Judge Rules in Favor of Pilots After Decades-Long Dispute with Watsonville

A Housing Development Near an Airport Faces Legal Challenges

A proposed housing development near the Watsonville Municipal Airport was recently defeated in court due to concerns over noise. The project, which included 21 units facing the airport, had been approved by the city council in 2021. However, a lawsuit filed by the Watsonville Pilots Association (WPA) led to its rejection.

The WPA argued that the city violated state aviation safety laws by not following the guidelines outlined in the Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. This handbook provides statewide standards for ensuring land use compatibility around airports. The city’s general plan, which was supposed to include these guidelines, had been previously invalidated due to a lawsuit from the WPA two decades ago.

The Legal Battle and Its Implications

In a February 3 ruling, Judge Timothy Schmal agreed with the WPA, stating that the city had rubber-stamped the project using an inadequate general plan. The court also found that the city’s environmental review relied on a study that did not sufficiently analyze noise impacts.

Airport noise affecting neighboring residential areas is a long-standing issue in California. For example, San Francisco International Airport has adapted landing procedures after Pacifica residents complained about the noise. Similarly, neighbors near Monterey’s regional airport have turned to litigation to address noise concerns.

Orry Korb, a board member of the WPA, emphasized that noise can reduce airport operations or even lead to closures. He noted that residential development near airports creates a conflict. Korb mentioned San Jose Mineta International Airport, which has had a noise-based curfew since 2003, and Reid-Hillview Airport, which faces closure due to criticisms including noise.

Historical Context and Ongoing Conflicts

For over 30 years, Watsonville has considered adding housing around the airport. Following the 1989 earthquake, some locals proposed closing the airport to build affordable housing. This sparked decades of conflict between the WPA and airport supporters.

The city began revising its general plan in 2000, aiming for a 2030 General Plan. It considered developing thousands of homes near the airport, but the WPA repeatedly fought these efforts. In 2008, a superior court decision found that the city violated the state’s aviation law by not adopting safety and density criteria from the Caltrans handbook.

This ruling invalidated the city’s proposed general plan, limiting it to the outdated 2005 General Plan. Subsequent attempts to update the 2030 General Plan were also rejected by judges in 2010 and 2014.

The 21-Unit Townhome Project

When the city council approved the 21-unit Townhome Project in 2021, it did so without adopting a revised general plan with the guidance from the handbook. City staff claimed that their own independent analysis made the environmental impact review permissible. They cited a 2018 noise study that suggested exterior and interior noise levels were lower than what the handbook recommends.

However, Judge Schmal ruled that since the city did not incorporate the handbook into its general plan, it had “no discretion” to use its own analysis. The court ordered the city to halt the townhouse project and pause approving other developments near the airport until it adopts state airport compatibility standards into its general plan.

Current Efforts and Future Outlook

The city of Watsonville is currently updating its planning guidelines around land use near the airport. It expects to present a draft for its General Plan 2050 for public review later this year.

Douglas Rice, regional vice president of the California Pilots Association, stated that the court’s decision will resonate at airports throughout the state that continue to ignore compliance with state safety standards.

Conclusion

The legal battle over the Watsonville housing development highlights the ongoing tension between urban growth and aviation safety. As cities strive to address housing shortages, they must also consider the impact of their decisions on nearby airports and communities. The outcome of this case may set a precedent for future developments near airports across California.