10. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
10A.Community Development – Discuss and Consider Amendment to the Torrance Municipal Airport Ordinance, Determine California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Exemption, and Adopt an ORDINANCE Amending the Torrance Municipal Code as Related to Enforcement of the Airport Ordinance. Expenditure: None.
Name
Jim Gates
Comment 10/28/2025 09:48 AM : (No Vote)
Ms Poirier:
Please include the attached in the public comments regarding this Item.
Jim Gates
1 PUBLIC COMMENT REPORT
FOR AGENDA ITEM 10A
DATE: 10/28/2025
TO: Hon Mayor & Members of the Torrance City Council
FROM: Jim Gates
SUBJECT: Council Agenda Item 10A for 11/4/2025
The current Torrance Municipal Code (TMC) Sections 51.5.5 - 51.1.8 (as well as the proposed changes) illegally attempt to regulate "low approaches." As noted many times before to the Council and City Attorney, the FAA has exclusive authority to regulate the navigable airspace in the United States.
The City's definition of "low approaches" includes what are known as "aborted landings", "go- arounds" and "missed approaches." These are standard safety maneuvers that the Pilot in Command (PIC) may execute at any time he/she deems necessary. Federal Aviation Regulations, 14 CFR 91.3, vests the PIC with the direct responsibility and final authority as to the operation if their aircraft. Neither the Torrance City Manager nor the Torrance City Council have any role in that decision--either before or after it is made!
The City of Torrance is currently defendant in a Federal lawsuit over whether these "restrictions" are even legal (see below). All references to regulation of "low approaches" should be eliminated from Torrance Municipal Code.
Citations
The Supremacy Clause:
The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the "Supreme Law of the Land", and thus take priority over any conflicting state or local laws.
Preemption Doctrine:
The Preemption Doctrine is based on the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. It holds that certain matters are of such a national (as opposed to local) character that federal laws preempt or take precedence over state or local laws. As such, a state or local government may not pass a law inconsistent with the federal law. A state or local law may be struck down, even when it does not explicitly conflict with federal law, if a court finds that Congress has legitimately occupied the field with federal legislation. Congress has long vested the FAA with exclusive authority to regulate airspace use and air traffic control. In simple terms, this means that ordinances passed by state and local governments that attempt to do so are invalid and unenforceable.
Local governments cannot regulate control of aircraft or airspace, or any aspect of aviation navigation. City of Burbank v. Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority, 72 Cal. App. 4th 366, 85 Cal. Rptr. 2d 28 (2d Dist. 1999). 2 Limitations on aircraft taking off and use of the airport runway involve air safety, which is field preempted by the Federal Aviation Act. Restrictions that conflict with the Federal Aviation Act or sufficiently interfere with federal regulation of air safety are preempted.
Tweed-New Haven Airport Authority v. Tong, 930 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2019). • Municipal ordinances cannot prohibit flights of aircraft at altitudes (i.e. low approaches, missed approaches). Only the federal government has the right to regulate safe altitudes of flight at any elevation and take-off and landing patterns. Allegheny Airlines v. Village of Cedarhurst, 238 F.2d 812, 17 Pub. Util. Rep. 3d (PUR) 244 (2d Cir. 1956). An airport cannot restrict the number of planes flying, as it constitutes an attempt to regulate air navigation which is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the federal government. Gary Leasing, Inc. v. Town Bd. of Town of Pendleton, 127 Misc. 2d 194, 485 N.Y.S.2d 693 (Sup 1985).
Aviation commerce and safety are governed by pervasive federal regulations, and applicable local standards are field preempted. The Federal government, not city, controls the airspace above city limits. Noise regulation ordinances, flight-pattern controls, restrictions on operations, air safety regulations, and pilot drug-testing provisions are all impliedly preempted by the Federal Aviation Act (FAA). International Aerobatics Club Chapter 1 v. City of Morris, 76 F. Supp. 3d 767 (N.D. Ill. 2014). In May of 2015, the Torrance City Attorney stated: "Congress has tasked the Secretary of Transportation, via the FAA, with the task of "assigning, maintaining, and enhancing safety and security as the highest priorities in air commerce," as well as "controlling the use of the navigable airspace and regulating civil and military operations in that airspace in the interest of the safety and efficiency of both of those operations." (49 U.S.C. 44718, subd. (d).) The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recognizes that, "federal law occupies the entire field of aviation safety." Montalvo v. Spirit Airlines (9th Cir. 2007) 508 F.3d 464,473.)
California state courts note that the Ninth Circuit's position is consistent with the positions taken by the Second, Third, Sixth and Tenth Circuits. {Citizens Opposing a Dangerous Env't v. Cnty. Of Kern 2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 360, 364 [noting that the aforementioned Circuits of the Federal Court of Appeals have concluded that Congress intended to occupy the entire field of aviation safety). FAR 91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command (PIC) states. o "(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.
o (b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency.
o (c) Each pilot in command who deviates from a rule under paragraph (b) of this section shall, upon the request of the Administrator, send a written report of that deviation to the Administrator."
3 10.
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
10A.
Community Development – Discuss and Consider Amendment to the Torrance Municipal Airport Ordinance, Determine California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Exemption, and Adopt an ORDINANCE Amending the Torrance Municipal Code as Related to Enforcement of the Airport Ordinance. Expenditure: None.
Name
Richard
Root
Comment 10/31/2025 11:29 AM : (For)
Please see the attached letter from the Coalition for Torrance Airport Reform (COTAR).
4 October 31, 2025 SUBMITTED ELECTRONICALLY
Honorable Mayor and City Council of Torrance:
SUBJECT: COTAR COMMENTS ON ITEM 10A – AIRPORT NOISE ENFORCEMENT
The Coalition for Torrance Airport Reform (COTAR) urges you to adopt the proposed amendment on enforcement of the City’s airport noise laws.
In February 2024, the City Council adopted an ordinance amending airport noise abatement laws. The ordinance prohibits touch-and-go training flights and limits the hours for other forms of training, including low approaches and taxi backs. These changes were made to abate excessive noise in residential neighborhoods that surround the airport. On March 8, 2024, the ordinance went into effect. The revised flight restrictions were published to inform pilots using the airport.
Unfortunately, in the 19 months since this ordinance became effective there has been virtually no enforcement by the City and significant non-compliance by pilots. According to City records, there have been thousands of potential violations and prohibited operations. Enforcement to achieve compliance is long overdue.
We urge you to pass the proposed ordinance and direct staff to resume enforcement immediately.
For COTAR,
Chuck Costello Richard Root Daniel Will
Torrance Riviera Torrance Riviera Torrance Walteria
5 10.
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
10A.
Community Development – Discuss and Consider Amendment to the Torrance Municipal Airport Ordinance, Determine California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Exemption, and Adopt an ORDINANCE Amending the Torrance Municipal Code as Related to Enforcement of the Airport Ordinance. Expenditure: None.
Name
Laura Stratton
Comment 11/02/2025 03:02 PM : (No Vote)
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members,
I am writing to strongly support that you adopt the proposed amendment on enforcement of the cityowned airport noise laws. The ordinance that went into effect March of 2024 has been grossly ignored and not enforced. What is the point of passing ordinances,codes or laws if they are not enforced? The pilot community blatantly breaks the laws by continuing Touch and Go and other training activities banned. You passed the ordinance, now please enforce your actions and protect the Torrance community you took an oath to serve.
6 10. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
10A.Community Development – Discuss and Consider Amendment to the Torrance Municipal Airport Ordinance, Determine California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Exemption, and Adopt an ORDINANCE Amending the Torrance Municipal Code as Related to Enforcement of the Airport Ordinance. Expenditure: None.
Name
Jane Noll
Comment 11/03/2025 07:45 AM : (No Vote)
From: Jane Noll
Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2025 5:33:30 PM (UTC08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: City Council <[email protected]
>
Subject: Approval of Agenda 10A
You don't often get email from
. Learn why
this is important
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
I am writing to support approval of Item 10A to update the City’s noise management ordinance. This will give the City staff the clear authority to hold accountable those who do not follow proper procedures.
Sincerely,
Jane Readeur
Mesa Street resident since 1996
7 10. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
10A.Community Development – Discuss and Consider Amendment to the Torrance Municipal Airport Ordinance, Determine California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Exemption, and Adopt an ORDINANCE Amending the Torrance Municipal Code as Related to Enforcement of the Airport Ordinance. Expenditure: None.
Name
Dan Selleck
Comment 11/03/2025 07:46 AM : (For)
From: Dan B <[email protected]
>
Sent: Saturday, November 1, 2025 4:44:14 PM (UTC08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: City Council <[email protected]
>
Subject: Item 10A Airport Noise Enforcement
You don't often get email from . Learn why
this is important
I fully support the strong enforcement of item 10A airport noise ordinances. It is important to the quality of life in areas near the airport Thank you,
Dan Selleck
8 10. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
10A.Community Development – Discuss and Consider Amendment to the Torrance Municipal Airport Ordinance, Determine California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Exemption, and Adopt an ORDINANCE Amending the Torrance Municipal Code as Related to Enforcement of the Airport Ordinance. Expenditure: None.
Name
Jim Gates
Comment 11/03/2025 07:51 AM : (Against)
From: Jim Gates
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2025 10:04:00 AM (UTC08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: City Council <[email protected]
>
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]
>
Subject: Public Comment: Item 10A on City Council agenda for 11/4/2025 You don't often get email from . Learn why
this is important
Hon Mayor Chen and Members of the City Council:
My previous letters to you, dated 1/10/2025 and 10/30/2025, noted some serious problems with the city's Airport Noise Hearing process: pending litigation, lack of city authority to regulate aviation operations, preemption of TMC sections involving aviation operations and other issues.
Although the changes proposed in the subject Item address a few of these, there remain serious issues with the proposed enforcement process.
No judicial review:
The enforcement scheme, which provides for an appeal only to the City Council, is impermissible under the California Constitution, as it does not allow for judicial review. This violates the separation of powers contemplated by the California Constitution, as well as the judicial powers clause. The City is effectively the policeman, investigator, prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner.
Lack of impartiality:
There are serious questions concerning the impartiality of a Hearing Officer appointed by the City Manager, which is also required under California law.
Any changes to the TMC involving aviation operations should be delayed pending resolution of the outstanding litigation and of the other issues noted in this and my previous letters.
Jim Gates
9 10. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
10A.Community Development – Discuss and Consider Amendment to the Torrance Municipal Airport Ordinance, Determine California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Exemption, and Adopt an ORDINANCE Amending the Torrance Municipal Code as Related to Enforcement of the Airport Ordinance. Expenditure: None.
Name
Richard Root
Comment 11/03/2025 07:53 AM : (For)
From: Richard Root
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2025 11:35:33 AM (UTC08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: City Council <[email protected]
>
Subject: COTAR LETTER ON AIRPORT NOISE ENFORCEMENT ITEM 10A ON NOVEMBER 4 AGENDA
You don't often get email from Learn why
this is important
Please see the attached letter from the Coalition for Torrance Airport Reform (COTAR) which was submitted on OneMeeting.
10 October 31, 2025 SUBMITTED ELECTRONICALLY
Honorable Mayor and City Council of Torrance:
SUBJECT: COTAR COMMENTS ON ITEM 10A – AIRPORT NOISE ENFORCEMENT
The Coalition for Torrance Airport Reform (COTAR) urges you to adopt the proposed amendment on enforcement of the City’s airport noise laws.
In February 2024, the City Council adopted an ordinance amending airport noise abatement laws. The ordinance prohibits touch-and-go training flights and limits the hours for other forms of training, including low approaches and taxi backs. These changes were made to abate excessive noise in residential neighborhoods that surround the airport. On March 8, 2024, the ordinance went into effect. The revised flight restrictions were published to inform pilots using the airport.
Unfortunately, in the 19 months since this ordinance became effective there has been virtually no enforcement by the City and significant non-compliance by pilots. According to City records, there have been thousands of potential violations and prohibited operations. Enforcement to achieve compliance is long overdue.
We urge you to pass the proposed ordinance and direct staff to resume enforcement immediately.
For COTAR,
Chuck Costello Richard Root Daniel Will
Torrance Riviera Torrance Riviera Torrance Walteria
11 10. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
10A.Community Development – Discuss and Consider Amendment to the Torrance Municipal Airport Ordinance, Determine California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Exemption, and Adopt an ORDINANCE Amending the Torrance Municipal Code as Related to Enforcement of the Airport Ordinance. Expenditure: None.
Name
Tatia Strader
Comment 11/03/2025 08:56 AM : (No Vote)
Response to Your Email Re: Council Agenda Item 10A for 11/4/2025 Thu 10/30/2025 11:22 AM
From: Strader, Tatia
To:
Dear Mr. Gates:
The City has reviewed your email regarding City Council Agenda Item for November 4, 2025. The agenda item is to discuss and consider amendments to the Torrance Municipal Airport Ordinance as it relates to the enforcement of the City’s airport regulations.
Though the agenda item report explains the proposed amended enforcement provisions, in summary, the amendments are to clarify the process of serving violation notices as well as the parties affected by enforcement; and it proposes the use of a neutral thirdparty hearing officer, amended hearing procedures and decision making, and an appeal of the hearing officer’s decision to the City Council. The amended enforcement provisions would apply to Ordinance 3930 regulating low approaches; however, your email does not identify any objection to the amended enforcement procedures. Instead, your email argues that the City has no authority to regulate low approaches, which is not the subject of the agenda item and is a matter currently in litigation in federal court.
For these reasons, the City will include your email and this response in the record, however, no further response appears to be warranted.
Very truly yours,
TATIA Y. STRADER
Assistant City Attorney Office of the City Attorney
3106185815 | [email protected]
TorranceCA.Gov
|
Facebook
|
X (Formerly Twitter)
|
Instagram
Privileged And Confidential Communication.
This email, and any attachments to it, (a) are protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 25102521), (b) may contain confidential, legally privileged, and/or attorney work product, and (c) are for the sole use of the intended recipient of this email. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, please notify the sender and delete this email and any attachments. Any review, reliance, disclosure, copying, distribution, forwarding without express permission, or use of the contents of the information received in error is strictly prohibited.
From: Jim Gates <[email protected]
>
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2025 8:13:51 AM
To: City Council <[email protected]
>; Sullivan, Patrick
<[email protected]
>
Subject: Council Agenda Item 10A for 11/4/2025
Hon Mayor Chen and Members of the Torrance City Council:
The current Torrance Municipal Code (TMC) Sections 51.5.5 51.1.8 (as well as the proposed changes) illegally attempt to regulate "low approaches." As noted many times before to the Council and City Attorney, the FAA has exclusive authority to regulate the
navigable airspace in the United States.
The City's definition of "low approaches" includes what are known as "aborted landings", "goarounds" and "missed approaches." These are standard safety maneuvers that the Pilot in Command (PIC) may execute at any time he/she deems necessary. Federal Aviation Regulations, 14 CFR 91.3, vests the PIC with the direct responsibility and final authority
as to the operation of their aircraft. Neither the Torrance City Manager nor the Torrance City Council have any role in that decisioneither before or after it is made! The City of Torrance is currently defendant in a Federal lawsuit over whether these "restrictions" are even legal (see below). All references to regulation of "low approaches" should be eliminated from Torrance Municipal Code.
Citations
The Supremacy Clause:
The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the "Supreme Law of the Land", and thus take priority over any conflicting state or local laws.
Preemption Doctrine:
The Preemption Doctrine is based on the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. It holds that certain matters are of such a national (as opposed to local) character that federal laws preempt or take precedence over state or local laws. As such, a state or local government may not pass a law inconsistent with the federal law. A state or local law may be struck down, even when it does not explicitly conflict with federal law, if a court finds that Congress has legitimately occupied the field with federal legislation. Congress has long vested the FAA with exclusive authority to regulate airspace use and air traffic control. In simple terms, this means that ordinances passed by state and local governments that attempt to do so are invalid and unenforceable. · Local governments cannot regulate control of aircraft or airspace, or any aspect of aviation navigation. City of Burbank v. BurbankGlendalePasadena Airport Authority , 72 Cal. App. 4th 366, 85 Cal. Rptr. 2d 28 (2d Dist. 1999). · Limitations on aircraft taking off and use of the airport runway involve air safety, which is field preempted by the Federal Aviation Act. Restrictions that conflict with the Federal Aviation Act or sufficiently interfere with federal regulation of air safety are preempted. TweedNew Haven Airport Authority v. Tong, 930 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2019). • · Municipal ordinances cannot prohibit flights of aircraft at altitudes (i.e. low approaches, missed approaches). Only the federal government has the right to regulate safe altitudes of flight at any elevation and takeoff and landing patterns. Allegheny Airlines v. Village of Cedarhurst, 238 F.2d 812, 17 Pub. Util. Rep. 3d (PUR) 244 (2d Cir. 1956). · An airport cannot restrict the number of planes flying, as it constitutes an attempt to regulate air navigation which is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the federal government. Gary Leasing, Inc. v. Town Bd. of Town of Pendleton, 127 Misc. 2d 194, 485 N.Y.S.2d 693 (Sup 1985).
· Aviation commerce and safety are governed by pervasive federal regulations, and applicable local standards are field preempted. The Federal government, not city, controls the airspace above city limits. Noise regulation ordinances, flightpattern controls, restrictions on operations, air safety regulations, and pilot drugtesting provisions are all impliedly preempted by the Federal Aviation Act (FAA). International Aerobatics Club Chapter 1 v. City of Morris, 76 F. Supp. 3d 767 (N.D. Ill. 2014). · In May of 2015, the Torrance City Attorney stated: "Congress has tasked the Secretary of Transportation, via the FAA, with the task of "assigning, maintaining, and enhancing safety and security as the highest priorities in air commerce ," as well as "controlling the use of the navigable airspace and regulating civil and military operations in that airspace in the interest of the safety and efficiency of both of those operations." (49 U.S.C. 44718, subd. (d).) The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recognizes that, "federal law occupies the entire field of aviation safety." Montalvo v. Spirit Airlines (9th Cir. 2007) 508 F.3d 464,473.)
· California state courts note that the Ninth Circuit's position is consistent with the positions taken by the Second, Third, Sixth and Tenth Circuits. { Citizens Opposing a Dangerous Env't v. Cnty. Of Kern 2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 360, 364 [noting that the aforementioned Circuits of the Federal Court of Appeals have concluded that Congress intended to occupy the entire field of aviation safety). · FAR 91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command (PIC) states. o "(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.
o (b) In an inflight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency. o (c) Each pilot in command who deviates from a rule under paragraph (b) of this section shall, upon the request of the Administrator, send a written report of that deviation to the Administrator."
Jim Gates
4246342863
12 10. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
10A.Community Development – Discuss and Consider Amendment to the Torrance Municipal Airport Ordinance, Determine California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Exemption, and Adopt an ORDINANCE Amending the Torrance Municipal Code as Related to Enforcement of the Airport Ordinance. Expenditure: None.
Name
Tatia Strader
Comment 11/03/2025 08:56 AM : (No Vote)
Response to Your Email Re: Council Agenda Item 10A for 11/4/2025 Thu 10/30/2025 11:22 AM
From: Strader, Tatia
To: [email protected]
Dear Mr. Gates:
The City has reviewed your email regarding City Council Agenda Item for November 4, 2025. The agenda item is to discuss and consider amendments to the Torrance Municipal Airport Ordinance as it relates to the enforcement of the City’s airport regulations.
Though the agenda item report explains the proposed amended enforcement provisions, in summary, the amendments are to clarify the process of serving violation notices as well as the parties affected by enforcement; and it proposes the use of a neutral thirdparty hearing officer, amended hearing procedures and decision making, and an appeal of the hearing officer’s decision to the City Council. The amended enforcement provisions would apply to Ordinance 3930 regulating low approaches; however, your email does not identify any objection to the amended enforcement procedures. Instead, your email argues that the City has no authority to regulate low approaches, which is not the subject of the agenda item and is a matter currently in litigation in federal court.
For these reasons, the City will include your email and this response in the record, however, no further response appears to be warranted.
Very truly yours,
TATIA Y. STRADER
Assistant City Attorney Office of the City Attorney
3106185815 | [email protected]
TorranceCA.Gov
|
Facebook
|
X (Formerly Twitter)
|
Instagram
Privileged And Confidential Communication.
This email, and any attachments to it, (a) are protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 25102521), (b) may contain confidential, legally privileged, and/or attorney work product, and (c) are for the sole use of the intended recipient of this email. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, please notify the sender and delete this email and any attachments. Any review, reliance, disclosure, copying, distribution, forwarding without express permission, or use of the contents of the information received in error is strictly prohibited.
From: Jim Gates
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2025 8:13:51 AM
To: City Council <[email protected]
>; Sullivan, Patrick
<[email protected]
>
Subject: Council Agenda Item 10A for 11/4/2025
Hon Mayor Chen and Members of the Torrance City Council:
The current Torrance Municipal Code (TMC) Sections 51.5.5 51.1.8 (as well as the proposed changes) illegally attempt to regulate "low approaches." As noted many times before to the Council and City Attorney, the FAA has exclusive authority to regulate the
navigable airspace in the United States.
The City's definition of "low approaches" includes what are known as "aborted landings", "goarounds" and "missed approaches." These are standard safety maneuvers that the Pilot in Command (PIC) may execute at any time he/she deems necessary. Federal Aviation Regulations, 14 CFR 91.3, vests the PIC with the direct responsibility and final authority
as to the operation of their aircraft. Neither the Torrance City Manager nor the Torrance City Council have any role in that decisioneither before or after it is made! The City of Torrance is currently defendant in a Federal lawsuit over whether these "restrictions" are even legal (see below). All references to regulation of "low approaches" should be eliminated from Torrance Municipal Code.
Citations
The Supremacy Clause:
The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the "Supreme Law of the Land", and thus take priority over any conflicting state or local laws.
Preemption Doctrine:
The Preemption Doctrine is based on the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. It holds that certain matters are of such a national (as opposed to local) character that federal laws preempt or take precedence over state or local laws. As such, a state or local government may not pass a law inconsistent with the federal law. A state or local law may be struck down, even when it does not explicitly conflict with federal law, if a court finds that Congress has legitimately occupied the field with federal legislation. Congress has long vested the FAA with exclusive authority to regulate airspace use and air traffic control. In simple terms, this means that ordinances passed by state and local governments that attempt to do so are invalid and unenforceable. · Local governments cannot regulate control of aircraft or airspace, or any aspect of aviation navigation. City of Burbank v. BurbankGlendalePasadena Airport Authority , 72 Cal. App. 4th 366, 85 Cal. Rptr. 2d 28 (2d Dist. 1999). · Limitations on aircraft taking off and use of the airport runway involve air safety, which is field preempted by the Federal Aviation Act. Restrictions that conflict with the Federal Aviation Act or sufficiently interfere with federal regulation of air safety are preempted. TweedNew Haven Airport Authority v. Tong, 930 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2019). • · Municipal ordinances cannot prohibit flights of aircraft at altitudes (i.e. low approaches, missed approaches). Only the federal government has the right to regulate safe altitudes of flight at any elevation and takeoff and landing patterns. Allegheny Airlines v. Village of Cedarhurst, 238 F.2d 812, 17 Pub. Util. Rep. 3d (PUR) 244 (2d Cir. 1956). · An airport cannot restrict the number of planes flying, as it constitutes an attempt to regulate air navigation which is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the federal government. Gary Leasing, Inc. v. Town Bd. of Town of Pendleton, 127 Misc. 2d 194, 485 N.Y.S.2d 693 (Sup 1985).
· Aviation commerce and safety are governed by pervasive federal regulations, and applicable local standards are field preempted. The Federal government, not city, controls the airspace above city limits. Noise regulation ordinances, flightpattern controls, restrictions on operations, air safety regulations, and pilot drugtesting provisions are all impliedly preempted by the Federal Aviation Act (FAA). International Aerobatics Club Chapter 1 v. City of Morris, 76 F. Supp. 3d 767 (N.D. Ill. 2014). · In May of 2015, the Torrance City Attorney stated: "Congress has tasked the Secretary of Transportation, via the FAA, with the task of "assigning, maintaining, and enhancing safety and security as the highest priorities in air commerce ," as well as "controlling the use of the navigable airspace and regulating civil and military operations in that airspace in the interest of the safety and efficiency of both of those operations." (49 U.S.C. 44718, subd. (d).) The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recognizes that, "federal law occupies the entire field of aviation safety." Montalvo v. Spirit Airlines (9th Cir. 2007) 508 F.3d 464,473.)
· California state courts note that the Ninth Circuit's position is consistent with the positions taken by the Second, Third, Sixth and Tenth Circuits. { Citizens Opposing a Dangerous Env't v. Cnty. Of Kern 2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 360, 364 [noting that the aforementioned Circuits of the Federal Court of Appeals have concluded that Congress intended to occupy the entire field of aviation safety). · FAR 91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command (PIC) states. o "(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.
o (b) In an inflight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency. o (c) Each pilot in command who deviates from a rule under paragraph (b) of this section shall, upon the request of the Administrator, send a written report of that deviation to the Administrator."
Jim Gates
4246342863
13 10. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
10A.Community Development – Discuss and Consider Amendment to the Torrance Municipal Airport Ordinance, Determine California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Exemption, and Adopt an ORDINANCE Amending the Torrance Municipal Code as Related to Enforcement of the Airport Ordinance. Expenditure: None.
Name
Tatia Strader
Comment 11/03/2025 08:56 AM : (No Vote)
Response to Your Email Re: Council Agenda Item 10A for 11/4/2025 Thu 10/30/2025 11:22 AM
From: Strader, Tatia
To: [email protected]
Dear Mr. Gates:
The City has reviewed your email regarding City Council Agenda Item for November 4, 2025. The agenda item is to discuss and consider amendments to the Torrance Municipal Airport Ordinance as it relates to the enforcement of the City’s airport regulations.
Though the agenda item report explains the proposed amended enforcement provisions, in summary, the amendments are to clarify the process of serving violation notices as well as the parties affected by enforcement; and it proposes the use of a neutral thirdparty hearing officer, amended hearing procedures and decision making, and an appeal of the hearing officer’s decision to the City Council. The amended enforcement provisions would apply to Ordinance 3930 regulating low approaches; however, your email does not identify any objection to the amended enforcement procedures. Instead, your email argues that the City has no authority to regulate low approaches, which is not the subject of the agenda item and is a matter currently in litigation in federal court.
For these reasons, the City will include your email and this response in the record, however, no further response appears to be warranted.
Very truly yours,
TATIA Y. STRADER
Assistant City Attorney Office of the City Attorney
3106185815 | [email protected]
TorranceCA.Gov
|
Facebook
|
X (Formerly Twitter)
|
Instagram
Privileged And Confidential Communication.
This email, and any attachments to it, (a) are protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 25102521), (b) may contain confidential, legally privileged, and/or attorney work product, and (c) are for the sole use of the intended recipient of this email. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, please notify the sender and delete this email and any attachments. Any review, reliance, disclosure, copying, distribution, forwarding without express permission, or use of the contents of the information received in error is strictly prohibited.
From: Jim Gates <[email protected]
>
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2025 8:13:51 AM
To: City Council <[email protected]
>; Sullivan, Patrick
<[email protected]
>
Subject: Council Agenda Item 10A for 11/4/2025
Hon Mayor Chen and Members of the Torrance City Council:
The current Torrance Municipal Code (TMC) Sections 51.5.5 51.1.8 (as well as the proposed changes) illegally attempt to regulate "low approaches." As noted many times before to the Council and City Attorney, the FAA has exclusive authority to regulate the
navigable airspace in the United States.
The City's definition of "low approaches" includes what are known as "aborted landings", "goarounds" and "missed approaches." These are standard safety maneuvers that the Pilot in Command (PIC) may execute at any time he/she deems necessary. Federal Aviation Regulations, 14 CFR 91.3, vests the PIC with the direct responsibility and final authority
as to the operation of their aircraft. Neither the Torrance City Manager nor the Torrance City Council have any role in that decisioneither before or after it is made! The City of Torrance is currently defendant in a Federal lawsuit over whether these "restrictions" are even legal (see below). All references to regulation of "low approaches" should be eliminated from Torrance Municipal Code.
Citations
The Supremacy Clause:
The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the "Supreme Law of the Land", and thus take priority over any conflicting state or local laws.
Preemption Doctrine:
The Preemption Doctrine is based on the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. It holds that certain matters are of such a national (as opposed to local) character that federal laws preempt or take precedence over state or local laws. As such, a state or local government may not pass a law inconsistent with the federal law. A state or local law may be struck down, even when it does not explicitly conflict with federal law, if a court finds that Congress has legitimately occupied the field with federal legislation. Congress has long vested the FAA with exclusive authority to regulate airspace use and air traffic control. In simple terms, this means that ordinances passed by state and local governments that attempt to do so are invalid and unenforceable. · Local governments cannot regulate control of aircraft or airspace, or any aspect of aviation navigation. City of Burbank v. BurbankGlendalePasadena Airport Authority , 72 Cal. App. 4th 366, 85 Cal. Rptr. 2d 28 (2d Dist. 1999). · Limitations on aircraft taking off and use of the airport runway involve air safety, which is field preempted by the Federal Aviation Act. Restrictions that conflict with the Federal Aviation Act or sufficiently interfere with federal regulation of air safety are preempted. TweedNew Haven Airport Authority v. Tong, 930 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2019). • · Municipal ordinances cannot prohibit flights of aircraft at altitudes (i.e. low approaches, missed approaches). Only the federal government has the right to regulate safe altitudes of flight at any elevation and takeoff and landing patterns. Allegheny Airlines v. Village of Cedarhurst, 238 F.2d 812, 17 Pub. Util. Rep. 3d (PUR) 244 (2d Cir. 1956). · An airport cannot restrict the number of planes flying, as it constitutes an attempt to regulate air navigation which is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the federal government. Gary Leasing, Inc. v. Town Bd. of Town of Pendleton, 127 Misc. 2d 194, 485 N.Y.S.2d 693 (Sup 1985).
· Aviation commerce and safety are governed by pervasive federal regulations, and applicable local standards are field preempted. The Federal government, not city, controls the airspace above city limits. Noise regulation ordinances, flightpattern controls, restrictions on operations, air safety regulations, and pilot drugtesting provisions are all impliedly preempted by the Federal Aviation Act (FAA). International Aerobatics Club Chapter 1 v. City of Morris, 76 F. Supp. 3d 767 (N.D. Ill. 2014). · In May of 2015, the Torrance City Attorney stated: "Congress has tasked the Secretary of Transportation, via the FAA, with the task of "assigning, maintaining, and enhancing safety and security as the highest priorities in air commerce ," as well as "controlling the use of the navigable airspace and regulating civil and military operations in that airspace in the interest of the safety and efficiency of both of those operations." (49 U.S.C. 44718, subd. (d).) The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recognizes that, "federal law occupies the entire field of aviation safety." Montalvo v. Spirit Airlines (9th Cir. 2007) 508 F.3d 464,473.)
· California state courts note that the Ninth Circuit's position is consistent with the positions taken by the Second, Third, Sixth and Tenth Circuits. { Citizens Opposing a Dangerous Env't v. Cnty. Of Kern 2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 360, 364 [noting that the aforementioned Circuits of the Federal Court of Appeals have concluded that Congress intended to occupy the entire field of aviation safety). · FAR 91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command (PIC) states. o "(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.
o (b) In an inflight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency. o (c) Each pilot in command who deviates from a rule under paragraph (b) of this section shall, upon the request of the Administrator, send a written report of that deviation to the Administrator."
Jim Gates
14 10.
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
10A.
Community Development – Discuss and Consider Amendment to the Torrance Municipal Airport Ordinance, Determine California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Exemption, and Adopt an ORDINANCE Amending the Torrance Municipal Code as Related to Enforcement of the Airport Ordinance. Expenditure: None.
Name
Sarah Sedaghat
Comment 11/03/2025 03:01 PM : (For)
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members:
I am writing to support your adoption of the proposed amendment regarding enforcement of the City’s airport noise laws.
The amendment is desperately needed to bolster adequate enforcement of the 2024 airport noise ordinance. Unfortunately, since the ordinance was enacted there has been virtually no enforcement by the City and significant noncompliance by pilots. I am a Torrance resident directly impacted by this nonenforcement and noncompliance, seeing firsthand complaints not being answered and these nuisance violations being allowed to continue day after day. This should not be the case.
Enforcement to achieve compliance is long overdue. I strongly urge you to pass the proposed ordinance and direct staff to resume enforcement immediately.
Regards,
Sarah S.
Torrance resident and voter
15 10.
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
10A.
Community Development – Discuss and Consider Amendment to the Torrance Municipal Airport Ordinance, Determine California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Exemption, and Adopt an ORDINANCE Amending the Torrance Municipal Code as Related to Enforcement of the Airport Ordinance. Expenditure: None.
Name
Joshua Sedaghat
Comment 11/03/2025 03:10 PM : (For)
I am in support of the city bolstering enforcement. There is currently not substantial enforcement of the airport noise ordinance, allowing many pilots to ignore it without consequence. There are still pilots doing touch and go training despite it being banned, due to lack of proper enforcement. I urge you to vote this change in for the safety and peace of the community you represent. Thank you.
16 10.
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
10A.
Community Development – Discuss and Consider Amendment to the Torrance Municipal Airport Ordinance, Determine California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Exemption, and Adopt an ORDINANCE Amending the Torrance Municipal Code as Related to Enforcement of the Airport Ordinance. Expenditure: None.
Name
Fernand
Chouinard
Comment 11/03/2025 03:19 PM : (Against)
While I am for stopping TouchandGo’s broadly, I am reticent of giving more power to appointed rather than elected officials.
Specifically the agenda item dictates that the city manager will have the power to appoint a supposed neutral third party, however, it does not qualify how such criteria is determined, nor does it hold up to scrutiny as an appointed position that is at the behest of a public official rather than an elected position that is only beholden to the people that they represent.
17 1
Huizar, Carlos
From: Santana, Danny
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2025 8:36 AM
To: Strader, Tatia; Ramirez, Michelle
Cc: Chaparyan, Aram; Huizar, Carlos; Valenciano, Isela; O'Neill, Eirenne Subject: Fw: Council Agenda Item 10A for 11/4/2025
GM Tatia and Michelle on the message council received related to item 10A. Thanks
DANNY SANTANA
Assistant City Manager - Office of the City Manager
310-618-5880 | [email protected]
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: Jim Gates
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2025 8:13:09 AM
To: City Council <[email protected]>; Sullivan, Patrick <[email protected]> Subject: Council Agenda Item 10A for 11/4/2025
Hon Mayor Chen and Members of the Torrance City Council:
The current Torrance Municipal Code (TMC) Sections 51.5.5 - 51.1.8 (as well as the proposed changes) illegally attempt to regulate "low approaches." As noted many times before to the Council and City Attorney, the FAA has exclusive authority to regulate the navigable airspace in the United States.
The City's definition of "low approaches" includes what are known as "aborted landings", "go-arounds" and "missed approaches." These are standard safety maneuvers that the Pilot in Command (PIC) may execute at any time he/she deems necessary. Federal Aviation Regulations, 14 CFR 91.3, vests the PIC with the direct responsibility and final authority as to the operation of their aircraft. Neither the Torrance City Manager nor the Torrance City Council have any role in that decision--either before or after it is made!
The City of Torrance is currently defendant in a Federal lawsuit over whether these "restrictions" are even legal (see below). All references to regulation of "low approaches" should be eliminated from Torrance Municipal Code.
Citations
The Supremacy Clause:
The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the "Supreme Law of the Land", and thus take priority over any conflicting state or local laws.
Preemption Doctrine:
18 2
The Preemption Doctrine is based on the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. It holds that certain matters are of such a national (as opposed to local) character that federal laws preempt or take precedence over state or local laws. As such, a state or local government may not pass a law inconsistent with the federal law. A state or local law may be struck down, even when it does not explicitly conflict with federal law, if a court finds that Congress has legitimately occupied the field with federal legislation. Congress has long vested the FAA with exclusive authority to regulate airspace use and air traffic control. In simple terms, this means that ordinances passed by state and local governments that attempt to do so are invalid and unenforceable.
Local governments cannot regulate control of aircraft or airspace, or any aspect of aviation navigation. City of Burbank v. Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority , 72 Cal. App. 4th 366, 85 Cal. Rptr. 2d 28 (2d Dist. 1999).
Limitations on aircraft taking off and use of the airport runway involve air safety, which is field preempted by the Federal Aviation Act. Restrictions that conflict with the Federal Aviation Act or sufficiently interfere with federal regulation of air safety are preempted. Tweed-New Haven Airport Authority v. Tong, 930 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2019). • Municipal ordinances cannot prohibit flights of aircraft at altitudes (i.e. low approaches, missed approaches). Only the federal government has the right to regulate safe altitudes of flight at any elevation and take-off and landing patterns. Allegheny Airlines v. Village of Cedarhurst, 238 F.2d 812, 17 Pub. Util. Rep. 3d (PUR) 244 (2d Cir. 1956).
An airport cannot restrict the number of planes flying, as it constitutes an attempt to regulate air navigation which is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the federal government. Gary Leasing, Inc. v. Town Bd. of Town of Pendleton, 127 Misc. 2d 194, 485 N.Y.S.2d 693 (Sup 1985). Aviation commerce and safety are governed by pervasive federal regulations, and applicable local standards are field preempted. The Federal government, not city, controls the airspace above city limits. Noise regulation ordinances, flight-pattern controls, restrictions on operations, air safety regulations, and pilot drug- testing provisions are all impliedly preempted by the Federal Aviation Act (FAA ). International Aerobatics Club Chapter 1 v. City of Morris, 76 F. Supp. 3d 767 (N.D. Ill. 2014). In May of 2015, the Torrance City Attorney stated: "Congress has tasked the Secretary of Transportation, via the FAA, with the task of "assigning, maintaining, and enhancing safety and security as the highest priorities in air commerce," as well as "controlling the use of the navigable airspace and regulating civil and military operations in that airspace in the interest of the safety and efficiency of both of those operations." (49 U.S.C. 44718, subd. (d).) The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recognizes that, "federal law occupies the entire field of aviation safety." Montalvo v. Spirit Airlines (9th Cir. 2007) 508 F.3d 464,473.) California state courts note that the Ninth Circuit's position is consistent with the positions taken by the Second, Third, Sixth and Tenth Circuits. {Citizens Opposing a Dangerous Env't v. Cnty. Of Kern 2014 ) 228 Cal.App.4th 360, 364 [noting that the aforementioned Circuits of the Federal Court of Appeals have concluded that Congress intended to occupy the entire field of aviation safety). FAR 91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command (PIC) states. o "(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.
o (b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency. o (c) Each pilot in command who deviates from a rule under paragraph (b) of this section shall, upon the request of the Administrator, send a written report of that deviation to the Administrator." 19 3
--
Jim Gates
20