Facts

Pacific Shore Property Owners Association filed suit against the Federal Aviation Administration and the Border Coast Regional Airport Authority, or BCRAA.

The Pacific Shore Property Owners Association is a private association of owners of property in Del Norte County. The property is known as the Pacific Shores Subdivision, an undeveloped Subdivision that was platted 50 years ago but never developed due to various constraints. In 2009, in response to federal changes to airport safety requirements, the FAA and BCRAA initiated environmental review for a safety improvement project at the Del Norte County Regional Airport. The resultant EIR stated that BCRAA intended to purchase lots, remove roads, and re-establish wetlands in the undeveloped Subdivision as mitigation for the airport safety project.

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
The property owners association argued that various California agencies manipulated the elevation of Lake Earl, a lagoon adjacent to the Subdivision, which caused periodic flooding of the Subdivision. The Subdivision has never been able to obtain permits to build infrastructure or develop residential structures due to its location on sand dune and wetlands habitat and its location on the Smith River floodplain.

In 2009, the FAA and Border Coast Regional Airport Authority initiated plans to improve the Del Norte County Regional Airport. However, the property owners association argued that the environmental review did not adequately describe how the BCRAA would mitigate for the environmental impacts of the runway safety project, and that its actions amounted to an unlawful taking under both federal and state constitutions. The association learned that the county intended to use the Subdivision to mitigate, and that various Subdivision roads would be removed.

The association asserted causes of action for violation of Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies for Federal and Federally Assisted Programs, violation of the Takings Clause, inverse condemnation, violation of CEQA, and violation of the Constitutional prohibition against private gifts of public money.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The BCRAA sought to dismiss the charges against it for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The BCRAA's defenses included failure to state a claim, statute of limitations, ripeness, and standing.

Result

The court dismissed plaintiffs' claims.

Other Information

A separate case against the California Department of Fish and Wildlife for claims related to flooding in the Subdivision is currently on appeal from the Sacramento Superior Court.