After more than a decade of legal battles over development work near a California municipal airport, a pilot advocacy group has prevailed in court, securing a ruling that local officials must follow state aviation land-use laws before approving housing near airport operations.
On Feb. 3, a Santa Cruz County Superior Court judge ruled that the City of Watsonville violated state law when it approved a 21-unit residential development within a designated safety zone near Watsonville Municipal Airport. Judge Timothy Schmal granted petitions for writ of mandate and declaratory relief filed by the Watsonville Pilots Association (WPA), finding the city failed to comply with the State Aeronautics Act and the California Environmental Quality Act.
Ryan Ramirez, president of the Watsonville Pilots Association, told AVWeb the organization has challenged similar decisions by the city multiple times over the past 15 years.
“We’ve litigated for literally exactly the same reason all three times,” Ramirez said. “If it wasn’t for these lawsuits, I don’t think we’d have a crosswind runway.”
Court: City Must Adopt State Standards
The most recent case stems from a 2021 approval for townhomes at a site adjacent to the California airport. The court found that Watsonville—located in a county without an Airport Land Use Commission—was required under state law to incorporate airport compatibility standards into its General Plan before approving development in areas affected by airport operations.
“This case is not about discretion,” the court wrote, explaining that cities in such circumstances must adopt state compatibility criteria into their planning documents before permitting development near airports.
The ruling requires the city to set aside approvals tied to the project and prohibits further activity unless environmental review and planning documents meet state requirements.
Environmental Review Also at Issue
The court also found that the city relied on a mitigated negative declaration rather than preparing a full environmental impact report. The judge in the case concluded the city’s evaluation of aircraft noise and safety considerations for residents before proceeding with plans for the development did not meet legal standards.
Ramirez said the association’s position is based on compliance with existing regulations.
“We totally understand that everyone has their own needs,” he said. “There’s definitely housing challenges out there, but there’s a way to do it where we can all work together and maintain these general aviation airports.”
Broader Implications
Even though permits for the specific housing project expired, the court rejected arguments that the case was moot, citing zoning and planning actions that remain in effect that could allow similar proposals in the future. The decision also states that Watsonville may not approve development within airport safety zones unless it first updates its General Plan to include required standards or establishes an Airport Land Use Commission.
Ramirez said pilot groups at other airports facing development pressures or other potential legal battles should get engaged in local planning processes.
“Get yourself organized,” he said. “Get a pilot association together. Without organization, you’re just going to get steamrolled over.”
