 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
State Supreme Court: County logging rules stand By
GENEVIEVE BOOKWALTER About half the timber land in Santa Cruz County will remain off limits to loggers after a ruling by the California Supreme Court on Thursday. The 4-3 decision in favor of Santa Cruz County over Davenport-based Big Creek Lumber grants a local government the power to restrict timber operations to certain areas. Historically, logging was under the purview of the state; the court's ruling validates Santa Cruz County's 7-year-old law regulating where trees can and can't be logged. "They absolutely vindicated what I think the county believes to be true, which is local land-use authority is the jurisdiction of the local government," said county Supervisor Mardi Wormhoudt, whose district includes the timber stands of north Santa Cruz County. The 12-year supervisor was on the board in 1999 when it approved the local land-use laws, which were more strict than the state's. The laws came in response to environmentalists and mountain residents upset about the buzzing of saws and helicopters near their homes. Big Creek owner Bud McCrary said Thursday's decision sets half the county's forested land off limits, which is frustrating for a company whose only raw product is wood. Big Creek initiated the legal fight in conjunction with the Central Coast Forest Association to protect its economic interests. "We didn't want to sue but they passed an ordinance that barred us from acquiring the only raw material that our company uses," said Big Creek spokesman Bob Berlage. Big Creek has contended that logging outfits like theirs can adequately police their own operations. The ruling capped a tumultuous journey from the supervisors chambers to Sacramento. County
ordinances at issue restrict logging and helicopter use to property
zoned exclusively for timber production. These ordinances were
initially shot down by both the county Superior Court and the
Appellate Court before the state Supreme Court overturned the
two rulings How logging is done falls under state law, according to the state Supreme Court ruling; where it's done is up to the locals. Both sides of the debate agree the decision could affect logging across California, especially in counties like Santa Cruz, San Mateo and Napa, where more and more people are moving into the woods. "Certainly the urban-wildland interface issues are major issues, whether they have to do with forestry, or agriculture, or ranching, or any of the natural resources areas that have played an important role in California's landscapes as well as the economy," said Dave Bischel, president of the California Forestry Association. "As we get a bigger and bigger state, there continues to be greater and greater conflicts over land use." Jodi Frediani, forestry task force chair with the local chapter of the Sierra Club, said the decision should calm fights between neighbors who want to log their land and residents who don't want helicopters flying over their homes. "If someone chooses to buy land next to a timber production zone there's disclosure, and they know logging is going to be going on every 10 to 15 years next to them, and they can make a choice if they want to live there," she said. Frediani noted property owners who want to cut trees can apply to get their zoning changed. The county regulates zoning. Some predict a new demographic moving into the woods. Bob Briggs, a board member with the Central Coast Forest Association, which represents small forest owners, said zoning changes are a long, arduous process. He predicted many who couldn't log their land would sell to a wealthy buyer who wouldn't need to make money off the property. That person instead would build a dream mansion in the woods. "I suspect there'll be a lot of that," Briggs said. "That's a perfectly valid use of the land."
Bob
Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer California counties have won new legal authority to regulate the location of timber-cutting within their borders. The state Supreme Court voted 4-3 Thursday to uphold two Santa Cruz County ordinances restricting logging in the county. Lumber companies had argued that only the state, which approves all commercial logging plans, can specify their locations. The Santa Cruz ordinances were passed in 1999. One allows logging only in specified timber-production zones and other areas, such as mining and industrial zones, that are not near residential districts. The other ordinance allows helicopters used for tree removal to be based only in one of the approved logging areas or adjacent property. A state appeals court had overturned both ordinances, ruling that they were precluded by a state law that prohibits counties from regulating "the conduct of timber operations." But the state's high court said the conduct of logging is not the same as its location. "Land-use regulation in California historically has been a function of local government," said Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar in the majority opinion. She said state forestry law "preserves and plainly contemplates the exercise of local authority," provided that a local ordinance "avoids speaking to how timber operations may be conducted and addresses only where they may take place." Prohibiting local regulation could force a county to allow logging in residential areas, Werdegar said. Dissenting Justice Carlos Moreno said the majority's distinction was artificial and would enable a county to prohibit logging anywhere, or almost anywhere, within its borders. "No such line (between location and conduct) can ever be drawn," said Moreno, who was joined by Justices Joyce Kennard and Marvin Baxter. Mark Stone, chairman of the county Board of Supervisors, said the ruling "vindicated one of the most important functions of county government -- to protect their residents by ensuring that neighboring land uses are compatible with each other." A lawyer for Big Creek Lumber Co. and the Central Coast Forest Association, which challenged the ordinances, was not available for comment. The
case is Big Creek Lumber Co. vs. County of Santa Cruz, S123659.
|