The Court found that the proposed overflight easement of plaintiffs' property, granting Humboldt County the right to, among other things, "regulate or prohibit light emissions that might interfere with pilot vision" as a condition for plaintiffs obtaining a building permit to make "minor alterations to their residence," did not as a matter of law effect a taking under Fifth Amendment jurisprudence or California law, and the plaintiffs failed to come forward with evidence sufficient to establish the practical effect of the easement was to bring about such a taking. The Court dismissed the case.
Plaintiffs, whose property is located within a zone over which aircraft from Arcata-Eureka Airport routinely fly, challenge the constitutionality of a Humboldt County general plan requirement that they provide an aircraft overflight easement as a condition for obtaining a building permit to make minor alterations to their residence, arguing that the easement requirement constitutes a taking of their property without payment of just compensation. The overflight easement grants the County the right to, among other things, "regulate or prohibit light emissions that might interfere with pilot vision."
under Fifth Amendment jurisprudence or California law, and the plaintiffs failed to come
forward with evidence sufficient to either establish the practical effect of the easement
was to bring about such a taking, or to demonstrate there are triable issues of material fact
with respect to that question.