HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/18/1996, 4 - APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF A USE PERMIT FOR AN INDOOR SHOOTING RANGE (A 39-96) council
j ACenba aEpoP-t �Numbir
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: Arnold Jonas Co 'ty Development Director
Prepared By: Whitney Mcllvaine, Associate Planner
SUWECT: Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a use permit for an indoor
shooting range (A 39-96)
CAO RECONIINIENDATION
Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's action.
DISCUSSION
The applicant would like to'establish an indoor shooting range at 161 High Street. At the
Planning Commission hearing on May 8, residents in the lower High Street neighborhood spoke
against the proposal citing concerns with safety, traffic and parking. Many of speakers noted that
their objection was not to the use itself but to its proposed location adjacent to residential uses and
the likely impacts on the neighborhood. The Commission unanimously denied the use permit
request based on a finding of inconsistency with general plan policies related to neighborhood
conservation, and suggested that the applicant try to find another location removed from
residential areas.
The applicant is appealing the Planning Commission decision (and also looking for another
location). The appeal statement, Planning Commission resolution, staff report, and meeting
minutes are attached.
CONCURRENCES
Comments from other departments are attached to the Planning Commission staff report. If the
Council decides to approve this use permit request, comments should be incorporated into
conditions of approval.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Uphold the appeal and approve a use permit for an indoor shooting range at 161 High
Street based on findings of general plan policy consistency, land use compatibility,
adequate environmental review, public health, safety and welfare, or other appropriate
findings of fact.
2. Continue action with direction.
Council.Agenda Report= Shooting Range
.Page 2
Attachment§
Draft resolution denying the appeal
Draft resolution upholding:the appeal
Appellant's statement
Planning Commission resolution
Planning.Commission staff report (vicinity map, other dept: comments, and project description)
May 8 meeting minutes
a
RESOLUTION NO. (1996 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
DENIAL OF A USE PERMIT FOR AN INDOOR SHOOTING RANGE
AT 161 HIGH STREET(A 39-96)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on May 8, 1996 and
denied a use permit for application A 39-96; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on June 18, 1996 and has
considered testimony of other interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing
and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo hereby denies the appeal of the Planning Commission's action to deny a use permit for an
indoor shooting range at 161 High Street (A 39-96)based on the following finding:
SECTION 1. Finding,
1. Sale and operation of firearms and archery equipment at the proposed location is
not consistent with General Plan policies related to conservation of residential
neighborhoods, specifically 1994 Land Use Element policies 2.2.2 and 2.2.4.
SECTION 2. Environmental Determination.
1. Denial of a project does not require environmental review pursuant to CEQA Section
15061(b)(1).
Upon motion of seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
-. -
RcsoMbn No.
Appeal A 39-96 -
Page 2 -
AYES:
NOES-
ABSENT:
the.foregoing resolution was adoptedthis day of_ 1996.
ATTEST: ...
City Clerk Mayor(Allen Settle)
APPROVED AS TO FORM;.
0XPA4-f4,1-&I
,ty 01.
L:�R O1A39-96-D.APL
u��
RESOLUTION NO. (1996 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
DENIAL OF A USE PERMIT FOR AN INDOOR SHOOTING RANGE
AT 161 HIGH STREET(A 39-96)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on May 8, 1996 and
denied a use permit for application A 39-96; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on June 18, 1996 and has
considered testimony of other interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing
and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo hereby upholds the appeal of the Planning Commission's action to deny a use permit for an
indoor shooting range at 161 IEgh Street (A 39-96), and approves the use permit based on the
following finding(s):
SECTION 1. Fin in
(Council must insert appropriate finding(s)).
SECTION 2. Environmental Determination.
1. The project is exempt from environmental review pursuant to CEQA Section
15303(c).
SECTION 3. Conditions.
(Council must insert appropriate conditions).
Upon motion of seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
�'J
Resolution No.
Appeal A 39-96
Page 2
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 1996.
ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor(Allen Settle)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
L:\RES0\A39-96-U.APL
� Ia�lllll�p11 � III city of sAn tui.S�OBISJN
�I
APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL
In accordance with the appeals procedures as authorized by Title, 1, Chapter 1.20 of the
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, the undersigned hereby appeals from the decision of ..
S L c2 Zl&ji/rr C.o.ek,lsL,��endered on 92
which consisted of the following (i.e., explain what you are appealing and the grounds
for submitting the appeal. Use additional sheets as needed.)
/✓o ¢
fti -rrP.S �Sviyi�, J iov
X279 e-C>
The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed with:
Of oma= J ef-7i« on
Name/Department (Date)
Appellant: ',Z&-- s'4-e
Name/Title p Mailing Address (& Zip Code)
C0� i 77�`�- �/i C'y �joS
Home Phone Work Phone
Representative: 1�1_%
Nameffitle Mailing Address (& Zip Code)
For Official Use Only:
Calendared for Date & Time Received:
c: City Attorney '
City Administrative Officer ������ c�,
Copy to the following department(s):
MAY 1 � 1996 fS�
tea:ssy,�.
4 kj&1&40L CITY CLERK
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA
Original in City ClerWS Office
�r
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT rr�►# 1
BY: Whitney Mcllvaine, Associate Planner MEETING DATE: May 8,1996
FROM: Ron Whisenand, Development Review Manag�2v
FILE NUMBER: A 39-96
PROJECT ADDRESS: 161 High Street
SUBJECT: Use permit request for an indoor shooting range.
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Deny the use permit.
BACKGROUND
Situation
The applicant would like to establish an indoor shooting range at 161 High Street. This is not a
use listed in the zoning regulations. Therefore, the Director determined that this use may be
permitted in the C-S and M zones with Planning Commission use permit approval.
Data Summary
Applicant: Robert L. Fisher Jr.
Property Owner: Luis Zabala
Representative: Michael McNamara, McNamara Realty
Zoning: Service-Commercial (C-S)
General Plan: Services and Manufacturing
Environmental Status: No environmental review is required for denial of a project. Project may
otherwise be exempt under CEQA Section 15303.
Project Action Deadline: June 26,1996
SiteDescri=ption
The 50 x 119 square foot lot is nearly flat and developed with a 4,500 square foot building
previously used by Beacon Electric. The building is set back 30 feet from the front property line.
The building is constructed to the property line on the sides and at the rear.
The site borders a Medium-density Residential zone to the east and south. Across High Street to
the north is a mix of housing and commercial uses in the Service-Commercial zone. To the west
are various commercial uses in the Service-Commercial zone.
�'O
A 39-96
Page 2
Pr.qject�pti m
The applicant proposes a 24' x 75'archery range and a 24' x 75' firearms range inside the existing
building, along with a retail area and office space. A more detailed description of the proposed -
use is attached.
► Hours of operation: Seven days a week, not earlier than 10:00 am or later than 6:00 pm
► Employees: Two, initially
► Activities: Lessons, demonstrations, certification, competition, gunsmithing, retail sales of
firearms, archery equipment, accesories
► Parking: Four spaces
EVALUATION
Staff is recommending that the use permit be denied because the proposed site is immediately
adjacent to residential zoning to the east and south. General Plan policies state that residential
areas should be separated from incompatible, nonresidential activities.
General PlanConsistency
Policy 2.2.2 Separation and Buffering: Residential areas should be separated or screened from
incompatible, nonresidential activities, including most commercial and manufacturing businesses,
traffic arteries, the freeway and the railroad. Residential areas should be protected from
encroachment by detrimental commercial and industrial activities.
Sale of firearms and operation of an indoor shooting range is inappropriate in or near a
residential area and at this location in particular because of potential for incompatibility as
a result of unacceptable noise exposure, insufficient parking, especially during demonstrations
and competition events, and both a real and perceived threat of violence.
Policy 2.2.4 Residential Next to Nonresidential: In designing development at the boundary
between residential and nonresidential uses, protection of a residential atmosphere is the first
priority.
• Sale and operation of firearms is not consistent with the objective of protecting residential
atmosphere.
�t-9
A 39-96
Page 3
Alternative Land Uses
The property at 161 High Street is zoned Service-Commercial. This zone allows a greater variety
of uses than any other zoning district in the City. Many other uses could occupy this property
which are both allowed in the C-S zone and also compatible with nearby residential uses.
Alternative Locations
There are roughly 1400 parcels within the City zoned Service-Commercial or Manufacturing.
These areas vary in nature from light-commercial to heavy industrial. An indoor shooting range
would be better located in a clearly industrial area with either of these zoning designations.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Approve the use permit based on appropriate findings with or without conditions.
2. Continue action with direction to the applicant and staff.
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
Comments from other departments are attached. If the Commission decides to approve this use
permit request, comments should be incorporated into conditions of approval.
RECOMMENDATION
Deny the use permit.
Finding:
1. Sale and operation of firearms and archery equipment at the proposed location is not consistent
with General Plan policies related to conservation of residential neighborhoods.
Attached:
Vicinity map
Applicant's statement
Dept. comments
<f-/0
iQ SEVERS R 24 F� t�.
COVERS
O
h y�SG4Lr F 1f0-81 � � t �� t
� • O iXos� � ��pP
•
°0El
�
15 ,Ld
tib. AI
130 172. r74
HIGH WT. .
Cllr (/37) b/ /6 175 205 209.092 2.1.1
A98-87 ARS-86
ARC ST-87 NI o r
A o 2fq({
lAfn27-89,90-27+1 `� o
x+/'1466 $•� � L4UNDFOAAAT A
62-e9 � a
Ails ag DAMMMSHOP A
° f11.93 • ° 0 0
NaQ
.� NAIR Sr'LtwL
� 4 VICTOiLIN05
� tV
L9 a msC THRIFT SHOP 90 6
Qa�
q � SHPP VACANT a "
-
a a cai•9y 6MT3, N � P I'1^I� ���
+v MS Gi9V DwNDE � N I I ��
STLDIo I���f A B
� a¢c 4o-r
N d.
M N ON ❑ .wlJ
Y r THRIFT o N
f N Nl�m�rrC1 STeRfi � N
CC�11�d�p
D
Qe<a<'a 2Z4 23f.
C a p AUTO SALES LOT ARC 85-41
A41-85 m
N 3 a MC 83- R D y
N. S� ^B m,87-4,u ;z 203 2f-21L
V0772
VIDEO Covjv aitc 94-rte 14N ❑ ❑ ❑
MELDING VACANT PRAOVCTIONS armc
E
A 152.58 C- �o
'0' N W O
A65-B6 � W
v "1565114Jn
mW
h N S t2�12=+u�w1,—B--� y
Q C d" ARC 88-101 2125 N W
e � m ❑
n i31-44G
VICINITY MAP A 39-96 NORTH
161 HIGH
March 25, 1996
City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development Department
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
2. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE
A. THE PROJECT
The purpose of this project is to build an indoor commercial shooting and training facility
in the use of firearms and archery equipment;with state of the art equipment currently
available. The consist of a 24'x 75'archer range and a separated 24'x 75'firearms
range. The range will be supervised and controlled by a qualified range master. The
facility will accommodate and certify public and private law enforcement,hunter safety,
basic firearms handling,personal protection, shooting qualifications and instruction. Other
services will include qualified gunsmithing and sanctioned adult and youth competition
tournaments. In addition,archery and firearms will be available for demonstration, as well
as police equipment and shooting accessories.
B. LOCATION
The range is to be located within the city limits of San Luis Obispo, California;an area
selected because of its central location with respect to the estimated need and source of
prospective users n the Central California area. The proposed location will be at 161 High
street with easy access of the 101 freeway. In addition,the masonry construction of this
building is the most practical and safest type of building to acquire for such a purpose.
C. COMPETITION
There are approximately twenty(20)retail stores within a thirty mile radius of our
proposed facility which sell firearms. None of which offer range or training facilities to
the public. Although,there is one outdoor range,it is usually limited to members only.
The nearest comparable facility is in Bakersfield, California,which is approximately 125
miles away.
D. EMPLOYMENT
The Range Master Indoor Shooting Range proposes to be open to the public
approximately 72 hours per week with weekly business hours as follows:
MONDAY-FRIDAY I OAM- 6PM
SATURDAY 10AM -5PM
SUNDAY I IAM-5PM
NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION
Basic firearms safety
Home firearms safety
Personal protection
Law enforcement
Security guard
OFFSHOOTS TRAINING INSTITUTE
Law.enforcement
Transitional firearm
GLOCK INCORPORATED
Firearm instructor
Factory trained gunsmith
SPRINGFIELD ARMORY
Authorized gunsmith
3. REQUIRED OFF STREET PARKING
The proposed floor plan for use measures 4500 square feet for the entire footage of the
building,however, 3250 square feet is the down range footage beyond the indicated firing
lure,which the principle function for this space is to be designated line of fire and
entrapment of ammunition fired and will clearly not be used for customer or employee
occupancy. Calculating the exclusion of this area from the total square footage of the
building,a remainder of 1250 square feet will actually be occupied by the public and
employees. In calculating one parking space for every 300 square foot, similar to athletic,
health club, gymnastics, fitness centers and tarming centers; of 1250 square feet,a total of
four parking spaces would be needed to accommodate sufficient parking.
7. UTILITY RANGE NOISE ATTENUATION
Refer to schematic drawing#13-1703
8. LOCATION OF RECYCLING/REFUSE ENCLOSURE
Due to the lack of exterior site area availability, it is proposed that the recyclingtrefuse
enclosure be located behind the roll up door, as shown on the proposed floor plan. From
15 years of experience,total refuse has not exceeded the capacity of one 33 gallon trash
container, due to the fact that the majority of materials thrown out is recycled In addition,
the enclosure location will provide easy access for disposal pick up.
11-/3
Based upon 14 years of experience;the statistics have shown the peak operating hours are
from Monday to Friday from the hours of 7pm to Spm. Employment will initially consist
of a staff of two individuals; appointing the owner/proprietor to maintain range operations
and the owner/proprietors spouse to maintain business operations.
E. NEED FOR FACILITY
The Range Master Indoor Shooting Range will provide a convenient place for the public to
use firearms and archery equipment in a safe,highly controlled atmosphere. It will provide
a facility where people can learn correct handling procedures and practice their
marksmanship. This facility will also provide a close convenient location the security
companies and local police departments to use for their monthly qualifying. Surveys
show that many of these individuals have to travel as far a Bakersfield, California, because
of limited availability for adequate ranges. In addition,the city of Paso Robles
currently has allowed use regulation by zone prepared specifically for an indoor shooting
range and has openly shown favorable interest in accommodating such a facility.
F. BACKGROUND
ROBERT L FISHER JR, 15 years experience in all operations of indoor shooting
ranges. In 1981,personally constructed layout and installation of the Riverside Inland
Shooting Gallery in Riverside, California; consisting of a 75'x 75'range. In I987,the
installation of the San Bernardino Magnum Range in San Bernardino, California;
consisting of a 45'x 120'range of firearms and archery,as well as operation of a
commercial ammunition reloading factory, selling to wholesale, retail,law enforcement
and other commercial shooting ranges. In 1993,the constructing of the Rancho
Cucamonga Magnum Range in Rancho Cucamonga, California. All phases self
manufactures. In 1995,purchased and removed entire range assembly of the Ontario
Indoor Shooting Range in Ontario, California; as well as restoring building to original
industrial warehouse facility. Presently planning to begin a new indoor range project as
sole proprietor,with a 75'x 75' range.
G. QUALIFICATIONS
Certified firearms instructor by the following:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Departrnent of Consumer Affairs Security Instructor
Department of Fish and Game Hurrter Safety Instructor
Department of Justice BFSC Firearms Instructor
BFSC Certified Firearms Course(personally designed and instructed)
Department of Justice Certificate of Eligibility
McNAMARA REALTY, INC.
RESIDENTIAL • COMMERCIAL • RANCHES • PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
REALTOR
April 02, 1996
Ron Whisenand
Department of Community Development
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Re: Proposed Administrated Use Permit filed by Robert Fisher
Dear Ron,
This is a follow up to the addition information request by your office for the
proposed indoor shooting facility at 161 High Street, San Luis Obispo.
A. Permitted uses in other California cites Landuse Plans for indoor shooting
facilities.
1. City of Paso Robles: C-3 Zone, Commercial Light Industrial
M Zone, Industrial.
2. City of Escondido: C-G Zone, Commercial General
C-T Zone, Commercial Tourist
3. City of San Diego: C-A Zone, Commercial Aerial Shopping Center,
C-L-N Zone, Commercial Linear Neighborhood
4. City of EI Cajon: C-2 Zone, Highway Commercial, except downtown
C-R Zone, Commercial Retail, except downtown
C-M Zone, Heavy Commercial Light Industrial
M Zone, Industrial
5. Inland Empire: Cities of Riverside, Rancho Cucamongo, & San
Bernardino: Commercial & Industrial Zoning, due to
the lower rents in the surplus of Industrial space, all of
current indoor facilities are operating in the industrial
zones.
390 Higuera Street 9 San Luis Obispo, California 93401 • (805) 543-7777 �`�
McNAMARA REALTY, INC.
RESIDENTIAL • COMMERCIAL • RANCHES • PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
REALTOR
B. Noise Levels: The proposed indoor shooting facility will incorporate
a self-contained firing area to control the noise level.
This will feature a series of acoustic baffles to
suppress the noise. Testing exterior noise at other.
ranges showed the noise level did not exceed 76 dB
on "A" & "C" weighting, (actual test results ranged
between 72 dB to 76 dB). Normal conversion is at
about 74 dB.
C. Licences
& Certifications: The following licences and certifications are require
for gun stores and indoor shooting facility with retail:
1. Federal: Federal Firearm Licence
2. State: Department of Justice: Certificate
of Eligibility.
3. Local: Business License
D. Retail Sales: The business plans to retail ammunition, targets,
archery equipment, firearms, firearms accessories,
police & security equipment and personal protection
products.
If you have any questions or additions comments, please don't hesitate to
contact me.
Sincerely,
II 6" ' teititl��
Mike McNamara
cc: Luis Zabala
390 Higuera Street • San Luis Obispo, California 93401 • (805) 543-7777 /�
cityof Sara lues osIspo
PROjuCT REVIEW
Department of bommunity Development • 990 Pall 'Street !.. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 • (805)'781-7170
Please review this project and return two copies 44his form with your comments prior to the date specified.
Applicant Robert L. Fisher Jr. Day Phone 805-542-2105
Applicant's Address 390 Higuera , San' Luis Obispo CA 93401
Representative(ifany)Mi �haa1 Mc-Namara Day Phone 805-543-7777'
Representative's Address Same as above
Property Owner(If other than applicant) . . I-IA.r 1.
.0 Day Phone 408-753-1234
Owner's Address 550 Hartnell, Suite G, Montexoy, CA y3940
Please indicate if all correspondence is to be sent to 0 the applicant IR the representative ❑ the property owner. ❑
What do you want to do?What is your final goat? I would like to obtain an approved use permit on
the first application . My final goal is to open an Indoor Shooting Range..:;
Project Address High Street, San Luis Obispo, CA
Name of tract,development or business Beacon Electric Supply-(prior tenant)
Legal Description: Lot 2 Block' 152 Tract : Harfords Addition <; %hi
Assessor's'Parcel Number 003-721-004 � ;, r Prero zoX ':F! l ercial Service - i
i This I have reviewed this com- PROPERTY OWNERIAUTHORIZE A ENT: I have?read this
pleted application and the attached material.The information pro. completed a phi atio nse ifs
vided is,accurate. I and tand the city might not approve what I'm �VW
applyi _ itAt conditions of approval.
-- � So
Date j Sia Da
-"CHECK REVIEW APPLICATION NO. FEE PAID V ROUTING Sent Rec'd Sent Rec'd
��f4ezoniNg/PD Public Services Z X ❑ Building Reg. StGJ ❑
n Use Permit J Engineering ❑ ❑ Current Planning ❑ Cl
❑ Variance Utilities ❑ ❑ Advance Planning ❑ ❑
_❑ ARC Review St.Trees(Pk. Fmn.) ❑ ❑ City Attorney ❑ ❑
❑ Env. Review Fire Department ,� ❑ Poi ice Department ❑
❑ Std. Subdivision Parks&Recreation ❑ °�;O Other ❑ ❑
❑ Minor Subdiv.
C Other Prior applications on this site
Fee paid by XL.; Applicant ❑ Representative ❑ Property Owner. •
Project Team Planner + '\r �l . [ Date this application certified complete
Tentative Hearing Dates r+ J _ �r S C r EIR Determination: ❑ Cat.Ex. [3Neg.Dec. E3EIR Req'd Date
RETURN W C NTS BY:
FROM: DA
Not to file RESO�JRCE DEFICIENCY CERTIFICATION:
his project can be adequately accommodated without
' !.overloading the city's faVVMra%d r p -J&9W�f>8�3 Code AO
/ Chapter 244) FLAN APPL FEEM29.Ot
' ❑ This project cannot be accommodated because of utility defi-
:'.,"`' cie s plained here or attached.(Municipal Code C p.2.44)
J Sig Date
UR COMMENTS:Keep ordinance requirements separate from secom-
� tions- additional swede
7487
Application received Date � L't,crc-
MEMORANDUM
TO: WHITNEY McILVAINE, C.D.D.
FROM: Captain Bart Topham
DATE: April 12, 1996
SUBJECT: USE PERMIT REQUEST A39 -96
BASED ON THE MATERIALS FORWARDED TO US, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT
APPROVES CONDITIONAL TO THE FOLLOWING:
1) NO FIREARMS NOISES MAY BE HEARD FROM THE EXTERIOR OF THE
BUILDING.
2) THE APPLICANT MUST FIRST PROVIDE A DETAILED SECURITY PLAN
FOR THE SAFETY OF ANY FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION ON PREMISES.
3) APPLICANT MUST COMPLY WITH ALL STATE AND FEDERAL GUIDELINES
FOR INDOOR FIREARMS RANGE.
4) APPLICANT MUST PROVIDE A COPY OF ESTABLISHMENT SAFETY RULES.
5) . WE "RECOMMEND" THAT RANGEMASTER HAVE CURRENT FIRST AID
CERTIFICATION.
t
Draft
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
WEDNESDAY, MAY 81 1996
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The regular meeting of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
on Wednesday,May 8, 1996 in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners Pat Veesart, Janet Kouralds, Charles Senn, Mary Whittlesey, Paul
Ready, David Jeffrey, and Barry Karleskint.
Absent: None
Staff
Present: Associate Planner Whitney McIlvaine, Development Review Manager Ron
Whisenand, Assistant City Attorney Cindy Clemens, Community Development Senior
Administrative Secretary Mary Kopecky, Natural Resources Manager Neil Havlik,
and Principal Transportation Planner Terry Sanville.
ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA:
The agenda was accepted as presented.
ACCEPTANCE OF THE MINUTES:
The Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 10, 1996 were accepted as presented.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
No public comments were made.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. 161 High Street: A 39-96: Request to allow an indoor shooting range; C-S Zone;Robert
Fisher, applicant.
Draft
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
May 8, 1996
Page 2
Associate Planner McDvaine presented the staff report, which recommended that the use permit be
denied because the proposed site was immediately adjacent to residential zoning to the east and south.
General Plan policies state that residential areas should be separated from incompatible, nonresidential
activities.
Commissioner Kourakis stated she did speak with Mr. Fisher and viewed a video provided by him.
Commissioner Kourakis asked staff to comment on the parking standards.
Associate Planner McIlvaine stated that this use was determined to be most like an indoor athletic
facility for purposed of parking calculations. The parking requirement would be therefore one space
per 300 gross square feet of floor area,which would be roughly 15 spaces. In this case, the applicant
was suggesting excluding the firing lane area in the calculations.
Commissioner Jeffrey asked if Circulation Element Policy 6.2 was taken into consideration.
Associate Planner McIlvaine did not take the Circulation Element Policy 6.2 into consideration,
however, Transportation Planner Sanville could address this policy later in the meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Michael McNamara, McNamara Realty was representing Mr. Fisher and Luis Zabala (property
owner). Mr.McNamara reported that he and Mr. Fisher contacted the neighbors. They distributed
flyers inviting neighbors to visit the building for a tour. Prior to the meeting they circulated a petition
throughout the neighborhood. Mr. McNamara distributed the petition to the Commissioners. Both
Mr. McNamara and Mr. Fisher were sensitive to neighbors concerns. Mr. McNamara received a
letter from the property owner at 169 High St. (the property adjacent to the proposed shooting range)
indicating that the house was scheduled for removal. The owner at 169 High St. would be willing
to let Mr. Fisher and Mr. McNamara use the space for parking.
Mr. McNamara stated the proposed building at 161 High St. was perfect for the proposed use. When
entering the building there would be a staging area where customers would check in. Customers
would enter the range through a door from the staging area. The noise would be completely
contained within the building because the building would be fully insulated.
Mr. McNamara stated he was concerned about the lack of parking at the site. He indicated Mr.
Fisher no longer had plans to offer competition shooting or retail fire arms sales due to the neighbors
concerns about overflow parking. The main business focus would be training the general public,
private security and law enforcement.
Draft
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
May 8, 1996
Page 3
Mr. McNamara stated this was not the first shooting range in the City of San Luis Obispo. The first
shooting range was actually in the basement of the City Hall.
Mr. McNamara felt some people had reservations about shooting ranges due to the nature of the
business. Mr. McNamara and Mr. Fisher listened to the neighbors' concerns and had spoken with
them. He offered to answer any questions.
Commissioner Ready asked for Mr. McNamara's response to the conditions proposed by the Police
Captain.
Mr. McNamara said that Mr. Fisher would be discussing those conditions.
Robert Fisher, applicant, stated that he would comply with all the requirements of the police
department. He reported that he had 15-years experience in this industry. Approximately 80% of
his clientele were related to public and private sector law enforcement. He felt this business and the
clientele would benefit the neighborhood. He noted that there would soon be a law passed in
California which would allow private citizens to obtain concealed weapon permits. Mr. Fisher's
facility would accommodate marksmanship practice. Mr. Fisher offered to answer any questions.
Commissioner Veesart asked where facilities for qualifying security professionals were currently
located.
Mr. Fisher replied that there were facilities in Bakersfield. He indicated that currently an outdoor
range was also located on Highway One. However, the Environmental Protection Agency would be
cracking down on outdoor shooting ranges because the projectiles penetrate the ground and
contaminate the water table.
Development Review Manager Whisenand stated that the police department currently had an outdoor
range established.
Commissioner Veesart asked if the facilities at Camp San Luis or C.M.C. were available for law
enforcement use.
Mr. Fisher believed these facilities were used on a limited basis and not open to the public. Private
law enforcement was one of his biggest sources of income.
Mr. Fisher was certified in the State of California by the Department of Consumer Affairs as a
Security Instructor,the Department of Fish and Game as a Hunter Safety Instructor; Department of
Justice as a BFSC Firearms Instructor; BFSC Certified Firearms Course; Department of Justice
Certificate of Eligibility; National Rifle Association basic firearms safety, home firearms safety
Draft
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
May 8, 1996
Page 4
personal protection, law enforcement, and security guard instruction. He had attended the Offshoots
Training Institute, Glock Incorporated, and the Springfield Armory.
Regarding noise attenuation, Mr. Fisher noted that this facility would incorporate the most modem
equipment available. It would have three times its rated capacity relative to projectiles going through
the facility. During his 15 years of experience in Southern California, he had never seen any physical
injuries or mishaps.
Mr. Fisher stated that the business was proposed to be open from 11:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., seven days
per week. The peak hours of operation for this business would usually be between 2:00 p.m. and
5:00 P.M.
Mr. Fisher stated he had some statistics from the Department of Justice regarding firearms. He noted
that approximately 70%of the homes in California had some type of firearms and nearly 20% of them
have never been used. For this reason, he believed that the residential sector was in need of
professional training.
Mr. Fisher stated that when entering his facility, customers would be required to show positive
identification and would need to have law enforcement credentials or a firearms safety certificate.
His business would also provide training for obtaining these certificates. Mr. Fisher offered to answer
any questions.
Commissioner Kourakis asked how many stations were planned.
Mr. Fisher replied that there would be three firearms stations and one station for archery.
Commissioner Kourakis asked if the lengths of the stations were 24 feet.
Mr. Fisher replied that the stations were 24 feet long. He restated that his business would be used
mostly by security and law enforcement personnel. As customers used the facility, they would be
notified about parking. If business were to become prosperous, Mr. Fisher would recommend that
customers make reservations.
Commissioner Kourakis asked how many employees he planned to have.
Mr. Fisher stated there would be two employees--he and his wife.
Commissioner Kourakis felt there may be a parking problem.
Draft
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
May 8, 1996
Page 5
Mr. Fisher stated the house next door was going to be removed and he was planning to use the area
for parking. There was an alley behind the property and he was in the process acquiring part of it to
attain four tandem parking places.
Commissioner Whittlesey asked what was the average length of stay at this facility.
Mr. Fisher replied that the average stay was approximately 15 minutes.
Commissioner Whittlesey asked what other locations were reviewed by Mr. Fisher.
Mr. Fisher said he had seen many locations—Industrial Way, La Granada, etc. He noted that there
was a problem securing another building with the appropriate construction and the proper dimensions.
The building at the High Street location was desirable because it was insulated and had a safety
factor. W. Fisher descriW the safety mechanisms planned for the building. He noted that the safety
mechanisms would trap projectiles and prohibit them from exiting the building.
Commissioner Whittlesey felt this safety cladding could be added to another building.
Commissioner Whittlesey asked what type of guns would be used at this facility.
W. Fisher replied that handguns would be used.
Commissioner Jeffrey stated the 15 minute average stay seemed rather short.
Mr. Fisher stated a 15 minute stay would allow enough time for a person to fire 50 cartridges.
Instruction time, however, could extend up to an hour. Mr. Fisher also planned to do a great deal
of simulation.
Commissioner Jeffrey asked if the three firing range stations would turn over every 15 minutes.
Mr. Fisher stated that ranges usually operate at 25% capacity.
Commissioner Veesart asked Mr. Fisher to comment on competitions.
Mr.Fisher explained that competitions would only be possible if a van pool were utilized to minimize
on-site parking.
Commissioner Veesart asked Mr. Fisher if he was willing to refrain from the sales of firearms and gun
smithing.
��3
Draft
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
May 8, 1996
Page 6
Mr. Fisher said he did not desire to have retail sales on site. He preferred doing large-scale sales to
law enforcement agencies.
Commissioner Senn inquired about the size of the existing office.
Mr. McNamara stated it was 14 feet by 12 feet.
Barbara Brunson, 174 High St., stated she had lived on High St. with her family for 131/2 years. She
was surprised that she had not been personally contacted by Mr. Fisher because she spent most of
her time at home. She never had the chance to meet the applicants. She was concerned about the
increased traffic. Everyone who would drive into this facility would have to back out onto High St.
She felt Mr. Fisher would be able to adequately control the noise within the building. She noted that
her family had encouraged gun safety education for their children. She believed that the need for
public exposure and high profile proved that this facility seemed to be in the wrong location. She felt
that the steel reinforcement should be the main safety factor, not the block construction of the
building. Ms. Brunson stated that Mr. Fisher was incorrect in saying that most people in this
neighborhood were at work during the proposed hours of operation. Ms. Brunson stated many of
her neighbors were at home during the day and there were many children who played in the yards in
this area. Ms. Brunson displayed photos of the neighborhood to the Commission and staff. She
pointed out that there was also heavy foot traffic and many family activities in this neighborhood.
There were other compatible businesses located in this neighborhood. The residents had become
accustomed to living in a residential area. She felt the applicants still had many unresolved issues.
Commissioner Senn asked Ms. Brunson to comment on the former tenant at that site.
Ms. Brunson stated Beacon Electric was the former tenant. Their peak traffic hours were prior to
the typical morning and afternoon business rush hours. Beacon Electric did not cause traffic impacts
on High St. That company had a small clientele because they mostly made deliveries.
Commissioner Senn asked Ms. Brunson if she knew how many people were employed by Beacon
Electric.
Ms. Brunson said that she thought there were two or three employees. She explained that Beacon
Electric seemed to mesh well with the neighborhood.
Vicky Hernandez, 677 Branch St., said she was representing her mother (who could not attend
because she worked nights),Deborah Hernandez, who resided at 270 South St. Her mother had no
objection to an indoor shooting range, but felt this was not the proper area for this business. Mr.
Fisher had provided the Hernandez family with information regarding the safety precautions for the
range. The back wall of the shooting range was only two feet from the Hernandez's backyard.
'11-ay
Draft
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
May 8, 1996
Page 7
Children usually played in this area. The distance between the back of the building and the Hernandez
kitchen would be only 20 feet from the shooting range. A day school for the developmentally
disabled would be approximately 50 feet from this building. Ms. Hernandez was concerned that a
freak accident could happen. The Hernandez family wished Mr. Fisher well in his business venture,
but would like the business to be located in a more suitable location. The business did not have
adequate parking which would result in customers parldng along the streets. She was also concerned
about people going through the neighborhood carrying guns while en route to the shooting range.
Ms. Hernandez distributed photos of the building to the Commission and staff.
Larry Newman, 2077 Cypress, stated he was against this project. He felt this was an incompatible
use for the neighborhood. Mr. Newman noted that he was a member of the National Rifle
Association and was not opposed to the possession of firearms. In fact he would probably be a
patron of this business if it were located elsewhere. Mr. Newman noted that a bar was very close to
the proposed site. He believed that alcohol and firearms did not mix. He also noted that although
the proposed site was technically in the C-S zone, it bordered the R-1 zone. He felt that this business
could be located elsewhere in the City. Because there would be many children playing in the streets
of this neighborhood,Mr.Newman believed the increased traffic along with a shooting range in close
proximity to a bar would not be suitable for the neighborhood.
Georgia Withers,2020 Beebee St., Apt. A, asked which way the bullets would be headed when they
were fired.
Associate Planner, McIlvaine pointed out the direction on the overhead map.
Ms. Withers stated the bullets would be traveling toward the backyard where children would often
be playing. She asked for a guarantee that bullets would never pierce the wall of the shooting range.
She questioned the safety of the building. She felt the present location of this shooting range would
put the public safety in jeopardy. She noted that a qualifying range was located out on Highway One
where officers now shoot. She felt a firing range surrounded by a residential area was ludicrous.
Traffic and parlang situations in this area were already a concern. This range would create more in-
and-out traffic on this street. She was also concerned about the facility for the mentally handicapped
people located near the range.
Karen Becker, 2103 Cypress St., stated she had talked to people in her neighborhood and many were
home during the day. She was opposed to this facility. She did not received a flyer about the
proposed facility and neither did many of her neighbors. This facility should be located elsewhere,
perhaps out on Broad St. or in the airport area. It was not appropriate to have this facility in a
residential area. She was concerned about the safety in the neighborhood. She felt there had been
drug dealing in this neighborhood. There were many children and pedestrians in this area.
Draft
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
May 8, 1996
Page 8
Vicky Bryant, 2044 Beebee St., was concerned about the traffic. There already was heavy traffic in
this area. She was concerned about the safety of the children playing in the streets. The overflow
parking would cause a problem. She felt the lengths of stay for customers would be longer than 15
minutes. The range on Highway One was very popular. She had gone to target practice there and
her usual stay took an hour. This business would become popular and parking would be a problem.
People would be cutting through the streets and parking along the streets.
Commissioner Jeffrey asked Ms. Bryant to comment on the increase of rush-hour traffic in this
neighborhood.
Ms. Bryant felt the traffic had already increased in the afternoons and mornings. In the past she had
called the police to report speeding.
Commissioner Jeffrey asked if it was difficult to pull into the traffic on High St.
Ms. Bryant replied that it was difficult. She had several near misses. She also noted that cars parked
on High St. obstructed the view of driver's trying to turn onto that street.
Barbara Brunson, 174 High St., stated that recently a machine gun was accidentally discharged in
the parking lot of a City bank. She was concerned about guns being fired outside this facility.
John Machado, 172 High St., did not feel this location was appropriate. There was heavy pedestrian
and auto traffic on this street already. There were many children in this neighborhood. He felt Mr.
Fisher could find a better location for this business. Mr. Machado has lived in San Luis Obispo since
1937.
The public comment session was closed.
CONEVUSSIONERS' COMMENTS:
Commissioner Veesart stated it was obvious that Mr. Fisher was experienced in this profession and
was qualified to run this business. He felt W. Fisher had addressed many of the neighbor's and
Commission's concerns. However, Commissioner Veesart was troubled about the traffic and the
parking. The neighborhood was opposed to having this facility in their area. Commissioner Veesart
did not believe it would be right to make the residents live in fear. It was important to listen to the
people who were going to have to live with this project. Commissioner Veesart was opposed to this
project.
Draft
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
May 8, 1996
Page 9
Commissioner Veesart made a motion to deny the use permit for an indoor shooting range, based on
finding it inconsistent with the General Plan policies related to neighborhood conservation. The
motion was seconded by Commissioner Jeffrey.
Commissioner Kourakis stated she would like to hear staff respond to consistency with the General
Plan on High St.
Transportation Planner Sanville stated High St. was classified in the Circulation Element and the
General Plan as a residential collector street. The policy was referenced relative to establishing uses
based on locations that would encourage people to drive through residential areas. He felt it was a
mater of interpretation. This neighborhood was one of the seven areas identified by the Circulation
Element as warranting the preparation of a traffic management plan.
Commissioner Kourakis asked if this use would generate more traffic than Beacon Electric.
Transportation Planner Sanville stated this project had the potential to generate more traffic.
Commissioner Jeffrey noted that while walking this area, he did not notice another businesses in this
C-S zone that required its customers to back out of the parking area onto a residential collector
street.
Transportation Planner Sanville that stated he did not know when this particular building was
constructed. However,if this building were permitted today, it would be required to meet the design
standards relative to parking and access.
Commissioner Senn was sympathetic with Mr. Fisher's difficulty in trying to find a suitable location.
The available inventory for this use was miniscule. The land out by the airport was not zoned for a
firing range. He was sympathetic with the neighbors as well. He would be supporting the motion.
Chairman Karleskint concurred with the comments of the previous Commissioners.
Commissioner Whittlesey also agreed with the previous comments. She was concerned about the
location of this business and the proximity of the neighbors. She would be supporting the motion.
Commissioner Jeffrey felt this could be a good business for this City, but the Commission had a
greater responsibility to the residents of the City.
Commissioner Kourakis felt the insufficiency of parking was a large concern. She also had some
concerns about General Plan consistency.
�';27