Agenda Item 10 A — Torrance City Council, December 2, 2025

Date: December 2, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Michelle Ramirez, Community Development Director
Subject: 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.

RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation of the Community Development Director that City Council:

1. Discuss and consider amending the Torrance Municipal Airport Ordinance as related to enforcement of the Airport Ordinance; and

2. Determine the project is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15378 and 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations; and

3. Adopt an ORDINANCE amending Torrance Municipal Code Article 7 “Enforcement” of Chapter 1, Division 5; and

4. Approve an Ordinance Summary for publication.

FUNDING
None required.

DISCUSSION
A Noise Abatement Program was established at the Torrance Municipal Airport - Zamperini Field (Torrance Airport) in late 1977 to address the noise generated by aircraft operations. Noise violations are detected by a series of seven noise monitors strategically placed around the airport.

On December 14, 2021, the City Council awarded a Consulting Services Agreement for a new Airport Noise Monitoring System to Casper Airport Solutions. The new Airport Noise Monitoring System went live in July 2022, with all seven-noise monitors collecting data, the noise and radar correlating flights, and the flights being identified by tail numbers. The initial goal of the Noise Abatement program is to obtain voluntary compliance through the issuance of notices of violation, as well as through noise tests conducted by the pilots and City staff. If voluntary compliance cannot be achieved, the City will move to enforce its noise abatement rules and regulations, which may involve hearings and ultimately the possibility of a pilot and/or aircraft being denied airport usage as a result.

Additionally, on February 6, 2024, the City Council amended the regulations relating to touch (and stop) and go, full stop-taxi back, and low approaches by adopting Ordinance No. 10A
1 City Council
December 2, 2025

Page 2 ends

3930. Specifically, the ordinance eliminated touch (and stop) and go landings and restricted taxi backs and low approaches to 10:00 am – 6:00 pm, Monday – Friday. Taxi backs and low approaches are also prohibited on City observed holidays and all other hours, unless in the event of an emergency or directed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) - Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT). Any violation of Ordinance No. 3930 results in the issuance of a Notice to Appear before the City’s Administrative Hearing Board (Hearing Board).

In July 2024, the City’s Hearing Board was reactivated to deal with violators of the Noise Abatement Program. Per Article 2 “Administrative Hearing Board” of Chapter 2, Division 1 of the Torrance Municipal Code (TMC), the Hearing Board was created to hold hearings on and decide those matters for which an administrative hearing procedure is established by the TMC, such as enforcement of the Airport Code. The Hearing Board consist of seven City employees who are appointed by the City Manager. However, only three city employees are needed to constitute a quorum of the Hearing Board. Additionally, it should be noted that the current Airport Code (specifically Section 51.7.9 “Administrative Hearing Board”) also states that the Hearing Board will be comprised of three members appointed by the City Manager. All decisions of the Hearing Board may be appealed to the City Council, as provided in TMC 11.5.1 “Filing of Notice of Appeal”.

Prior to putting enforcement on hold while the subject ordinance was being drafted, a total of six transient pilots have received a Notice to Appear before the Hearing Board for violating the City’s Noise Abatement Program. All six pilots were found in violation of Ordinance No. 3930 by staff.

There were no violations related to exceeding noise limits or violations by a Torrance-based tenant.

While none of the six pilots showed up to their scheduled hearing, all were found guilty of violating the TMC by the Hearing Board. All but one pilot has been found guilty of two separate violations.

Per TMC Section 51.7.2 “Denial of Use of Airport”, any person that has been convicted of three (3) or more cumulative violations of the code, as related to the Torrance Airport, within a three (3) year period, then for a period of three (3) years thereafter, such person shall be denied the right to land or takeoff from the Airport, except in bona fide emergencies for the preservation of life or property as reasonably determined by the Airport Manager and shall be denied the right to lease, rent or use space for aircraft (including tie-down) at the Airport insofar as the City has the right to deny such use of said Airport.

Regarding noticing of pilots to appear before the Hearing Board, per TMC 51.7.4(b) “Enforcement”, any notices of violations must be made by citation in the same manner as provided for misdemeanor citations by Section 836.5 of the State Penal Code or by a complaint served in the same manner as civil cases in the Superior Court, which means "personal service" through a a process server, sheriff, or even the plaintiff themselves. Unfortunately, this may prove to be difficult at times, as the pilots of the planes are not always local or even within California, which has already been the case with several of the six pilots recently requested to appear before the Hearing Board. Additionally, as there is a hearing process established by the City, it would not be the intention of staff to issue a misdemeanor citation for the party to appear directly within the Superior Court.

As a result, staff is requesting amendments to TMC Section 51.7 to clarify the process of serving violation notices as well as to the hearing process. The proposed amendments would allow the Notice to Appear letter to be delivered by first class mail at least 25 calendar days before the scheduled hearing date. In addition to the Notice to Appear being served by first class mail, the City may also deliver it through physical delivery, delivery by overnight carrier service, or delivery by digital mail. Additionally, to avoid the confusion of the Hearing Board makeup (seven 2 City Council
December 2, 2025

Page 3 ends

City employees versus three City employees) as well as any potential conflict, it is being proposed to have a neutral third-party Hearing Officer selected by the City Manager. A neutral third-party Hearing Officer would provide an unbiased perspective by listening to each side as they present their case along with relevant evidence before a decision is made. Furthermore, the amendment outlines the Hearing procedures and Hearing Officer’s decision, which could be appealed to the City Council.

Lastly, the amendment provides clarity on applicable TMC Sections and the parties it could affect (i.e., operator, owner, or pilot of aircraft).

At this time, staff recommends that City Council discuss and consider the attached ordinance, determine the project is exempt from CEQA, and approve an Ordinance Summary for publication, if the attached ordinance is approved.

ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS
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 pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15378, because the activity undertaken involves general text amendments that would not cause either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and does not meet the definition of a "Project" under CEQA. The proposed ordinance is also exempt from CEQA Guidelines under 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 environment. The ordinance consists only of bolstering public nuisance regulations. Adoption of this ordinance will not have the effect of deleting or substantially changing any regulatory standards or required findings.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Ordinance – Clean Copy

2. Ordinance – Redline Copy

3. Ordinance Summary

4. Public Comment Report, Received for November 4, 2025 City Council Meeting 3 1
ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ARTICLE 7 “ENFORCEMENT” OF CHAPTER 1, DIVISION 5 OF THE TORRANCE MUNICIPAL CODE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TORRANCE DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1
That Article 7 “Enforcement” of Chapter 1, Division 5 of the Torrance Municipal Code is amended in its entirety to read as follows:
“ARTICLE 7 - ENFORCEMENT

51.7.1 DESIGNATED OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES.
a) The City Manager or his designee(s) acting under the direction and control of the City Manager shall have the duty and authority to enforce the provisions of this Division 5 and all other laws, rules and regulations pertaining to the use of the Airport pursuant to the provisions of Section 836.5 of the State Penal Code.
b) Acting under the direction and control of the City Manager, airport security officers who are peace officers shall also have the duty and authority to enforce the provisions of this Division 5 and all other laws, rules and regulations pertaining to the use of the Airport.

51.7.2 DENIAL OF USE OF AIRPORT
a) In the event that any person has been found to be in violation of 3 or more cumulative violations of the provisions of Division 5, or of Sections 46.8.8 or 46.8.9 of the Torrance Municipal Code or of any other laws, rules or regulations of the City, State or the United States of America pertaining to the use of the Airport (including forfeiture of bail after being arrested or charged by citation or complaint with any such violation) within a three (3) year period, then for a period of three (3) years thereafter, such person shall be denied the right to land or takeoff from the Airport, except in bona fide emergencies for the preservation of life or property as reasonably determined by the Airport Manager and shall be denied the right to lease, rent or use space for aircraft (including tie-down) at the Airport insofar as the City has the right to deny such use of said Airport.
b) For the purposes of this Section, a determination of guilt by the Hearing Officer in accordance with the provisions of Section 51.7.4. shall have the same effect as a conviction by a court.

51.7.3 EXCLUSION OF VIOLATION-PRONE AIRCRAFT
In the event that any aircraft has been found to be the cause of three (3) or more violations of Division 5, or of Sections 46.8.8 or 46.8.9 of the Torrance Municipal Code within a three (3) year period, regardless whether the operator, owner or pilot of said aircraft have been convicted of any criminal act or have been found to be in violation of said sections by the Hearing Officer, or City Council upon appeal, as provided for in Section 51.7.4, then it shall be presumed that operation of such aircraft will result in continued violation of the provisions of Division 5, or of Sections 46.8.8 or 46.8.9 of the Torrance Municipal Code , and for a period of 3 years thereafter such aircraft will not be permitted to tie down or be based at Torrance Airport; nor shall such aircraft be permitted 4 2
to land at or take off from the Airport except in emergencies for the preservation of life or property or as directed by the Torrance Air Traffic Control Tower or the Federal Aviation Administration.

51.7.4 ENFORCEMENT.
a) Any person charged with piloting or operating or otherwise causing an aircraft to violate Division 5 or exceed the single event noise exposure levels (SENEL) or maximum sound exposure levels set forth in Section 46.8.8 or 46.8.9 of the Torrance Municipal Code, a Hearing Officer shall determine whether or not there was a violation, after a hearing thereon. b) The charge may be made by the issuance of a Notice to Appear to the pilot (also known as “Person accused”) of said aircraft, if known. It is the responsibility of the operator, owner, or lessee of said aircraft to provide the pilot information to the City. If the pilot of said aircraft is not known, and the operator, owner, or lessee of said aircraft is not cooperative in providing the pilot information, then the Notice to Appear will be issued to the operator, owner, or lessee of said aircraft who will be held liable for the pilot’s violation(s) (also known as “Person accused”). The Notice to Appear shall be served by first class mail at least 25 calendar days before the scheduled hearing date before the Hearing Officer. In addition to the Notice to Appear being served by first class mail, the City may also deliver through physical delivery, delivery by overnight carrier service, or delivery by digital mail.

51.7.5 HEARING PROCEDURE.
a) A hearing before the Hearing Officer shall be set for a date that is not less than 25 calendar days and not more than 90 calendar days from the mailing date listed on the Notice to Appear. b) The hearing shall be conducted by a Hearing Officer on the date, time and place specified in the Notice to Appear.
c) The hearing shall be open to the public. If all or part of the hearing is conducted by telephone, television, or other electronic means, the Hearing Officer shall conduct the hearing from a location where members of the public may be physically present. Hearings will not be recorded.
d) The Hearing Officer shall only consider evidence that is relevant to whether the violation(s) occurred and whether the Person accused has caused or maintained the violation(s). Formal rules of evidence shall not apply. Relevant hearsay evidence and written reports may be admitted whether or not the speaker or author is present to testify, if the Hearing Officer determines that the evidence is reliable. Admission of evidence and the conduct of the hearing shall be controlled by the Hearing Officer in accordance with the fundamentals of due process. The Hearing Officer may limit the total length of the hearing to one hour. e) At the hearing, the Person accused shall be given the opportunity to present, either themselves or through a representative, evidence and testimony concerning the violation(s). The City’s case shall be presented by any authorized agent of the City. f) The failure of the Person accused to appear at the hearing, either personally or through counsel, shall be deemed an admission that the violation(s) in question was appropriately and validly issued against the Person accused and the aircraft. g) The Hearing Officer may consolidate into 1 hearing all outstanding violations relating to the same Person accused.
5 3
h) The Hearing Officer may continue the hearing and request additional information from the City or the Person accused prior to issuing a written decision.

51.7.6 HEARING OFFICER’S DECISION.
a) After considering all of the testimony and evidence submitted at the hearing, the Hearing Officer may announce a decision orally, but in any event, shall prepare a written decision. The decision shall be provided to all parties within thirty calendar days of the hearing and shall either affirm or dismiss the violation(s). The serving of the written decision shall be by any means deemed adequate to the City, which includes but is not limited to physical delivery, delivery by first class mail, delivery by overnight carrier service, or delivery by digital mail. b) All decisions of a Hearing Officer shall become final unless appealed to the City Council pursuant to the provisions of Article 5 of Chapter 1, Division 1 of the Code. Once the decision of the City Council is final, any party aggrieved by the decision may seek judicial review of the decision by filing a petition for review with the Superior Court of Los Angeles County in accordance with the timelines and provisions set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6.

51.7.7 UNLAWFUL TO USE AIRPORT AFTER USE DENIED.

Except as provided otherwise in Sections 51.7.2 and 51.7.3:
a) It shall be unlawful and a misdemeanor for any person to land an aircraft on or take off an aircraft from the Airport after he or she has been denied the use of the Airport in accordance with the provisions of Section 51.7.2.; or
b) It shall be unlawful and a misdemeanor for any person to land an aircraft on or take off any aircraft from the Airport after such aircraft has been excluded from the Airport pursuant to the provisions of Section 51.7.3.

51.7.8 CULPABILITY OF INSTRUCTOR PILOTS
In the case of any training flight in which both an instructor pilot and a student pilot are in the aircraft which is flown in violation of any of the provisions of Division 5, or of Sections 46.8.8 or

46.8.9 of the Torrance Municipal Code, the instructor pilot (also known as “operator”) shall be presumed to have caused such violation.

51.7.9 CULPABILITY OF AIRCRAFT OWNER OR LESSEE
For purposes of Division 5, or of Sections 46.8.8 or 46.8.9 of the Torrance Municipal Code, if the pilot of an aircraft cannot be otherwise identified, the beneficial owner of an aircraft shall be presumed to be the pilot of the aircraft with authority to control the aircraft’s operation, except that where the aircraft is leased, the lessee shall be presumed to be the pilot. Such presumption may be rebutted only if the owner or lessee identifies the person who in fact was the pilot at the time of the asserted violation.

51.7.10 REGISTRATION OF AIRCRAFT
a) The Airport Manager shall keep a register of aircraft based at the Airport. The names, addresses and other reasonable identification, as determined by the Airport Manager, of the legal and beneficial owners, the lessee (if any), the operators and the authorized pilots of each such aircraft shall be entered into the register.
6 4
b) For the purposes of this Section, an aircraft which remains at the Airport for a period longer than twenty-four (24) consecutive hours or for a cumulative time of more than seventy-two (72) hours in any thirty (30) day period shall be deemed to be based at the Airport. c) It shall be unlawful for any owner, lessee, operator or pilot of any aircraft based at the Airport to fail to register such aircraft with the Airport Manager.

51.7.11 HEARING OFFICER
The City Manager, or his or her designee, shall select a fair and impartial Hearing Officer to preside over hearings for violation(s) of Division 5, or of Sections 46.8.8 or 46.8.9 of the Torrance Municipal Code. The Hearing Officer shall not be a current Torrance City employee.

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.

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 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. 7 5
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
Mayor George Chen
PATRICK Q. SULLIVAN, City Attorney
By:________________________________
Tatia Y. Strader, Assistant City Attorney
ATTEST:
______________________________
Rebecca Poirier, City Clerk
8 1
ORDINANCE NO.

SECTION 1
That Article 7 “Enforcement” of Chapter 1, Division 5 of the Torrance Municipal Code is amended in its entirety to read as follows:
“ARTICLE 7 - ENFORCEMENT

51.7.2 DENIAL OF USE OF AIRPORT
a) In the event that any person has been convicted found to be in violation of three ( 3 ) or more cumulative violations of the provisions of this Chapter 1Division 5 , or of Sections 46.8.8 or

46.8.9 of the Torrance Municipal Code or of any other laws, rules or regulations of the City, State or the United States of America pertaining to the use of the Airport (including forfeiture of bail after being arrested or charged by citation or complaint with any such violation) within a three (3) year period, then for a period of three (3) years thereafter, such person shall be denied the right to land or takeoff from the Airport, except in bona fide emergencies for the preservation of life or property as reasonably determined by the Airport Manager and shall be denied the right to lease, rent or use space for aircraft (including tie-down) at the Airport insofar as the City has the right to deny such use of said Airport. b) For the purposes of this Section, a determination of guiltyguilt by the Administrative Hearing BoardHearing Officer in accordance with the provisions of Section 51.7.4. shall have the same effect as a conviction by a court.

51.7.3 EXCLUSION OF VIOLATION-PRONE AIRCRAFT
In the event that any aircraft has been found to be the cause of three (3) or more violations of Division 5, or of Sections 46.8.8 or 46.8.9 of the Torrance Municipal Code within a three (3) year period, regardless whether the operator, owner or pilot of said aircraft operator or operators of said aircraft have been convicted of any criminal act or have been found to be in violation of said sections by the Administrative Hearing BoardHearing Officer, or City Council upon appeal, as provided for in Section 51.7.4, then it shall be presumed that operation of such aircraft will result in continued violation of the provisions of Division 5, or of Sections 46.8.8 or 46.8.9 of the Torrance Municipal Code , and for a period of 3 years thereafter such aircraft will not be permitted to tie 9 2
down or be based at Torrance Airport; nor shall such aircraft be permitted to land at or take off from the Airport except in emergencies for the preservation of life or property or as directed by the Torrance Air Traffic Control Tower or the Federal Aviation Administration.as reasonably determined by the Airport Manager; provided, however, that the owner or operator of such aircraft shall be entitled to rebut such presumption to the reasonable satisfaction of the Airport Manager by furnishing evidence to the contrary, including but not limited to, changes in operating personnel, retrofitting measures, changes in engine or maintenance.

A decision of the Airport Manager which sustains the presumption is a decision that may be appealed to the City Council pursuant to the provisions of Article 5 of Chapter 1, Division 1 of the code.

51.7.4 ENFORCEMENT.
a) In the event that Aa ny person is charged with piloting or operating or otherwise causing an aircraft to violate Division 5 or exceed the single event noise exposure levels (SENEL) or maximum sound exposure levels set forth in Section 46.8.8 . or 46.8.9 . of the Torrance Municipal Code , the guilt or innocence of such person shall be determined by a Hearing Officer shall determine whether or not there was a violation, the Administrative Hearing Board after a hearing thereon.
b) The charge may be made by the issuance of a Notice to Appear to the pilot (also known as “Person accused”) of said aircraft, if known. It is the responsibility of the operator, owner, or lessee of said aircraft to provide the pilot information to the City. If the pilot of said aircraft is not known, and the operator, owner, or lessee of said aircraft is not cooperative in providing the pilot information, then the Notice to Appear will be issued to the operator, owner, or lessee of said aircraft who will be held liable for the pilot’s violation(s) (also known as “Person accused”). The Notice to Appear shall be served by first class mail at least 25 calendar days before the scheduled hearing date before the Hearing Officer. In addition to the Notice to Appear being served by first class mail, the City may also deliver through physical delivery, delivery by overnight carrier service, or delivery by digital mail. citation in the same manner as provided for misdemeanor citations by Section 836.5 of the State Penal Code. Otherwise, it shall be made by complaint served on the defendant in the manner of complaints in civil cases in the Superior Court.
c) The hearing shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements of due process of law.

Persons accused shall have the right to be represented by counsel, to be apprised of the nature of the charges, to offer evidence and to examine witnesses. The Administrative Hearing Board shall adopt rules of procedure for such purpose.
d) The decision of the Administrative Hearing Board may be appealed to the City Council pursuant to the provisions of Article 5 of Chapter 1, Division 1 of the Code.

51.7.5 HEARING PROCEDURE.
a) A hearing before the Hearing Officer shall be set for a date that is not less than 25 calendar days and not more than 90 calendar days from the mailing date listed on the Notice to Appear. b) The hearing shall be conducted by a Hearing Officer on the date, time and place specified in the Notice to Appear.
10 3
c) The hearing shall be open to the public. If all or part of the hearing is conducted by telephone, television, or other electronic means, the Hearing Officer shall conduct the hearing from a location where members of the public may be physically present. Hearings will not be recorded.
d) The Hearing Officer shall only consider evidence that is relevant to whether the violation(s) occurred and whether the Person accused has caused or maintained the violation(s). Formal rules of evidence shall not apply. Relevant hearsay evidence and written reports may be admitted whether or not the speaker or author is present to testify, if the Hearing Officer determines that the evidence is reliable. Admission of evidence and the conduct of the hearing shall be controlled by the Hearing Officer in accordance with the fundamentals of due process. The Hearing Officer may limit the total length of the hearing to one hour. e) At the hearing, the Person accused shall be given the opportunity to present, either themselves or through a representative, evidence and testimony concerning the violation(s). The City’s case shall be presented by any authorized agent of the City. f) The failure of the Person accused to appear at the hearing, either personally or through counsel, shall be deemed an admission that the violation(s) in question was appropriately and validly issued against the Person accused and the aircraft. g) The Hearing Officer may consolidate into 1 hearing all outstanding violations relating to the same Person accused.
h) The Hearing Officer may continue the hearing and request additional information from the City or the Person accused prior to issuing a written decision.

51.7. 75 UNLAWFUL TO USE AIRPORT AFTER USE DENIED.

Except as provided otherwise in Sections 51.7.2 and 51.7.3:
a) It shall be unlawful and a misdemeanor for any person to land an aircraft on or takeofftake off an aircraft from the Airport after he or she has been denied the use of the Airport in accordance with the provisions of Section 51.7.2.; or
11 4
b) It shall be unlawful and a misdemeanor for any person to land an aircraft on or takeofftake off any aircraft from the Airport after such aircraft has been excluded from the Airport pursuant to the provisions of Section 51.7.3 .

51.7. 86 CULPABILITY OF INSTRUCTOR PILOTS
In the case of any training flight in which both an instructor pilot and a student pilot are in the aircraft which is flown in violation of any of the provisions of this ChapterDivision 5, or of Sections

46.8.8 or 46.8.9 of the Torrance Municipal Code , the instructor pilot (also known as “operator”) shall be presumed to have caused such violation.

51.7. 97 CULPABILITY OF AIRCRAFT OWNER OR LESSEE
For purposes of Division 5, or of Sections 46.8.8 or 46.8.9 of the Torrance Municipal Codethis Chapter , if the pilot of an aircraft cannot be otherwise identified, the beneficial owner of an aircraft shall be presumed to be the pilot of the aircraft with authority to control the aircraft’s operation, except that where the aircraft is leased, the lessee shall be presumed to be the pilot. Such presumption may be rebutted only if the owner or lessee identifies the person who in fact was the pilot at the time of the asserted violation.

51.7. 108 REGISTRATION OF AIRCRAFT
a) The Airport Manager shall keep a register of aircraft based at the Airport. The names, addresses and other reasonable identification, as determined by the Airport Manager, of the legal and beneficial owners, the lessee (if any), the operators and the authorized pilots of each such aircraft shall be entered ininto the register.
b) For the purposes of this Section, an aircraft which remains at the Airport for a period longer than twenty-four (24) consecutive hours or for a cumulative time of more than seventy-two (72) hours in any thirty (30) day period shall be deemed to be based at the Airport. c) It shall be unlawful for any owner, lessee, operator or pilot of any aircraft based at the Airport to fail to register such aircraft with the Airport Manager.

51.7. 119 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING BOARDHEARING OFFICER
The City Manager, or his or her designee, shall select a fair and impartial Hearing Officer to preside over hearings for violation(s) of Division 5, or of Sections 46.8.8 or 46.8.9 of the Torrance Municipal Code. The Hearing Officer shall not be a current Torrance City employee.The Administrative Hearing Board, which shall hear aircraft related matters including alleged violations of Sections 46.8.8 and 46.8.9, shall be comprised of three (3) members. The members of the Board shall be appointed by the City Manager as specified in Section 12.2.1 of the Municipal Code.”
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. 12 5
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.

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
13 4
1 1
8 ORDINANCE SUMMARY
On December 2, 2025, the City Council of the City of Torrance introduced by title only, at first reading, Ordinance No. _______ “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Torrance, California, Amending Article 7 “Enforcement” of Chapter 1, Division 5 of the Torrance Municipal Code.” On December 16, 2025, the City Council of the City of Torrance adopted Ordinance No. _______. Ordinance No. ______ will take effect 30 days after the adoption date of December 16, 2025. The following is a summary of Ordinance No. _______.

Amendment to the Torrance Municipal Code:

Ordinance No. ______ would amend Article 7 to Chapter 1 of Division 5 entitled “Enforcement”.

In summary, the ordinance would clarify the process of serving violation notices to the operator, owner or pilot of any aircraft found in violation of the City’s Airport Ordinance as well as to the hearing process for receiving such violation. The proposed amendments would allow the Notice to Appear letter to be delivered by first class mail at least 25 calendar days before the scheduled hearing date. In addition to the Notice to Appear being served by first-class mail, the City could also deliver it through physical delivery, delivery by overnight carrier service, or delivery by digital mail. Additionally, Ordinance No. ______ would establish a neutral third party as the Hearing Officer and outlines the Hearing procedures and Hearing Officer’s decision. Furthermore, Ordinance No. ______ provides clarity on applicable Torrance Municipal Code Sections and the parties it could affect (i.e., operator, owner, or pilot of aircraft).

Passed, Approved, and Adopted the 16th day of December 2025, by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

The full text of Ordinance No. ______ is available for inspection during regular business hours at the City Clerk’s Office (3031 Torrance Boulevard, Torrance, California 90503) Monday through Friday with alternating closed Fridays from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. or at https://www.torranceca.gov/government/city-clerk .

DATED THIS ____ DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
Rebecca Poirier, City Clerk
City of Torrance
3031 Torrance Boulevard
Torrance, California 90503
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
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
15 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:

 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 17

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 18

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 19

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 20

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 21

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 22

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 23

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 24

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.

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 25

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:

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 26

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:

For these reasons, the City will include your email and this response in the record, however, no further response appears to be warranted.

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:

Citations
The Supremacy Clause:

Preemption Doctrine:

For these reasons, the City will include your email and this response in the record, however, no further response appears to be warranted.

Citations
The Supremacy Clause:

Preemption Doctrine:

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 29

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 30

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 31
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 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!

Citations

The Supremacy Clause:

Preemption Doctrine:
18 32
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 33
3 --
Jim Gates

20 34

Torrance City CouncilDecember 2, 2025

Torrance City Council
December 2, 2025