Monterey residents threaten lawsuit as regional airport seeks to erase old noise ordinances

Residents of Monterey, California, have threatened legal action against the Monterey Peninsula Airport District if the board votes on Sept. 17 to formally repeal three decades-old noise and safety ordinances that neighbors say still protect the community from aircraft noise.

The statutes, adopted in 1978 and 1979, appear to regulate airport operating hours, minimum altitudes over residential areas and touch-and-go practice landings. Residents in the Monterey Fly Safe Coalition, a neighborhood group formed in late 2023, say the ordinances were never enforced and that recent growth at Monterey Regional Airport (MRY) has produced near-constant jet noise — including early mornings and overnight periods — that has degraded residents’ quality of life.

Neighbors contend the airport has undergone a rapid transformation since the COVID-19 pandemic, with about 160 aircraft movements a day now reported at MRY. That figure includes roughly 14 scheduled commercial flights and more than 140 general aviation movements — small planes, charters and private jets — that residents say create a steady succession of noise. Passenger traffic that historically hovered around 200,000 annually from 2014 to 2019 rose to more than 300,000 since 2021, a roughly 50% increase officials attribute to post-pandemic travel demand and increased private-jet use.

Longtime resident Nancy Runyon said she moved to Monterey to "semi-retire" and is now frustrated by aircraft noise. "We're not a proper place for an airport," she said. "A few planes, no big deal. But constant noise — this is driving people crazy." The coalition's attorney warned the district in a letter dated Aug. 18 that repealing the ordinances could expose the board to litigation and further erode trust with the community.

Airport officials and some board members say the ordinances should be removed because federal aviation law preempts local regulation of flight paths and the airport was never authorized by the Federal Aviation Administration to enforce those measures. "We've never enforced these ordinances," said Carl Miller, chairman of the airport board. "From the first day they were enacted, we were never authorized to [enforce them] by the FAA." Miller said the board has held meetings and listened to concerns but cannot control what happens in the national airspace.

Commissioner Jonathan Ahmadi, elected in 2023 in part on a platform of addressing noise complaints, supported the preliminary July vote to repeal the ordinances and said keeping unenforceable laws on the books poses legal risk. "As a principle of good governance, we shouldn't have laws on the books that are illegal, unconstitutional, superseded, or can't be enforced," he said. Ahmadi also described the practical effects some residents report: "Some of these aircraft sound like a loud leaf blower to some residents. I don't think anyone feels like a good neighbor if someone is starting up a leaf blower at 5am."

Residents and the coalition point to changes in flight routing under the FAA's NextGen program, introduced in the mid-2010s to increase efficiency. They say NextGen has concentrated flight paths into narrow corridors that now pass directly over previously quiet neighborhoods, bringing new and persistent noise to coastal areas once dominated by the sounds of surf and seabirds. The airport and some supporters dispute the severity of the problem. Online commenters and some locals have said the airport predated many nearby neighborhoods and that residents could relocate if intolerant of aircraft traffic.

The district is undertaking physical expansion even as the policy debate continues. Construction began earlier this year on a new terminal building, taxiways and an apron intended to accommodate additional aircraft. Supporters of airport growth cite economic and transportation benefits, including easier access for visitors to nearby resorts and businesses.

The board already approved a first vote to repeal the ordinances in July; the Sept. 17 meeting is expected to be the final vote. Coalition leaders have said they will sue if the repeal is finalized. Their attorney has experience filing Federal Aviation Administration rulemaking petitions in other communities, including Malibu, seeking changes to flight patterns and operating procedures.

Legal questions in the dispute hinge on federal preemption of airspace regulation, the enforceability of decades-old local measures, and whether local authorities can use other administrative tools to address noise and community impacts. The airport district has suggested residents pursue formal FAA petitions as one avenue for seeking changes to flight tracks or operational limits.

As the vote approaches, officials and residents say the dispute has highlighted a broader tension in coastal and suburban communities nationwide: balancing growth in air service and private aviation with long-standing expectations of quiet and outdoor amenity. The airport board and the Monterey Fly Safe Coalition are set to present competing views at the September meeting, with litigation threatened if the board completes the repeal.

The outcome will determine whether the district removes the ordinances from its books or faces a court challenge that could test the legal boundaries between local land-use and noise concerns and federal control of the national airspace.