BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE SB 517
Office of Senate Floor Analyses
1020 N Street, Suite 524
(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) 327-4478
.
THIRD READING
.
Bill No: SB 517
Author: Haynes (R)
Amended: 5/8/97
Vote: 21
.
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 5-1, 5/6/97
AYES: Calderon, Haynes, Leslie, Lockyer, Wright
NOES: Lee
NOT VOTING: Burton, O'Connell, Sher
.
SUBJECT : Nuisance: shooting ranges
SOURCE : National Rifle Association
.
DIGEST : This bill exempts a person who operates or uses
a sport shooting range from civil liability, criminal
prosecution or a nuisance action with respect to noise or
noise pollution if the person complies with the laws in
operation at the time the sport shooting range was approved
for use. This bill would also allow local public entities
to regulate sport shooting ranges at nighttime in certain
circumstances.
ANALYSIS : Shooting ranges throughout the state are used
by both law enforcement organizations for training and
practice and by private individuals for recreation. Many of
these ranges which were originally located in isolated
areas are now surrounded by urban development. As urban
development continues to grow around these ranges, the
shooting ranges have been subject to complaints from their
urban neighbors concerning noise pollution and safety
concerns. Several shooting ranges around the state have
already closed due to conflicts with neighbors concerning
noise.
Existing law defines a nuisance as anything which is
injurious to health, or is indecent or offensive to the
senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so
as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or
property. (Civil Code Section 3479.) A public nuisance is
defined as one which affects at the same time an entire
community or neighborhood, or any considerable number of
persons, although the extent of the annoyance or damage
inflicted upon individuals may be unequal. (Civil Code
Section 3480.)
Existing law allows any authorized public body or officer
to abate a public nuisance. (Civil Code Section 3494.)
Authorized public bodies include boards of supervisors and
cities. (Government Code Section 25845, 38773.5.)
Authorized officers include the Attorney General, district
attorneys, and city attorneys. ( California Oregon Power
Co. v. Superior Court (1956) 45 Cal.2d 858; Code of Civil
Procedure Section 731.)
Existing law allows a private person to bring a civil
action to enjoin a public nuisance, but only if the
nuisance specifically injures him or her in a manner
differently than it injures the community at large.
( Mangini vAero-General Corp . (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 1125)
Existing law also provides that nothing done or maintained
under the express authority of a statute can be deemed a
nuisance. (Civil Code Section 3482.)
This bill would:
1.Exempt a person who operates or uses a sport shooting
range from a nuisance action for noise or noise
pollution, and would prohibit a court enjoining the use
or operation of a range, if (1) the range is in
compliance with any noise control laws or ordinances that
applied to the range and its operation at the time of
construction; or (2) operation of the range was approved
by a local public entity having jurisdiction in the
matter. The immunity would also apply to any civil
liability action or criminal prosecution for noise or
noise pollution.
2.Provide that any state department or agency regulations
that limit outdoor levels of noise would not apply to a
sport shooting range exempted from liability under this
provision.
3.Prevent a property owner who is adversely affected by
sport shooting ranges from filing a nuisance action
regarding noise or noise pollution to restrain, enjoin,
or impede the use of the range where there has been a
substantial change in the nature of the use of the range.
4.Would preempt local governments from enacting new or
changing old noise ordinances regarding sport shooting
ranges, if the operation of the sport shooting range was
not in violation of existing law.
5.Allow local public entities to require that noise levels
at the nearest residential property line to the range
cannot exceed 75 decibels at nighttime. Nighttime is
defined by this bill as between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. In
addition, local public entities would be allowed to
require sport shooting ranges to use trees, shrubs or
barriers, when reasonable and appropriate, to mitigate
noise generated by nighttime shooting.
This bill would not apply to a range in existence prior to
January 1, 1998, that is operated for law enforcement
training purposes by a county of the sixth class (counties
with a population between 700,00 and 1,000,000) if the
range is located without the boundaries of that county and
within the boundaries of another county. Enforcement of
the proposed law for these counties would take place on
July 1, 1999.
Prior Legislation:
SB 2069 (Haynes) of 1996, passed the Senate 37-0, 8/20/96
and was vetoed by the Governor.
In his veto message of SB 2069 the Governor stated that:
"This bill would provide that a person who operates or
uses a shooting range in this state shall not be
subject to civil liability or criminal prosecution in
any matter relating to noise or noise pollution
resulting from the operation or use of the range if the
range is in compliance with noise control laws or
ordinances that applied to the range at the time of its
construction, if any, or the range was approved by a
local entity having jurisdiction.
"SB 2069 is a "grandfather" clause which would permit
shooting ranges to continue to operate even if they no
longer comply with newly established noise ordinances.
The statutory exemption contemplated by this bill would
frustrate local governments as well as private
landowners seeking peace, and quiet and enjoyment on
adjacent lands. This is not done without purpose of
course. Gun ranges are of vital importance to both
sporting and law enforcement groups. Finding adequate
sites for outdoor ranges in an increasingly urbanized
California, is difficult. When outdoor ranges close,
they are often not replaced.
"I would be willing to sign a bill much like SB 2069
in order to help preserve existing ranges if it
included some standard under which range owners could
be required to attempt to mitigate noise or constrain
nighttime operation."
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 5/8/97)
National Rifle Association (source)
California Police Chief's Association
California Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc.
California Waterfowl Association
Gun Owners of California
San Gabriel Valley Gun Club
Sports and Arms Show Producers of America
Placer County Sheriff
Fresno County Sheriff
Santa Barbara County Sheriff
City of Fremont Police Department
El Dorado County Sheriff
City of Coalinga, Chief of Police
Butte County Sheriff
Clearlake Police Department
City of Waterford, City of Palm Springs, Chief of Police
Benecia Police Department
City of Fullerton, Police Department
City of Foster City, Chief of Police
City of Auburn, Police Department
City of Atwater, Chief of Police
City of Oxnard, Police Department
Scotts Valley Police Department
City of Redondo Beach, Police Department
City of Santa Cruz, Chief of Police
Riverside County Sheriff
County of Contra Costa, Office of the Sheriff
Santa Barbara Sheriff's Department
Sacramento County Sheriff's Department
California Police Chiefs Association, Inc.
City of Vacaville, Chief of Police
Yolo Sportsmen's Association
OPPOSITION : (Verified 5/8/97)
League of California Cities
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The sponsor states that SB 517 is
needed because urban sprawl and the resultant noise
complaints are threatening ranges throughout California. As
way of background, the sponsor cites an article from the
Los Angeles Times entitled, "Critics Target Police Gun
Range," which appeared on February 14, 1996. The article
concerns a Pasadena Police Department shooting range that
has been located in a remote canyon for the past 50 years,
but recently has come under fire from nearby property
owners and hikers for noise and safety reasons. While no
action has been taken regarding this facility the sponsor
believes it is only a matter of time before nuisance
actions against this and other ranges become more common.
In addition, the author's office contends that shooting
ranges, such as the one noted above, should not be subject
to nuisance actions. They believe that anyone buying a
home near a shooting range should be cognizant of its
operations and its noise. In addition, they maintain that
many shooting ranges originated in rural, isolated areas,
and that people who bought homes or property near these
ranges likely obtained a discounted purchase price because
of its "undesirable location."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The League of California Cities
argues that SB 517 is a slap at local land use authority.
They contend that SB 517 would prohibit local governments
from abating noise nuisances emanating from sport shooting
ranges. They also maintain that SB 517 would shield
operators of shooting ranges from local control, land use
regulation, nuisance actions, and changing community
circumstances.
The League of California Cities further contends that local
control of land use to protect a community from noise,
nuisance, and other impacts associated with shooting ranges
is important because it is the local community that has the
best understanding of local issues. The compatibility or
incompatibility of a shooting range with a new residential
subdivision is an issue to be decided based on lot size,
density, topography, development standards and a myriad of
other factors that can be assessed only at the local level.
This bill would gut a city of its local authority to
determine land use and zoning in order to allow for the
protection of these shooting ranges.
RJG:nf 5/8/97 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****