Opinion ID: 2575737
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Partial coverage/adverse effect on transient citizens

Text: Plaintiffs' overriding concern appears to be that localities may by locational zoning prohibit timber harvesting altogether. The ordinance before us does not have that effect, nor does it appear that any county has attempted such a result. [14] The zone district ordinance permits timber harvesting on parcels zoned timberland production, mineral extraction industrial, and parks, recreation and open space. To require that commercial timber harvesting occur on land in a timberland production or other specified zone is no more a ban on timber harvesting than a regulation requiring that industrial land uses occur on land zoned industrial is a ban on factories. County concedes that landowners wishing to harvest timber may apply to County for approval to rezone parcels to TPZ and that County may not deny TPZ rezoning to any qualifying parcel (Gov. Code, § 51113, subd. (a)(1)), nor may County prohibit timber harvesting in TPZ's. [15] We previously have explained that a local ordinance is not impliedly preempted by conflict with state law unless it mandate[s] what state law expressly forbids, [or] forbid[s] what state law expressly mandates. ( Great Western Shows, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles, supra, 27 Cal.4th at p. 866, 118 Cal.Rptr.2d 746, 44 P.3d 120.) That is because, when a local ordinance does not prohibit what the statute commands or command what it prohibits, the ordinance is not inimical to the statute. ( Sherwin-Williams Co. v. City of Los Angeles (1993) 4 Cal.4th 893, 902, 16 Cal.Rptr.2d 215, 844 P.2d 534.) Here, County's ordinances are not impliedly preempted by conflict with state forestry law because it is reasonably possible for a timber operator to comply with both. The zone district ordinance does not mandate what general forestry law forbids or forbid what general forestry law mandates. While the forestry laws generally encourage maximum sustained production of high-quality timber products ... while giving consideration to competing values (§ 4513), they do not require that every harvestable tree be cut. Accordingly, County's zoning ordinance does not conflict with state law simply because it may have the effect of placing some trees, at least temporarily, off limits to logging. [16] Nor does it appear the Board has adopted for Santa Cruz, or any other county, rules that comprehensively address appropriate geographical locations within the county for timber harvesting. In sum, plaintiffs have not identified a clear statement by the Legislature of an intent, when enacting the FPA, to preempt traditional local zoning authority over the location of timber operations. Accordingly, and for all the foregoing reasons, we conclude, as did the Court of Appeal in Big Creek v. San Mateo, that the Legislature did not intend to preclude counties from using their zoning authority to prohibit timber cutting on lands outside the TPZ's ( Big Creek v. San Mateo, supra, 31 Cal. App.4th at p. 426, 37 Cal.Rptr.2d 159).