## Facts

- Santa Cruz County adopted timber-related ordinances in 1999, including a zoning “zone district ordinance” and a “helicopter ordinance.”
- The zone district ordinance limited timber harvesting to parcels zoned “Timber Production,” “Mineral Extraction Industrial,” or “Parks, Recreation and Open Space.”
- The helicopter ordinance required helicopter staging, loading, and servicing facilities for timber operations to be on timber-harvest-zoned land or an adjacent parcel, and in either case within the boundaries of an approved timber harvesting plan (THP).
- Big Creek Lumber Company and others challenged the ordinances, arguing they were preempted by the Forest Practice Act (FPA) and related Board of Forestry regulations governing timber operations through the THP process.
- The trial court upheld the zone district ordinance but invalidated other timber ordinances as preempted.
- The Court of Appeal held the County’s timber-related ordinances preempted, reasoning state forestry law occupied the field.
- The California Supreme Court granted review limited to whether the zone district and helicopter ordinances were preempted by state forestry law, and also considered the effect of Coastal Commission certification of the zone district ordinance as an amendment to the County’s local coastal program.

## Issues

1. Whether the FPA and Board of Forestry regulations impliedly preempt local zoning by occupying the field of timber operations.
2. Whether the zone district ordinance and helicopter ordinance conflict with the state forestry scheme by barring timber-related activities in locations where state law would otherwise allow them.
3. Whether Coastal Commission certification of the zone district ordinance as part of the local coastal program was invalid due to alleged inconsistency with the FPA.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal as to the ordinances under review.
- The Court held the zone district ordinance and helicopter ordinance were not preempted by the FPA or the Board of Forestry regulations.
- The Court held the ordinances functioned as land-use controls regulating where timber harvesting and helicopter support activities may occur, not as operational rules governing how timber operations must be conducted.
- The Court found no direct conflict between the local ordinances and the state THP approval process; operators must comply with both state forestry requirements and valid local zoning.
- Because the ordinances were not preempted, the Coastal Commission’s certification of the zone district ordinance as a local coastal program amendment was valid.

## Legal Principles

- Local zoning and land-use regulation are traditional exercises of local police power; absent clear legislative intent, courts presume such local regulation is not preempted.
- The FPA establishes a comprehensive statewide scheme regulating timber harvesting operations primarily through THPs, but that scheme does not, without more, displace local authority to make land-use decisions about permissible locations for timber uses.
- Implied field preemption requires a showing that the state regulatory scheme is so pervasive, or legislative intent so clear, that concurrent local regulation is excluded; extensive state regulation of operations does not alone eliminate local zoning authority over location.
- Conflict preemption is not established merely because local zoning prohibits an activity for which a state permit might otherwise be available; a state permitting system does not necessarily create an affirmative right to proceed irrespective of local land-use restrictions.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Santa Cruz County’s zoning restrictions on the locations of timber harvesting and related helicopter staging, holding that state forestry law regulates operational standards through the THP process but does not preempt local land-use zoning that limits where timber-related uses may occur absent a direct statutory conflict or clear legislative displacement.


Big Creek Lumber Co. v. County of Santa Cruz, 38 Cal. 4th 1139 (Cal. 2006)