Rebuttal to John Stephens' Dec. 17 Commentary, "Time is Right for Setbacks"
John Stephens claims that Napa County parcels ought to have new, greater setback requirements from streams just because his city lot has existing setback requirements from streets and neighboring parcels. Perhaps breathing all those mercury fumes in his youth explains why he fails to notice several important differences between his situation and what he advocates for the county.
For instance, his lot came with those setback requirements when he bought it. He knew the rules going in and paid what he thought his restricted lot was worth. But he is now advocating that the rules be changed after the fact for county parcel owners. He wants to increase their stream setbacks after they paid fair value for their parcels unencumbered by those increased setbacks. How would Mr. Stephens feel if the rules for his parcel were changed now, requiring greater setbacks then were required when he made his purchase? I bet he might appreciate having someone like Supervisor Mark Luce speak up in opposition to such unfair treatment.
The setbacks required on Mr. Stephens' city lot are building setbacks only. However, the setbacks he is promoting for county parcels preclude not only buildings, but also vineyards, row crops, tree cutting, driveways, parking areas, fences, trellises, wells, propane tanks, swimming pools, gazebos, barbecues, decks, tennis courts, walking paths, and even flower and vegetable gardens. How would Mr. Stephens feel if he were precluded from using his city setback area for any of these purposes?
Mr. Stephens proudly proclaims his willingness to honor 5-foot, 20-foot, and 25-foot setbacks from his own city lot lines. However, he is proposing county stream setbacks up to 150 feet and more, so that for a stream passing through a county parcel, the total setback width on both sides would total up to 300 feet or more, plus the width of the stream. How would Mr. Stephens like to lose a 300 foot swath from his city lot, instead of just 25 feet?
Mr. Stephens' use of the word "stream" implies that the setbacks he advocates are from real streams. However, the ordinance he is pushing defines "stream" as any place water runs, ever. His proposed ordinance requires setbacks even from gullies and dry washes. Many county parcels have a network of these gullies and dry washes passing through them. Requiring setbacks along both sides of these gullies and dry washes could chop such parcels into fragments too small to be useful. How would Mr. Stephens feel if the setbacks for his city lot ran through the middle, instead of just along the property lines?
Mr. Stephens would have us believe that our streams currently have no protection. However, the existing hillside ordinance already requires setbacks from all significant streams where the slope of the land is 5% or more. The ordinance he promotes would make those setbacks even larger, and apply them to gullies and dry washes, as well as to land that is completely flat.
Mr. Stephens opposes waiting for sound scientific information, apparently believing that our streams are getting dirtier while we wait. However, the reverse is true. Studies show that sediment in the Napa River has decreased by more than 75% since 1991, when our existing hillside ordinance was enacted. The Regional Water Quality Control Board's "Napa River Basin Limiting Factors Analysis" indicates that sediment and turbidity are no longer factors limiting steelhead and salmon populations. And we see increasingly frequent newspaper reports of salmon and steelhead returning to the Napa River and its tributaries. Our streams are getting cleaner, not dirtier. We can afford to wait for accurate information, and we should wait, rather than risk making costly errors.
Mr. Stephens claims to believe in being a good neighbor, but doesn't seem to believe that other people also want to be good neighbors. His idea of being a good neighbor is to confiscate the use of his neighbor's property, depriving that neighbor of any opportunity to exercise his own good intentions. How would Mr. Stephens feel if he were treated likewise?
It is important that thinking people investigate the truth about the current stream setback debate, and not accept at face value the fuzzy thinking of people like John Stephens.
George Bachich
back