that part of the watershed within his own property. The SSO provision that there shall be no class 3 reach downstream from any class 2 reach means that in order to certify that a stream reach is a class 3 (and therefore not newly subject to residential setbacks under the SSO) a biologist must satisfy himself and the County that there are no class 2 reaches anywhere upstream. For all except those living in the extreme upper reaches of the watershed, this means that a lot of watershed may have to be examined (and found to be free of frog, salamander, and benthic macroinvertebrate habitat) in order to establish that a given reach is actually a class 3 and therefore not newly subject to the residential setbacks for class 2 streams.
This examination will be expensive and time consuming, and will require the permission of upstream property owners who may be reluctant to have biologists examining their property for fear that some endangered species may be discovered, thus jeopardizing their right to use and enjoy their own property. In short, a property owner may not be able to demonstrate to the County's satisfaction that he has a class 3 stream, and may therefore have to accept the County's assertion that his stream is a class 2, making his property (and all property downstream from his) newly subject to residential setbacks by the SSO. In this case, the "residential exemption" will simply not apply.
Even if this examination is completed, the odds are pretty good that the biologist will discover that a frog, salamander, or benthic macro invertebrate lives near a spring somewhere upstream, and that everything downstream from that is therefore a class 2.
Finally, there is the issue of roads, which are specifically excluded from the special residential setbacks. What good will it do to establish that you have a class 3 stream and are therefore entitled to build, if you can't get a driveway approved because it must pass too close to a class 3 stream and does not enjoy the "residential exemption"? The possible driveway entry points from County roads are often where the terrain is lowest, which is also where the streams are located. Areas between these streams are often characterized by high cut banks where it would be impractical (and unsightly) to cut a driveway.
This would be the case with eight contiguous parcels located in the 4200 block of Dry Creek Road (one of which belongs to the author of this article). The existing common driveway necessarily passes close to streams at several points, including at the only possible access to the County Road. The houses and roads on these particular parcels have existed for decades in peaceful harmony with the environment, but they could not be built today, even under the so-called "residential exemption", because of the prohibition on building roads in the setbacks.
The bottom line is that "residential exemption" is not an exemption. It is a deceptive and misleading term for the provisions of the Stream Setback Ordinance. It gives the impression that only big commercial enterprises are impacted, and that the rural resident does not have to worry. However, careful reading of the ordinance, a little common sense, and an understanding of County policies and procedures makes it clear that most rural residents will in fact be impacted.