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) ......