Torrance council declines to amend airport rules, keeps restrictions on touch-and-go operations

Torrance City Council on June 17, 2025 voted to decline a proposed amendment to the city’s airport ordinance that would have relaxed restrictions on touch-and-go, full-stop taxi-backs and low approaches at Torrance Municipal Airport. Councilmember Dante Mateucci moved the motion to reject the amendment and continue defending the existing ordinance; the council carried the motion, with Mayor Tim Chen recorded as voting no and Councilmember Sheikh absent.

The item (agenda 10b) returned to the council after city attorneys presented a draft ordinance negotiated as part of litigation over a 1990 ban on the maneuvers. City Attorney Patrick Sullivan told the council the draft would allow touch-and-go operations Monday–Friday from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Saturdays 11 a.m. to 2:30 p.m., and would prohibit them on Sundays and holidays; staff said the proposal grew out of settlement discussions in an ongoing legal dispute and included a scrivener’s correction in the supplemental materials that restored an emergency exemption section.

Why it matters: The change would have reduced blanket limits on certain flight maneuvers at the municipal airport, an issue that residents say affects quality of life in neighborhoods under the airport’s flight paths. Opponents argued that restoring broader operations would return the city to the prior volume of flights and harm residents’ peace and quiet; supporters said the draft would restore balance and return the airport to pre‑COVID operating patterns.

Councilmembers framed the vote as a choice about whether to accept a settlement-driven compromise or defend the ordinance adopted last year. Councilmember Mateucci said he would not support the settlement, calling it necessary to “fight for the well-being of our residents.” Councilmember Wilma Kalani, Councilmember Shana Lewis and Councilmember Kaji likewise said they would vote against amending the ordinance; Councilmember Gerson repeated that the airport belongs to Torrance residents and said the question was whether the ordinance is legally sustainable.

Public comment was lengthy and sharply divided. Dozens of residents urged the council to keep restrictions, describing repeated, low-altitude and frequent touch-and-go flights as a “mind‑numbing” disruption to daily life; several speakers said the prior 15‑month restrictions had been a relief. Speakers who identified with pilot groups and local aviation interests urged the council to accept the proposed amendment, saying the change would return the airport to earlier operating norms and that the proposal complied with applicable rules.

City staff and outside counsel told the council the FAA controls aircraft operations in the air but that the city retains the right to regulate certain local operations on the airport property; the ordinance history presented goes back to a 1990 ordinance that restricted maneuvers and led to litigation and a proposed settlement. Patrick Sullivan also corrected the record that portions of earlier filings were dismissed for failure to prosecute in a related federal case.

Council action and next steps: Councilmember Mateucci moved that the council not amend the ordinance and continue to defend the existing regulatory approach; the motion carried with Mayor Chen recorded as voting no and Councilmember Sheikh absent. The transcript does not show further procedural steps for the litigation beyond that direction.

Voices and evidence: Speakers who addressed the council on the record included Patrick Sullivan (City Attorney), Councilmember Dante Mateucci, Councilmember Wilma Kalani, Councilmember Shana Lewis, Councilmember Kaji, Councilmember Gerson, and dozens of residents including Tom Newman, Michael Lyons and Chuck Costello who spoke during public comment. Many residents urged continued enforcement of the ordinance citing health, tranquility and property‑use concerns; pilot‑aligned commenters and at least one speaker from the public defended restoring certain operations.

Ending: The council’s vote preserves the existing municipal restrictions while leaving unresolved litigation and the possibility of future challenges. The city attorney and staff retain discretion to continue settlement negotiations or to defend the ordinance in court; the motion recorded at the hearing directed the city to continue defending the current regulatory approach.