13. CLOSED SESSION
13C.
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION
(California Government Code § 54956.9(d)(1)):
1. Zamperini Airfield Preservation Society v. City of Torrance, et al.
USDC Case No. 2:24CV04538CBMJPR
*2.
City of Torrance v. HiShear Corporation
USDC Case No. 2:17cv07732DSFJPR
*3.
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
Order No. R420200003 June 13, 2020
*4.
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
Order No. R420210079 June 18, 2021
*5.
City of Torrance v. Pacific Indemnity Company
USDC Case No. 2:25cv04667CASPVCx
Name
Sarah Sedaghat
Comment 06/02/2025 03:24 PM : (Against)
I am so deeply disappointed and disheartened to hear of the Council’s recent decision to reverse the touch and go ban at Torrance airport. I and the many other residents who are severely impacted by the touch and go noise nuisance finally experienced some desperatelyneeded relief once the ban was enacted, and we were so thankful the Council finally addressed the matter. Now we feel so deeply wronged, betrayed, and cast aside by the Council!
Please, you must UPHOLD THE BAN OF TOUCH AND GO! If you will not uphold the ban, it seems that’s leading down the dark path of calling for closure of the airport entirely. While we do not WANT that, we do NEED balance. Residents will never stop fighting for our right to peace. We will not stop packing Council meetings about this.
We will not let these quietlymade decisions slip by unnoticed. We will not stop holding the Council accountable. Your duty is to represent what’s best for the residents of Torrance, not pilot lobbyist groups. It's completely unacceptable for the Council to roll back a protective measure for the majority (RESIDENTS) that was finally giving us the peace we are entitled to in our own homes.
PROTECT RESIDENTS OF TORRANCE — UPHOLD THE BAN OF TOUCH AND GO!
P.S. I am in full support of COTAR’s letter to the City Council (attached). Sarah Sedaghat
1 PUBLIC COMMENT REPORT
FOR AGENDA ITEM 13C
May 31, 2025 SUBMITTED ELECTRONICALLY
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers:
Re: Zamperini Airfield Preservation Society v. City of Torrance We understand the City has been in settlement talks with a pilots’ group (aka Zamperini Airfield Preservation Society - “ZAPS”) about its airport-related lawsuit and has reached an agreement, subject to City Council approval.
We are not privy to the terms of the agreement. However, we urge you not to approve any settlement that would reverse measures recently established to protect residents, without any chance for community input. Undoing recent Council actions will have direct and immediate harm on residents’ quality of life, and will only result in inflaming an issue that has been largely resolved.
Any settlement not involving the affected residents would constitute a backroom deal between a money- backed special interest group like ZAPS and the Council. The policy issues at stake deserve a full discussion in the public view, not merely the rubber-stamping of an already “done deal” behind closed doors. All of the recent ordinances were drafted on the advice of expert legal counsel, subjected to public debate, and passed with a popular vote. The City has an obligation to defend its actions and the public interest in court, if necessary. The City’s trial costs should not be a factor. They should be paid from the Airport Fund (users of the airport), not the General Fund.
Besides, settling one lawsuit will not bring final resolution of the potential legal issues. Instead, it will leave the City open to future legal challenges from other users of the public airport who will not be deterred by a settlement with ZAPS that does not apply to them.
Finally, it would set a terrible precedent to capitulate to a bullying lawsuit by a disgruntled minority that disagreed with a popular decision. Remember, most pilots that use the airport—some 70% of airplanes registered at TOA—are not residents of the City. Do not abandon the City’s residents in favor of outside interests. Defend the ordinances in court where the legal issues can be decided once and for all.
For COTAR,
Chuck Costello Richard Root Daniel Will
Torrance Riviera Torrance Riviera Torrance Walteria
2 13. CLOSED SESSION
13C. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION (California Government Code § 54956.9(d)(1)):
1. Zamperini Airfield Preservation Society v. City of Torrance, et al.
USDC Case No. 2:24CV04538CBMJPR
*2. City of Torrance v. HiShear Corporation
USDC Case No. 2:17cv07732DSFJPR
*3. California Regional Water Quality Control Board
Order No. R420200003 June 13, 2020
*4. California Regional Water Quality Control Board
Order No. R420210079 June 18, 2021
*5. City of Torrance v. Pacific Indemnity Company
USDC Case No. 2:25cv04667CASPVCx
Name
Josh Sedaghat
Comment 06/02/2025 03:28 PM : (Against)
Hello City Council,
I'm deeply saddened by the news that the ban on touch and go operations at Torrance airport has been lifted. This ban has restored peace to myself and many other residents.
We have fought for this change for so long, so to have it turned back so quickly is disappointing on many levels.
Our peace has been taken away again, so the fight for it will also restart. And if we can't ban touch and go's, then where do we go from here? Is the city council and staff looking to take immediate action to help offset this major change? I think you’re all aware that this will again become a pressing topic due to the many residents that will suffer from touch and go operations being allowed. Are we going to let this drag on for too long like last time? What will the city do to protect the residents from the onslaught of noise that we’ll now have to endure again?
While it's not something I would hope for, it feels like this reversal puts us on a path to seriously consider the closure of the airport. Definitely not the preferred method, but if we can't have balance, then more extreme measures will need to be taken. And Torrance residents will do what it takes to have their peace since there is nothing more important.
The current landing fees and time restrictions simply aren’t enough, Sling is already back to their old ways, they have the money to deal with it. See screenshot.
So again, I ask what is being done now to help your residents, the people that elected you to represent them? What restrictions will be introduced to ensure balance is maintained between the airport and residents?
We need your help, we desperately need your help. Please don’t let us down.
Regards,
Josh
3 13. CLOSED SESSION
13C. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION (California Government Code § 54956.9(d)(1)):
1. Zamperini Airfield Preservation Society v. City of Torrance, et al.
USDC Case No. 2:24CV04538CBMJPR
*2. City of Torrance v. HiShear Corporation
USDC Case No. 2:17cv07732DSFJPR
*3. California Regional Water Quality Control Board
Order No. R420200003 June 13, 2020
*4. California Regional Water Quality Control Board
Order No. R420210079 June 18, 2021
*5. City of Torrance v. Pacific Indemnity Company
USDC Case No. 2:25cv04667CASPVCx
Name
Josh Sedaghat
Comment 06/02/2025 03:28 PM : (Against)
Hello City Council,
I'm deeply saddened by the news that the ban on touch and go operations at Torrance airport has been lifted. This ban has restored peace to myself and many other residents.
We have fought for this change for so long, so to have it turned back so quickly is disappointing on many levels.
Our peace has been taken away again, so the fight for it will also restart. And if we can't ban touch and go's, then where do we go from here? Is the city council and staff looking to take immediate action to help offset this major change? I think you’re all aware that this will again become a pressing topic due to the many residents that will suffer from touch and go operations being allowed. Are we going to let this drag on for too long like last time? What will the city do to protect the residents from the onslaught of noise that we’ll now have to endure again?
While it's not something I would hope for, it feels like this reversal puts us on a path to seriously consider the closure of the airport. Definitely not the preferred method, but if we can't have balance, then more extreme measures will need to be taken. And Torrance residents will do what it takes to have their peace since there is nothing more important.
The current landing fees and time restrictions simply aren’t enough, Sling is already back to their old ways, they have the money to deal with it. See screenshot.
So again, I ask what is being done now to help your residents, the people that elected you to represent them? What restrictions will be introduced to ensure balance is maintained between the airport and residents?
We need your help, we desperately need your help. Please don’t let us down.
Regards,
Josh
4 5