Court Hands Major Victory to Watsonville Pilots Association in Airport Land-Use Dispute
- WPA Editorial
- 4 hours ago
- 3 min read
Santa Cruz County Superior Court rules city violated state law in approving development near Watsonville Municipal Airport
WATSONVILLE — In a sweeping decision that reinforces long-standing airport safety protections, a Santa Cruz County Superior Court judge has ruled decisively in favor of the Watsonville Pilots Association (WPA), finding that the City of Watsonville unlawfully approved development projects near Watsonville Municipal Airport without complying with state aeronautical law and prior court orders.
In a 24-page Statement of Decision issued February 3, 2026, Judge Timothy Schmal granted the pilots association’s petitions for writ of mandate, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief, concluding that the city acted in violation of the State Aeronautics Act (SAA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The ruling centers on the city’s 2021 approval of a 21-unit residential project at 547 Airport Boulevard, located within the airport’s designated safety zones. The court found that the city approved the project despite failing to incorporate mandatory state airport safety standards—contained in the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook—into its General Plan, as required by law and by earlier court rulings dating back more than a decade.
“This case is not about discretion,” the court wrote, emphasizing that Watsonville, located in Santa Cruz County—a so-called “no-procedure” county under state law—has a “very strong mandate” to adopt all state airport compatibility standards into its General Plan before approving development near the airport
City Rejected Prior Court Guidance
The court traced a long history of litigation between WPA and the city, noting that both the Superior Court and the Sixth District Court of Appeal previously ruled—in 2008, 2010, and again in 2014—that Watsonville must incorporate state aeronautical safety criteria as nondiscretionary standards in its planning documents.
Despite those rulings, the city resumed approving airport-adjacent projects based on its own interpretation of safety compatibility, a move the court characterized as a clear departure from settled law. City officials argued they could rely on the city’s older 2005 General Plan and internal analyses, even though the plan does not incorporate the state’s airport safety standards.
The court rejected that argument outright, finding that “making findings in development applications that incorporate Handbook standards is not enough” and that the city “has no discretion” to substitute its own analysis for formal adoption of the standards into its General Plan
Environmental Review Also Found Deficient
In addition to violations of the State Aeronautics Act, the court ruled that the city improperly relied on a mitigated negative declaration rather than preparing a full environmental impact report (EIR) under CEQA.
The judge found that the city’s environmental review failed to adequately analyze aircraft noise and safety hazards for residents who would live and work near the airport. The city relied on a 2018 noise study that did not measure noise at or near the project site and offered only cursory discussion of airport safety risks, despite statutory requirements to closely examine those impacts when no airport land-use compatibility plan is in place.
“The MND’s analysis was conclusory at best,” the court wrote, concluding that the city failed to meaningfully apply state standards or provide the public with sufficient information about potential risks.
Broader Implications for Future Development
Although the specific residential project’s permits have since expired, the court rejected arguments that the case was moot. The ruling leaves in place the city’s legislative actions changing zoning and land-use designations near the airport, meaning similar projects could be proposed again.
As a result, the court found an ongoing, justiciable controversy and issued declaratory relief clarifying that Watsonville may not approve future development in airport safety zones unless it first brings its General Plan into compliance with state law—or unless an Airport Land Use Commission is formally established.
The decision effectively restores judicial oversight over airport-area development in Watsonville and reinforces statewide airport safety planning requirements that the pilots association has fought to uphold for nearly two decades.
Looking Forward
The Watsonville Pilots Association recognizes that Watsonville faces significant housing needs and supports responsible, well-planned growth that expands housing access while protecting public safety and critical infrastructure.
WPA remains committed to working constructively with the City to advance housing solutions that comply with the State Aeronautics Act and CEQA. By incorporating the required airport safety standards into the City’s General Plan, Watsonville can move forward with greater certainty—supporting thoughtful development while ensuring the safety of residents, airport users, and the broader community.