Agenda Item 10B - Supplemental Material #1 — Torrance City Council, June 17, 2025

10B
Date: June 17, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Patrick Q. Sullivan, City Attorney
By: Jessica Corona, Law Office Administrator | [email protected] Subject: Supplemental Material #1 for Agenda Item 10B

DISCUSSION

Revisions to Ordinance

There was a scrivener’s error in the Redline version of the Ordinance that was attached to the Staff Report as it did not include Section 51.5.8 entitled Emergency Exemptions. Additionally, Staff has revised the numbering of the sections in the Ordinance from the previous section numbering system (51.5.1., 51.5.2, etc.) to the City’s new section numbering system (51.5.010,

51.5.020, etc.). The revised Clean version of the Ordinance is attached as Attachment 1 and the revised Redline version of the Ordinance is attached as Attachment 2.

The City Council received email correspondence on this matter. The emails from the public that were received by Monday, June 16, 2025, are attached to this supplemental as Attachment 5.

Response to COTAR’s Letter Dated June 14, 2025

This is a response from City staff to the letter dated June 14, 2025, from COTAR (Coalition for Torrance Airport Reform) regarding the City Council Agenda Item 10B, scheduled for public hearing on June 17, 2025. The letter and this response will be provided to City Council before the City Council meeting and will be included in the record. The letter from COTAR is attached as Attachment 4.

The Proposed Amended Ordinance and Settlement

If adopted, the proposed amended ordinance will continue to regulate touch and go, full stop-taxi back, and low approach operations. The table comparing the City’s restrictions on such operations at the Airport, from 1990 through the proposed amended ordinance, is attached as Attachment 3. As shown in the table, the proposed amended ordinance is in alignment with Ordinance No. 3307 that was in effect from 1990 to 2024, and if adopted, it will reduce noise exposure for the benefit of residents while allowing the Airport to be useful to the pilot community. 1 City Council
June 17, 2025

Page 2 ends

The City Council’s consideration of the proposed amended ordinance is also a result of the court- mandated settlement conference. If adopted, the amended ordinance will result in a settlement of the pending court litigation which seeks to invalidate the existing touch and go ban and restrictions on other operations. Therefore, the proposed amended ordinance represents a balance of competing interests and is, therefore, in the best interest of the City as a whole.
Compliance with CEQA

The City reviewed the proposed amended ordinance for compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State’s CEQA Guidelines. Based on that review, the City finds that the proposed amended ordinance is exempt from environmental review under two separate and distinct CEQA provisions.

The proposed amended ordinance is not subject to CEQA review under CEQA Guidelines section 15378 because it is not “an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.”

The proposed amended ordinance also falls under the common-sense exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3), which states as follows:

(b) A project is exempt from CEQA if: (3) The activity is covered by the common sense exemption that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.

The proposed amended ordinance is in alignment with the 1990 ordinance, and as such, the amended regulations will reduce the noise and safety concerns documented in the administrative record. Reductions in such concerns also assist in ensuring that there will be no or negligible noise impacts on the environment. While resident noise concerns are valid and important, they are different than noise impacts of a project that may fall under CEQA review requirement. The proposed amended ordinance is consistent with the City’s noise abatement program and the Noise Ordinance (Article 8, Chapter 6, Division 4 of the Torrance Municipal Code), which include aircraft noise limits and enforcement procedures, and the proposed restrictions will help ensure compliance with the City’s noise regulations. Further, no evidence has been presented of any significant noise impacts, particularly none violating the City’s noise abatement program or Noise Ordinance.

The existing record demonstrates that while the touch and go operations generate noise concerns for the surrounding communities, such operations do not exceed acceptable noise standards and do not introduce new environmental impacts. In fact, the proposed amended ordinance, if adopted, will continue to reduce noise impacts and will not create them. The airport is also 2 City Council
June 17, 2025

Page 3 ends

constrained by federal law, and the amended ordinance mirrors the 1990 restrictions that are grandfathered under applicable federal law. As such, the proposed amended ordinance is exempt from CEQA and in compliance with applicable federal law.

Response to Emails from Dave Brent, Jon Dearing, and Joshua Sedaghat dated June 16, 2025 (Agenda Item 10B)

Though not required by CEQA, the City responds to emails received from residents regarding Agenda Item 10B, involving City Council consideration of adopting an ordinance amending the Torrance Municipal Code regulating touch (and stop) and go, full stop-taxi back, and low approaches at the Torrance Municipal Airport, along with adoption of exemptions under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).

D. Brent Email

The City appreciates Mr. Brent’s email and acknowledges his background and experience. The email expresses opposition to the proposed amended ordinance. Current Ordinance No. 3930, adopted in 2024, placed a ban on touch and go operations at the airport. The proposed amendment, if adopted, would replace the ban with a day/time regulation on touch/stop and goes, consistent with the City’s prior Ordinance 3307, adopted in 1990. Said differently, the airport has restricted touch/stop and go ground activities at the airport for approximately 34 years. The ban has been in effect for about fifteen months, and City staff is now proposing a return to a day/time restriction that was in effect for 34 years.

The City has acknowledged, and continues to acknowledge, Torrance residents’ noise concerns.

These concerns are different than significant noise impacts, particularly to the surrounding community, which impacts are regulated, minimized, monitored, and enforced through the City’s noise abatement program and Noise Ordinance. The City also has a responsibility to balance, and balances, these important noise concerns against the limited need for touch/stop and goes, which help to ensure pilot proficiency and enhance safe landings. Mr. Brent’s email also does not present any evidence that the proposed amended ordinance would result in significant noise or other environmental impacts, nor has the City noted any as part of its consideration of this ordinance, and amendments thereto, over the past more than 34 years.

The City maintains an effective noise monitoring system, which is not part of the proposed amended ordinance.

J. Dearing Email

The City appreciates Mr. Dearing’s email. In response, the City clarifies that it is not aware of any “precedent” to ban touch/stop and go ground activities that post-dates the enactment of the Airport Noise Capacity Act (“ANCA”) in 1990. For example, the Woodley Airport in Compton, California, as referenced in the email, imposed such a ban pre-ANCA. 3 City Council
June 17, 2025

Page 4 ends

Further, the City does not concur that its position conflicts with federal law. The proposed amended ordinance simply removes the ban on touch/stop and goes at the airport in favor of a regulation as to the day and times for such ground activities. The proposed regulation constitutes a use restriction, in lieu of a ban; however, the proposed day/time restrictions on such activities will continue to limit noise exposure from such activities. The proposed amendment is also in alignment with the City’s prior ordinance in place from 1990 through 2024, or for approximately 34 years.

The email claims that the City has misapplied CEQA exemptions. First, the City’s staff report identifies the applicable CEQA exemptions, which are applicable to this proposed amendment.

Second, the email points to an attached graphic showing airport operations at 186,000 -187,000 in 2022 and 2023, while the 1990 ordinance was in effect. However, those two years are close in the number of operations to 2000 (178,000), 2002 (168,000), 2003 (179,000), and 2007 (169,000), while the same 1990 ordinance was in effect. There is no explanation as to why 2022 and 2023 were as high as they were even though the same restrictions on touch and goes applied.

Importantly, the graph lumps all airport operations together, without breaking them down, so there is no way to determine both the type (regular landings, take-offs) and number of operations in question.

At the same time, in 2017 (under the 1990 ordinance), the number of operations was 105,000, while in 2024 (under the new ordinance with a complete ban), the number was 102,000, which is considered comparable — even though the 2024 restriction was a complete ban.

The email also claims that a “reversion” from a ban to a day/time regulation, consistent with the City’s 1990 ordinance, will bring about “significant environmental impacts” resulting from an increase in such activities to “greater than 50%” levels. However, it is unclear what this projection is based on, as there is no evidence provided to substantiate the claim that under the proposed amended ordinance the annual average will go to “levels greater than 50%.”

The email refers to a “pattern” of “misconstruing CEQA, citing the Sling litigation. To clarify, there was no court determination reached in the Sling litigation, there were no CEQA compliance judicial decision, and the litigation was settled before any hearing on the merits.

The email also provides a link to a report completed by the City of Long Beach. The City has reviewed the report and considers it part of this record of proceedings. The full report is found here: https://www.longbeach.gov/globalassets/city-manager/media-library/documents/memos- to-the-mayor-tabbed-file-list-folders/2023/october-31--2023---tff---general-aviation-at-long- beach-airport_final. This report effectively summarizes Long Beach airport and its environment; the applicable noise regulatory environment at federal, state, and local levels; noise monitoring at the Long Beach airport; and other important topics. It also includes attachments, including Attachment A on the fundamentals of environmental noise, which provides useful noise-related information, Attachment B, which is a memorandum from the Office of the City Attorney regarding its review and comment on airport issues; and Attachment C, which addresses the Federal Aviation Administration’s continuing noise research. Though the information presented in the 4 City Council
June 17, 2025

Page 5 ends

report is helpful, the City of Long Beach is not the Federal Aviation Administration or a court; and therefore, its views and comparative data, while useful, does not govern or control the City of Torrance’s proposed airport-related actions.

J. Sedaghat Email

The City appreciates Mr. Sedaghat’s email. In response, the City clarifies that the proposed amended ordinance, if adopted, would settle pending federal court litigation, which is a beneficial interest to the City. The settlement and the proposed amended ordinance, if adopted, is also taking place in the public forum with opportunities for full public participation and input. In short, it is part of an open, public, and participatory process.

The email also references two other airports with touch/stop and go bans, however, the City has been able to confirm that one airport, situated in Compton, California, has enacted such ban and that it pre-dates enactment of ANCA.

The email also misconstrues the City’s view of the environmental baseline for CEQA purposes.

This CEQA baseline is generally the physical conditions in the project area at the time environmental review commences; it represents a project- or plan-to-ground condition at the time of environmental review. The “ground” condition at this time is a ban on touch/stop and go ground activities at the airport per an ordinance that took effective in 2024 (or approximately fifteen months ago). The “change” represented by the proposed amended ordinance would remove the ban and replace it with a day and time regulation of such activities. Therefore, if adopted, the proposed amended ordinance would continue to actively regulate, and control touch/stop and go ground activities at the airport.

Notably, recent CEQA decisions reaffirm a public agency’s discretion and flexibility in selecting a baseline that realistically accounts for actual activities at or prior to approving a proposed plan, action, or project. In that context, the City has also considered the fact that it has actively regulated touch/stop and go ground activities at the airport from 1990 to 2024, a span of approximately 34 years. Returning to a day/time regulation, in lieu of a ban, aligns with the City’s prior regulatory actions at the airport.

Though suggested in the email, the City also notes that the test under CEQA is not “any change” that permits an increase in ground activities at the airport. The CEQA test is whether the proposed action causes a significant impact to the physical environment, and in this case, significant noise impacts. The City has considered this proposed action to the current ground condition at the airport and finds no evidence that the regulation, if adopted, would cause significant noise impacts as defined under CEQA, nor any noise violations under the City’s noise abatement program and Noise Ordinance. For all these reasons, the City finds that the identified CEQA exemptions are applicable.

5 City Council
June 17, 2025

Page 6 ends

ATTACHMENTS

1. Revised Ordinance (Clean Copy)

2. Revised Ordinance (Redline Copy)

3. Table of History of Restrictions

4. Letter from COTAR

5. Email Correspondence

6 1
3 2
5 5
ORDINANCE NO. ________

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ARTICLE 5 OF CHAPTER 1,
DIVISION 5 OF THE TORRANCE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING

TOUCH (AND STOP) AND GO, FULL STOP-TAXI BACK AND LOW

APPROACHES

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TORRANCE DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1
That Article 5 of Chapter 1, Division 5 of the Torrance Municipal Code entitled “Touch (and Stop) and Go, Full Stop-Taxi Back and Low Approaches” is amended in its entirety to read as follows:
“ARTICLE 5 - TOUCH (AND STOP) AND GO, FULL STOP-TAXI BACK AND LOW

APPROACHES

51.5.010 TOUCH AND GO DEFINED.

For purposes of this Article, a touch and go operation shall mean an action by an aircraft consisting of a landing and departure on a runway without stopping or exiting the runway.

51.5.020 STOP AND GO DEFINED
For purposes of this Article, a stop and go operation shall mean an action by an aircraft consisting of a landing followed by a complete stop on the runway and a takeoff from that point.

51.5.030 FULL STOP-TAXI BACK DEFINED
For purposes of this Article, a full stop-taxi back operation shall mean an action by an aircraft consisting of a landing on any runway followed by exiting the runway, with or without a complete stop, and returning directly to the approach end of any runway for a subsequent take-off.

51.5.040 LOW APPROACH DEFINED
For purposes of this Article, a low approach shall mean an action by an aircraft consisting of an approach less than 500 feet above the Airport whereby the pilot intentionally does not make contact with the runway.

51.5.050 TOUCH (AND STOP) AND GO, LOW APPROACH, AND FULL STOP-TAXI

BACK OPERATIONS
Touch (and stop) and go, low approach, and full stop-taxi back operations shall be permitted on the Airport during the below hours, only:

Monday through Friday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
7 2
3 2
5 5
Saturday 11:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.

51.5.060 PROHIBITED OPERATIONS ON WEEKDAYS
No touch (and stop) and go, low approach or full stop taxi back shall be permitted on the Airport between 5:01 p.m. of one day and 8:59 a.m. of the following day, Monday through Friday inclusive, and between 5:01 p.m. on Friday and 10:59 a.m. on Saturday.

51.5.070 PROHIBITED OPERATION ON SATURDAYS, SUNDAYS, AND CITY

OBSERVED HOLIDAYS
No touch (and stop) and go, low approach, or full stop taxi back shall be permitted on the Airport between 2:31 p.m. Saturday and 8:59 a.m. Monday, nor any City observed holiday.

51.5.080 EMERGENCY EXEMPTION
An aircraft shall be exempt from the provisions of Section 51.5.6 and 51.5.7 if, in the reasonable opinion of the City Manager or his designee(s), a bona fide emergency, go around, or missed approach exists which requires a low approach operation for the preservation of life or property; provided, however, that such aircraft in its departure shall not exceed the noise levels set forth in Section 46.8.8.” SECTION 2
Any provisions of the Municipal Code or its appendices, or any other ordinances of the City of Torrance inconsistent with this ordinance to the extent of the inconsistencies and no further, are repealed.

SECTION 3
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason deemed or held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision will not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council of the City of Torrance hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases or other portions might subsequently be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 4
This Ordinance was reviewed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq., "CEQA") and the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 Cal. Code of Regulations §§15000, et seq., the "CEQA Guidelines"). This Ordinance is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378, because the activity undertaken involves general text amendments to the Torrance Municipal Code that would not cause either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, as such, the Ordinance does not meet the definition of a "Project" under CEQA. The Ordinance is also exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the Ordinance may have a significant effect on the 8 3
3 2
5 5
environment. The Ordinance would make pre-existing public nuisance regulations more robust and protective of neighboring communities.

SECTION 5
This ordinance will take effect thirty days after the date of its adoption. Within fifteen days following adoption, this ordinance or a summary of this ordinance, if authorized by the City Council, will be published at least once in the Daily Breeze, a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Torrance.

INTRODUCED and APPROVED this _______ day _______ 2025.

ADOPTED and PASSED this _________ day of _______ 2025.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ARTICLE 5 OF CHAPTER 1,
DIVISION 5 OF THE TORRANCE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING

TOUCH (AND STOP) AND GO, FULL STOP-TAXI BACK AND LOW

APPROACHES

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TORRANCE DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

APPROACHES

51.5. 0 1 0 TOUCH AND GO DEFINED.

For purposes of this Article, a touch and go operation shall mean an action by an aircraft consisting of a landing and departure on a runway without stopping or exiting the runway.

51.5. 0 2 0 STOP AND GO DEFINED
For purposes of this Article, a stop and go operation shall mean an action by an aircraft consisting of a landing followed by a complete stop on the runway and a takeoff from that point.

51.5. 0 3 0 FULL STOP-TAXI BACK DEFINED
For purposes of this Article, a full stop-taxi back operation shall mean an action by an aircraft consisting of a landing on any runway followed by exiting the runway, with or without a complete stop, and returning directly to the approach end of any runway for a subsequent take-off.

51.5. 0 4 0 LOW APPROACH DEFINED
For purposes of this Article, a low approach shall mean an action by an aircraft consisting of an approach less than 500 feet above the Airport whereby the pilot intentionally does not make contact with the runway.

51.5. 0 5 0 TOUCH (AND STOP) AND GO, LOW APPROACH, AND FULL STOP-TAXI

BACK OPERATIONS
Touch (and sS top) and go, low approach, and full stop-taxi back operations shall be permitted on the Airport during the below hours, only :

Monday through Friday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
10 2
3 2
5 6
Saturday 11:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.

51.5. 0 6 0 PROHIBITED OPERATIONS ON WEEKDAYS
No touch (and stop) and go, low approach or full stop taxi back shall be permitted on the Airport between 5:01 p.m. of one day and 8:59 a.m. of the following day, Monday through Friday inclusive , and between 5:01 p.m. on Friday and 10:59 a.m. on Saturday .

51.5. 0 7 0 PROHIBITED OPERATION ON SATURDAYS, SUNDAYS , AND CITY

OBSERVED HOLIDAYS
No touch (and stop) and go, low approach, or full stop taxi back shall be permitted on the Airport between 2:31 p.m. Saturday and 8:59 a.m. Monday, nor any City observed holiday. ”

51.5.080 EMERGENCY EXEMPTION
An aircraft shall be exempt from the provisions of Section 51.5.6 and 51.5.7 if, in the reasonable opinion of the City Manager or his designee(s), a bona fide emergency, go around, or missed approach exists which requires a low approach operation for the preservation of life or property; provided, however, that such aircraft in its departure shall not exceed the noise levels set forth in Section 46.8.8 .” SECTION 2
Any provisions of the Municipal Code or its appendices, or any other ordinances of the City of Torrance inconsistent with this ordinance to the extent of the inconsistencies and no further, are repealed.

SECTION 4
This Ordinance was reviewed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq., "CEQA") and the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 Cal. Code of Regulations §§15000, et seq., the "CEQA Guidelines"). This Ordinance is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378, because the activity undertaken involves general text amendments to the Torrance Municipal Code that would not cause either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, as such, the Ordinance does not meet the definition of a "Project" under CEQA. The Ordinance is also exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the Ordinance may have a significant effect on the 11 3
3 2
5 6
environment. The Ordinance would make pre-existing public nuisance regulations more robust and protective of neighboring communities.

INTRODUCED and APPROVED this _______ day _______ 2025.

ADOPTED and PASSED this _________ day of _______ 2025.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
Mayor George Chen
PATRICK Q. SULLIVAN, City Attorney
By:________________________________
Tatia Y. Strader, Assistant City Attorney
ATTEST:
______________________________
Rebecca Poirier, City Clerk
12 1
ATTACHMENT 1
Ordinance 3307 (1990) Ordinance 3930 (2024) Proposed Amended Ordinance Touch (and
stop) and
go
Weekdays: prohibited 8:00
p.m. – 8:00 a.m.

Sunday/Holidays: prohibited
Saturday: allowed 10:00 a.m. –
5:00 p.m.

Prohibited Weekdays: prohibited 5:00 p.m. – 9:00 a.m.

Sunday/Holidays: prohibited
Saturday: allowed only 11:00 a.m. – 2.30
p.m.

Full stop-
taxi back
Weekdays: prohibited 10:00
p.m. – 8:00 a.m.

Sunday/Holidays: prohibited
Saturday: allowed 10:00 a.m. –
5:00 p.m.

Weekdays: prohibited 6:00 p.m. –
10:00 a.m.

Weekends/Holidays: prohibited
Weekdays: prohibited 5:00 p.m. – 9:00 a.m.

Sunday/Holidays: prohibited
Saturday: allowed only 11:00 a.m. – 2.30
p.m.

Low
approaches
Weekdays: prohibited 8:00
p.m. – 8:00 a.m.

Sunday/Holidays: prohibited
Saturday: allowed 10:00 a.m. –
5:00 p.m.

Weekdays: prohibited 6:00 p.m. –
10:00 a.m.

Weekends/Holidays: prohibited
Weekdays: prohibited 5:00 p.m. – 9:00 a.m.

Sunday/Holidays: prohibited
Saturday: allowed only 11:00 a.m. – 2.30
p.m.
13 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 Preser- vation 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 in- put. 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 discus- sion 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 de- terred 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
14 June 16, 2025

Honorable Mayor, Members of the City Council, and City Officials,

Re: PROPOSED ORDINANCE THAT WOULD ALLOW MORE TRAINING AT TORRANCE AIRPORT - ITEM 10B ON COUNCIL AGENDA FOR JUNE 17, 2025

I strongly oppose the proposed ordinance to lift the ban on touch and go operations at Torrance Airport. The City should not approve this ordinance for the following reasons:

Typical Residential Homes and Yards are Extremely Vulnerable to Aircraft Noise

Even typical residential homes with ‘all doors and windows closed’ cannot effectively attenuate incident low- flying small-aircraft noise by much more than 30 dBA. If the incident aircraft noise is in the neighborhood of 80+ dBA, then the noise level inside these homes can be 50+ dBA which interferes with verbal communication and definitely daytime naps and nighttime sleep.

Fluctuating aircraft noise is particularly objectionable when during the course of the day when there are aircraft flying intermittently overhead all day long. The abrupt noise fluctuation from normal ambient 50 dBA to suddenly 80+ dBA due to an aircraft flying overhead is very distracting and objectionable. A steady exposure to these intense noise fluctuations can lead to chronic health issues.

In the past the City Council decided it was necessary to ban touch and go operations, and it is still working.

The quality of life has improved and complaints from residents are noticeably down.

Absence of a Noise Monitoring System that Provides Complete Coverage for the Most Impacted Residential Neighborhoods

Thecurrent‘seven’CasperNoiseMonitorsareveryeasytoavoidbypilotssincetheycanreadilymaneuver laterally only a few hundred feet from the ground-based sensors and decrease their measured noise intensity by several dBA, thus avoiding measured and recorded noise violations.

In order to provide better noise violation monitoring, the number of sensors needs to be greatly increased and the distribution pattern needs to be greatly improved. The use of mobile noise monitors should also be considered.

Past Experience

As an Environmental Noise Consultant and resident of Torrance, I have performed several hundred noise impact studies in Torrance and surrounding cities. My work was done for the City of Torrance, businesses adjacent to the Torrance Municipal Airport, Honda Motors Corp, Toyota Motors Corp, the aerospace industry at TRW and NGC, and many developers and architects. I also taught Environmental Acoustics in the Physics Dept at the Lawrence Technological University in Michigan.

Thank you for your time and consideration,

Dave Brent
Reliant Environmental Acoustics, LLC
Torrance Resident, District #6
15 1
Huizar, Carlos
From: sandra holliday <
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2025 4:26 PM
To: CityCouncil
Subject: Agenda item 10B
I have written to the City Council various times on the subject of excessive airport noise in recent years.

I thought this subject was put to bed a year ago by City Council prohibitions which have been effective in significantly reduced airport noise.

I was very disappointed to learn that this topic was once again being re-opened.

I oppose any changes to the City code to allow touch and go or low approaches, or anything for that matter that increases the airport noise level that we have had since the City prohibitions were implemented and enforced.

Excessive airport noise is a public nuisance and the touch and go, low approaches are a public safety concern as well. These operations must remain prohibited.

Please do not make airport noise a topic we must revisit each year. That would not only be highly inefficient but also frustrating.

I urge the Council NOT to amend the city code to allow any loosening of the prohibitions currently in place. Please respect the voice of Torrance homeowners.

Regards,

Sandra Holliday

16 1
Huizar, Carlos
From: Joshua Sedaghat <
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2025 3:52 PM
To: Chen, George; Kaji, Jon; Lewis, Bridgett; Sheikh, Asam; Kalani, Sharon; Mattucci, Aurelio; Gerson, Jeremy; Sullivan, Patrick; Ramirez, Michelle
Subject: Please Read - Agenda Item 10B
Attachments: COTAR Letter to Council 6.14.2025.docx
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council:

I am deeply saddened and angered to see this ordinance/agenda item 10B being considered.

Implementing the touch-and-go ban provided much-needed peace and balance for Torrance residents.

The proposed settlement is not a compromise; it is the city being beaten down by the pilots and giving up on its residents.

You must not settle! You have every right to ban touch-and-go landings at Torrance Airport. Precedent has already been set by other airports like the Compton/Woodley Airport (CPM) and Clearwater Airport in Florida (CLW), where they have successfully banned touch-and-go landings. Torrance must follow in their footsteps to protect their residents. Settling will not be sufficient for your constituents and will only cause further conflict.

You own the land, you own the runways, and you are NOT federally preempted. While you cannot dictate what happens in the air, you CAN control what happens on your land, including any landing/takeoff policies. So I implore you to exercise your right to do so - DO NOT SETTLE. Touch-and- go operations must remain banned!
I would also challenge the claim that amending the existing ordinance would be exempt from completing a CEQA Environmental Impact Review. Amending the ordinance would result in significant environmental changes, namely noise and air quality. We’d go from 0 allowable touch-and-go hours to

43.5 hours a week. That would significantly increase operations, dramatically increasing flight volume above noise-sensitive land and increasing exposure to lead pollution. Even in his own analysis, the city attorney states that touch-and go operations had increased dramatically before the ban, disturbing residents while posing safety and quality of life concerns. Yet he follows that up by claiming that the proposed amendments (which severely loosen training restrictions) would not cause significant environmental changes?!
It appears the city attorney has also based this exemption claim on a comparison between the proposed ordinance and historic conditions that existed before the adoption of the touch-and-go ban. This is an incorrect application of CEQA law – the proposed change should instead be evaluated against current, existing environmental conditions, not past conditions that no longer exist. In this case, the current baseline condition at Torrance Airport is the absence of touch-and-go operations, per the City’s enacted ordinance. Any change that permits and results in a foreseeable increase in aircraft operations, noise, or Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important 17 2
related environmental impacts compared to that existing baseline constitutes as an environmental impact under CEQA.

By relying on pre-ban operating conditions as the baseline, the City risks making a legally flawed determination of environmental insignificance and improperly exempting the project from CEQA review.

This opens the City to potential litigation and undermines public trust in the environmental transparency CEQA is designed to uphold. If this change to the ordinance is approved, the City must first perform its due diligence by following CEQA protocol BEFORE implementing an updated ordinance.

Finally, if a change to the ordinance is completely unavoidable, the proposed allowable time windows for touch-and-go landings must be more limited. Eight hours on weekdays, and any time at all on weekends, are far too disruptive. To be more balanced, the restrictions should allow 2-3 hours during weekdays (e.g., 11 am—1 or 2 pm) and be prohibited entirely during weekends.

I'm in full support of COTAR's attached letter.

Joshua S.

Resident and Voter
18 1
Huizar, Carlos
From: Elise Klein <
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2025 3:04 PM
To: CityCouncil
Subject: Please do not allow Touch and Go's at Torrance Airport At times, the noise was unbearable before the practice was stopped. Many pilots still fly over the Hollywood Riviera neighborhood (like now, as I write this). I'm surprised and disappointed that you are considering allowing this to resume.

Elise Klein
Mesa St
Torrance 90505
Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important 19 1
Huizar, Carlos
From: Jon Dearing <
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2025 1:13 PM
To: CityCouncil; Chaparyan, Aram; Ramirez, Michelle; Megerdichian, Shant; Sullivan, Patrick Subject: Reject the settlement on touch-and-go at Torrance Airport Attachments: Protect our communities from KTOA.pdf
Dear City Councilmembers, City Management Team, and City Attorney:

I am writing as a concerned resident, home-based business owner, and member of the Coalition on Torrance Airport Reform (COTAR) regarding the proposed settlement on the city's recently implemented ban on touch-and-go flight training.

Based on the staff report at tomorrow's City Council agenda, the city is taking an extremely misguided position towards settling the litigation.

The City Attorney is causing the city to deviate sharply from the legally sound policy previously adopted by the City Council, by assembling a confusing mix of legal rationale. I have been involved in municipal policy matters for 20 years, and this ranks as one of the most misguided legal reviews I have encountered.

There is a wealth of legal basis to support keeping the ban and defending the lawsuit, including:

Precedent exists to ban touch-and-go
 The precedent clearly exists for a General Aviation airport to ban touch-and-go. Including from nearby airports and across the United States:
o See Woodley Airport in Compton, California:
https://dpw.lacounty.gov/avi/airports/ComptonWoodleyNoiseAbatement.aspx o See Clearwater, Florida: https://flyusa.com/clearwater-airpark/ Conflicting use of ANCA to justify City Attorney's position  The newly proposed ordinance to reauthorize touch-and-go represents a change to an ordinance that pre-exists ANCA as of 1990. But the city staff report is saying that ANCA is the same reason that touch-and-go cannot be banned. These are two fundamentally conflicting principles.  Further, City Resolution 77-215, adopted by the City Council in 1977 prior to ANCA, clearly expresses an intent that the city can and may further regulate touch-and-go activity:
o "17. That the City Manager seek alternate training fields for training flights, particularly touch and go and stop and go operations."
Misapplication of CEQA exemption
Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important 20 2
 The staff report falsely claims the settlement is exempt from CEQA by ignoring that the city's pre- existing ordinance is actually the ordinance that currently bans touch-and-go.  This proposed settlement and proposed new ordinance would enable the reversion of the significant flight volumes of 2022 and 2023, as documented in the city's own data -- see page 17 here and in attached chart:
https://www.torranceca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/95939/638847390973770000  This reversion, to levels greater than 50% of the annual average from the past decade, will bring significant environmental impacts that must be analyzed and mitigated pursuant to CEQA.  This continues a pattern of the city misconstruing CEQA applicability when authorizing various uses of Torrance Airport. The city has previously erred by granting business licenses to flight schools without studying the environmental impacts pursuant to CEQA. The issuance of a business license constitutes a "project" per CEQA because there are clearly identifiable environmental impacts caused by repeated flight training over residential areas by flight schools.

The city is not bound by federal grant assurances that ordinarily would preempt local control  As you may know, Long Beach is also struggling with severe volumes of flight training. Their city staff recently published a comprehensive report on their situation.  Torrance's position is much more favorable to implement local control provisions because Torrance does not have any federal grant assurances that ordinarily preempt local control of a municipal airport.
 From pages 19-20 of Long Beach's staff report, which specifically mentions Torrance's position:
o "The receipt of AIP grants requires the City and Airport to commit to numerous obligations regarding the operation and maintenance of the Airport. There are 39 Grant Assurances General Aviation Operations at Long Beach Airport covering almost every aspect of airport operations and management, including specific requirements to operate and maintain the airport in a safe and serviceable condition, mitigate hazards to airspace, use airport revenue properly, and not grant exclusive rights. Grant Assurance 22 requires the City to “make its airport available as an airport for public use on reasonable terms, and without unjust discrimination, to all types, kinds, and classes of aeronautical uses.” Similar Program Assurances apply to the City and Airport for acceptance of PFC funding. The City and the Airport are bound by federal grant assurances that limit the authority to curtail, deter, or further minimize operations. Airports that do not have federal obligations, such as small non-commercial service airports, for example Torrance Airport, may be able to implement use restrictions to limit noise exposure from operations. These restrictions are primarily ground-based restrictions, as the FAA has sole jurisdiction over airspace. Ground-based restrictions could include limiting hours of the airport’s availability, limiting the hours for certain activities, including training operations, or limiting the types of available services or businesses."  Full report: https://www.longbeach.gov/globalassets/city-manager/media- library/documents/memos-to-the-mayor-tabbed-file-list-folders/2023/october-31--2023---tff--- general-aviation-at-long-beach-airport_final
21 3
For these reasons, please ignore the City Attorney's recommendation and, instead, incorporate the above merits to the city's position, and defend the ordinance that you originally implemented to protect residents and home-based businesses.

Sincerely,
Jon Dearing
22  Protectthequalityoflifeforcommunities
surroundingTorranceAirport

 DefendthereformsimplementedbytheCityCouncil
torestorebalanceatTorranceAirport

Source:GeneralServicesDepartmentreporttoTorranceAirportCommission,May8,2025 Unregulatedexpansion
oftouch-and-goﬂight
trainingatKTOAairport
23 1
Huizar, Carlos
From:

Sent: Monday, June 16, 2025 9:42 AM
To: Chen, George; CityCouncil
Subject: Re: 17 June Council Meeting Items: 9A & 9B and 10B Mayor Chen,
Thank you for your response. I fully acknowledge, wholeheartedly agree with, and deeply respect the city’s responsibility to look after all its residents.

I would like to ask a sincere question in the spirit of understanding:

How does the loud environment created by touch-and-go’s, early departures, and other recently permitted operations at the airport—activities that were not previously allowed, yet the airport still functioned well within the community—benefit even one, let alone a majority, of Torrance residents? Kind regards,
Natalie Brecher

On Sun, Jun 15, 2025 at 8:42 PM Chen, George < wrote:

Ms. Brecher:

We received your comments.

Our decisions are made in the interest of all the residents of the City of Torrance.

Thank you.

GEORGE K. CHEN
Mayor
310-618-2801 |
TorranceCA.Gov |
Facebook |
X (Formerly Twitter) |
Instagram
This email, and any attachments to it, may contain confidential information and is intended for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, or believe that you may have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email and any attachments.

Any review, reliance, disclosure, copying, storing, distribution, forwarding without express permission, or use of the contents of the information received in error is strictly prohibited.

From: <
Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2025 4:52 PM
To: CityCouncil <
Subject: 17 June Council Meeting Items: 9A & 9B and 10B Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important

24 2
Dear City Councilmembers,
I am writing to express my strong concerns regarding two issues on the agenda: the Hillside Overlay Ordinance (Items 9A and 9B) and the airport operations matter (Item 10B). Although I am unable to attend the meeting due to a prior commitment, I want to make it absolutely clear that my absence should not be interpreted as a lack of concern or commitment. These matters significantly affect the quality of life for me and many others in our community.

Items 9A and 9B – Hillside Overlay Ordinance
Like many homeowners in the hillside area, my husband and I purchased our home specifically for the view and breeze the location offers. We made this decision with the understanding that Article 41 of the City Code – specifically section 91.41.6 – would protect these characteristics. It clearly states that development should not cause an "adverse impact upon the view, light, air…" of neighboring properties.

If the proposed changes to the Hillside Overlay Ordinance are adopted, they will undermine this protection.

Permitting construction that blocks views, light, and airflow degrades both the livability and property values in our neighborhood. This is not just a personal concern—it affects all hillside residents and the integrity of the municipal code you are sworn to uphold.

Additionally, the lack of enforcement with overgrown trees that block “view, light, and air’ continues to violate the rights of residents. These obstructions are in clear violation of the City’s existing codes, yet enforcement is nonexistent.

I urge you to enforce the Hillside Overlay Ordinance as written and to reject any amendments that would weaken its core principles. Please protect the rights and investments of the residents who depend on this ordinance.

Item 10B – TOA Touch-and-Go Operations
It is deeply troubling that we are once again revisiting the issue of touch-and-go, etc. operations at the Torrance Airport, despite overwhelming and repeated public opposition. Most of the pilots responsible for these disruptions are not Torrance residents, yet you continue to prioritize their interests over the quality of life of those who live under the flight paths.

Residents have made it clear that these operations are a significant disturbance and diminish their ability to enjoy their homes. Your continued inaction leads many of us to believe one of two things: either our concerns as residents are not being taken seriously, or the City is unwilling to deal with the legal aspects – perhaps due to fear or financial consequences.

Why can the City Councilmembers of Santa Monica successfully stand up for their community, but Torrance doesn’t even attempt to do so?
Residents were upset before… If this is allowed and the disruptive noise returns, the frustration and dissatisfaction will intensify. Instead of simply calling for an end to touch-and-go operations, the community's focus and energy may shift toward demanding the airport's closure altogether.

I urge you to protect the peace, well-being, and property values of Torrance residents. Please do not allow further degradation of our neighborhoods by continuing to permit disruptive and unnecessary touch-and-go operations.

In Closing
As a resident of Torrance, I expect and ask that you act in the interest of those who live in this city. Your decisions have long-term consequences, and I hope you will choose to decide with integrity.

Please protect us,
25 3
Natalie Brecher
26 1
Huizar, Carlos
From: Dan - Paula Johnson <
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2025 9:08 AM
To: CityCouncil
Subject: AIRPORT NOISE
Good Morning

I just saw that tomorrow the council members will have a meeting with a discussion on reinstating the TOURCH AND GOS and other noise prodlucing maneuvers at Zamparini Field.

My father in law passed two weeks ago from Torrance Memorial and his service is the 17th of June so we are unable to attend the meeting. I was a part of last years fight for noise reduction and my backyard has been LOVELY since no more touch and go regulation. We were miserable and scared with low flying aircraft (so close at times I could actually see the pilot).

Why are we going backwards? PLEASE don’t let the pilots and aircraft companies (SLING) bring your community back to being scared and unable to enjoy the property they spent A LOT of time and money making a nice home for their families. We live on Paseo de las Tortugas and we were unable to have our grandchildren play in our backyard and we were unable to even have a party or enjoy an outdoor lunch and dinner due to the constant planes flying over out home.

I BEG you to keep this ordinance and keep the safety of no aircrafts low flying and abhorrent noise disrupt the beautiful neighborhood and city we live in.

Most Sincerely,

Paula and Dan Johnson
Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important 27 1
Huizar, Carlos
From:

Sent: Monday, June 16, 2025 8:33 AM
To: CityCouncil
Subject: City council comment to be submitted
The whole community is still concerned about the aviation and aerospace abuse allowed by city council leadership who has ties to aviation and aerospace. For example, a multi million dollar noise analyzer was put into place but only analyzes the sound of planes and it is constantly wildly inaccurate. It’s also from a company tied to the mayor and his friends. Little weird wouldn’t you say? Little biased? We want the aerospace and aviation community this groups is allowing abuse to stop and stop now. Birds will be singing and the second these groups kickoff daily around 3am everything begins to there and all you can hear are the propels and rocket sounds. There are landslides still actively happening, yet no studies on the vibration aerospace and aviation create and could be causing them. We want answers and we want them now.
28 1
Huizar, Carlos
From:

Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2025 4:52 PM
To: CityCouncil
Subject: 17 June Council Meeting Items: 9A & 9B and 10B Dear City Councilmembers,

I am wriƟng to express my strong concerns regarding two issues on the agenda: the Hillside Overlay Ordinance (Items 9A and 9B) and the airport operaƟons maƩer (Item 10B). Although I am unable to aƩend the meeƟng due to a prior commitment, I want to make it absolutely clear that my absence should not be interpreted as a lack of concern or commitment. These maƩers signiﬁcantly aﬀect the quality of life for me and many others in our community.

Items 9A and 9B – Hillside Overlay Ordinance
Like many homeowners in the hillside area, my husband and I purchased our home speciﬁcally for the view and breeze the locaƟon oﬀers. We made this decision with the understanding that ArƟcle 41 of the City Code – speciﬁcally secƟon

91.41.6 – would protect these characterisƟcs. It clearly states that development should not cause an "adverse impact upon the view, light, air…" of neighboring properƟes.

If the proposed changes to the Hillside Overlay Ordinance are adopted, they will undermine this protecƟon. Permiƫng construcƟon that blocks views, light, and airﬂow degrades both the livability and property values in our neighborhood.

This is not just a personal concern—it aﬀects all hillside residents and the integrity of the municipal code you are sworn to uphold.

AddiƟonally, the lack of enforcement with overgrown trees that block “view, light, and air’ conƟnues to violate the rights of residents. These obstrucƟons are in clear violaƟon of the City’s exisƟng codes, yet enforcement is nonexistent.

I urge you to enforce the Hillside Overlay Ordinance as wriƩen and to reject any amendments that would weaken its core principles. Please protect the rights and investments of the residents who depend on this ordinance.

Item 10B – TOA Touch-and-Go OperaƟons
It is deeply troubling that we are once again revisiƟng the issue of touch-and-go, etc. operaƟons at the Torrance Airport, despite overwhelming and repeated public opposiƟon. Most of the pilots responsible for these disrupƟons are not Torrance residents, yet you conƟnue to prioriƟze their interests over the quality of life of those who live under the ﬂight paths.

Residents have made it clear that these operaƟons are a signiﬁcant disturbance and diminish their ability to enjoy their homes. Your conƟnued inacƟon leads many of us to believe one of two things: either our concerns as residents are not being taken seriously, or the City is unwilling to deal with the legal aspects – perhaps due to fear or ﬁnancial consequences.

Why can the City Councilmembers of Santa Monica successfully stand up for their community, but Torrance doesn’t even aƩempt to do so?

Residents were upset before… If this is allowed and the disrupƟve noise returns, the frustraƟon and dissaƟsfacƟon will intensify. Instead of simply calling for an end to touch-and-go operaƟons, the community's focus and energy may shiŌ toward demanding the airport's closure altogether.

Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important 29 2
I urge you to protect the peace, well-being, and property values of Torrance residents. Please do not allow further degradaƟon of our neighborhoods by conƟnuing to permit disrupƟve and unnecessary touch-and-go operaƟons.

Please protect us,
Natalie Brecher

30 1
Huizar, Carlos
From:

Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2025 1:24 PM
To: CityCouncil
Subject: City Council Mtg 6/17/2025, agenda item 10B
Honorable Mayor Chen and City Council Members,
I am writing to share my concerns on the proposed ordinance you are considering to amend the Torrance Municipal Code that regulates the touch and gos, full stop-taxi back, and low approaches at the Torrance Airport. These maneuvers were banned by the City Council after the Torrance community raised awareness of the detriments these activities created in the surrounding airport areas. Since the abatement of these activities, I have been able to enjoy living and working in my home, and was grateful for the council’s decision to prioritize the quality of the life of hundreds of Torrance residents over the desires of a handful of flight schools that have exceeded the operational tolerances of the Torrance Airport.

The City of Torrance should not compromise the integrity of its decision, which was won with considerable resources and effort, to avoid anticipated litigation from the flight schools. The residents of Torrance deserve better. After much input from the community, the Council agreed the citizens were right, and they should not be excluded from the current discussion involving the reversal of this decision.

Please stand by your decision to ban touch and gos, full stop-taxi back, and low approaches at the Torrance Airport. Please stand for the Torrance residential community, and do not be intimated by the flight schools whose priorities are the betterment of their own interests.

Thank you,

Elizabeth Spatz
Paseo de Pablo
Torrance, CA 90505

31 1
Huizar, Carlos
From: Dave Roelen <
Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2025 8:02 AM
To: CityCouncil
Cc: Sullivan, Patrick; Chaparyan, Aram
Subject: No Change to Airport Rules
June 14, 2025

Mayor Chen and Torrance City Council
Torrance City Hall
3031 Torrance Blvd.

Torrance, CA 90503

Mayor Chen and City Council:

Since the City Council took strong corrective action regarding the out-of-control pilot training schools at Torrance Airport, the airplane noise of continuous, repetitive, low flights over our residential homes has diminished greatly. We can once again enjoy our homes thanks to your thoughtful and positive actions!

Please, do not alter the current training flight rules or cave to pilot demands for any change to days or hours of permissible training flights! Keep the reasonable rules you’ve enacted exactly as they are!

Dave Roelen
Torrance, California

Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important 32 1
Huizar, Carlos
From: Richard Root <
Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2025 9:08 AM
To: CityCouncil
Subject: PROPOSED ORDINANCE THAT WOULD ALLOW MORE TRAINING AT TORRANCE AIRPORT - ITEM 10B ON AGENDA FOR JUNE 17, 2025
Attachments: COTAR Letter to Council 6.14.2025.pdf
Please see the attached letter from the Coalition for Torrance Airport Reform. (It has also been submitted as a comment on OneMeeting.)
Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important 33 1
Huizar, Carlos
From: Don T <
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2025 4:32 PM
To: Council Meeting Public Comment; CityCouncil
Subject: Public Comment Item 10B 7/17/2025 Meeting
Dear Mayor and City Council,

I’m writing to express my strong opposition to the City’s settlement with the pilots' lawsuit and the decision to end the touch-and-go ban at Torrance Airport.

Even without touch-and-go operations, Sling Pilot Academy’s massive fleet — now approaching 100 aircraft — was never appropriate for a small general aviation airport surrounded by dense residential neighborhoods. Their constant departures alone create a relentless conveyor belt of noise that degrades our quality of life. This latest push to lift the ban is led by a Sling associate with personal financial motives, not the community’s interest. This individual has also advocated for selling jet fuel at TOA and has recently disclosed the names of complainants to local pilots in a clear attempt to intimidate residents — behavior that has no place in our city.

It’s also clear this pilot group won’t stop here. Next, they’ll attempt to undermine landing fees, further worsening the problem. These are corporate-backed interests posing as community members, and their actions reflect that.

If the City cannot properly manage its airport — or control operators who repeatedly disregard ordinances and public safety — then it’s time to seriously question why Torrance continues to host this facility at all. For the past five years, these “tenants” have shown no interest in being good neighbors and would gladly drag us back to the unregulated days of 2020 when residents had no recourse and no monitoring.

Torrance Airport was never intended to be a large-scale factory flight school. It’s time to phase it out and repurpose the land into something that benefits the entire community — not a narrow group of corporate interests.

Thank you for your attention.

34 1
Huizar, Carlos
From: Gary Palmer <
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2025 12:43 PM
To: CityCouncil
Cc: Airport Commission
Subject: possible error in document for 16-June item 10B Please include this in the communications related to 16-June city council meeting regarding item 10B.

I believe the proposal incorrectly displays the redlines being made.

I am requesting a review to make sure that the redlines indicate the complete change in order to reduce additional confusion, discussion, or debate.

I note that the published code does not contain a section 51.5.8 Emergency Exemption

Current code
(https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Torrance/#!/Torrance05/Torrance0501.html#51.5.5) states:

-------------------------------------------------------- The currently posted item 10B
(https://torranceca.primegov.com/api/compilemeetingattachmenthistory/historyattachment/?historyId =6e144380-37db-4408-88b7-c50b14d6fc91) contains the following redlines:
35 2

--
thank you,
Gary Palmer
36 1
Huizar, Carlos
From: Gary Palmer <
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2025 8:07 AM
To: CityCouncil
Cc: Airport Commission
Subject: please include 17-June agenda item 10B
Please include this email as a public comment for the 17-June 2025 Council meeting regarding item 10B.

Council Members,
Before the adoption of Ordinance 3930 on Feb 24, several revisions were proposed and rejected.

Item 10B cites a “stark increase in noise,” but historical data from city-mandated noise sensors shows the past few years were the quietest on record. The increase refers to complaints, most of which came from a small group—about a dozen individuals—who filed more complaints than the actual flights. The council was manipulated!

Unfortunately, during this process, the Airport Commission was bypassed entirely. Now, facing a potential lawsuit, the City Attorney is seeking a compromise.

All the time and money spent could have been avoided if the Council had consulted the Airport Commission from the start. Their role is to provide recommendations. This oversight suggests that the full implications and legalities were not properly considered, and perhaps the Commission could have offered a better solution.

This also indicates that city staff did not consider the full impact and response, nor obviously the legality. Again, indicating the Airport Commission may have been better able to work this item.

If the Airport Commission's expertise was ignored in this matter, and continues to be ignored for most all other matters, one must question its purpose.

Thank you for your time, consideration, and service,
Gary Palmer, pilot at Torrance Airport

When reprinting this email for the records, please be sure to redact my email address.

37 2

38 1
Huizar, Carlos
From:

Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2025 7:34 PM
To: Council Meeting Public Comment; CityCouncil
Subject: Walteria Resident AGAINST settling with pilots Attachments: COTAR LETTER TO COUNCIL 5.31.25-2.docx
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]

I 100% support this letter and I am against settling with the pilots. We’ve already fought for much of the progress regarding excess noise and more leaded fuel raining down on us. It is sad to hear of these settlements. This is NOT what a majority of your constituents want!

We have two little children and we can’t come to the city council meetings but this is the best way we can have our voice be heard.

Kind regards,

Tiffany Fein
"No act of kindness is ever wasted..." (Aesop)
39

Torrance City CouncilJune 17, 2025

Torrance City Council
June 17, 2025