Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-05-05; City Council; 21957; Denying Gunther’s Guns Shooting Range Appeal MCUP 14-17Gunther's Gun Shooting Range Appeal MayS, 2015 Pagel o/2 On February 27, 2015, the city received an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision from Ms. Lisa Gunther (please see attached Exhibit 6). Ms. Gunther has objected first to the approval of Planning Commission Resolution No. 7087 as she feels that the tie vote should not have resulted in the denial of the resolution, but rather should have resulted in "no action" and with the matter remaining before the Planning Commission for further consideration. The City offered to return the matter to the Planning Commission for additional consideration and another vote, but through her attorney, Ms. Gunther declined the opportunity. In the appeal letter dated February 27, 2015, Ms. Gunther's second grounds for appeal was that pursuant to the provisions and requirements of the Carlsbad Municipal Code 2.24.070 and the wording of Resolution No. 7087, the tie vote resulted in a denial of the Resolution and thus, the determination of the City Planner was overturned. Therefore, Ms. Gunther feels this matter should be returned to staff for a full evaluation of the originally requested Minor Conditional Use Permit (MCUP) as a recreational facility. However, the Planning Commission minutes make it clear that the intent of the Planning Commission was to uphold the decision of the City Planner and deny the appeal (see Exhibit 5, top of page 15). Ms. Gunther's attorney later confirmed that the Gunthers would like to proceed to the City Council rather than have the same issue returned to the Planning Commission for further consideration if the MCUP cannot be considered at this time (see attached Exhibit 7). Finally, in her appeal letter, Ms. Gunther reiterated what she presented to the Planning Commission and indicated that indoor shooting ranges are not unique recreational facilities and are similar to other recreational facilities located in the city in the P-M zone, including go-karts, an ice skating rink and a swim facility which were previously approved. Consequently, Ms. Gunther feels that the indoor shooting range should be processed and evaluated as a Minor Conditional Use Permit, which is an administrative permit subject to approval by the City Planner. As summarized in the attached Planning Commission minutes for the hearing on February 18, 2015 (please see attached Exhibit 5), a significant number of people spoke in support of the indoor shooting range and felt that it should be considered as a recreation facility. One person, Mr. Jeff Gosselin, an owner within the commercial condominium development in which the indoor shooting range is proposed to be located, spoke in opposition to the indoor shooting range due to concerns regarding the amount of parking the use would generate, thus impacting his business. Based upon a review of the facts, including the appeal filed by the applicant, staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to deny the appeal. FISCAL IMPACT: There are no fiscal impacts other than the administrative staff costs associated w ith processing the appeal. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: Pursuant to Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves. As the City Planner has determined that an indoor shooting range is not a permitted or conditionally-permitted use in the P-M zone, environmental review is not required. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: Information regarding public notifications of this item such as mailings, public hearing notices posted in the newspaper and on the City website are available in the Office of the City Cieri<. EXHIBITS: 1. City Council Resolution No. 2015-114 2. Location Map Gunther's Gun Shooting Range Appeal May5,2015 Page3 o/3 3. Planning Commission Resolution No . 7087, dated February 18, 2015 4. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated February 18, 2015 5. Planning Commission Minutes, dated February 18, 2015 6. Applicant Appeal Letter, filed February 27, 2015 7. Correspondence received from Leslie Devaney, Esq., dated April10, 2015 8. Correspondence received in support of the indoor shooting range post-Planning Commission 9. Correspondence received in opposition of the indoor shooting range post-Planning Commission 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 E~h)bi+ I RESOLUTION NO. 2015-114 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY THE APPEAL AND UPHOLD THE CITY PLANNER'S DETERMINATION THAT AN INDOOR SHOOTING RANGE IS NOT A PERMITTED OR CONDITIONALLY-PERMITIED USE IN THE PLANNED INDUSTRIAL (P- M) ZONE NOR IS IT SIMILAR TO A PERMITIED OR CONDITIONALLY- PERMITIED USE IN THE P-M ZONE. CASE NAME: CASE NO.: GUNTHER'S GUNS INDOOR SHOOTING RANGE MCUP 14-17 The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby resolve as follows: WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Planning Commission did, on February 18, 2015, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider an appeal of the City Planner's determination that an indoor shooting range is not a permitted or conditionally-permitted use in the P-M zone nor is it substantially similar to a permitted or conditionally-permitted use in the P-M zone; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission vote resulted in a tie, 3-3 (Scully, Anderson and Segall voted yes; Black, L'Heureux, and Montgomery voted no) with Commissioner Siekmann recused; and WHEREAS, the unbreakable tie vote resulted in the denial of the appeal of the City Planner's determination and the approval of Planning Commission Resolution No. 7087; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determined that there was not an error or abuse of discretion on the part of the City Planner in the determination that an indoor shooting range is not a permitted or conditionally-permitted use in the P-M zone nor is it substantially similar to a permitted or conditionally-permitted use in the P-M zone; and WHEREAS, on February 27, 2015, the appellant, Lisa Gunther, timely filed an appeal with the City as provided pursuant to Chapter 21.54 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said City Council considered all factors relating to the appeal. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. 2. That the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision is denied and that the findings contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 7087 on file in the City Clerk's office and incorporated herein by reference are the findings of the City Council. 3. That this action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the City Council. The provision of Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, "Time Limits for Judicial Review" shall apply: "NOTICE TO APPLICANT" The time within which judicial review ofthis decision must be sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6, which has been made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other paper seeking review must be filed in the appropriate court not later than the ninetieth day following the date on which this decision becomes final; however, if within ten days after the decision becomes final a request for the record is filed with a deposit in an amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost or preparation of such record, the time within which such petition may be filed in court is extended to not later than the thirtieth day following the date on which the record is either personally delivered or mailed to the party, or his attorney of record, if he has one. A written request for the preparation of the record of the proceedings shall be filed with the City Clerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA, 92008. Ill Ill Ill Ill -2- MCUP 14-17-GUNTHER'S GUNS SHOOTING RANGE-APPEAL OF A CITY PLANNER DETERMINATION February 18, 2015 Pa e 2 Table 1 below includes the General Plan designations, zoning and current land uses of the project site and surrounding properties. In addition to what is noted below, please note that the surrounding properties are also located within the boundaries of the Carlsbad Airport Center Specific Plan, SP 200{B). Specific Plan 200{B) defers to the P-M zone for permitted and conditionally-permitted uses. TABLE 1 Location General Plan Zoning Current Land Use Designation Site Planned Industrial {PI) Planned Industrial (P-M) Retail gun store, warehouse, offices North Planned Industrial (PI) Planned Industrial (P-M) Biomedical manufacturer (separate parcel and medical device to the north) distributor South Planned Industrial (PI) Planned Industrial (P-M) Biotechnology research (building located and a wide variety of on subject professional offices industrial office parcel) East Planned Industrial (PI) Planned Industrial (P-M) Cabinet woodworking, (building located textile wholesaler, on subject engineering construction industrial office services parcel) West Planned Industrial {PI) Planned Industrial (P-M) Professional offices and (separate parcel retail shopping center to the west) Ill. ANALYSIS Pursuant to CMC Section 21.54.140, the burden of proof is on the appellant to establish by substantial evidence that the grounds for the requested action exist. Further, the grounds for the appeal shall be limited to whether there was an error or abuse of discretion on the part of the City Planner in that the decision was not supported by the facts presented to the City Planner prior to the decision being appealed. When considering the subject appeal, the Planning Commission is limited to considering what the appellant provided on the appeal form (Attachment 5). As discussed in Section II above, the City Planner indicated in a letter to the appellant dated December 23, 2014, that an indoor shooting range is not listed as a permitted or conditionally-permitted use nor is it "substantially similar to a permitted or conditionally-permitted use" pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code {CMC) Section 21.34.020, the Planned Industrial (P-M) zone land use matrix, including the category of "Recreation Facilities." The issue raised by the appeal is whether an indoor shooting range is similar to a "recreational facility". The Appellant's analogy of a shooting range to a "gym" is inappropriate since a gym is a separate conditionally-permitted use (Table A of Chapter 21.34, Section 21.34.020). In making a determination as to whether an unspecified use is allowed, Chapter 21.34, Section 21.34.010, also requires that the City Planner determine whether the proposed use "falls within the intent and purpose of the zone." Chapter 21.34, Section 21.34.010{1) defines the intent and purpose of the zone as follows: \\ MCUP 14-17-GUNTHER'S GUNS SHOOTING RANGE-APPEAL OF A CITY PLANNER DETERMINATION February 18, 2015 Pa e 3 "Allow the location of business and light industries engaged primarily in research and/or testing, compatible light manufacturing, and business and professional offices; allow certain commercial/retail uses which cater to, support, or are accessory to the uses allowed in this zone; and allow flexibility for other select uses (i.e., athletic clubs/gyms, churches, daycare centers, recreation facilities, etc.) when found to be compatible with the P-M zone through the issuance of a conditional use permit." [emphasis added]. In considering whether an indoor shooting range was substantially similar to any of the uses listed in the land use matrix of the P-M zone and set forth as illustrative of the intent and purpose of the P-M zone, the City Planner determined that an indoor shooting range is a unique use since such a use is not exclusively for recreational purposes and there are documented safety concerns, including air quality, noise, and hazardous materials, each of which could create compatibility issues for the surrounding land uses and health and safety issues for the patrons and employees of the range. Please see Attachments 8 through 12 which detail the safety concerns regarding shooting ranges. The City Planner considered the information presented in these articles in making the determination that a shooting range is unique and not substantially similar to a permitted or conditionally-permitted use. These types of safety concerns are not associated with recreational or athletic facilities such as an ice-skating rink, swim facility or go- karts, which conditionally-approved uses appellant argues cannot be differentiated from a shooting range. Specifically, the skating rink was categorized as both an athletic facility and recreation facility when approved, and the swim facility was categorized primarily as an athletic facility/gym. The indoor go-kart use was categorized as a recreational facility. The Appellant asserts that the proposed shooting range will primarily serve the needs of people working in the P-M zone, more than any of these other permitted recreational uses. However, that is no longer a requirement ofthe Chapter 21.34 of the Municipal Code. The Appellant has submitted a petition in support ofthe proposed shooting range, a good portion of which includes signatures which pre-date the date in which the application was submitted (Attachment 6). In addition, as of the date· of the production of the subject staff report, a total of 55 letters have been received in support of the shooting range (Attachment 7). Please note that, of the 55 letters received, 24 are from residents who live outside of the City. Given the unique nature of a shooting range, which is not purely recreational, nor is it intended to promote physical exercise and health, combined with the inherent safety issues involving the use of lead and other hazards, the City Planner determined that a shooting range is not "substantially similar" to recreational facilities and that it does not meet the intent and purpose of the P-M zone. Therefore, the City Planner concluded that if the use were intended to be allowed, it would be separately listed as a permitted or conditionally-permitted use within the P-M zone land use matrix. It is staffs opinion that substantial evidence was not submitted by the appellant to mandate a conclusion that an indoor shooting range is substantially similar to an ice skating rink, children's swim facility or a go- kart track; therefore, the Appellant has not met its burden of proof. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Pursuant to Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves. As the City Planner has determined that an indoor shooting range is not a permitted or conditionally-permitted use in the P-M zone, environmental review is not required. MCUP 14-17-GUNTHER'S GUNS SHOOTING RANGE-APPEAL OF A CITY PLANNER DETERMINATION February 18, 2015 Pa e 4 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 7087 2. Location Map 3. Disclosure Statement 4. Correspondence from City Planner, dated December 23, 2014 5. Appeal from appellant, dated December 31, 2014 6. Petition in support of shooting range 7. Correspondence received in support of shooting range 8. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Indoor Firing Ranges and Elevated Blood Levels, April 25,2014 9. National Shooting Sports Foundation, Lead Management & OSHA Compliance for Indoor Shooting Ranges 10. Poisonous Pastime, The Health Risks of Shooting Ranges and Lead to Children, Families, and the Environment 11. Seattle Times, Loaded with Lead, October 17, 2014 12. Point Blank, Lead Hazards at Indoor Firing Ranges, May, 2008 I support having Gunther Guns in Carlsbad and would alo;o like to see a shooting range at 2717 Loker Ave West Suite B, Carlsbad, CA 92010. llhnnk cily offici;lls ror protecting my Second Amendment rights by allowing a gun store in Carlsbad. t'\\~ LtubaY"\ · \ (o o ~ ~\.~\~ fWQ-\ la-d-/Js / Address ~(IJ I <..A 0\,_ ')_0 n Date ]1:6 bw~muJJ ;2[52 ilt>LWLI"~-fi--~-9 jut-/t>- Name Address CZI?: 1 Date '-oJ·510.(-,qrJ. 1"tb ~0 /!---fJ~{)·~ ~&~ Name Address Dnte ()aD .\-\-oV'f'lS '3ca~S" ~~\e\~ ?£_ qt<X€> ~ {'L'1{1s- Name /\ddress Date :bM16 Lv,'thqh7J b q 82 )\!) H'V10S q 1)\r l ~ve_ 1-31-/~- Name Df\VE Q\\~ Address ld.06 R\)M 1~ RJ Date ~-\-\S Name Address Date ~UyiA. ~~u.mJru...l;oL______ :l:. -1-tS me Address Date fa>~ f{o L?OI Lrkt ,4rt vJ 'ilf<lo e.,r't;J,WIO '[-J,.-t{ Name Address Date Name Address Date Name Address Date Name Address , Date Name Address Date EXHIBIT7 Shannon Werneke From: Sent: To: Cc: Dr.Bart Billings <bartbillings@yahoo.com> Tuesday, February 10, 2015 9:06AM City Clerk Don Neu; Shannon Werneke; Matt Hall (Mayor); Enact Partners; Lorraine Wood (City Counsel); Greg Gunther (Gun Sales) Subject: Re: Gunther Indoor Shooting Range Dear, Carlsbad Planning Commission c/o City Clerk RE: MCUP 14-1 7 --Gunthers Gun Shooting Range In order to make Carlsbad an even better city, I desire to see a Indoor shooting range in the City of Carlsbad, where our citizens can learn gun safety in a quality environment. I have two daughters, that both were thought by me to shoot safely (They both have their ow11 business, with each of them possessing a masters degree). They enjoy shooting sports, as a recreation, along with myself and wife. It's a shame we have to drive 45 minutes to the Paula range to practice and play our sp01i in a safe recreational environment. Also Poway has a state ofthe art indoor shooting range that can be used as a templet for a Carlsbad range. It is an outstanding addition to their city and gets my business --again why should I have to dli.ve an hour to practice recreational shooting. I do not trust the other local indoor ranges i.e. Oceanside, since I do not consider them safe. Therefore I support the establishment o(a local Carlsbad shooting range, that I will insist be a private shooting club, possibly with an added archery range. Members should have background checks before they can join, so only people of high standards will be allowed to shoot. The following is an illustration that demonstrates I have a investment in our City: I have been a resident of Carlsbad for over 30 years. I have owned 2 homes in Carlsbad and actually built one under the direction of the building department. I have been a businessman over the years, actually being nominated for small business of the year on one occasion. I have helped with City political campaigns because I am proud of our City Officials and think Carlsbad is one of the finest Cities in the world. My wife has been a volunteer at the Carlsbad Police Department for over 8 years. Last year, I brought the 21st Annual International Military and Civilian Combat Stress Conference to Carlsbad. I plan on continuing this, longest running conference in the world, in Carlsbad as a permanent home. If you have any questions, see below for contact information. Bart P. Billings,Ph.D. 1 COL SCNG-SC (Ret), Military Medical Directorate Licensed Clinical Psychologist PSY 7656 Licensed Marriage, Family Therapist MG 4888 -Director/Founder International Military & Civilian Combat Stress Conference -Retired as LtC from US Army Medical Service Corp (Total of 34 years in US Army). -Recipient of the 2014 Human Rights Award from Citizens Commission on Human Rights International bartbillings@yahoo.com www.tservcsc.bizhostinq.com bbillings@omnisonic.com Cell 760 500-5040 Ph 760 438-2788 12704 Cazadero Dr Carlsbad, CA 92009 2 Carlsbad Planning Commission 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: MCUP 14-17-GUNTHER'S GUNS SHOOTING RANGE Dear Commissioners: City of Carlsbad FEB 1 0 2015 Planning Division I am requesting that you please approve the appeal of the Carlsbad Planning Department's decision that a controlled indoor shooting range cannot be considered a recreational use. Although I do not live in Carlsbad, I would come to Carlsbad to utilize a high quality indoor shooting facility and patronize other businesses while in the area. I as well as many others consider shooting at an indoor range as a recreational opportunity that is currently lacking in Carlsbad. It is our understanding that if an indoor shooting range was classified as a recreational use it would be permitted subject to administrative approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit in the P-M Zone. It is disappointing to me that staff can find that an ice skating rink, children's swimming facility and indoor go kart track can be considered as recreational facilities while an indoor shooting range cannot be considered a recreational facility. I do not ice skate or drive go-carts, but I do enjoy recreational shooting. I have enjoyed recreational shooting for many years and would appreciate having a high quality facility in Carlsbad. An indoor range would offer a recreational opportunity that currently does not exist in Carlsbad. I respectfully request that you uphold the appeal of staffs position and make the determination that in indoor shooting range is recreational use, which would be allowable at 2717 Loker Avenue in Carlsbad's PM zone subject to approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit. Sincerely~ \.' CJ~\J~o-- (7 L{ Eo~E:wo~ be2. Q C.f~ NS :ut: r Q.A . q d-<J sy -C)o Shannon Werneke Subject: FW: MCUP 14-17 Gunther's guns shooting range From: City Clerk Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 8:08AM To: Donna Heraty Subject: FW: MCUP 14-17 Gunther's guns shooting range From: Guy Picquelle [mailto:guypicquelle@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, February 09, 2015 9:51 PM To: City Clerk Subject: MCUP 14-17 Gunther's guns shooting range Dear Commissioner, As a gun owner, I enjoy going to recreational shooting ranges sometimes by myself and other times with my sons like my father did with me. I ask that you please approve the appeal or the city staff's denial of Minor Conditional Use Permit 14-17 and to please allow this indoor shooting range to open in the P-M zone. As a resident of Carlsbad and a recreational shooter who shops along the palomar airport road area a lot. I, as well as many of my friends would welcome this recreational facility with great joy and enthusiasm. I have been to many other recreational business' in the same area that currently permitted. Carlsbad Municipal Code 21.34.020, the basic for the planning departments denial, and the planning commission's past actions have allowed a myriad of recreational opportunities in the P-M zone. As stated before, I very much enjoy recreational shooting and very much want a high quality facility in my hometown of Carlsbad which is where I not only live at but I work as well spend my relaxing and leisure time. I beg you to please uphold the appeal, REJECT the staff's denial, and make a determination that an indoor quality shooting range is a recreational use as to the other currently permitted uses in the P-M zone. Thank you for your consideration. Guy Picquelle 1 Shannon Werneke Subject: FW: Recreational indoor shooting range From: City Clerk Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 8:07AM To: Donna Heraty Subject: FW: Recreational indoor shooting range From: jpklinko@aol.com [mailto:jpklinko@aol.com] Sent: Monday, February 09; 2015 5:49PM To: City Clerk Subject: Recreational indoor shooting range Carlsbad Planing Commission 1200 Carlsbad Village Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: MCUP 14-17 -Gunther's Guns Shooting Range Dear Commissioner: I urge you to approve the appeal of the city staffs denial of Minor Conditional Use Permit14-17 and to allow an indoor shooting range to open and operate in the P-M zone. As a recreational shooting enthusiast who frequents businesses along the Palomar Airport Road corridor, I welcome this currently missing recreational opportunity. Other recreational uses presently are permitted: an ice rink, a children's swimming facility, and an indoor go kart race track (which I also use). Carlsbad Municipal Code 21.34.020, the basic for the Planning Department's denial, and the Planning Commission's past actions have allowed a myriad of recreational opportunities in the P-M zone. I enjoy recreational shooting and very much want a high-quality facility in Carlsbad -nearer to where I live and spend leisure time. Please uphold the appeal, reject the staffs denial, and make a determination that an indoor shooting range is a recreational use akin to other currently permitted uses in the P-M zone. Respectfully, JAMES KLINKO 1 Shannon Werneke Subject: FW: MCUP 14-17-Gunther's Guns Shooting Range From: City Clerk Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 8:08AM To: Donna Heraty Subject: FW: MCUP 14-17-Gunther's Guns Shooting Range From: Jim Beck [mailto:jpbeck@gmail.com] Sent: Monday; February 09, 2015 6:53PM To: City Clerk Subject: RE: MCUP 14-17-Gunther's Guns Shooting Range Dear Commissioner: I urge you to APPROVE the appeal ofthe city staffs denial ofMinor Conditional Use Permit 14-17 and to allow an indoor shooting range to open and operate in the P-M zone. I am a resident of Carlsbad, and a recreational shooting enthusiast, who travels once, and frequently twice a week, to the Oceanside public indoor range for recreational shooting. I enjoy recreational shooting and would like to see a high-quality facility here in the city. It would certainly be more convenient for me to stay within Carlsbad instead of travelling to Oceanside. Since other recreational facilities are permitted here in Carlsbad, I do not understand why this should be objectionable to the City Planning Commission. In addition, and perhaps more importantly, I believe Gunther's will provide a local center for the instruction and safe handling of firearms. This is a goal I think we would all like to achieve. Another point I'd like to make concerns tax revenue for the City of Carlsbad. As a recreational shooter, I spend money at the Oceanside range for services, ammunition, etc., and frequently stop by Oceanside restaurants on my weekly trips there. Why not keep this revenue within the City Carlsbad and also from other local communities? Again, I urge you to Approve the appeal from Gunther's Guns for a conditional use permit to allow an indoor shooting range in Carlsbad. Jim Beck 6670 Ambrosia Lane Carlsbad Jim Beck jpbeck@gmail.com 1 Shannon Werneke From: Sent: To: Subject: Greetings, Joe Greenwald <joeg235@gmail.com> Monday, February 09, 2015 3:36 PM Don Neu; Shannon Werneke In support of local, recreational shooting range I am a Carlsbad resident. I own a gun and have to drive to Oceanside for target practice. I understand that Gunther's Guns has made a formal request for a permit for a shooting range that was denied with no explanation, as I am given to understand. I am sure I am not hearing all sides, because I fmd it hard to believe that this decision could be made without a rational, logical, and fully explained reason. Why was the permit denied? All definitions I have found online, including dictionaries, the Marine Corps at Camp Pendleton, The US Bureau of Land Management, all have a defmition of recreational shooting that seems to fit the permit as applied for by Gunther's Guns. I have tried to find an official, concrete definition of "recreational" in the City of Carlsbad's bylaws, but so far have been unsuccessful. I would like to know the definition of recreational you are using to deny the permit. Do you consider Archery, Darts, Bowling or Paintballs recreational? I would like to have a local, professional, safe and administered facility to enjoy the recreation of shooting. I would prefer my money go to my local community of Carlsbad, rather than Oceanside. I urge you to reconsider this decision to deny the permit. I plan to attend the Feb 18th meeting and hope to hear a clear, rational, logical explanation for the decision. Even better, I hope to hear that the council has agreed to allow the permit. Sincerely, Joe Greenwald Carlsbad, 92009 1 Shannon Werneke From: Donna Heraty Sent: To: Monday, February 09, 2015 3:13 PM Don Neu Cc: Subject: Bridget Desmarais; Shannon Werneke; Sherry Freisinger FW: MCUP-14-17-Gunther Guns shooting range Hi Don, Looks like this one is for the Planning Commission members. Thank you, Donna. From: City Clerk Sent: Monday, February 09, 2015 3:11 PM To: Donna Heraty Subject: FW: MCUP-14-17-Gunther Guns shooting range From: Wayne Woodard [mailto:paso.cab@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 09, 2015 2:58 PM To: City Clerk Cc: lisa@guntherguns.com Subject: MCUP-14-17-Gunther Guns shooting range Dear Commissioner, My Name is Wayne Woodard, a resident of Carlsbad at 7904 Corte Penca. I'm writing to you today to urge your approval of the appeal of the city staffs denial of Minor Conditional Use Permit 14-17 and to allow the proposed indoor shooting range to open and operate in the P-M zone. As a recreational shooting enthusiast, life long sportsman and a resident of Carlsbad that frequents and supports local businesses, I welcome this opportunity to bring a safe, high quality recreational shooting opportunity to this part of town. This seems like an excellent location for a indoor shooting range. It is clear there is precedence for this kind of approval for other recreational opportunities in this P-M zone. The denial of Gunther Gun's request seems like a contradiction to past actions such as Go-Kart tracks, Skating rinks and swimming pools in the same P-M zone. Each of these are valuable recreational assets for the citizens of the city of Carlsbad and surrounding communities. Furthermore, I would point you to the following link of another San Diego County town to our south that supported a local business on a similar project. If you have never made the journey to Palomar Weapons and Gear and seen this operation I encourage you to consider a trip. http://www.weaponsandgearrange.com 1 Finally, having purchased 3 guns now from Gunther Gun's and had a chance to work with the Gunther's personally I can assure you this is a local business with pride, the highest of ethics and a strong community conneCtion. Please uphold the appeal, reject the staffs denial, and make a determination that a safe, high quality well ·managed indoor shooting range is a recreational asset to Carlsbad citizens. Respectfully submitted Wayne Woodard 7904 Corte Penca Carlsbad, CA 92009 2 Februaxy 5, 2015 Beverly Geister 2537 Navarra Dr. Unit AJO Carlsbad, CA 92009 Carlsbad Planning Commission MCUP 14-17 Gunther's Guns "Range 760" Dear Commissioners: City of Carlsbad FEB 0 9 2015 Planning Division Think for a moment about the rioting we've seen on TV. What if that happens here in our fair city? As a 73 year old single female living alone I feel the need to protect myself in the scary, precious minutes while waiting for the police to arrive in the event of an emergency. This is assuming that I've had the chance to dial 911. What I' 11 require before I can defend myself is safety training at my local recreational shooting range and plenty of it. Gunther's Guns is a classy store. I have no doubt that their Range 760 would be run in much the same way with their upscale clientele. Gunther' s are all about training and safety for recreational target shooting. Archery and martial arts can be used for self-defense or as a recreational sport. It is my considered opinion that target shooting to be in the same category. How much revenue/taxes can such a business generate? There are approximately 300 million privately owned firearms in the U.S. About 40 -45% of American households own firearms. Over 40 million Americans enjoy recreational shooting as do the U.S. Olympic Team the USA National junior Olympic Shooting Team the Schoolastic Shooting Sports Foundation and Boy Scouts of America. Now how can you argue with that? \00 MCUP 14-17 Page 2 We are talking about a Minor Conditional Use Permit here with the emphasis on Minor. In the future should you find it not to be a proud addition to this city then revoke the pennit. In closing, I ask you to reconsider and grant the Minor Use Permit for local recreational shooting range such as Gunther's Guns is asking for. Sincerely, Beverly Geister Shannon Werneke From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Ms. Werneke: Mark Christenson < mark.christenson@alumni.stanford.edu > Sunday, February 08, 2015 9:56AM Shannon Werneke Gunther Guns proposed indoor shooting range At a young age I was exposed to and educated about recreational shooting. In 1972, when I was 4 years old, my father was the South Dakota State Trapshooting Champion. I had my own BB gun around the age of 5 or 6. I shot trap and targets in grade school and my teen years. As an officer in the Navy after college I was stationed in San Diego and during a halt in recruit training, the Commanding Officer directed that all staff, as part of our workday, participate in recreational activities, one of which was pistol shooting. Like many citizens in North County, my family and I enjoy many forms of recreation. We like to take our three daughters to multiple parks where they can ride their bikes and play on playground equipment. We support our friends' children who play baseball and soccer and ice hockey at the many recreational facilities for those activities. We have gone to the K1 Speed go-kart facility on Palomar Airport Road. We enjoy using the many trails available for walking or riding bicycles. We are grateful that the cities invest in these varied facilities for our benefit. We also enjoy recreational shooting. Unfortunately, where we live (Carlsbad/Vista/San Marcos), the closest shooting ranges are Oceanside, Poway, or Kearny Mesa-we are approximately equidistant from all ofthose, and each requires a 30-45 minute drive. It came to my attention that Gunther Guns, a local, Carlsbad family-owned business, has been trying to get City approval for an indoor shooting range. I was thrilled because this location is approximately 2 miles from our home, and a visit to Gunther's can be added to a trip to the other businesses on Loker Avenue or the many stores across Palomar Airport Road in Bressi Ranch. However, I was disappointed to hear that the City determined that shooting ranges are not recreational and therefore would not issue a minor conditional use permit to the Gunthers for expansion oftheir business. As a resident of North County San Diego since 1991, I am writing to request that you approve their appeal, and that the Carlsbad Planning Department would recognize ·a shooting range as a recreational facility and issue the necessary permit(s). Although I do not live in Carlsbad, we would come to Carlsbad more frequently than we currently do in order to utilize an indoor shooting facility and patronize other businesses while in the area. I as well as many others consider shooting at an indoor range to be a recreational opportunity, one that is currently not available nearby. It is our understanding that if an indoor shooting range was classified as a recreational use it would be permitted subject to administrative approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit in the P-M Zone. Although we love that we can find an ice skating rink, a swimming facility, a skateboard park, and an indoor go-kart track in Carlsbad, it is disappointing that those are considered as recreational facilities while an indoor shooting range is not currently considered to be a recreational facility. I thought perhaps it was because shooting is generally not considered recreational, and in trying to educate myself I tried to find examples of non-recreational shooting. However, apart from military and law enforcement, I could find examples that shooting is anything other than recreational. For example: The US Department of Agriculture's Forest Service website refers to "recreational" target shooting and, under the "Recreation" section provides a list of places to shoot. In several Bureau of Land Management web pages, information about shooting is either found under the "recreation" section or referred to as "recreational shooting" when describing requirements to shoot on BLM land. 1 \OZ- In many places shooting ranges are available within local government-designated "recreational areas" or are part of the "parks and recreation" departments. There are currently 9 shooting events for men and 7 shooting events for women that are part of the Summer Olympic Games, and there is even a combined shooting and cross-country skiing event (biathlon) in the Winter Olympic Games. The Olympics are clearly recreational in nature (despite the increased commercialization that has occurred in the last 20-30 years!) I respectfully request that you uphold the appeal ofthe City's current position and make the determination that in indoor shooting range is recreational use, which would be allowable at 2717 Loker Avenue in Carlsbad's PM zone subject to approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit. Warm regards, Mark Christenson mchristenson@md7.com 619.871.6216 2 Shannon Werneke From: Sent: To: Subject: Bryan Scott <scott.bryan.p@gmail.com> Sunday, February 08, 2015 7:28 PM Shannon Werneke Gunther's indoor range I support the indoor range by Gunther's guns. Bryan Scott 4025 Park Dr. Carlsbad, CA 760-434-6619 1 IV4 Shannon Werneke From: Sent: To: Subject: Glenn Rosuck <glennrosuck@gmail.com> Saturday, February 07, 2015 8:50AM Shannon Werneke Gunthers Guns Shooting Range Carlsbad Planning Commission 1635 Faraday A venue Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: MCUP 14-17-GUNTHER'S GUNS SHOOTING RANGE Dear Commissioners: As a resident of Carlsbad, I am requesting that you please approve the appeal of the Carlsbad Planning Department's decision that a controlled indoor shooting range cannot be considered a recreational use. I as well as many others consider shooting at an indoor range as a recreational opportunity that is currently lacking in Carlsbad. It is our understanding that if an indoor shooting range was classified as a recreational use it would be permitted subject to administrative approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit in the P-M Zone. It is disappointing to me that staff can find that an ice skating rink, children's swimming facility and indoor go kart track can be considered as recreational facilities while an indoor shooting range cannot be considered a recreational facility. I do not ice skate or drive go-carts, but I do enjoy recreational shooting. I have enjoyed recreij.tional shooting for many years and would appreciate having a high quality facility in Carlsbad. An indoor range would offer a recreational opportunity that currently does not exist in Carlsbad. I respectfully request that you uphold the appeal of staffs position and make the determination that in indoor shooting range is recreational use, which would be allowable at 2717 Loker Avenue in Carlsbad's PM zone subject to approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit. Sincerely, Glenn Rosuck 4505 Coastline Ave Carlsbad, CA 92008 1 Shannon Werneke From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: joe1dad <joe1dad@yahoo.com> Tuesday, February 03, 2015 10:21 AM Shannon Werneke Gunther Gun gun club planning-commission-non-resident2-l.pdf · I am in Favor of Gunther Guns gun club proposal. Joseph Welch 211 0 Loquat Pl. Oceanside Ca. 92054 Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G L TE smartphone 1 \0~ City of Ca~ .Jbad FEB 0 2.2015 Carlsbad Planning Commission 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Planning Division RE: MCUP 14-17-GUNTHER'S GUNS SHOOTING RANGE Dear Commissioners: I am requesting that you please approve the appeal of the Carlsbad Planning Department's decision that a controlled indoor shooting range cannot be considered a recreational use. Although I do not live in Carlsbad, I would come to Carlsbad to utilize a high quality indoor shooting facility and patronize other businesses while in the area. I as well as many others consider shooting at an indoor range as a recreational opportunity that is currently lacking in Carlsbad It is my understanding that if an indoor shooting range was classified as a recreational use, it would be permitted subject to administrative approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit in the P-M Zone. It is disappointing to me that staff can find that an ice skating rink, children's swimming facility and indoor go kart track can be considered as recreational facilities while an indoor shooting range cannot be considered a recreational facility. I do not ice skate or drive go-carts, but I do enjoy recreational shooting. I have enjoyed recreational shooting for many years and would appreciate having a high quality facility in Carlsbad. An indoor range would offer a recreational opportunity that currently does not exist in Carlsbad. I respectfully request that you uphold the appeal of staffs position and make the determination that an indoor shooting range is recreational use, which would be allowable at 2717 Loker Avenue in Carlsbad's PM zone subject to approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit. Sincerely, Tammy Schleicher ~~~oloL Carlsbad Planning Commission 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 ) RE: MCUP 14-17 -GUNTHER'S GUNS SHOOTING RANGE Dear Commissioners: City of Carlsbad FEB 0 2,2015 Planning Division As a resident of Carlsbad, I am requesting that you please approve the appeal of the Carlsbad Planning Department's decision that a controlled indoor shooting range cannot be considered a recreational use. I as well as many others consider shooting at an indoor range as a recreational opportunity that is currently lacking in Carlsbad. It is our understanding that if an indoor shooting range was classified as a recreational use it would be permitted subject to administrative approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit in the P-M Zone. It is disappointing to me that staff can find that an ice skating rink, children's swimming facility and indoor go kart track can be considered as recreational facilities while an indoor shooting range cannot be considered a recreational facility. I do not ice skate or drive go-carts, but I do enjoy recreational shooting. I have enjoyed recreational shooting for many years and would appreciate having a high quality facility in Carlsbad. An indoor range would offer a recreational opportunity that currently does not exist in Carlsbad. I respectfully request that you uphold the appeal of staff's position and make the determination that in indoor shooting range is recreational use, which would be allowable at 27 I 7 Loker Avenue in Carlsbad's PM zone subject to approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit. Sincerely, {Jr~Tf3cftr 7&Q ~ 71 )~S/39 Shannon Werneke From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Carlsbad Planning Commission 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Tony Magnusson <tmag@san.rr.com> Sunday, February 01, 2015 11:08 AM Don Neu; Shannon Werneke Carlsbad Gun Range Carlsbad Planning Commission, Gun Range Gunthers.pdf RE: MCUP 14-17-GUNTHER'S GUNS SHOOTING RANGE Dear Commissioners: I am requesting that you please approve the appeal of the Carlsbad Planning Department's decision that a controlled indoor shooting range cannot be considered a recreational use. Although I do not live in Carlsbad, the business I own with three other partners is located on Palmer Way in Carlsbad I would come to Carlsbad to utilize a high quality indoor shooting facility and patronize other businesses while in the area. I as well as many others consider shooting at an indoor range as a recreational opportunity that is currently lacking in Carlsbad. It is our understanding that if an indoor shooting range was classified as a recreational use it would be permitted subject to administrative approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit in the P-M Zone. It is disappointing to me that staff can find that an ice skating rink, children's swimming facility and indoor go kart track can be considered as recreational facilities while an indoor shooting range cannot be considered a recreational facility. I do not ice-skate or drive go-carts, but I do enjoy recreational shooting. I have enjoyed recreational shooting for many years and would appreciate having a high quality facility in Carlsbad. An indoor range would offer a recreational opportunity that currently does not exist in Carlsbad. I respectfully request that you uphold the appeal of staff's position and make the determination that in indoor shooting range is recreational use, which would be allowable at 2717 Loker Avenue in Carlsbad's PM zone subject to approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit. Sincerely, Tony Magnusson 1 \2-3 Shannon Werneke From: Sent: To: Subject: C~rlsbad Planning Commission 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Tyler Satoda <tyler.satoda~gmail.com> Saturday, January 31, 2015 10:10 PM Shannon Werneke Gunther's Guns Shooting Range RE: MCUP 14-17-GUNTHER'S GUNS SHOOTING RANGE Dear Commissioners: As a resident of Carlsbad, I am requesting that you please approve the appeal of the Carlsbad Planning Department's decision that a controlled indoor shooting range cannot be considered a recreational use. I as well as many others consider shooting at an indoor range as a recreational opportunity that is currently lacking in Carlsbad. It is our understanding that if an indoor shooting range was classified as a recreational use it would be permitted subject to administrative approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit in the P-M Zone. It is disappointing to me that staff can find that an ice skating rink, children's swimming facil.ity and indoor go kart track can be considered as recreational facilities while an indoor shooting range cannot be considered a recreational facility. I do not ice skate or drive go-carts, but I do enjoy recreational shooting. I have enjoyed recreational shooting for many years and would appreciate having a high quality facility in Carlsbad. An indoor range would offer a recreational opportunity that currently does not exist in Carlsbad. I respectfully request that you uphold the appeal of staff's position and make the determination that in indoor shooting range is recreational use, which would be allowable at 2717 Loker Avenue in Carlsbad's PM zone subject to approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit. Sincerely, Tyler Satoda 1 124 ) January 31,2015 Carlsbad Planning Commission 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: MCUP 14-17-GUNTHER'S GUNS SHOOTING RANGE Dear Commissioners: We are requesting that you approve the appeal of the Carlsbad Planning Department's decision that a controlled inqoor shooting range cannot be considered a recreational use. We consider the ability to properly handle a firearm to be not only a civic right, but also a duty to one's neighbors and. community. Since there are no shooting ranges closely available to the residents of Carlsbad, it is incumbent on the department to find a way to allow this activity to support your community. Although we do not live in Carlsbad, we would come to Carlsbad to utilize a high quality indoor shooting facility and patronize other businesses while in the area. We, as well as many of our friends, consider shooting at an indoor range a recreational opportunity. It is our understanding that if an indoor shooting range were to be classified as a recreational use, it would be permitted subject to administrative approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit in the P-M Zone. We can only imagine why it is not already classified as such. Thousands of San Diego County residents shoot for sport all year long. Further, staff has not demonstrated any negative affect that would reasonably be expected by allowing this use within the P-M Zone. We encourage you to take this opportunity to adjust the planning code to specifically address this obvious oversight. We are recent additions to the recreational shooting community and have found the number of ranges available in the county to be insufficient. Wait times and overcrowding are common and restrict the public's ability to maintain a proper proficiency with their firearms. We would appreciate having an additional option and high quality facility in Carlsbad. We respectfully request that you grant the appeal of staffs position and make the determination that in indoor shooting range is a recreational use, which would be allowable at 2717 Loker Avenue in Carlsbad's P-M Zone subject to approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit. It's the right thing to do. Sincerely, Chris, Kimberlee and Rex Rizzuti 17441 Cabela Drive San Diego, CA 92127 125' Shannon Werneke From: Sent: To: Subject: Importance: Peterson, Todd <toddp@qualcomm.com> Friday, January 30, 2015 12:01 PM Don Neu; Shannon Werneke Carlsbad Planning Commission 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: MCUP 14-17-GUNTHER'S GUNS SHOOTING RANGE High Carlsbad Planning Commission 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: MCUP 14-17- GUNTHER'S GUNS SHOOTING RANGE Dear Commissioners: As a resident of Carlsbad, I am requesting that you please approve the appeal of the Carlsbad Planning Department's decision that a controlled indoor shooting range cannot be considered a recreational use. I as well as many others consider shooting at an indoor range as a recreational opportunity that is currently lacking in Carlsbad. It is our understanding that if an indoor shooting range was classified as a recreational use it would be permitted subject to administrative approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit in the P-M Zone. It is disappointing to me that staff can find that an ice skating rink, children's swimming facility and indoor go kart track can be considered as recreational facilities while an indoor shooting range cannot be considered a recreational facility. I ice skate, drive go-carts, AND I do enjoy recreational shooting. I have enjoyed recreational shooting for many years and would appreciate having a high quality facility in Carlsbad. An indoor range would offer a recreational opportunity that currently does not exist in Carlsbad. I respectfully request that you uphold the appeal of staffs position and make the determination that in indoor shooting range is recreational use, which would be allowable at 2717 Loker Avenue in Carlsbad's PM zone subject to approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit. Sincerely, Todd Peterson- 1 \2h Shannon Werneke From: Sent: To: Subject: Michael Smith <happy.skier@hotmail.com> Friday, January 30, 2015 2:39 PM Shannon Werneke; Don Neu RE: MCUP 14-17-Gunther's Guns Shooting Range Carlsbad Planning Commission 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: MCUP 14-17 -GUNTHER'S GUNS SHOOTING RANGE Dear Commissioners: I am requesting that you please approve the appeal ofthe Carlsbad Planning Department's decision that a controlled indoor shooting range cannot be considered a recreational use. Although I do not live in Carlsbad, I do work there and would utilize a high quality indoor shooting facility and patronize other businesses while in the area. I as well as many others consider shooting at an indoor range as a recreational opportunity that is currently lacking in Carlsbad. It is our understanding that if an indoor shooting range was classified as a recreational use it would be permitted subject to administrative approval of a Minor Conditional Use Pennit in the P-M Zone. It is disappointing to me that staff can find that an ice skating rink, children's swimming facility and indoor go kart track can be considered as recreational facilities while an indoor shooting range cannot be considered a recreational facility. An indoor range would offer a recreational opportunity that currently does not exist in Carlsbad. I find it interesting that our federal govemment can recognize shooting as a recreation (Recreational Otitdoor Shooting to Open at Mainside Range 403 Camp Pendleton), but the local government does not. I respectfully request that you uphold the appeal of staff's position and make the determination that in indoor shooting range is recreational use, which would be allowable at 2717 Loker Avenue in Carlsbad's PM zone suQiect to approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit. Sincerely, Michael Smith 1480 Kurtz St. Oceanside, CA 92054 760.575.4375 1 ) Carlsbad Planning Commission 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: MCUP 14-17-GUNTHER'S GUNS SHOOTING RANGE Dear Commissioners: .,. ! City of Carlsbad JAN 2,9 2015 Planning Division As a resident of Carlsbad, I am requesting that you please approve the appeal of the Carlsbad Planning Department's decision that a controlled indoor shooting range cannot be considered a recreational use. I as well as many others consider shooting at an indoor range as a recreational opportunity that is currently lacking in Carlsbad. It is our understanding that if an indoor shooting range was classified as a recreational use it would be permitted subject to administrative approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit in the P-M Zone. It is disappointing to me that staff can find that an ice skating rink, children's swimming facility and indoor go kart track can be considered as recreational facilities while an indoor shooting range cannot be considered a recreational facility. Although I currently do not own a gun as a longtime resident of Carlsbad I would appreciate being able to attend a shooting range in Carlsbad where I could learn gun safety and practice shooting instead of having to go to Oceanside which does have a shooting range. I respectfully request that you uphold the appeal of staff's position and make the determination that an indoor shooting range is recreational use, which would be allowable at 2717 Loker Avenue in Carlsbad's PM zone subject to approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit. Sincerely, Len Hyman 3 820 Stoneridge Rd Carlsbad, CA. 92010 (760) 729-8288 (32 Shannon Werneke From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Hello Don and Shannon, cristopher.pike@CareFusion.com Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:01 AM 'don.neu@carlsbadca.gov'; 'Shannon.werneke@carlsbadca.gov' MCUP 14-17-Gunther's Guns Shooting Range Gunther Guns -Cris Pike (Carlsbad Resident).pdf Please see attached letter. I am a Carlsbad resident and home owner who grew up shooting for recreational activity. I find it sad that our city can classify something as "not recreational" when I'm sure many of our city employees and residents classify shooting in a controlled environment as a pastime for relaxation and enjoyment. We really need to learn how to pick our battles. I hope you do what's right and allow Gunther's shooting range to exist and bring additional revenue to our city. Thank you, Cris Pike Cell: 760-815-3632 6802 Urubu Street Carlsbad, CA 92009 PS-please stop letting big box development into Carlsbad CareFusion e-mail is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received an e-mail in error, please notify the CareFusion sender immediately and delete the original. Any other use of the e-mail by you is prohibited. Dansk-Deutsch -Espanol -Francais -Italiano-Japanese-Nederlands -Norsk-Portuguese Svenska: http://www.carefusion.com/legal/email/ 1 Shannon Werneke From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Mr. Neu and Ms. Werneke: Dan Cotton <dccpa52@yahoo.com> Wednesday, January 28, 2015 6:21 AM Don Neu; Shannon Werneke Gunther Guns Shooting Range-MCUP 14-17 Gunther Guns Shooting Range Letter.pdf Attached is my letter supporting the establishment of the Gunther Guns recreational shooting range in the City of Carlsbad. Thank you for your consideration of my letter and your support for the recreational shooting range. Sincerely, Dan E. Cotton 1058 Alexandra Lane Encinitas, CA 92024 1 Carlsbad Planning Commission 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: MCUP 14-17 -GUNTHER'S GUNS SHOOTING RANGE Dear Commissioners: 1 am reqtiesting that you please approve the appc~l of the Carlsbad Planning Department's decision that a controlled indoor shooting range cannot be considered a recreational use. Although I do not live in Carlsbad, I would come to Carlsbad to utilize a high quality indoor shooting facility and patronize other businesses while in the area. 1 as well as many others consider shooting at an indool" range as a recreational opportunity that is LUtTcntly· lacking in Carlsbad. lt is our understanding that if an indoor shooting range was classified as a recreational use it would be permitted subject to administrative approval of a Minor Conditional Use Pem1it in the P-M Zone. Jt is disappointing to me that staff can frnd that an ice skating rink, children's swimming facility and indoor go kart track can be considered as recreational facilities while an indoor shooting range cannot be considered a recreational facility. 1 do not ice skate or drive go-catts, but I do enjoy recreational shooting. I have enjoyed recreational shooting !'or many years and would appreciate having a high qttality facility in Carlsbad. An indoor range would offer a recreational opportunity that currently does not exist ln Carlsbad. 1 respectfully request that you uphold !be appeal of staffsposition and rnake the determination that in indoor shooting range is rccteationalusc; which would be allowable at 2717 Loker Avenue in Carlsbad's PM zone subject to approval of a Minor Conditional Use .Pennit. Sillccrcly. ~c_.Z_~ j)qV'\ E. Co+loVl I osg A )e><·q~Prq Lcr""e_ E v1 l ,',.,; ~ &.(~ CA C( L'VL. 'f I Shannon Werneke From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Carlsbad Planning Commission 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Chris Carlson <chrisc308@gmail.com> Tuesday, January 27, 2015 7:34 PM Shannon Werneke; Don Neu RE: MCUP 14-17 -GUNTHER GUNS SHOOTING RANGE MCUP 14-17 GUNTHER GUNS SHOOTING RANGE.docx RE: MCUP 14-17-GUNTHER'S GUNS SHOOTING RANGE Dear Commissioners: As a resident of Carlsbad, I am requesting that you please approve the appeal of the Carlsbad Planning Department's decision that a controlled indoor shooting range cannot be considered a recreational use. I as well as many others consider shooting at an indoor range as a recreational opportunity that is currently lacking in Carlsbad. It is our understanding that if an indoor shooting range was classified as a recreational use it would be permitted subject to administrative approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit in the P-M Zone. It is disappointing to me that staff can fmd that an ice skating rink, children's swimming facility and indoor go kart track can be considered as recreational facilities while an indoor shooting range cannot be considered a recreational facility. I do not ice skate or drive go-carts, but I do enjoy recreational shooting. I have enjoyed recreational shooting for many years and would appreciate having a high quality facility in Carlsbad. An indoor range would offer a recreational opportunity that currently does not exist in Carlsbad. I respectfully request that you uphold the appeal of staff's position and make the determination that in indoor shooting range is recreational use, which would be allowable at 2717 Loker Avenue in Carlsbad's PM zone subject to approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit. Sincerely, 1 Christopher Carlson 3904 Jefferson Street Carlsbad, CA 92008 2 From: George Freese [mailto:freese4sum@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2015 7:00PM To: Don Neu; Shannon Werneke Subject: Proposed new Shooting Range My friends and I love taking our families to the range for recreational shooting and gun safety. Having one in close by in Carlsbad would be incredible. thanks, 15 year resident, George Freese From: Rick [mailto:toy4rick@cox.net] Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2015 7:21 PM To: Shannon Werneke Subject: RE: MCUP 14-17-GUNTHER'S GUNS SHOOTING RANGE Dear Ms. Werneke, ·-., I am requesting that you please approve the appeal of the Carlsbad Planning Department's decision that a controlled indoor shooting range cannot be considered a recreational use. Although I do not live in Carlsbad, I would come to Carlsbad to utilize a high quality indoor shooting facility and patronize other businesses while in the area. I as well as many others consider shooting at an indoor range as a recreational opportunity that is currently lacking in Carlsbad It is my understanding that if an indoor shooting range was classified as a recreational use, it would be permitted subject to administrative approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit in the P-M Zone. It is disappointing to me that staff can find that an ice skating rink, children's swimming facility and indoor go kart track can be considered as recreational facilities while an indoor shooting range cannot be considered a recreational facility. I do not ice skate or drive go-carts, but I do enjoy recreational shooting. I have enjoyed recreational shooting for many years and would appreciate having a high quality facility in Carlsbad. An indoor range would offer a recreational opportunity that currently does not exist in Carlsbad. I respectfully request that you uphold the appeal of staffs position and make the determination that an indoor shooting range is recreational use, which would be allowable at 2717 Loker Avenue in Carlsbad's PM zone subject to approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit. Sincerely, Rick Schleicher Vista, CA Sent from my iPad From: Jeremy Crooks [mailto:xcrooksx@gmail.coml Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2015 10:41 AM To: Don Neu; Shannon Werneke Subject: MCUP 14-17-GUNTHER'S GUNS SHOOTING RANGE Carlsbad Planning Commission 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: MCUP 14-17-GUNTHER'S GUNS SHOOTING RANGE Dear Commissioners: I am requesting that you please approve the appeal of the Carlsbad Planning Department's decision that a controlled indoor shooting range cannot be considered a recreational use. Although I do not live in Carlsbad, I would come to Carlsbad to utilize a high quality indoor shooting facility and patronize other businesses while in the area. I as well as many others consider shooting at an indoor range as a recreational opportunity that is currently lacking in Carlsbad. It is our understanding that if an indoor shooting range was classified as a recreational use it would be permitted subject to administrative approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit in the P-M Zone. It is disappointing to me that staff can find that an ice skating rink, children's swimming facility and indoor go kart track can be considered as recreational facilities while an indoor shooting range cannot be considered a recreational facility. I do not ice skate or drive go-carts, but I do enjoy recreational shooting. I have enjoyed recreational shooting for many years and would appreciate having a high quality facility in Carlsbad. An indoor range would offer a recreational opportunity that currently does not exist in Carlsbad. I respectfully request that you uphold the appeal of staffs position and make the determination that in indoor shooting range is recreational use, which would be allowable at 2717 Loker Avenue in Carlsbad's PM zone subject to approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit. Sincerely, Jeremy D. Crooks From: Zach Puentes [mailto:zpuentes@ymail.com] Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2015 3:33 PM To: Shannon Werneke Subject: Gunther guns Carlsbad Planning Commission 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: MCUP 14-17-GUNTHER'S GUNS SHOOTING RANGE Dear Commissioners: As a resident of Carlsbad, I am requesting that you please approve the appeal ofthe Carlsbad Planning Department's decision that a controlled indoor shooting range cannot be considered a recreational use. I as well as many others consider shooting at an indoor range as a recreational opportunity that is currently lacking in Carlsbad. It is our understanding that if an indoor shooting range was classified as a recreational use it would be permitted subject to administrative approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit in the P-M Zone. It is disappointing to me that staff can find that an ice skating rink, children's swimming facility and indoor go kart track can be considered as recreational facilities while an indoor shooting range cannot be considered a recreational facility. I do not ice skate or drive go-carts, but I do enjoy recreational shooting. I have enjoyed recreational shooting for many years and would appreciate having a high quality facility in Carlsbad. An indoor range would offer a recreational opportunity that currently does not exist in Carlsbad. I respectfully request that you uphold the appeal of staffs position and make the determination that in indoor shooting range is recreational use, which would be allowable at 2717 Loker Avenue in Carlsbad's PM zone subject to approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit. Sincerely, Zachary Ray Puentes Sent from my iPhone From: Mark Wasr [mailto:churchofchrist.member@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2015 10:42 AM To: Don Neu; Shannon Werneke Subject: MCUP 14-17-GUNTHER'S GUNS SHOOTING RANGE Carlsbad Planning Commission 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: MCUP 14-17-GUNTHER'S GUNS SHOOTING RANGE Dear Commissioners: I am requesting that you please approve the appeal of the Carlsbad Planning Department's decision that a controlled indoor shooting range cannot be considered a recreational use. Although I do not live in Carlsbad, I would come to Carlsbad to utilize a high quality indoor shooting facility and patronize other businesses while in the area. I as well as many others consider shooting at an indoor range as a recreational opportunity that is currently lacking in Carlsbad. It is our understanding that if an indoor shooting range was classified as a recreational use it would be permitted subject to administrative approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit in the P-M Zone. It is disappointing to me that staff can find that an ice skating rink, children's swimming facility and indoor go kart track can be considered as recreational facilities while an indoor shooting range cannot be considered a recreational facility. I do not ice skate or drive go-carts, but I do enjoy recreational shooting. I have enjoyed recreational shooting for many years and would appreciate having a high quality facility in Carlsbad. An indoor range would offer a recreational opportunity that currently does not exist in Carlsbad. I respectfully request that you uphold the appeal of staffs position and make the determination that in indoor shooting range is recreational use, which would be allowable at 2717 Loker Avenue in Carlsbad's PM zone subject to approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit. Sincerely, Mark Wasr 141 From: kennedyjosephf. [mailto:kennedyjosephf@gmail.coml Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 4:50 PM To: Shannon Werneke Subject: GUNTHER'S GUNS SHOOTING RANGE Dear Commissioners, As a resident of Carlsbad, I am requesting that you please approve the appeal of the Carlsbad Planning Department's decision that a controlled indoor shooting range cannot be considered a recreational use. I as well as many others consider shooting at an indoor range as a recreational opportunity that is currently lacking in Carlsbad. It is our understanding that if an indoor shooting range was classified as a recreational use it would be permitted subject to administrative approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit in the P-M Zone. It is disappointing to me that staff can find that an ice skating rink, children's swimming facility and indoor go kart track can be considered as recreational facilities while an indoor shooting range cannot be considered a recreational facility. I enjoy recreational shooting just as much as go-carting and ice skating if not more. I have enjoyed recreational shooting for many years and would appreciate having a high quality facility in Carlsbad. An indoor range would offer a recreational opportunity that currently does not exist in Carlsbad. I respectfully request that you uphold the appeal of staff's position and make the determination that in indoor shooting range is recreational use, which would be allowable at 2717 Loker Avenue in Carlsbad's PM zone subject to approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit. Sincerely, Joseph F. Kennedy 760-845-0868 kennedyjosephf@gmail.com v-~co From: Wilde, John [mailto:J ohn. Wilde@thermofisher.com] Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 10:41 AM To: Don Neu; Shannon Werneke Subject: Support for Gunther Guns Importance: High Dear Counsel Members, Please allow Guther Guns to get permitted for a shooting range at their facility. As a professional working in Carlsbad I would be very happy to have an option to exercise my firearm hobby and improve my safety. I would go and use their facility a couple times a month and know many other professionals that would as well. This would not only be a great option for local residents but it will also increase Carlsbad's tax revenue. In observing how the Guthers run their existing business I have no doubt that their range would be a safe and professional value added recreation option for the City of Carlsbad. Thanks for your consideration, John Wilde Training Program Manager, SeiVices and Support Life Sciences Solutions Thermo Fisher Scientific 5781 Van Allen Way Carlsbad, CA 92008 Office 760 268 5535 Mobile 760 429 4578 john.wilde@thermofisher.com www.lifetechnologies.com This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this for the addressee, you must not use, copy, disclose or take any action based on this message or any information herein. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you for your cooperation. \ 15" b ) From: lloyd evetts [mailto:llloyd@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 10:44 AM To: Don Neu; Shannon Werneke Subject: Gunther Guns Please accept this letter in support of Gunther Guns Indoor Range application. r52.. Indoor Firing Ranges and Elevated Blood Lead Levels-United States, 2002-2013 Page 2 of 11 .l). During 2002-2012, non-work-related target shooting was the likely exposure for an additional2,673 persons with elevated ELLs (1,290 with ELLs ~25 ,ug/dL and 1,388 with ELLs of 10-24 ,ug/ dL). WaDOSH Investigation, 2012 In 2010, the Washington state ABLES program requested an inspection by WaDOSH of an indoor firing range after seven employees were found to have elevated ELLs. WaDOSH issued citations for violations of seven sections of their workplace lead standard, which is identical to the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standard. In October 2012, the state ABLES program received reports of ELLs of 40 ,ug/ dL and 48 ,ug/ dL in two employees of the same range. Interviews revealed ongoing renovation at the range beginning in September 2012, including replacing the sand berm bullet trap with a steel bullet trap, replacing the ventilation system, and adding a second floor. Review of records revealed that from 2010 until the onset of renovation, 19 range employees had ELLs of12-50 ,ug/dL. Following initial ABLES interviews, a compliance inspection from WaDOSH was conducted. In the 2012 inspection, WaDOSH noted the ventilation system was inoperable and temporarily replaced by two roof fans that exhausted unfiltered air outside. Multiple citations were issued for violations of the workplace lead standard, including failure to conduct personal exposure and biologicmonitoring for lead, dry sweeping oflead-containing dust, and lack of respirator medical clearance and fit testing. During renovation of the firing range, 117 construction workers and 42 range employees were present. A total of 98 of these persons received BLL testing, and 46 (47%) had elevated ELLs, including 26 construction workers (ELLs of10-153 ,ug/dL) and 20 range employees (ELLs of 14-58pgjdL). The BLL of153 ,ug/dL was recorded approximately 10 weeks after the construction worker began dismantling the frame of the sand berm and installing the steel bullet trap. Interviews with nine construction workers and six range employees with ELLs ~40 ,ug/dL documented inadequate knowledge regarding the hazards of workplace and "take- home" lead exposures (e.g., lead transferred to family members via clothing or automobile interiors). As a result of this investigation, WaDOSH initiated standardized inspections of all firing ranges in the state, including exposure monitoring and lead safety training for firing range employees. The state ABLES program advised employees to have family members tested; three children and two adult family members of four construction workers had ELLs ~5 ,ug/dL. Positive tests for surface lead contamination in homes and vehicles of several workers required lead abatement from hard surfaces, carpeting, and upholstery. A recreational shooter at the range reported a BLL of 12.9 ,ug/ dL to public health authorities. NIOSH Investigation, 2013 In December 2013, at the request of employees, NIOSH investigators evaluated lead exposure at an indoor firing range and firearms retailer in California. Investigators reviewed medical and exposure records, interviewed five of the six employees, collected air and surface wipe samples for lead, and evaluated the ventilation systems for the range and showroom. Employees spent most of their work day on the sales floor or in the office, entering the range generally to assist shooters experiencing difficulty. Employees cleaned the range daily using a floor squeegee for spent bullet casings and a REP A-filtered vacuum cleaner on carpeted areas. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6316a3 .htm 2/4/2015 Indoor Firing Ranges and Elevated Blood Lead Levels-United States, 2002-2013 Page 3 of 11 They replaced filters in the range exhaust ventilation system and scraped and oiled the steel bullet trap weekly. Numerous deficiencies were found (Table 2). Six full-shift personal air samples from monitors worn by showroom employees had lead concentrations of 5.5-19 11g/m3, within the current OSHA occupational exposure limit of so 11g/m3. Two task-based air samples for lead had high short-term ( <1 hour) concentrations of 54 flg/m3 (for nightly range maintenance) and 64 11g/m3 (for weekly range cleaning). Lead was detected on all surfaces tested. Employee BLL testing had been conducted for the first time immediately before the NIOSH evaluation, and BLLs ranged from 19.9 flg/dL to 40.7 flg/dL. No employees had undergone other medical surveillance as required by the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health and OSHA (3). Recommendations were made to minimize employee and customer exposure to lead, and the county public health officer was notified regarding risks to customers from airborne and surface lead exposure. Employees were advised to send family members for BLL testing because of the potential for take-home lead exposures. Discussion The ABLES data and the two investigations summarized in this report document serious lead exposure from indoor firing ranges (4). Employers in general industry are required by law to follow the OSHA lead standard established in 1978 (3,5). OSHA considers the permissible airborne lead exposure limit of so flg/m3 and allowable BLLs to be outdated (5,6).* The National Toxicology Program recently released a monograph on the potential health effects of low-level lead exposure to adults (7) (Table 3). In 2013, the California Department of Public Health recommended that the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health lower the permissible exposure limit for lead in air to o.s- 2.1 11g/m3 to keep BLLs below the range of 5-10 flg/dL (8). Guidelines for management oflead exposed employees (9) are endorsed by the California Department of Public Health, the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists, and the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, and recommended by NIOSH (1). Importantly, these guidelines are not based on airborne lead levels, but on monitoring BLLs, which can reflect exposure through any route. BLLs should be kept below 10 flg/dL for all adults, and below 5 flg/dL for children and pregnant women (9). The findings in this report also suggest that firing range customers and family members of firing range employees, in addition to employees themselves, can be exposed to hazardous amounts oflead. There are an estimated 19 million active target shooters in the United States (10). The findings in this report are subject to at least five limitations. First, employers might not provide BLL testing to all lead-exposed employees as required. Second, adults with non-work- related exposures are not likely to be tested, and BLLs of recreational shooters are not consistently available. Third, certain laboratories might not report BLL test results as required. Fourth, how many ofthe elevated BLLs were related to firing range exposures is not known. Because the OARI industry category includes industries other than firing ranges (e.g., miniature golf courses and billiard parlors), it is possible that some OARI workers with occupational BLL elevations were not employed in firing ranges. Finally, the two investigations did not determine the full extent of take-home exposures and other sources of lead exposure among firing range workers and customers. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6316a3.htm 2/4/2015 Indoor Firing Ranges and Elevated Blood Lead Levels-United States, 2002-2013 Page 4 of 11 The number of persons with elevated BLLs from firearms use during 2011-2012 highlights the need to increase prevention activities. Airborne and surface lead levels in firing ranges can be greatly reduced by using lead-free bullets, improving ventilation systems, using wet mopping or HEP A vacuuming instead of dry sweeping, and having a written protocol for range maintenance (1). Measures also should be taken to prevent take-home exposure. t Acknowledgments Steve Whittaker, Ryan Kellogg, Public Health-Seattle and King County; Venetia Runnion, Gina Colby, John Stebbins, Division of Occupational Safety and Health, Washington State Department of Labor and Industries; Rad Cunningham, Division of Environmental Public Health, Washington State Department of Health. Michael Kinzer, EIS officer, CDC. ABLES program coordinators, 41 states. 1Div of Surveillance, Hazard Evaluations, and Field Studies, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, CDC; 2Washington State ABLES Program, Washington State Department of Labor and Industries (Corresponding contributor: Catherine Beaucham, cbeaucham@cdc.gov, 513-841-4259 (._o) References 1. CDC. Preventing occupational exposure to lead and noise at indoor firing ranges. NIOSH alert 2009. Cincinnati, OH: US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; 2009. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2009-136/pdfs/2009-136.pdf~. 2. CDC. Adult Blood Lead Epidemiology and Surveillance (ABLES). Cincinnati, OH: US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; 2013. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/ables/description.html. 3. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Lead standards: general industry (29 CFR 1910.1025) and construction industry (29 CFR 1926.62). Washington, DC: US Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration; 1978. Available at https://www.osha.gov/sltc/lead@. 4. National Research Council of the National Academies. Report from the Committee on Potential Health Risks from Recurrent Lead Exposure of DOD Firing Range Personnel. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2013. 5. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Permissible exrosure limits-annotated tables. Washington, DC: US Department of Labor, Occupationa Safety Administration; 2014. Available at https://www.osha.gov/dsg/annotated-pels/index.html@. 6. Chen I. Overlooked: thousands of Americans exposed to dangerous levels oflead in their jobs. Scientific American, August 20, 2013. Available at http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/overlooked-thousands-of-american-exposed- to-dangerous-levels-of-lead-in-their-jobs/?page=1 @. 7· National Toxicology Program. Health effects oflow-levellead evaluation. Research Triangle Park, NC: US Department of Health and Human Services, National Toxicology Program; 2013. Available at htt.p://nt.p.niehs.nih.gov/go/36443@. 8. Billingsley KJ. Letter of September 30, 2013, from K. J. Billingsley, California Department of Public Health, to Juliann Sum, Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/ OSHA), California Department of Industrial Relations. Re: Health-based permissible exposure limit for lead. Available at http://www.cdph.ca.gov /programs/ olppp/ documents/leadstdpelrec.pdf 1] @. g. Kosnett MJ, Wedeen, RP, Rothenberg SJ, et al. Recommendations for medical management of adult lead exposure. Environ Health Perspect 2007;115:463-71. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6316a3.htm 2/4/2015 IS1 Indoor Firing Ranges and Elevated Blood Lead Levels -United States, 2002-2013 Page 8 of 11 BLL10-24 flg/dL Total with unknown source of exposure BLL <!25 11g/dL 2,151 (23.5) 2,173 (27.6) 1,329 (15.5) 904 (11.0) 742 (10.7) 14,815 !~~~~0-24 3,877 (29.1) 3,767 (27.5) 7,203 (35·7) 4,565 (23-4) 4,689 (25.2) 44,864 Total adults reported to ABLES (including non-firearm-related exposures) BLL <!25 9,151 -7,863 -8,561 -8,196 -6,927 -89,843 flg/dL BLL 10-24 13 336 _ flg/dL ' 13,679-20,152-19,527 -18,593-152,068 No. of states reporting exposure sourcet BLL <!25 38 39 39 39 39 flg/dL BLL10-24 flg/dL 19 23 31 30 33 Abbreviations: BLL =blood lead level; NAICS =North American Industry Classification System. *Percentage ofthe total reported per year by BLL group in the relevant category (e.g., in the industry subsector, it represents the proportion exposed at work). t Fewer states provide work-relatedness and industry data for BLLs of 10-2411g/ dL, compared with BLLs <!25flg/dL. *The OSHA permissible exposure limit for airborne exposure to lead is so 11g/m3 of air for an 8-hour time-weighted average. The standard requires medical monitoring for employees exposed to airborne lead at or above the action level of 30 11g/m3, medical removal of employees whose average BLL is <!50 11g/dL for construction or 60 flg/dL for general industry, and economic protection for medically removed workers, among other things. t Measures to prevent take-home exposure include showering and changing into clean clothes after shooting or performing firing range maintenance activities, storing clean clothes in a separate bin from contaminated clothing, laundering of nondisposable outer protective clothing by a contractor or by the employer (not by the employee), and leaving at the range shoes worn inside the firing range, or providing disposable shoe coverings. TABLE 2. Deficiencies contributing to elevated blood lead levels identified during the investigation of an indoor firing range -CDC's National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, California, 2013 http://www .cdc.gov /mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6316a3 .htm 2/4/2015 liP\ Indoor Firing Ranges and Elevated Blood Lead Levels-United States, 2002-2013 Page 9 of 11 Deficiency type Problem observed Engineering control deficiencies Range ventilation system Building ventilation system Airflow at the firing line contained regions ofback:flow, causing lead to be carried back into the shooter's breathing zone instead of downrange. The range air supply diffusers produced turbulent jets of air, creating uneven air distribution at the firing line. The downrange airflow was not evenly distributed and did not have the minimum recommended airflow of 30ft/min (15 em/sec). The range filters did not have a minimum efficiency reporting value of 18 or 19, so contaminated air was released outside. The range filters did not have side and face gaskets to prevent air from bypassing the filter; this allowed lead-contaminated air to be distributed to other areas served by the ventilation system. Openings in the wall between the firing range and the rest of the building allowed lead to be circulated throughout the building. Housekeeping deficiencies Range housekeeping Building housekeeping Carpet and porous materials were present inside the shooting range. Uniforms worn by employees who cleaned the range were reused, laundered infrequently, and stored in an open storage room. Lead was detected on carpets, desks, tables, counters, eating surfaces, and ventilation supply and return air ducts outside the range. It was also detected inside the clean clothing bins and on towels that had been laundered by a commercial launderer. Lead was detected on employees' shoes as they prepared to leave work. No showering facilities were available for employees. Employees' hands and street clothes were contaminated with lead. Medical surveillance deficiencies Employees No employees had undergone the required medical surveillance. The physician who evaluated employees to determine their fitness to wear a respirator did not complete the required forms properly. http://www .cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6316a3 .htm 2/4/2015 Indoor Firing Ranges and Elevated Blood Lead Levels -United States, 2002-2013 Page 10 of11 TABLE 3· National Toxicology Program (NTP) conclusions regarding evidence of the principal health effects of low-level lead exposures in adults-United States, 2013 NTP conclusion Health area BLL Principal health effects regarding evidence <10 Increased incidence of essential tremor Sufficient .ug/dL Neurologic <10 Psychiatric effects, decreased hearing, .ug/dL decreased cognitive function, increased Limited incidence of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis <s.ug/dL Increased incidence of essential tremor Limited Immune Unclear Inadequate <10 Increased blood pressure and increased risk Sufficient .ug/dL of hypertension Cardiovascular <10 Increased cardiovascular-related mortality Limited .ug/dL and electrocardiographic abnormalities Renal <s .ug/ dL Decreased glomerular filtration rate Sufficient <5 .ug/dL Women: reduced fetal growth Sufficient ~15-20 Men: adverse changes in sperm parameters Sufficient .ug/dL and increased time to pregnancy <10 Women: increase in spontaneous abortion Limited .ug/dL and preterm birth Reproductive ~10 .ug/dL Men: decreased fertility Limited ~31 Men: spontaneous abortion in partner Limited .ug/dL Unclear Women and men: stillbirth, endocrine effects, 1 d t birth defects na equa e Adapted from: National Toxicology Program. Health effects oflow-levellead evaluation. Research Triangle Park, NC: US Department of Health and Human Services, National Toxicology Program; 2013. Available at http: 1/ntp.niehs.nih.gov /go/36443 @. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6316a3.htm 2/4/2015 - Indoor Firing Ranges and Elevated Blood Lead Levels-United States, 2002-2013 Page 11 of 11 Use of trade names and commercial sources is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. References to non-CDC sites on the Internet are provided as a service to MMWR readers and do not constitute or imply endorsement of these organizations or their programs by CDC or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. CDC is not responsible for the content of pages found at these sites. URL addresses listed in MWR were current as of the date of publication. All.MMVVR HTML versions of articles are electronic conversions from typeset documents. This conversion might result in character translation or format errors in the HTML version. Users are referred to the electronic PDF version (http: //www.cdc.gov /mmwr) and/ or the original MMWR paper copy for printable versions of official text, figures, and tables. An original paper copy of this issue can be obtained from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), Washington, DC 20402-9371; telephone: (202) 512-1800 (.~.Contact GPO for current prices. **Questions or messages regarding errors in formatting should be addressed to mmwrq@cdc.gov. Page last reviewed: April 25, 2014 Page last updated: April 25, 2014 Content source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 1600 Clifton Road Atlanta, GA ~.,f ,r·'"""' 30329-4027, USA us ,t {. J Sao-CDC-INFO tq (800-232-4636 '~)TTY: (888) 232-6348 tq-Contact CDC-G ft.QQV • ·~ "' 'li "' overnment Made Easy "-.._ INFO http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6316a3.htm 2/4/2015 10 . "' rr:,::;'?. :rON-LEAD AMIV1UNITION-.AN Elv\ERGING TE€HN0Lt16Y ": l .. "'"; ~ -~ t,;. "':.,,; ~ ' " ~,. '. .. ~· . .. . The most basic way to reduce employee exposure to lead is to riot use lead in the first place. Non-lead ammunition is an emerging technology. Ammunition companies, the military, metallurgists and others have been committing significant amounts of time and money to try to develop effective non-lead primers and projectiles. Most ammunition manufacturers now have some form of lead-free products available in their product line. There are advantages and disadvantages to requiring non-lead ammunition at your range, given the state of current technology. ADVANTAGES Significantly reduces and potentially eliminates employee exposures to lead. May reduce the need and associated costs of other lead management procedures. Partial use of non-lead ammunition can lower airborne lead levels and keep levels below the OSHA regulatory thresholds. Using non-lead ammunition may reduce the ·start-up costs of a new facility. . DiSADVANTAGES You may need to develop and strictly enforce operating procedures that en- sure ALL range users will only shoot the lead-free ammunition. If non-lead ammunition is used along with ammunition that contains lead, mixing the different types of metals may increase the cost of recycling spent ammunition. Non-lead ammunition is currently more expensive than traditional ammunition. Today's non-lead primers have a short "shelf-life" and incc;msistent ignition (resulting in poor accuracy or failure to ignite the gunpowder}. There are potential, and possibly as yet unknown, health and environmental concerns from the non-lead alternatives. Further study and monitoring of the non-lead alternatives may reveal that they are as harmful as, or even more harmful than the lead they replace. 114 "'~J"'~ ~ ~ "'"""' ,_ -- i t r ~j ~ ~ ,-<-ANGE t-10USEJK.EEP1NG I • ~ \ ·,_ ~ ,L ~. -~ ~,.>_ ., " -: "'., = ~ ~ '" "' ~ - '& ~ ~ - Good housekeeping is one of the most important management practices you can implement to reduce exposUre to lead You need to keep all surfaces as free as practicable of accumulated lead dust and do it in a manner that will not increase the risk oflead exposure. A clean range has the added benefit of being more attractive to members and customers. How you clean the range area is very important Inadequate and/ or inappropriate range cleaning procedures can actually create a greater risk of lead exposure. Perhaps the worst thing you can do is clean the range by dry sweeping. Similarly, compressed air can't be used to dear floors or other surfaces of accumulated lead. Both procedures will stir up lead dust and increase airborne lead levels and exposures. l ; There are two methods that should be considered for the routine cleaning of your range. One is wet mopping and the other is using a HEPA vacuum system. Both systems prevent settled lead from becomirig stirred up and exposing employees to elevated airborne lead levels. Be aware that if you use a wet mop procedure for range cleaning, the water may need to be managed as a hazardous waste. If you plan to use a HEPA vacuum system, make sure it is designed to be explosion proof so unburned or spilled gunpowder isn't accidentally ignited. The HEPA filter may also need to be managed as a hazardous waste. When working on the range the ventilation should be turned on (unless performing work on the ventilation system or performing other activities where running the ventilation system could create a hazard to the worker). Good housekeeping involves a regular schedule to remove accumulations oflead dust and debris. The schedule should be adapted to range conditions based on range use and exposure potentiaL Employees should be trained in the safe performance of housekeeping and maintenance activities. The performance of range maintenance, cleaning or reclaiming activities are tasks that are likely to have"the highest airborne lead exposure levels. For this reason, the use of protective clothing during these activities may be a consideration. Charming Filters Your HEPA vacuum will require periodic filter changes. There is an increased risk ·of airborne lead exposure if this is done in a haphazard manner. Follow the manufacturer's instructions and take care to prevent reintroducing trapped lead particles back into the air, Avoid any movements that will shake lead dust loose from the filter. Immediately. place the used filter into an appropriate sealed container. Put a fresh HEPA filter· in the vacuum per manufacturers instructions and then properly dispose of the used filter (see page 10). Filters in your ventilation system will also need to be replaced periodically. As With changing the vacuum filter, follow all instructions provided by the manufacturer, It's a good idea to use your HEPA vacuum t~ clean around the access door. Carefully pull the fllter out and place it in an appropriate sealed container. Vacuum around the filter housing, put a fresh filter in place and then close the access door. Properly dispose of the used filter (see page 11). Cleaning the ductwork in your ventilation system presents significant risks of airborne lead exposure if done incorrectly. Proper procedures for ductwork cleaning and maintenance are beyond the scope of this document. Information is available from the National Air Duct Cleaners Association (1518 Kstreet, NW, Suite 503, Washington, DC 20005) or you can hire a professional firm to perform the work. 13 111 must establish and implement a job rotation schedu1e that includes the following: • Name or ID number of each affected employee • Duration and exposure levels where the affected employees are located • Any other information that may be useful in assessing the reliability of administrative controls to reduce lead exposure. Some ranges have found they can reduce workers' compensation insurance costs by assigning the fewest number of employees to tasks that include potential lead exposure. Workers' compensation insurance premiums are significantly higher for employees that have a lead exposure risk. If an employee has even a small task that includes potential lead exposure, a higher workers' compensation insurance premium rate may apply. So, if you divide range-related work tasks among a greater number of employees you will pay the higher premi U!ll for all of those employees. If you reduce the number of employees with range-related tasks and assign the resslto tasks that do not have a lead exposure risk {such as cashier, administrative assistant, floor sales clerk, etc), you may only have lo pay the higher premium for the small number of employees working on the range and a much lower premium for the rest of your staff. Limiting the number of employees with potential lead exposure can also result in lower costs for medical surveillance and other functions related to lead management. There are advantages-and disadvantages-to both approaches. "'' '!\~""'"" I , : J ! jj-"ROTECTIVE WQRKCLOTl-JTNJG I ' ~ " ' ; -"" Whenever personal air monitoring shows that air lead levels are above the PEL or an employee experiences skin or eye irritation, OSHA regulations require the employer to: • Provide, at no cost to the employee, appropriate protective work clothing and· equipment such as coveralls or other full body clothing, gloves, hats, shoes, eye protection, etc. • Provide the protective clothing in a clean and dry condition at least weekly. Clothing must be provided daily to workers who work in areas where airborne lead exposure levels exceed an eight-hour time- weighted average of200 (1;1g/M3). · · • Provide for cleaning, laundering, or disposal of protective clothing and equipment. • Repair or replace protective clothing and equipment as necessary. • Prohibit the removal of lead from protective clothing or equipment by blowing, shaking, or any other means, which disperses lead into the air. • Ensure that employees use appropriate protective clothing and equipment, remove contaminated work clothing at the end of the shift in change rooms provided for that purpose, and place it in a closed container. OSHA requires the container to be labeled as follows: CAUTION: CLOTHING CONTAMINATED WI1H LEAD. DO NOT REMOVE DUST BY BLOWING OR SHAKING. DISPOSE OF LEAD-CONTAMINATED WASH WATER IN ACCORDANCE WI1H APPUCABLE LOCAL, STATE, OR FEDERAL REGUlATIONS. • Inform, in writing, any person who cleans or launders protective clothing or equipment of the potential harmful effects oflead. The performance of range maintenance, cleaning or reclaiming activities are tasks that are likely to have the highest exposure levels. For this reason, the use of protective clothing during these activities may be a consideration. 15 Employee Respirator Training You must train your employees on how respirators work, how to wear them, and how to take care of them. If employees are not trained well, your respirator program will not be effective. Training must take place before an employee uses a respirator in the workplace. · Make sure the training includes instructions on conducting a respirator "user seal check." ·~ How To Do A User Seal Check It is important to do a "user seal check" every time you put on a respirator. Getting into the habit is the best thing a wearer can do to ensure good protection. I" User seal checks are simple, quick to do, and absolutely essential to ensure good protection. Contact a safecy equipment supplier for training materials. Some suppliers will also provide training for customers. Use the manufacturer's recommended procedures or follow the directions in Appendix B-1 to 29 CFR 1910.134 (User Seal Check Procedures). Negative Seal Check 1. Close off the inlet opening of the canister or cartridge(s) by covering with the palm of the hand. 2. Inhale gently so the facepiece collapses slightly. Hold your breath for 10 seconds. 3. If the facepiece doesn't remain in its slightly collapsed condition and an inward leakage of air is detected, adjust the straps, check the valves, and try again. 4. If air does not leak ~nd the mask stays collapsed a~st your face, it has passed the negative face seal check. Positive Seal Check 1. Cover the exhalation valve with the palm of your hand without breaking the respirator face piece to face seal. · 2. Inflate the mask slightly by exhaling gently. Hold your breath. 3. If there is evidence of outward leakage of air at the seal, adjust the straps, check the valves, and try again. 4, If the face seal holds the air and the mask stays inflated, it has passed the positive face seal check. ---~ ~ -- Repair, DisposaJ and Repla~cement Respirators must be in good working condition to function. It is imperative that they not be used if they are damaged in any way. Damage can include things like a broken strap, loss of respirator shape or a face seal that can no longer be maintained. Respirators that are not properly functioning must be replaced, repaired or discarded. The respirator manufacturer can supply a replacement for parts that have been damaged. 19 r'~~ ~,_,,' ' - rt"1 MPLO'{EE INFOR1vtATI<JN 1\ND TRAINING ~" ! ~ t _, ' ' ;; "' '; ~ ~-~ '> " ~ ~ l , "" ,. '"*'""' 1 ~ " 20 ~· :, You need to inform all employees with potential exposure to airborne lead at any level of the contents of Appendices A and B of the OSHA General Lead Standard (29CFR 1926.62 and 29CFR 1910.1025). OSHA further requires employers to provide a training program when personal air monitoring shows airborne lead levels are at or above the AL, or, where employees may be subjected to eye or skin irritation from exposure to lead. This traini~g program must be given at least annually and include the following information: • Con tents of the. OSHA Lead Standard and its appendices. The employer must also make a copy of the General Industry Lead Standard and its appendices available to any employee expooedto lead. Posting this information on an employee bulletin board is one way to easily satisfy the requirenfent. 1 • Types of operations or job fnnctions that, may result in employee lead exposure above the AL. • Engineering controls and work practices that have been put in place to reduce exposure. This can include Policies and Procedures for operating range equipment, cleaning the range and personal hygiene. • Purpose, selection, fitting, use, cleaning and limitations of respirators (if the use of respirators is part of your lead management program). • Purpose and description of medical surveillance and medical removal protection program, including information concerning the adverse health effects associated with excessive exposure to lead. • Contents of any lead-related compliance plan in place at. the facility. • Prohibition on the use of che1ating agents to prevent BLLs from rising, except nnder the direction of a licensed physician. An effective training program must be presented in an understandable way. You should develop training programs based upon the employees' education level and language background. This approach will ensure that all employees receive training that allows them to maximize the effectiveness of your lead exposure reduction program. Emplf:;~yee Reporting You must establish a way for employees to report work-related injuries and illnesses promptly. You must also teach each employee how to report work-related injuries or illnesses. There are several ways to fulfill this requirement. Instructing employees to report all work-related injuries and illnesses to the manager in charge is a starting point. Some range owners carry a pager 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and give every employee the pager number as well as posting the number near every phone. If you have a Policies and Procedures Manual you should have a section that details the process employees must follow in case of a work-related injury or illness. You cannot discriminate against an employee for reporting a work-related fatality, injury or illness. OSHA also protects the employee who files a safety and, health complaint, asks for access to records or otherwise exercises any rights afforded by the OSHA Act - r, - -~ --- ~: EA.D lv\EDICAt PROGRAM i jl ,1 F -~ ~ "'"' ""' " ~ ' ; ' ' A Lead Medical Program is an employer-sponsored program to monitor the health of e~ployees. It is a critical part of a comprehensive approach to the prevention of lead-related diseases. It is also one of the best ways to ensure that employees are not being overexposed to lead and facilitates the detection of medical effects associated with lead exposure. A Lead Medical Program acts as a "barometer" of the company's lead safety program. The program also complements your company's lead safety training. Employees may hear about lead safety from their supervisor, but it makes a difference hearing it from a doctor. Having a doctor involved may help change behavior and demonstrates to the worker that the company is serious about lead safety. f r You are required to establish a Lead Medical Program if an employee's airborne lead exposure is at or above the AL for more than 30 days per year. The program must be performed by or under the supervision of a licensed physician. The physician should be familiar with signs and symptoms oflead toxicity. It must also be provided at a reasonable time and place and at no cost to the employee. The purpose of a good Lead Medical Program is to protect employees from exposure to lead by: • Identifying employees with elevated blood lead levels. • Detecting lead-related ill health in an employee. • Guiding your efforts to control lead exposure. • Providing education to employees on avoiding lead o;xposure. A Lead Medical Program includes: • Biological monitoring. • Medical exams and consultations (and treatment if needed) Biological Monitoring _ Biological monitoring under the OSHA lead standard consists of blood sampling and analysis for lead and zinc protoporphyrin (ZPP) levels. Both tests are done with the same blood sample. The test for lead in the blood (also referred to as the Blood Lead Level or BLL) and the ZPP together provide the physician and employer with more complete exposure information. · The most accurate test method is to draw the blood sample from a vein in the arm. A blood sample taken using the "finger-prick" method (where a tiny lancet pierces the finger) is likely to result in exaggerated lead levels because of lead that may be present on the surface of the finger. Blood lead level (BLL) testing. A BLL test measures the amount oflead in the blood. It is a good measure of recent exposure, but will not tell you how much lead is stored in the bones or if any health damage has occurred. BLL test results are reported as micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood (p.g/ dl). Zinc Protoporphyrin (ZPP) testing. A ZPP test measures a substance in red blood cells that increases when lead interferes with the production of hemoglobin. (Hemoglobin is a protein found in red blood cells that carries oxygen to other body tissues.) An increase in ZPP shows that lead is affecting the body and is a better indicator of1onger-term exposure (exposures in the last 2-3 months). The Physician will use the BLL and ZPP test results to identifY which employees may need additional medical care and/or removal from further lead exposure. You should also review the results to determine the degree of employee exposure and whether additional control measures are needed. 21 • Recordkeeping can be used to increase employee awareness about injuries, illnesses and hazards in the workplace, resulting in workers who are more likely to follow safe work practices. • Documentation of your efforts is one of the best ways to demonstrate your commitment and actions to protect human health. · Who nmst keep records? All employers must maintain exposure monitoring, medical surveillance and medical removal records. It is strongly recommended that all employers keep records of employee training and equipment testing and maintenance as well. Employers with 11 or more employees in the prior year must complete and maintain OS~form 301 (individual incident reports), OSHA form 300 (Log of Work-Related Iryuries and Illnesses) and OSHA form 300A (Summary of Work-Related Injuries and lllnesses) for the next year. Operations with 10 or less employees are exempt from these recordkeeping requirements. Recordkeeping requirements are based on the number of employees the previous year. If you had 11 or more employees one year and 10 or less the next, you would need to keep records. Conversely, if you had 10 or fewer employees the first year and 11 or more the second, you would not need to keep records during the second year (you would, of course, need to keep records the third year, regardless of the number of people employed during the third year) . OSHA has specifically exempted certain low-risk businesses from having to keep OSHA Forms 300, 300A and 301. These exempted businesses have been identified by Standard Industry Code (SIC). Sporting goods retailers (SIC industry group 594) are identified as exempt. Gun shops (SIC 5941) are therefore exempt. Shooting ranges (SIC 7997 for member-only clubs and 7999 for public facilities) are not exempt. Neither are hunting preserves (SIC 0971). Many facilities have multiple activities (such as a gun shop AND a shooting range). Your SIC would· be determined by the activity that generates the most revenue. From time-to-time OSHA and the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) ·conducts surveys of all businesses. If you are selected, OSHA or BlS will notify you in advance that you will need to complete and maintain OSHA forms 300, 300A ap.d 301 for the corning year. Even if you are otherwise exempt from these recordkeeping practices, if you are selected and notified you must fulfill these recordkeeping requirements for the time period requested. ~ -~ What needs to be recorded? A work-related employee fatality must be reported to OSHA. This includes fatal heart attacks that occut·on the job. Also, any work-related event that results in the in-patient hospitalization of three or more employees must be reported to OSHA. The report must be made by telephone or in person at the nearest OSHA Area Office within 8 hours after the death or hospitalization. Faxes and messages left on an answering machine are not acceptable. You must verbally communicate with an OSHA representative. In case the occurrence happens when the OSHA Area Office is closed, call (800) 321-6742 or TIY (877) 889-5627. Ail employers are required to maintain detailed records on exposure monitoring, medical surveillance, and medical removals. You should also keep records .relating to testing· and maintenance of equipment such as ventilation systems. Starting in january 2002, OSHA implemented new requirements designed to make recordkeeping_and reporting of work related illness and injury easier. Employers who are not partially exempt must complete OSHA form 301 fur each work-related injury or illness. The injury or illness must then be entered on OSHA form 300 (Log of Work-Related Injuries and illnesses). Finally, the employer must complete OSHA form 300A (Summary of Work-Related Injuries and lllnesses) and post it with other employee notices. Employers not otherwise exempt from the new rule must record work-related injuries or illnesses if the injury or illness results in one of the following: death, days away from work, restricted work or transfer to another job, medical treatment beyond first aid (activities that are coruidered "first aid" are defined in OSHA Standard-29 CFR 1904.7 (b) (5) (ii), loss of consciousness or diagnosis of a significant illness/injury by a physician. 25 26 Record retention Employers must establish and maintain accurate exposure monitoring and medical surveillance records. With respect to employee medical records, employers. are permitted to have physicians or other health care personnel carry out employers' record retention obligations. Employers should refer to 29 CFR l910.1025(n) to identify the specific exposure and medical information they are required to keep for their employees. Employers are required to preserve all employee exposure monitoring and medical records for at least 40 years or for the duration of employment plus 20 years, whichever is longer. Additional retention requirements apply to records of employees who are removed from work due to their elevated exposure to lead. Employers must maintain medical removal records for at least the duration of an employee's employment. Whenever an e~ployer ceases .to do busines.s, the employer must transfer all emp~oyee recor~s V> th~ successor employer who will then be obligated to retain the employee records for any remam.J.ng retention penod. If f there is no successor to the business, the employer must contact affected current employees at least 3 months prior to the cessation of the business and notify them that they can access their records. Alternatively, if there is no successor to the business, the employer must transfer all employee records to the Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). At the expiration of the retention period for all the records required to be maintained, employers must notify the Director at least 3 months prior to the disposal of the records and shall forward these records to the Director if requested. You must keep OSHA form 301 (individual incident reports), OSHA form 300 (Log of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses) and OSHA form 300A (Summary of Work-Related Injuries and lllnesses) for a period of 5 years following the end of the calendar year that these records cover. Who has access to recotds? Some of the information contained in the records that employers maintain may contain sensitive, personal infonnation of employees which may be protected under both state. and federal privacy laws2. Therefore, it's important that employers know which records of their employees can be accessed and. who can access them. Access to employee exposure monitoring, removal and medical records is govemed by 29 CFR 1910.1020. Employers must make all exposure, medical and medical removal records available upon the request of an employee, designee, as well as to the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health or his/her designees for the purpose of carrying out OSHA's statutory functions. In certain circumstances, an employer may restrict an employee's direct access to all the information in the employee's medical records, such as when the records contain trade secrets of the employer or when the records contain information that could be detrimental to the employee's health. Any employee or other authorized individual seeking access to or copies of medical records must provide a written request to an employer. The employer, after verifYing the identity of the employee or designee, must either provide access to the records within fifteen (15) working days after receiving the written request or provide a reason why such access has been delayed along with the next earliest date the record can be accessed. Alternatively, employees or other authorized designees may obtain initial copies of any medical record free of charge from employers. Government access to employee medical records is governed by 29 CFR 1913.10, which imposes strict regulations on government personnel to ensure that the privacy of employees is safeguarded. Generally, government personnel must provide an employer with an approved written access order prior to accessing employee medical records. However, an access order is not necessary if an employee provides written consent or when OSHA physicians consult with physicians of an employer concerning an occupational safety or health issue. If a safety or health issue exists, OSHA physicians may conduct on-site evaluations of employee medical 2 Under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), as amended, 45 CFR 160-164, certain employers, which create, receive or handle employee health Information, must comply with new medical records privacy rules. Employers should con- sult with legal counsel to verify whether HIPAA requirements apply to them. If so, they may be advised to contact their health plan carriers to ensure that proper employee medical records access and authorization controls are implemented by April 14, 2003-the date that most of HIPAA's new privacy rules become effective. records in consultation with physicians of the employer. No employee medical records shall be removed from an employer's premises without a written access order or the written consent of an employee. Please note that the records access provisions under 29 CFR 1913.10 are not the same as those under 29 CFR 1904 which govern employers' obligations to submit records regarding employee work-related injwies and illnesses. Nor does 29 CFR 1913.10 govem the government's access to employee exposure records. The process through which OSHA can obtain employee exposure records is less complicated than the process through which it obtains employee medical records. However, OSHA must still provide employers with a written access order. Employee representatives can have access to Forms 300 or 300A, but may not see personal information on an individual. Ifyou·have a union shop or other form of employee representative, please consult with OSHA for guidance on what you must do to protect individual privacy. An employer must provide requested records to an OSHA compliance officer within 4 hou~ of a request. l'f Other recording criteria Your state may have additional recording requirements. Contact your state labor board for assistance. 27 N 0 - OSHr A '8 CQ rm 301 employee health and must be used in a manner that Attention: This form contains information relating to ~ M 1 1 I 1 protects the confidentiality of employees to the extent 'nliury and Illness lncJ·dent Report jXJSSib1€J:wtile the information is being used lor u.s. Department of l.abDr ... -=~~~~::~~:::=::~~::~~::::_:~::~~~~~~~~~~~~--a---~o~x~u~~;;~~oo~I~M~I;ety~aoo~h;~~t~h~u~~ses~.~~~~~~~:::::•~ .. ~~!!-.::::::: This lnjuf)• and l/Jnm Incident Report is one of the first fonns you must !ill out when a recordable work· rela!ed injury or illness has occurred. Together with the Uig of Work-Rtltaed /njmits and JlimsHs and the acwmpanying Stttnmary, these forms help the employer and OSHA develop a picture of the extent and .sc~erity of work-rchllcd. incldcnto. Within 7 calendar da)'S after you receive information that a recordable work-related injury or illness has occurred, you mu~t fill out this fonn or an equivalent. Some state workers" rompensation, insurance, or other reports may he acceptable substitutes. To be considered an equivalent form, any substitute nmst contain aU the information ,..ked for on this form. According to Public Law 91·596 and 29 CFR 1904, OSHA's recordkeep.ing rule, you mwt keep llW form on file for 5 years following the year to which it pertains. If you need additional copies of this form, you may photocopy and use as many as you need. i~I~by __________________________ __ ;TW•------------------------------------- ! Phoae !_) _____ -· ___ _ Dale ___J_t_ . lniOimMitHt about tire employee I) l'Ull....,. -------;---------- 2)~----------------------------- Clry Stooe ____ ZIP __ _ ~~ Doteofbl<!ll. __ ,_, __ _ 4) llolehi....t ··--'--'-- 5!0 Mole a F....Jo lnlormilrfi(HI ""-1 tire phplci•" or otiJer IHRtiUr c~~re pttJietlciDIIIII 6) Nameofpllyoidonarolhorbuldo..,..p~.-....J -------- 7) lf....-.... p....._,liumlhe...mli<,.m.r.wasb:&t- ~~o/ _____________________________ __ s_, CWy SW. _____ ZIP ___ _ S) WQ QlpJO")'ff treMed in 1111. ~~mom? 0'1b 0No 9) w.. omplc>yee ho>opltalloed .,..,..;p. .... ia-pm.m? Qy.., 0 No Form a.pprO"t'td OM& no. l21R-017G lnlormatiDII ""'Citd tire c.-se IOj CueDIImbe<fmmlbc.l.oJ (IImu{aiktUU<IU,.IJer{l ... i/otLOf.'lj/<r,..rmmJikco"-J 11) Da<eollaJu'l'•rl---'--'-- 1!) 'IIme employe<~ bop>. '!WI< All/ PM 13) Tlmool.------------AHtm D Clood if<ime<uu>otbc d......m..! 14) -... ,..........,,... cltllq}IMt--lndd<ont"""""'"Deocribetbe oclioity, ""wellaslhe toola, ~.or materiallho employee,... uolng. Be specific. -plu: "c:limbin!: a ladclot' while cony!Dg mo6ns moterials''; "opoa)'fng chlorine from band sprayer"; adally compul&' leJ-eatry." 15) ..,..t,__rThllu loowlhe illj11r)"aa:aned. ~"When ladder slipped""-Door,- le1J 20 feet"; "WOrker wu 8pnlyed wilh eblorine wheo gasket broke doring repl~~~:emelll'': ''Woner developed IJGI'I!!IJ9$ .in wrist o\IH time." 16) -.._tile lllltor!t Ot'lllnesst'll!U u tbe part oflhe body that was dl'ected IIDd how It was al&cted; bo more speclflo tbao "hun,"'~"'.,.. IJOI:'eo." ~ -'•tra.l.ot:d back"'; ''chemic•l bum, haacr'; "carpal tuuoel sptdrome." 17) Mt.r o1t,1eot or svtastanc• dtlwc:fly ~ Ute~,..., Bml1tjtlu: "concrete floor"'; "chlorine"'; "ndiaa ann 1aw." If llli< q....&t! U.r fiCII! af1Jtly tlJ tltc D:cidmt, kG<¥ llblmt.\ IS) IF''"'-'-ohcl,. -llilf -.;:a"" DoU: ofd.Mh ___ I--'-- l'uhllic rt:'p(Jttlng burdtn lot-lhl• cuJlC('(iC..q ot inbrhl<~liOn.U ~KIIwil.t~ lo avcn~ 22 '*nota pcrrcspaote, indudlllgtime forTn~wifllt UiiSUt.ICIIonl. SC'MdU.ng C"xisrillg d"la ~at. g;ubcoriug 11nd maDuatnm~: the <bbl needed. M.dcomplcdnJ:Iand revlrwtng dr culeaJon (.1( Jnfctrmulion. frnon& lin' 1101 rwp.tin:od to 1'('1;p01ld tu thc- Ollleclian orinfot"m:.tlon unl$ k dJ-spLI)"S a t'Ul'rml\'~ OMH CIJC'III'tlt autubc-r.ll)"Oll ha~-e oorC~JrtttneDI• ab04111hi•<"r~e c;rranyutht:rltllp<U'I ol. thK d:.racdlccdon. Jndudi.n,a: sttgy;nrioru for ft:dudnstbD bwden,o:aeuan.: t:S.D.:purtmcot ofl..ilboc OSH.A.Omcr DfSinl.lalic::dAn.,Jr.sh.ltuuln N·!M4..!00Cutatituciun Avrnue, !'iW, W.uhi11J:IInl1, JlC 2021(1. Do J10t ~C'PC1 dt" complC'IC:d; fonll!l kJ lbisnJ1ict'- Co) ......