Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM020518S - to include Hearing Comment(s) re: Moratorium Ordinance on Commercial Shooting Facilitieso� c0Mfss 4 ON coGfp� 0 4 J, JS ING District No. 1 Commissioner: Kate Dean District No. 2 Commissioner: David W. Sullivan District No. 3 Commissioner: Kathleen Kier County Administrator: Philip Morley Clerk of the Board: Erin Lundgren SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES of February 5, 2018 Chair David Sullivan called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. in the presence of Commissioner Kathleen Kler and Commissioner Kate Dean in the Jefferson County Superior Courtroom located in the Jefferson County Courthouse. HEARING re: Ordinance No. 05-1218-17 Establishing a Moratorium on Commercial Shooting Facilities in Unincorporated Areas of Jefferson County: Chair Sullivan stated the hearing is to allow for testimony on Ordinance No. 05-1218-17 which was approved on December 18, 2017, which established a temporary Moratorium on Commercial Shooting Facilities in Unincorporated areas of Jefferson County, as allowed by state law, provided a hearing is held within 60 days. Chair Sullivan stated that following the hearing, the Board could choose to leave the moratorium in place as is, make revisions, or repeal it. County Administrator Philip Morley explained that the moratorium can be up to one year, to allow time for the County to modify existing commercial shooting facilities, and also for siting new commercial shooting facilities. The temporary moratorium effects new permit applications, processing and approvals. During the moratorium, those cannot move forward. He added that the moratorium is authorized by Washington State's Planning and Enabling Act, and the Growth Management Act. The moratorium temporarily freezes the playing field while allowing the legislative process to go forward, so that those regulations, once adopted, can apply to new applications. County Administrator Morley stated that the primary reason for the ordinance was in the interest of public safety, to provide a safe place for the public and law enforcement to shoot. He added that the County wants to ensure that commercial shooting facilities have a viable place in this community for the long-term. They need to be compatible with other land uses near them. Jefferson County has had about a 10% increase in population over the past 10 years, making the County not as rural as it used to be. He mentioned an incident where someone thought bullets from the Jefferson County Sportsmen's Association (JCSA) struck a residence. The incident was investigated and it was determined that the damage was not caused by the JCSA. Even though the incident was unfounded, he stated that it raised safety concerns with the community. The Commissioners have found that commercial shooting facilities do serve a public interest by providing a safe, well -regulated place for people to shoot, rather than shooting in the woods, putting people in danger and spoiling our environment. The moratorium establishes a one year work program that will assess the impacts of all existing and future commercial shooting facilities, public safety, to insure they are environmentally sound and to make sure they are compatible with neighboring land uses. Having identified those kinds of impacts, what are reasonable measures for addressing and minimizing those impacts? Can we put regulations in place that help address those issues to make those facilities continue to be good neighbors? Page 1 Commissioners Special Meeting Minutes of February 5, 2018 The ordinance calls for a nine -member review committee which will include a resident or property owner from each of the three Commissioner Districts, representative of the current commercial shooting facility, representative of tribal interests, one at -large county resident or property owner, Director of Community Development (DCD) or designee, Director of Environmental Health or designee, and the County Sheriff or his designee. The County will also hire a consultant to assist with the moratorium process. He encouraged members of the audience to apply for one of the positions and explained how to submit their application. There is a one-year deadline to complete the work on the moratorium which includes; completing the study of impacts and to identify reasonable measures to mitigate those impacts, and to present draft regulations for adoption as a new ordinance to be adopted by the County Commissioners. Once those things have taken place, the moratorium will end and the new regulations would then apply to any new applications that may come through the door, either from an existing shooting facility, or another one. Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney (DPA) Philip Hunsucker reviewed the authority which allows for the moratorium. He stated that Kitsap County finished a process of approving a commercial shooting range ordinance that has been held to be constitutional and also complies with the state statutes. After Chair Sullivan reviewed the procedures for the public hearing, he opened the hearing for public testimony. Michelle Farfan, Jefferson County: She stated she works for the Department of Community Development (DCD). She read from a statement she submitted. (See hearing record) Pascale Sanok, Chimacum: She read from a statement she submitted. (See hearing record) Rick Doherty, Port Townsend: He stated that most of his questions were answered by the presentation. He grew up in rural Maine where everyone hunts. He is not against hunting or proper use of firearms, however, that does need some education. He had two nephews killed by guns being left around the home. It is very important that whatever institution is enabled, is doing adequate training for safety. He intends to live here the rest of his life and he applauds what the County has done and is doing. It is a sound and fair approach to everybody involved in terms of your decision. Peter Bahls, Port Townsend: He stated he is the Director of the Northwest Watershed Institute (NWI). Since 2002, the NWI has been working to protect and restore the Tarboo watershed, from the headwaters of Tarboo Creek to Dabob Bay. It is an area that has been recognized at the County, state and federal level for the significance of its habitat and conservation value. Over the past 16 years, NWI, 40 partnering organizations and hundreds of landowners and citizens have worked to permanently conserve 3,000 acres of fish and wildlife habitat, forest and farmland and have restored 600 acres of streams, wetlands and marine shorelines, which is an investment of $30 Million dollars in private, County, state and federal funding. Jefferson County's Conservation Futures program alone as allocated over $1.8 Million dollars in County and outside matching funds for 8 projects to conserve working lands in the Tarboo watershed. Their hope is that their efforts will help sustain the environment and economy. The shellfish industry is utterly dependent on clean water and healthy shellfish habitat, and is the largest employer in south Jefferson County. This investment in conservation, by many organizations, businesses and individuals is directly threatened by the proposal by Security Services Northwest for a private Page 2 Commissioners Special Meeting Minutes of February 5, 2018 weapons training compound at the headwaters of Tarboo Creek. This private facility would include seven firing ranges for automatic and other weapons, two helicopter pads, and assorted support buildings on 40 acres adjacent to Tarboo Lake. Gunfire from the proposed project would degrade public recreational use of Tarboo Lake, impact public and Treaty -reserved hunting opportunities on surrounding forest lands, risk contamination of soil and water with lead and other explosive -related contaminants, and degrade property values of rural residential landowners. This proposal is simply incompatible with surrounding land uses and undermines the public's decades -long conservation effort here. NWI supports the one-year moratorium on shooting ranges as an opportunity for the County to develop clear, strong codes and criteria for locating shooting ranges in appropriate areas. At this point in the town hall participation, I would like to ask for some audience participation. Please raise your hands if you support SSNW's proposal for a private weapons training compound at Tarboo Lake. Please raise your hands if you oppose the private weapons training compound at Tarboo Lake. Please stand up if you support the one-year moratorium on new shooting ranges. Someone in the audience asked "How do we not stand if we're against the wall?" He thanked the Commissioners for standing up for the public interest in Jefferson County by adopting the shooting range moratorium. Judith Rubin, Port Townsend: She stated that she is a founding member of the NWI and she is also the Director of the Stewardship and public involvement and is speaking on behalf of the Board of Directors of NWI. She read from a letter from NWI's attorney Paul Kampmeier which was submitted. (See hearing record) Janet Welch: She thanked the Commissioners for enacting the moratorium and stated she is not as quite as sharp on development regulations as she used to be. In her search, she has been unable to find any guiding principles that the County would be able to use to properly process this application. All she could find in the Unified Development Code (UDC) was the section on outdoor shooting ranges, which was under the heading of Small Scale Recreation and Tourist Facilities. She does not believe there is a category called Commercial Shooting Facilities in the UDC. If the ordinance is only about commercial shooting facilities, and will not address private shooting facilities, is this ordinance comprehensive enough? Do you need to have the ordinance be more comprehensive? At the end of this moratorium process, there will be new regulations that at that point, any new application would be subject to those new regulations. Will vested applications fall under this? The current application may be subject to the moratorium, but would it be vested and not have to apply under the new regulations? She would like clarification that this would encompass enough for the County to do the job it would like to do. It is important that the new regulations speak both to the usage and to scale. She has concerns when it comes to commercial activities being in the appropriate scale. Sometimes an activity may be appropriate for one scale, but inappropriate in another scale and the ordinance needs to cover both use and scale. Keith Rasmussen, Chimacum: He stated he lives within a two-mile radius of the proposed project. As a lifetime hunter and gun owner, he knows that he is well within the range of being affected by the project. He thanked the Commissioners for coming up with this creative way to slow down the process and think about the approach to these kinds of projects with the moratorium. As a resident who is a little bit removed from the proposed property, like many of his neighbors, their primary concern is noise. If he lived right next door to the proposed property, he would be more concerned with flying bullets, impact on wildlife and the development in general. As a developer himself, he knows that the County does a great job of being very careful with impacts on adjacent properties from any activities that go on such as septic and groundwater. They are very tightly monitored to good effect. Noise is one of the factors and Page 3 Commissioners Special Meeting Minutes of February 5, 2018 odor is another one. Noise is a huge factor that is treated differently, even though it greatly impacts neighbors. He did a quick look at the noise ordinance that specifically exempts lawful discharge of firearms. Do we want to address that directly at some point? We do very fine grain regulations on other impacts and maybe that is a possibility in the future. He is not sure if we would be precluded by any state impacts and maybe that is a possibility in the future. He is not sure if we would be precluded by state law or other impacts. It certainly seems that counties have gone to regulations that are more fine- grained that can define what is objectionable, while still allowing people to hunt and target practice, but perhaps on not such a scale that reduces property values and destroys family peace. Pat Stroble, Quilcene: He read from a statement he submitted. (See hearing record) John Austin, Port Townsend: He read from a statement he submitted. (See hearing record) John Hamilton, Port Townsend: He read from a statement he submitted. (See hearing record) John Ebner, Port Townsend: He stated his request is a little unusual. While he does agree fundamentally with the concept of a moratorium in certain instances, he asks that the Commissioners repeal the current Ordinance No. 05-1218-17 which establishes a moratorium for existing and new commercial shooting facilities and creates a new citizen review committee that develops regulations. In addition to the regulations we already have. The moratorium is unnecessarily time-consuming for the Commissioners since there are numerous regulations already in place that address construction, environmental issues, health issues and at least eight references in the County Code to this particular enterprise. The educational pursuits, recreational interests, if they are in accordance with the current regulations, and the applicant does not comply with that process, and with those regulations already in place, no permit. No big deal. If he's not in compliance with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act (WISHA), state law, at least eight ordinances with the County Code, if he does not comply with several regulations, no permit. The National Rifle Association (NRA), the USSA a lot of national organizations have standards already, that many regulations refer to as standard business practice. They are available and already out there. We do not need to go ahead with the moratorium that seems to be directed at one particular individual in his pursuit to establish a lawful business in a legal manner. If he doesn't comply with current regulations and statutes, no permit. Duh. The processes that we have already in place address that issue. Noah Frisch, Chimacum: He played audio of nature and gunfire noises. Larry Dennison, Port Townsend: He stated that the proposed moratorium is appropriate. All we need to do is look at the last year or so of complaints against the existing gun range. That gun range has probably been around for a half century, and he has been around for 43 years, and he never found that it bothered him until a few years ago. There is a lot more activity out there. Obviously, a lot more people have moved into that area. He agrees that if you moved into an area where there is a gun range, then you need to be aware its likely to be loud. Conversely, he agrees with whoever stated that if you want to locate a gun range in a residential area, then the bar needs to be a little higher. We should have learned a lesson with our current gun range, that over time, that little gun range has changed quite a lot. It is appropriate to have a moratorium and it is certainly appropriate to spend some time on what we learned with the gun range we currently have. Page 4 Commissioners Special Meeting Minutes of February 5, 2018 Joel Kawahara, Quilcene: He stated he supports the moratorium. The planned gun range is incompatible with the rural character of the South County. One impact that is important to consider during the planning stage is the development of several small farms on that end of the County such as the Midori, Bolton and Serendipity farms. If there is shooting and helicopters flying around, it will be difficult for them to pursue their agro-tourism business plans. There is an incompatibility there. He is concerned and he hopes the planning board looks at water usage, large amounts of groundwater being taken from Tarboo Creek may impact salmon. He stated he will submit a written comment. Patrick Sullivan, Port Townsend: He stated he represents Fort Discovery in opposition to the emergency moratorium. Jefferson County Code is specific where commercial shooting ranges can be located, which is forest land. Commercial, rural and/or in -holding. The County got it right in making this designation. In -holding forest parcels are the best choice within the allowed zoning because it represents the most isolated of all parcels, surrounded by forest land so that residential encroachment is unlikely. County Code specifies that the well-established Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process be used to decide the details, and that is what Fort Discovery expected to happen. County officials, including Commissioners past and present have encouraged Mr. D'Amico to relocate his shooting range in a more isolated location. There are only a handful of in -holding forest land properties in east Jefferson County, and some of them are closer to the Dabob Valley floor. Mr. D'Amico did acquire such property and started the permit process with County staff, who acknowledged under the current process and code that he could pursue this. Then the Board of County Commissioners came up with a surprise moratorium to delay the process. One thing about the emergency moratorium that their company supports, is they recognize the County needs to protect and preserve existing and new shooting facilities. A lot of the details that come up tonight will be worked out in the CUP process. State RCW exempts the legal discharge of firearms as a noise issue and County ordinance reflects that. County ordinance cannot overrule state law. Tom Thiersch, Jefferson County: He supports what the Commission has done regarding enacting this moratorium, but believes it may be a little late. He stated it should have been done around the same time the Noise Ordinance was being created, because it was an issue that was brought up around that time, but better late than never. The ordinance establishes a good, reasonable one-year period in which to carefully study the issue, craft necessary legislation and to fill the gap in the County Code, which does not address commercial shooting ranges whatsoever. The only reference is to small recreational facilities. The Sportsmens' Club is certainly not small, not recreational. The other proposed area in the County is also likely not small or recreational in nature. Good work, keep going, thank you. Tami Pokorny, Quilcene: She stated she lives 1.5 miles from Tarboo Lake, and she is speaking as a private citizen. She thanked the Board for the opportunity to show her appreciation for the moratorium and to express herself and her first amendment rights. Her farm raises livestock, not in great numbers, but they have been doing so since 2006. She read from a portion of the EPA's best practices for lead and outdoor shooting ranges where it is estimated that since the late 1990's, 80,000 tons of lead per year is made into bullets and shot. It is clear that "much of this 160 Million pounds of lead shots and bullets per year finds its way into the environment at ranges." She stated she will submit comments regarding lead and wildlife. She requested that Section 2.1 be amended, and that the review committee consider and specifically address the possible consequences of explosives that don't meet the definition of "gun" and whether the use of any exploding material or device outside the barrel of a gun would be appropriate to any gun range in Jefferson County and if so, evaluate the potential impacts to wildlife and people from Page 5 Commissioners Special Meeting Minutes of February 5, 2018 the materials themselves, as well as the shattering and dispersal of any containing object or material, which may themselves pose risks. An idea, given that this is 2018 and there is so much conversation about artificial intelligence and the progress of technology, there may be opportunities to create virtual reality ranges. Those who enjoy this activity, can wear headphones and hear this activity at the volume of their choice. Only real bullets to be utilized on rare occasions when absolutely necessary. Diane Johnson, Quilcene: She read from a statement she submitted. (See hearing testimony) Riley Parker, Quilcene: He read from a statement he submitted. (See hearing testimony) Greg Overstreet, Sequim: He stated he is general counsel for Fort Discovery and he clarified that it is Fort Discovery that has made the application, not Security Services Northwest (SSNW). He is speaking against the moratorium for 2 reasons, a legal reason and a practical reason. He stated they are vested, and this ordinance is unconstitutional. The County reflects there are flaws in the ordinance. He stated there are good things about the ordinance, which includes an acknowledgment that there needs to be a shooting range or shooting ranges, and there is a reason for this. That reason is the 2017 case Ezelle vs. The City of Chicago, from the Seventh Circuit, which is one step below the Supreme Court. The City of Chicago passed a variety of zoning restrictions on shooting ranges that meant you pretty much could not have a shooting range in the City of Chicago. There was a 2.2% of the City of Chicago that was theoretically available for a shooting range. The Seventh Circuit stated that was unconstitutional. Why? It wasn't about land use and environmental things, it was about the Second Amendment. He quoted from a document titled 846 F.3d 888 at 892. "The core individual right of armed defense includes the corresponding right to acquire and maintain proficiency in firearm use through target practice at a range. The core right to possess firearms for protections wouldn't mean much without the training and practice that make it effective." That is why there needs to be a balance and a shooting range. If only allowing a shooting range in 2.2% of a place is unconstitutional, that would mean that a moratorium on new ones, would also be unconstitutional. The footprint of the Jefferson County Sportsmens' Club is far less than 2.2% of a giant county like Jefferson County. Many people have been talking about how much noise gun ranges have and how they need to be far far away. There is one in the middle of Port Townsend, no one seems to be concerned about that. Look at a map, look at in -holding parcels. This proposed facility is about as far away from population you could possibly have and still be in Jefferson County. It is the perfect place for a gun range. Thank you. Leigh Hearon, Quilcene: She read from a statement she submitted. (See hearing record) Chris Sanok, Chimacum: He read from a statement he submitted. (See hearing record) Heather Mac Vane, Chimacum: She stated she lives in a house in Chimacum that her husband built. They decided to live there because it was so beautiful. She has a two year old daughter who she is teaching to be a good citizen. This is really a question of pollution and containment. If they can contain the noise and the lead... She is not against guns and hopes we can all be good citizens and take care of each other. Alex Sidles, Seattle: He stated he is a lawyer from Seattle representing the Tarboo Ridge Coalition (TRC). He helped them draft their written comment which he hopes the Commissioners have seen. He stated the Commissioners heard that this County cannot regulate the noise from firearms and that the Page 6 Commissioners Special Meeting Minutes of February 5, 2018 Seventh Circuit case somehow precludes the regulations of gun ranges. Neither of those are true. This County can continue to regulate noise. We have a Noise Control Act (NCA) in this state that sets specific decibel levels from one property to another, and that is a matter of state law. In addition to that, local jurisdictions like Jefferson County can still set conditions and provisions to prevent developments' noise from bothering neighbors. That is not preempted by the NCA. This Board still has the power to consider the noise of gun ranges. The Seventh Circuit case involved a complete ban on gun ranges and that is not what this Board proposes, so we do not need to concern ourselves with that argument. He thanked Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Phil Hunsucker for pointing them to the Kitsap County ordinance. Kitsap County passed a gun range regulation that survived constitutional review, including that issue of the Seventh Circuit case. The Kitsap County regulation can be a good model for the Jefferson County regulation. The remarkable thing they did in Kitsap County was to impose an operating permit requirement on gun ranges. The way that works, the gun range has to keep its noise in check, have a plan for lead abatement, and has to be really careful about safety. If it ever fails one of those things like noise, safety or environmental impacts, then its operating permit is revoked. Enforcement can be such a difficult issue, even if you have a wonderful permitting requirement. If you have no enforcement, someone could sneak in a gun range that was apparently small and maybe make it bigger than what was advertised. The operating permit idea from Kitsap County would prevent that. If the County detects conditions of the operating permit are being violated, it can just revoke the permit. It is a very simple and straight -forward approach to the enforcement piece. Thank you. Mark Rose, Brinnon: He stated he supports the moratorium and the Commissioners have incredible support in the County. We are behind you. Thank you. He stated he is a landowner who believes in and understands the importance of property rights. What we do on our property affects others. Habitat does not respect boundary lines. Noise does not respect boundary lines. He supports the County looking into every degree of this proposal. The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) is very important, it specifies creeping and incrementalism. They are going to need to propose a whole gun range, not piece by piece. That is an important element in this. He asked County Administrator Philip Morley, who picks the volunteers for the review committee? County Administrator Morley replied that ultimately the Commissioners will. Mr. Rose asked if that was just arbitrary? What's the method? Chair Sullivan replied that they will not answer any questions tonight. Mr. Rose stated he is a big supporter of the Northwest Watershed Institute and echoes everything Peter Bahls stated. He thanked the Commissioners for the moratorium and asked to have it kept going. Jay Towne, Port Townsend: He stated he is in support of shooting ranges in Port Townsend and in Jefferson County. Jefferson County is a rural county and shooting ranges are a fact of rural life. They have been, they will be. Proposed in this venue is onerous layers of permitting and onerous layers of studies. The science of lead migration in shooting ranges is well established and would not take long for someone with an open mind to understand. What he sees here, by many in this venue, is an attempt to put so many layers of studies and permitting as to make ranges non-viable. It's a rather open -appearing thing. If you don't like shooting in your area, he suggests moving to Marin County, California, they don't have them there. Susan Freeman, Quilcene: She read from a statement she submitted. She also submitted petition signatures she gathered. (See hearing record) Page 7 Commissioners Special Meeting Minutes of February 5, 2018 Georgi Yount, Port Townsend: He stated the Kitsap ordinance is a great model to follow and should certainly speed up the process. He and Sheriff David Stanko believe that all commercial gun ranges should be inside soundproof buildings. If there is noise emitting onto our property, and there is no desire to have that noise there, then there is nothing in the second amendment that says that you cannot charge a fee for discharging that firearm. He proposed that all gun ranges be monitored audibly and that all rounds fired should be imposed a fee. He suggested the fee equal the amount of a noise complaint service and that fee should be imposed on the gun range. We have not had a community meeting on what Fort Discovery/Security Services Northwest's (SSNW) plans are. If they are planning third -party training and the use of helicopters, they are required to follow all the specifications of airspace, approaches and departures which would have a major impact in the Tarboo area. Thank you, and I appreciate your work. Scott Freeman, Quilcene: He stated his comments are towards the work plan for the review committee. He is in strong support of the moratorium and endorses the Commissioners' action. We have a national problem with revitalization of rural counties across this country. He sees Jefferson County as a county that is getting it right. It has been thrilling for the past 15-20 years that he has lived here, to see the number of small agro-businesses and working sustainable forests that have brought this county to national stature as a model. This moratorium is part of that effort. Shooting ranges and hunting are an integral part of our rural life, and getting it right is extremely important for the review committee and guidelines that are delivered to the Board a year from now. He had three points, but the public safety point has already been eloquently spoken. He asked that the review committee look carefully at any shooting ranges that would imperil working farms or forests. We can't have a productive rural economy if we keep losing productive land. Particularly in Jefferson County, it is important because of the public private partnerships that have undergone the last 10-15 years. There is a variety of sensitive natural areas, especially involving salmon streams that will be extremely important for county guidelines to consider. The Quimper Wildlife Corridor, Snow Creek, Chimacum Creek Watershed, Tarboo Creek Watershed, Tarboo Bay, Dabob Bay, are some of those areas. There is a lot of expertise in the County to draw on that the he would urge the review committee to contact such as the Jefferson Land Trust, the North Olympic Salmon Coalition and the Northwest Watershed Institute, among others. There is a lot of horsepower in this County to help the Board make decisions. Marilyn Showalter, Port Ludlow: She stated she supports the moratorium. Regarding noise issue, there has been a lot of back and forth already on whether or not the state preempts the County's entering in that area, and no it does not. The state has a default rule that the counties must follow, and that the Department of Ecology (DOE) promulgated. It says that a county can propose a different rule after its deliberations to the DOE, which then must approve it. Everyone should be clear that noise is totally a legitimate area for the County and the County work plan to be looking into. Other areas to look into is the effect of noise pollution on wildlife and farm animals, human beings and the economy. We live on the water, if any noise hits the water, it goes for miles. We hear gunfire fairly frequently and she doesn't even know where it comes from. Since she knows the neighborhood, the noise must be coming from at least a mile or two away. It is not just the decibel level, it is the repetitive or randomness of it. At first it is startling, then it is just annoying, then it can be enraging. It is a serious subject for people's psychology. The economy is just as important since it's important to all of us. When you think about Jefferson County and how important tourism is and various other activities that take place outdoors, they can easily be compromised by that kind of noise. She hopes that the moratorium and the committee uses its time to look into those subjects in a very thorough way. She believes the committee has the authority Page 8 Commissioners Special Meeting Minutes of February 5, 2018 to modify the state default rule on noise. The suggestion on high tech and silent practice was very good. If airline pilots can practice in virtual situations, gun owners can too. Nicole Fox, Port Townsend: She stated she owns a gun and has a concealed carry permit. She lives less than 1.5 miles from the proposed high intensity weapons training facility. She is not anti -gun. Any new gun range should involve the consideration of neighbors. Our County's less populated pockets are shrinking while the demand for them is growing. More and more people want to live where it is quiet. She moved to her property 13 years ago because of the unhurried and quiet character of the region. The historic character of the South County region where Tarboo Lake is strategically and centrally located, has been forestry, agriculture, conservation and rural residential development. Over the many decades, this consistent pattern of land use has resulted in hundreds of people like her to move to places like Eaglemount Road. She and her husband raise a two year old and eight year old sons there. We were here first. Living where they do, they hear gunshots, up to a couple times a week, sometimes for an hour. She does not hear automatic weapons or explosions, and not for hours on end every single day. The state exempts authorized gun ranges from gunfire noise limitations from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. What is that like to come home to? What is that like during dinner time and when you put your kids to bed? Would you feel like maybe you're not living in a rural residential neighborhood with all that commercial -grade noise? Who benefits if hundreds of families no longer want to live or visit an area where high-intensity, repeatedly explosive noises are exported at any time from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. seven days a week? One corporation benefits from the severe reduction of her quality of life, lowering of her property values and the questionable viability of her future in her home. She asked for those in the audience that support gun ranges, to support the moratorium. Everyone here wants continued viability for what each of them value dearly, and in that we have common cause. We all have to live with each other, and we all have a voice. Take the opportunity to get to know your neighbors and ask what promotes the most viability for the most people involved. Do not alienate your reasonable, thoughtful and enthusiastic neighbors. We all want sustainability and a good life in our communities, whether it be a place to shoot or a place to keep living. Justine Wagner, Sequim: She stated she represents Fort Discovery and is speaking in regards to safety as it was addressed in the moratorium. Fort Discovery has a 30 -year perfect track record of safety. There is no evidence of a stray round ever leaving any of the ranges at Fort Discovery. There is a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process in which they will address specific safety issues. Fort Discovery has consultants who will help them develop the best management practices to meet all appropriate health, safety and environmental guidelines. They have had the land surveyed and are aware of designated wetland areas and the lake, and they will not be disrupted. All setbacks will be adhered to and respected and addressed during the CUP process. The CUP will allow for superior siting of various small-scale recreation and educational activities onto a site that is relatively isolated. The property has in -holding forest zoning. The request Cedar Hills site is surrounded by CF80 Commercial Forest -zoned lands. Rural residential lands do not adjoin to the facility. The new Cedar Hills recreational facility will be harmonious and appropriate for the new area in that residential and urban development is relatively absent. The requested CUP is inherently appropriate in design, character and appearance for the proximate and associate rural forest area that surrounds the site. The land meets all requirements laid by the County for a facility such as this. They intend to have a range master on duty at all times who will enforce safety regulations for the use of firearms. Educational courses will be available to prepare those for using the facility. If safety is something we are both concerned with, both for our safety and the environment, a facility such as this should be encouraged. We are there as an available facility within Page 9 Commissioners Special Meeting Minutes of February 5, 2018 reach for those in our community. A facility such as Cedar Hills in our area will limit dead-end roads becoming County shooting ranges, and help protect our citizens. Teri Hein, Quilcene: She read from a statement she submitted. (See hearing record) Fern Stroble, Quilcene: She read from a statement she submitted. (See hearing record) Patriciatricia Young,QuilceneQuilcene: She stated she is co-owner of Yaks in the Cradle Farm in Quilcene. She is known as the Yak Lady. When she was looking for a place to live, it was important for them to find a place that was peaceful and quiet because she lives with epilepsy. She has had epilepsy since she was 5 years old. Lack of sleep and stress are both triggers for her seizures and finding a place like Tarboo Valley is quintessential to her healing and recovery. Living with livestock, both the yak and the pygora goats has been an amazing experience. We have extended that to other individuals and work with veterans and animal -assisted therapy programs. They recently completed a 4-H program where they will be the 4-H County and State leads for Yak 4-H, which will be the first in state history. They will be offering programs where children can work with them on programs with the yak and pygora goats. She thanked the Commissioners for putting the moratorium together, it's really important to them and they appreciate the thoughtfulness put into it. Rob�JohnsonQuilceneQuilcene: She read from a statement she submitted. (See hearing record) Peter Newland, Quilcene: He thanked the Commissioners and staff and everyone who turned out for the hearing. This is a community conversation that is essential. The 1,200 signatures that were gathered in support of the moratorium represent 4% of the Jefferson County population, that is quite a few people that support the moratorium, as does the Tarboo Ridge Coalition (TRC). He read from a statement he submitted. (See hearing record) Tom Parks, Jefferson County: He stated that in the morning Commissioners' meeting, he gave a brief rundown of the effect of gunfire on the fire station on Jacob Miller Road, as well as the Humane Society. He promised the Commissioners a video of the daily use. He picked a Saturday a week ago. He played the video and stated it was at 90 decibels in his yard, and stated the video depicted what it was like every day. You were told 3,000 maximum rounds per day, not so, it's much more than that. Jennifer Scott, Sequim: She stated she is a Corporate Officer for Fort Discovery and she would like the Commissioners to repeal the moratorium that is in place. You have adequate regulations in County Code, and she has been working through that Code with the County for the past 8-9 months. The process for Cedar Hills began in April when they acquired the property. They had an initial meeting with the Department of Community Development (DCD) at which time they discussed the Code and how they would progress through it. They met with the Commissioners at the end of May and were very open about what their plans were. They brought maps and documentation and they were open with what their hopes were and what they wanted to do in this County. At that point, they felt very optimistic about the project and their transparency and they had an official pre -application meeting with DCD and staff. DCD toured their new and proposed location and they continued to move forward with them and addressing the required actions they requested as they worked towards their application. They met with neighboring community members who were concerned in the beginning of September and welcomed their comments and thoughts as they progressed through the process. Everything seemed fine in the fall, Page 10 Commissioners Special Meeting Minutes of February 5, 2018 and in October, they had worked through their septic, well and traffic impact analysis. At the end of November, the County permitted their well and they began that process. The very beginning of December, we were informed that David Greetham was leaving DCD and we had a wonderful conversation with DCD and they asked them if they should submit their application at this point, and they requested that they hold it until we had all our tests done, which we were working through. That meeting was on December 6, 2017, and on December 18, 2017 they received a phone call that there was a moratorium in place. From their staff's point of view, they believe there is already plenty of regulation in Code and they are working very slowly and diligently to do their best to view everyone's opinion to make sure they are abiding by County Code and regulation. Thank you for letting us voice our opinion. We truly do want to work with this community with the regulation in Code we already have. It is very effective and DCD is great in helping us navigate it. Heather Burns, Quilcene: She read from a statement she submitted. (See hearing record) Neil Morgan, Jefferson Counter He stated he has been a resident of this County for 66 years. He has participated in shooting, and other forms of recreation. He has listened to all the testimony tonight and his comments will be questions and concerns, followed by written recommendations and questions. He supports the moratorium in principle only, but he cannot and will not support the moratorium based upon what the Commissioners have implemented. They have put a moratorium on shooting ranges, but yet they have totally closed their eyes on the negative impacts caused by other shooters which you see day to day on every side road in Jefferson County, including Tarboo Lake. He had concerns over that, he approached Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, Pope and Talbot Resources, Jefferson County and the complaint and issue was that they do not have enough staff to do anything about it. He has heard from a lot of people who are concerned about gun safety and stray bullets and noise. Not one person has talked about those impacts created by non -gun range users. It is time for the Commissioners to open up their eyes, acknowledge that there is a problem there, and do something about it, then he may listen. Have you heard of Farm Program? It is a program specifically put together and administered by the Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office, specifically for shooting ranges. He spoke to them the other day with his concerns about the program and asked how much money is there in this cycle? They said Neil, there is $800,000 sitting because it's not being used. Get off your rears and do something about it. Ray McFarland: He stated he supports the National Rifle Association (NRA) and he is a member of the Jefferson County Sportsmens' Association. One of the biggest things the County needs to do is look at the safety of the people that are out in the woods, just shooting away. They don't have any place to go. Where would young people in the cities own weapons? They have no place to compete with one another. He supports a new gun club or a place for young and old people to learn the safety of their weapon before they just go out and wave it around. Thank you. or Jean Ball, Quilcene: She thanked the Commissioners for hearing their comments. This moratorium is more than a little reminiscent of another moratorium we had in Jefferson County in regards to marijuana and the land use issues that surrounded that. What that mostly boiled down to was impacts. How are these new proposed uses of the land impacting neighbors and other people's enjoyment of their land? The path that was taken in that moratorium was such that the regulations drafted were intended to minimize the impacts. It seems to me we are headed in that same direction now. She is within 10,000 Page 11 Commissioners Special Meeting Minutes of February 5, 2018 feet of this proposed land use. It doesn't seem fitting to her that the rights of one land owner trump the rights of another land owner. This business should be located in a commercial or industrial zone. She stated she will submit the rest of her comments in writing. Nancy Erecca, Port Townsend: She read from a statement she submitted. (See hearing record) Michael Ritter, Jefferson County: He has lived here since 2000 and does not usually get involved with politics. He is in favor of both gun ranges. He proudly belongs to the Jefferson County Sportsmens' Association. They get a lot of false information through the newspaper, even tonight there has been some. Does anyone know the hours we practice? Has anyone ever gone on the website? We are closed on Monday, except for law enforcement, and that is only once in a while. Usually law enforcement comes to practice with them. He is proud to say that they have a good group of law enforcement. He does competitive shooting up there. He uses pistol powder which keeps the noise down, it is not as loud as rifle powder. He lives in Snow Creek Ranch, and Eaglemount 4600 is down almost to Discovery Bay, he is five miles from Discovery Bay, and it is still another four miles as the crow flies to Joe D'Amico's organization. Has anyone ever thought that by them building an area where they can land helicopters, that in a disaster, it's 21 days there they are saying we will be without food here. The airport out here cannot hold a C130, so Chinook helicopters will have to land somewhere. He has also worked for the fire department and Joe D'Amico has let them use their landing field in Discovery Bay to transport critical people. Regarding the Jefferson County gun range, they have very safe practices there, and he has been to many gun ranges. We have retention ponds for the water. He is against this whole moratorium. You have more important work to do, and he commends them for doing what they do, because he wouldn't want to do it. Abraham Dorny, Chimacum: He has listened to a lot of different opinions and passionate statements. He is a member of the Jefferson County Sportsmens' Association. It sounds like this moratorium is directed at a specific application. If this site does not pass, and is not acceptable for any number of reasons by the decision of the Board, the community or both, he would be interested in hearing. If that site is not acceptable from those who support gun safety, where would there be an acceptable site? Ranges are a far safer place to practice, whether it's just sighting in a rifle, or someone is seeking training for something more dynamic. It's a dangerous world in some places, some people choose to take steps to protect themselves and their families for that. That does not necessarily involve sighting in a rifle. If not this place, he would love to hear where. It would be a good idea to offer more options for citizens here. Steven Blazina, Port Ludlow: He stated that he is a member of the Jefferson County Sportsmens' Association range. It is a very safe facility. People do need a place to practice safe firearm usage. You need to train. There are a lot of people out in the woods. One lady said earlier in the meeting that she lived in the Shine area and hears gunfire and she doesn't know where it comes from. He hears gunfire there too. Some of the gunfire comes from people who own five acres or more, and they can shoot. Some of it is from people shooting in unauthorized, dangerous places. We need safe places to shoot. We need ranges that attempt to make the best of the conditions available. He does not know where in Jefferson County you can set up a gun range that will make everyone happy. "It's not in my backyard" all the time. He is under the impression that you had done due diligence and had done research and done the best possible place. Now he's hearing tonight there are a lot of people in that area who are saying it's not the best place. He does not know, he is not a geographer. You need to find the best, safest, least likely impacted by population and put a gun range there. If that is Mr. D'Amico's range, so be it. We Page 12 Commissioners Special Meeting Minutes of February 5, 2018 need safe ranges and the old "Not in my backyard" thing is probably not going to work in Jefferson County. It appears that everyone lives in a backyard here in Jefferson County. He is a member of the Kitsap Rifle and Revolver club, which has been in that County for 91 years. You have the opposite there, we say we were there first and that does not work with the Kitsap County Commissioners. They are just not buying it, they want us out of there, and we are not going anywhere. He urged the Commissioners to find the most viable spot that impacts the least amount of people and allow an operating range, under conditions and controls obviously, but that is what needs to be done, and someone is not going to be happy. John Minor, Port Townsend: He stated he is a member of the Jefferson County Sportsmens' Association. He is not for or against the moratorium. The ordinance to build ranges is a good thing. Our Commissioners are real good at taking care of the county so we should support them instead of talking against them. Mike Halverson, Quilcene: He stated he lives 1.5 miles from Tarboo Lake and has been there since 2001. There are a lot of hunters that operate in there and a lot of target shooters. He hears every shot fired where this proposed range would be located. Tarboo Lake is owned by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, and they stocked that lake with 1,500 trout last year. Two miles from that lake is Lake Leland that was stocked with over 9,500 trout. Children in the area learn to fish there. The state has authorized $350,000 for the upgrades to Lake Leland, perhaps a dock and approaches. Property values would be destroyed at least for a radius of two miles around that lake. I am selfish, that is my property there too. Kids learn how to fish out there, some like him, get hooked for life. They will end up getting a saltwater fishing boat and put a lot more money into this economy than a fellow with a few guns. He will submit a written record this week. James Lagergren, Port Townsend: He thanked the Commissioners for holding a public hearing on the moratorium. He spends a lot of time looking at land use and zoning and sometimes it's not an easy thing to do. It is difficult to balance economic opportunities with the need for people who live in areas. This conversation has been really refreshing tonight, to hear the civility from different points of view, and to have a larger conversation on an issue that is quite contentious, pro or con. He will give two possibilities and a four-way test. If we allow the plan to go forward right now, is it a truth that this will not affect the people that live there? It is going to affect them. Is it fair to everyone concerned, both Fort Discovery and the residents? I don't think so. Will it build goodwill and friendships between the two entities? I don't think so. Will it be beneficial to all concerned in this community? I don't think so. If we go ahead with the moratorium, is it the truth that both sides will get an opportunity to continue this discussion? Yes. It is fair to both Fort Discovery and the residents? I think so. Will it build goodwill and friendships? Maybe, maybe not, but it provides an opportunity for that conversation to happen. Will it be beneficial to everyone concerned? That is the point of democracy. It is a good idea that the moratorium stay in place and the conversation continue. Thank you. Joe D'Amico: He stated he is with Fort Discovery and thanked people for attending, whether pro or con. We are open minded and he thanked the County and the Department of Community Development (DCD) and both County Administrator Philip Morley and Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Philip Hunsucker for being open minded too. He appreciates the opportunity to come here and tell their story. He is fourth generation, so when people say "they came here first," he holds a little bit of water. They started out in Discovery Bay and have had a range out there for 30 years. People complained and Page 13 Commissioners Special Meeting Minutes of February 5, 2018 they started to look for an alternative location, trying to do the right thing. They found in -holdings, areas that were very remote and zoned for gun ranges, and that is what they found. He knows a lot of people who live out there and it sounds like they do. It sounds like a lot of people do not know the plan, because we have not had an opportunity to give the plan, so there's a lot of people who are scared and wondering what is going to happen. He has a list of concerns raised tonight and will not have time to address all of them, but rest assured, they want to be good neighbors. That is what we want to do. He has heard people say things and be snarky and do stuff, and if that is how you were raised, then fine, but the County already owns 40 acres of lead, it's called the Jefferson County Sportsmens' club. We will take care of our lead, make sure we do best management practices. He is against the moratorium and wonders what the pressure will put on this County financially. We had a process going through the Conditional Use Permit process, and this County took it upon themselves, politically, to issue a moratorium. Right or wrong, I think it will cost the County a lot of money. I'm not making any threats, just this meeting alone is costing the County in staff time, it has cost me a lot of money having staff here. It is not a threat. A lot of people have talked about property values. Go look at Discovery Bay, we have been there 30 years, tell me one piece of property that has gone down in value. Lead, we will take care of that. Regarding noise, we just got back from a conference and will be putting baffling into concrete barriers to see what we can do, similar to what they do on freeway lanes. There are different things to look at and it's too early right now for people to start panicking about noise. We do not even know what the effects will be on the Tarboo area because we have not done any studies. Explosives, bombs and helicopters, and all this stuff, this is hysteria. Those helicopter zones are for Emergency Medical Services (EMS), thank you. Demetri Klauss, Quilcene: He stated he lives off of Old Tarboo Creek Road. Regarding enforcement over unlawful trespassing and shooting. There has been multiple instances of unlawful shooting and trespassing on the property where he is living. A lot of those times he has felt compelled to run after and shoo these folks away. On one occasion he was on a ridge right under where they were shooting at, so he yelled "Stop!" and they thankfully heard him and stopped. He went to confront them and let them know it was private property and not Pope land, which they thought it was. They graciously packed up their stuff and decided to leave. They let him know they were from about an hour away from that location. They had come a long way just to go there. If there are some folks willing to go that far just to see the wild, he imagines there is a wider range for people interested in going shooting. In addition to confronting people that are trespassing and shooting, it is important to actually report it to the police. He started reporting the most offensive cases where people were very close, very loud and rapid firing. That is an option, in terms of enforcement, which may increase the profile of trespassing. He is not quite sure how a private range in the area would influence people. It is quite expensive to keep a range going. Don Trathaway: He stated he does not live anywhere near the range, thankfully. Why does the range have to be in Jefferson County? Is that a must? It went from Discovery Bay, why does it have to stay in Jefferson County? It can go to the Yakima Firing Center (YFC). When he was in the Army, you could shoot all you want, as much as you want and make as much noise as you want. He was sad to hear the YFC is no longer active. Enormous property, a long way from all of us. Why does that facility have to be in Jefferson County? Are we the only county they can be in? I don't think so. He has listened to everyone. He is for the moratorium. Hearing no further testimony, Chair Sullivan closed the public hearing. Page 14 Commissioners Special Meeting Minutes of February 5, 2018 Commissioner Kler moved to extend the public comment period for written testimony to Friday, February 9, 2018 at 4:30 p.m. Commissioner Dean seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. NOTICE OFADJOURNMENT, Commissioner Kler moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:37 p.m. until the next regular meeting or special meeting as properly noticed. Commissioner Dean seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. SEALe* <K V � u ATTEST: PolyinilIaawwaCy,CMC Deputy Clerk of th JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Davi ullivan, a 11Z'` lv� *A Kathleen Kler, Member Kate Dean, Member Page 15 Consent Agenda Item Commissioners Office JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA REQUEST TO: Board of County Commissioners Philip Morley, County Administrator FROM: Julie Shannon, Executive Secretary I DATE: January 2, 2018 SUBJECT: HEARING NOTICE re: Ordinance 05-1218-17 Establishing a Moratorium on Commercial Shooting Facilities; Hearing scheduled for Monday, February 5, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. in the Commissioner's Chambers, Jefferson County Courthouse, 1820 Jefferson Street, Port Townsend, WA. STATEMENT OF ISSUE: The County Commissioners are requested to approve the attached HEARING NOTICE re: Ordinance 05-1218-17 Establishing a Moratorium on Commercial Shooting Facilities; Hearing scheduled for Monday, February 5, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. in the Commissioners' Chambers, Jefferson County Courthouse, 1820 Jefferson Street, Port Townsend, WA. ANALYSIS: On December 18, 2017, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance 05-1218-17, which established in unincorporated Jefferson County a moratorium for up to one year on the submission, acceptance, processing or approval of any Jefferson County permit applications for any proposed use, development, proposal or project for the siting, construction or modification of any commercial shooting facility, so that the County could develop an ordinance for the permitting, development and operation of commercial shooting facilities in the County. Pursuant to RCW 36.70.795 and RCW 36.70A.390, the County must hold a Public Hearing within 60 days of enacting the ordinance. The Board will hold its Public Hearing on February 5, 2018, at 10:00 AM. Once approved by the Board, a Hearing Notice will be advertised on January 3rd, January 10th, and January 24th, 2018 in The Leader, and will also be posted on the County's web page. The Public Hearing is scheduled for Monday, February 5, 2018, at 10:00 a.m. in the Commissioners' Chambers, Jefferson County Courthouse, 1820 Jefferson Street, Port Townsend. The Board will hear oral public testimony regarding Ordinance 05-1218-17 Establishing a Moratorium on Commercial Shooting Facilities at the Public Hearing. Written testimony on Ordinance 05-1218-17 will also be accepted any time beginning on January 3, up through the close of the public hearing on February 5, 2018. After taking public testimony and deliberating, the County Commissioners could either take no further action, or could amend the ordinance. Consent Agenda Item Commissioners Office RECOMMENDATION: Approve the proposed HEARING NOTICE re: Ordinance 05-1218-17 Establishing a Moratorium on Commercial Shooting Facilities; Hearing scheduled for Monday, February 5, 2018, at 10:00 a.m. in the Commissioners' Chambers, Jefferson County Courthouse, 1820 Jefferson Street, Port Townsend. REEVJE ED BY: r 1 2z", P i ip Mor1oy outiiy AJmiiiistraior Date Please publish three (3) times: January 311, January 10th, and January 24th, 2018. Bill: Jefferson County Commissioners' Office PO Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Moratorium Ordinance on Commercial Shooting Facilities Notice is hereby given that pursuant to RCW 36.70.795, RCW 36.70A.390, a Public Hearing will be held on Monday, February 5, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. in the Commissioners' Chambers, 1820 Jefferson Street, Port Townsend, Washington for the purpose of taking written and oral testimony regarding Ordinance 05- 1218-17 Establishing a Moratorium Ordinance on Commercial Shooting Facilities. On December 18, 2017, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance 05-1218-17, which established in unincorporated Jefferson County a moratorium for up to one year on the submission, acceptance, processing or approval of any Jefferson County permit applications for any proposed use, development, proposal or project for the siting, construction or modification of any commercial shooting facility. The moratorium applies to existing and new commercial shooting facilities. The moratorium was established so that the County could convene a citizen review committee, study the impacts of commercial shooting facilities, and develop reasonable regulations that (a) provide for and promote safety; (b) do not prohibit or expressly regulate the discharge of firearms; (c) protect the environment; (d) ensure compatibility with neighboring land use; and, (e) promote the continued availability of commercial shooting facilities in unincorporated Jefferson County. After taking public testimony and deliberating, the County Commissioners could either take no further action, or could amend the ordinance. As presently adopted, Ordinance 05-1218-17 contains the following sections: Section 1. Moratorium. Section 2. Definitions. Section 3. Effect of Moratorium. Section 4. Duration. Section 5. Public Hearing. Section 6. Work Plan. Section 7. Findings. Section 8. Severability. The public can view the complete text of Ordinance 05-1218-17 on-line at www.co.jefferson.wa.us or a copy can be obtained by calling 360-385-9100. The public may provide verbal and/or written testimony on the ordinance at the Public Hearing, and may also submit written testimony to the Jefferson County Commissioners, P.O. Box 1220, Port Townsend, WA 98368 or e-mail to jeffbocc e,co jefferson.wa.us, at any time up through the end of the Public Hearing. Approved this 2nd day of January, 2018 JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS David Sullivan, Chair December 26, 2017 Kathleen Kler, Commissioner David Sullivan, Commissioner Kate Dean, Commissioner Jefferson County Board of Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Commissioner`i1��'u�"" North Hood Canal Chamber of Commerce Emerald Towns of Quilcene and Brinnon RE: Shooting Ranges, Marijuana Growing, Moratoria and the Rule of Law Recommendation The Chamber recommends the following actions: • In the future, we recommend against using a moratorium in an attempt to ultimately alter a regulatory framework. • If at any time the Commission makes a finding that a current regulatory framework should be changed, then we recommend that o Regulatory changes should not be effective until at least one year after changes are adopted, and o Until the effective date the previous regulatory framework should remain in place and applications should be processed and enforcements continued without prejudice. Background The Commission has on two occasions in recent history used moratoria to delay approvals of applications for projects. One moratorium had to do with marijuana growing and processing and the other, just recently announced, has to do with shooting ranges. Discussion We might be among the first to agree that firearms discharge and stinky crops should be regulated in order to ensure the quiet enjoyment of neighboring properties. We do not object to reasonable regulation of such nuisances. PO Box 774 Quilcene, WA 98376-0774 360.765.4999 Visitor Center www.emeraldtowns.com k,. North Hood Canal Chamber of Commerce Emerald Towns of Quilcene and Brinnon We do object to the recent moratoria and the resultant ad hoc changes to the code. We believe these actions violate the principles of the Rule of Law. The Rule of Law is not in and of itself a law, rule or regulation. It is an ancient concept. While it has many ramifications, the salient parts are summarized in the following quotes: Stripped of all technicalities, (the Rule of Law) means that government in all its actions is bound by rules fixed and announced beforehand—rules which make it possible to foresee with fair certainty how the authority will use its coercive powers in given circumstances and to plan one's individual affairs on the basis of this knowledge. While every law restricts individual freedom to some extent by altering the means which people may use in the pursuit of their aims, under the Rule of Law the government is prevented from stultifying individual efforts by ad hoc action. Within the known rules of the game the individual is free to pursue his personal ends and desires, certain that the powers of government will not be used deliberately to frustrate his efforts. —F. A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom In the recent cases, it appears that individuals planned their affairs on the basis of existing code. They invested a certain amount of thought, energy, time and money in bringing their plans forward. They had a reasonable expectation of realizing a monetary return on their investment. Yet at the last minute, the Commission essentially said to the applicants "You must now wait six months or even a whole year while we think about this. And at the end of the year we might change our coercive powers and you may not be able to do what is allowed under existing code. And we don't care how much time, energy or money you have already invested in your plans or what your continuing expenses might be while we make you wait." We believe governments have a responsibility to provide a regulatory framework which protects its citizens in all their endeavors. Altering that framework should be done with care. If changes to code are necessary, they should be made effective at least a year in the future so that individuals may change their plans accordingly without suffering PO Box 774 Quilcene, WA 98376-0774 360.765.4999 Visitor Center www.emeraldtowns.com 4 North Hood Canal Chamber of Commerce Emerald Towns of Quilcene and Brinnon undue loss. The current code should remain effective and enforced without prejudice until the new code becomes effective. We understand the issues at hand are difficult. The Commission will need to carefully weigh public benefit against private harm. But we offer no arguments either for or against marijuana or shooting ranges. Our present argument concerns only the application of the Rule of Law. We also know that others have different opinions. Thank you for considering ours. Sincerely David Neuenschwander Executive Director l� r PO Box 774 Quilcene, WA 98376-0774 360.765.4999 Visitor Center I www.emeraldtowns.com �W( P F_ effbocc FA P ! I �i From: mah <michaelhindes@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2018 5:49 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: County owned shooting range solution Dear Kate Dean, Sarah Zale and I would ask for a very brief meeting to discuss a sensible, win-win solution to the county owned range concerns re lead management and noise. We would like to give you a ten minute executive overview and show an option that allows the county, residents, and responsible shooters to reach agreement. Sarah teaches and cannot meet mon-wed, thursday-sun is ok. Thank you for your consideration. Michael Hindes Sarah Zale 36o.46o.3896 Sent from my Pad ((-- �,O(( I( A- I - �-IK F From: Eric Taylor <spamcan57@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, January 05, 2018 6:53 PM To: jeffbocc; Kate Dean; David Sullivan; Kathleen Kier Subject: shooting range moratorium 5 Jan, 2018 Commissioners Dean, Sullivan, and Kler: I am writing with regards to the moratorium placed on new shooting ranges in Jefferson County, which you voted in on Dec 18, 2017. Judging from all the complaints in the past few years about the Fort Discovery shooting ranges, I would think that everyone including yourselves would embrace local businessman Joe D'Amico's plans to move his shooting operations to a more suitable location. But it seems obvious to me that this moratorium was dreamed up and passed for the sole reason of roadblocking him. In my opinion, this is a thinly disguised tactic as commonly practiced by governmental bureaucracies -- delay and / or ignore something that you don't like and don't want to deal with, and hope that it goes away. Just another example of why it is so hard for people to do business or accomplish anything in Jefferson County. I would hate to think that the county Commissioners might use political tactics like this to shut down something (guns and shooting) that they personally object to. As a county resident and taxpayer, and your constituent, I urge you to address this issue in a timely fashion-- none of this ,.one year moratorium" business. Either approve his application when it is submitted, or deny it--- and document proper reasons why you must do so. If it must be denied, I would urge you to work with Mr. D'Amico to find a way to work around the problems. It's about time that local government became a force "for" instead of "against". Thank you for your attention, Eric Taylor 172 Wycoff Road Pt Townsend, WA 98368 C( ----r)lb Q ( Ci I - ID -if From: David Sullivan Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2018 12:22 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Second Amendment From: Tom Thiersch �m . Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2018 12:22:48 PM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: David Sullivan; Kate Dean; Kathleen Kier Subject: Second Amendment Commissioners, Regarding the moratorium on Commercial Shooting Facilities, I found it amusing that Mr. D'Amico would try to claim a "Second Amendment" right to conduct his proposed business. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. " The Second Amendment only guarantees to people the right to keep and bear arms, not to shoot them. Tom Thiersch Jefferson County (!C-t�Cc * I Julie Shannon d REAPIN G PPCOR�J From: David Sullivan Sent: Monday, January 15, 2018 9:11 AM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Proposed Mediation Agreement with Fort Discovery Attachments: TRC Testimony to BoCC 01-16-2017.pdf From: Peter Newland Sent: Monday, January 15, 2018 9:10:28 AM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: David Sullivan; Kathleen Kier; Kate Dean Cc: Philip Morley Subject: Proposed Mediation Agreement with Fort Discovery Greetings Commissioners: Attached is testimony we plan to include in the record on Tuesday Jan 16, 2018 at 9:00 AM along with the attached requests and questions. We appreciate your careful consideration of our concerns and are prepared to answer your questions Regards, TARBOO RIDGE COALITION Peter Newland, President 1 Hand delivered and via email January 16, 2018 • EP "I H E O? �9�eoo RIDGE CO P.O. Box 177 Quilcono, WA 98376 Jefferson County Board of Commissioners The Honorable David Sullivan, Chair 1820 Jefferson Street P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: Proposed Mediation Agreement with Fort Discovery Corporation Dear Commissioners: We recognize the County can, at its discretion, work behind closed doors when threatened with litigation. You also have the authority to include the public. Keeping our community in the dark on County discussions on mediation about Fort Discovery Corporation's business plan, and its erroneous claim that it has a gun range permit application that must be grandfathered, serves no constructive public purpose and will not provide the budget savings suggested in the County Administrator's Agenda Request. Jefferson County's participation in the State Insurance Risk Pool significantly reduces its budget concern. While a deductible of $100,000 is not insignificant, it spares the County from being forced to bargain away public safety in order to satisfy a developer's wishes. We believe this community has the will and financial capability to raise the money to defend itself against specious and unwarranted attacks by the backers of this gun range. Tarboo Ridge Coalition, a party of record, was among the first to encourage the County to establish a Moratorium so that impacts of high intensity commercial shooting facilities could be assessed, and reasonable measures put into place to assure public safety and prevent degradation of the environment. The Moratorium ordinance that you adopted on December 18 2017, is fair, necessary, appropriate, and legal. The assertion that an individual or corporation that has promoted a concept, but has not submitted an application to vest itself, is somehow not subject to the Moratorium, is nonsense. That question has been asked and answered many times. The language of the Moratorium ordinance is plain on its face: no submission of any permit applications during the Moratorium period. Pre -submittal documents do not constitute an application and therefore cannot be grandfathered. Gun range proponents who argue otherwise merely delay the possibility of achieving their goals and erode the public's confidence in their good faith. Page 2 TRC letter We believe the County would be well -served if the BoCC allows itself a little more time to examine the goals for mediation and its prospects for success. At present, we and the rest of the public do not feel like we have been given adequate notice regarding this mediation proposal. We do not even know what is being mediated—Is grandfathering being mediated? How could grandfathering be mediated when there is no permit application? A mediation agreement that grandfathered a non-existent gun range permit application would fly in the face of the Moratorium ordinance and the Growth Management Act and would be utterly indefensible. We respect our government, and we like our community. This is a wonderful place to live. If after more consideration the Board chooses to pursue mediation, we will try to provide constructive assistance if we can. We just want to be assured that the public's rights and interests are receiving the respect they deserve. Attached is a list of requests and questions for your consideration. Sincerely, Tarboo Ridge oalition Peter Newland, President cc: The Honorable Kathleen Kler The Honorable Kate Dean Philip Morley, County Administrator Attachment: Requests and Questions ATTACHMENT: Requests and Questions REQUESTS: (1) Tarboo Ridge Coalition (TRC) respectfully requests that the vote on the Agenda Request to approve a Mediation Agreement with Fort Discovery Corporation be postponed a minimum of one week to allow all parties to gather information and reflect on the implications of such an Agreement. (2) Should such an Agreement be consummated, as a party of record, per section 1.3 of the proposed Mitigation Agreement, TRC requests permission to attend the mediation sessions. We further request an affirmative answer prior to Jefferson County executing the Mediation Agreement. TRC agrees to be bound by the confidentiality provisions. QUESTIONS: 1. What is the exact issue that the County seeks to mediate? 2. Is it a single issue or are there multiple issues the parties wish to resolve through mediation? If there are multiple issues, please identify in detail each issue to be mediated. 3. Is the mediation binding? 4. What issues are red lines that would cause the County to terminate its participation in the mediation? 5. Please provide details of the mediator's qualifications and experience. From: David Sullivan Sent: Monday, January 15, 2018 12:08 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Mediation with Mr. D'Amico From: Teri Hein Sent: Monday, January 15, 2018 12:08:58 PM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: David Sullivan Subject: Mediation with Mr. D'Amico January 14, 2018 Dear Jefferson County Commissioners Sullivan, Kler and Dean, and County Administrator Morley: It's very concerning to learn this Martin Luther King Day weekend that, so soon after it established a December 18, 2017 moratorium on permit applications for gun ranges (Ordinance No. 05-1218-17), the county is considering a JAMS mediation agreement with Mr. D'Amico/Fort Discovery Corporation (Fort Discovery) around a possible future application for a Tarboo Lake "Cedar Hills" weapons training and helicopter landing facility. Please oppose this agreement! As stated in the findings of fact for the moratorium, the Washington Constitution, Article XI, Section 11, "confers upon the county legislative authorities the police power to adopt regulations necessary to protect the health, safety and well-being of its residents." Mr. D'Amico's permit application for the property is not yet received by the County let alone deemed "substantially complete" as required in Section 3, Effect of Moratorium. The moratorium was and is the appropriate next step to ensuring that gun ranges are located or expanded in the most informed and appropriate manner possible. Please provide responses to the following questions: • Has a lawsuit against the county been threatened or initiated by Fort Discovery? What documentation exists of this, if so? • If not, why is mediation necessary and why now? • What are Mr. William L. Downing's qualifications and experience as a mediator? Why and how was he selected to address this "dispute"? • To what degree does the February 5, 2018 public hearing on the gun range permit moratorium serve its intended purpose if Fort Discovery is/will be participating in private mediation with the county around the same moratorium? Since this county commissioner agenda item to consider JAMS mediation with Fort Discovery is occurring so suddenly on the heals of the gun range permit moratorium and immediately following a three-day weekend, the public deserves greater opportunity to consider and respond to the potential adverse impacts of mediation with Fort Discovery only, including the expenditure of an unknown quantity of public funds to support uncertain outcomes which may be detrimental to the well-being of large numbers of county residents including place -dependent farms and businesses. A truly successful outcome for the people of Jefferson County surely necessitates that any mediation effort also include representation and council for the communities and organizations that would be impacted by the proposed gun range. Sincerely yours, Teri Hein and Jim Smith 781 Old Tarboo Road Quilcene, From: Teri Hein <terihein@comcast.net> a Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2018 9:33 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Proposed Mediation Meeting Dear Jefferson County Commissioners Sullivan, Kier and Dean, and County Administrator Morley: It's very concerning to learn this Martin Luther King Day weekend that, so soon after it established a December 18, 2017 moratorium on permit applications for gun ranges (Ordinance No. 05-1218-17), the county is considering a JAMS mediation agreement with Mr. D'Amico/Fort Discovery Corporation (Fort Discovery) around a possible future application for a Tarboo Lake "Cedar Hills" weapons training and helicopter landing facility. Please oppose this agreement! As stated in the findings of fact for the moratorium the Washington Constitution Article XI Section 9 9 , 11, "confers upon the county legislative authorities the police power to adopt regulations necessary to protect the health, safety and well-being of its residents." Mr. D'Amico's permit application for the property is not yet received by the County let alone deemed "substantially complete" as required in Section 3, Effect of Moratorium. The moratorium was and is the appropriate next step to ensuring that gun ranges are located or expanded in the most informed and appropriate manner possible. Please provide responses to the following questions: • Has a lawsuit against the county been threatened or initiated by Fort Discovery? What documentation exists of this, if so? If not, why is mediation necessary and why now? 0• What are Mr. William L. Downin 's qualifications and experience as a mediator? Why and how was 9 p Y he selected to address this "dispute"? / ' • • To what degree does the February 5, 2018 public hearing on the gun range permit moratorium serve its intended purpose if Fort Discovery is/will be participating in private mediation with the county around the same moratorium? Since this county commissioner agenda item to consider JAMS mediation with Fort Discovery is occurring so suddenly on the heals of the gun range permit moratorium and immediately following a three-day weekend, the public deserves greater opportunity to consider and respond to the potential adverse impacts of mediation with Fort Discovery only, including the expenditure of an unknown quantity of public funds to support uncertain outcomes which may be detrimental to the well-being of large numbers of county residents including place -dependent farms and businesses. A truly successful outcome for the people of Jefferson County surely necessitates that any mediation effort also include representation and council for the communities and organizations that would be impacted by the proposed gun range. Sincerely yours, Teri Hein and Jim Smith 781 Old Tarboo Road Quilcene HEARING REC From: Levi Ross <armsproIIc@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 8:10 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Shooting ranges Attachments: Jeff Co Comment Letter 1.12.2018-2.pdf; ATT00001.htm Ladies and gentleman, Please see the attached comments on shooting ranges. Thank you, Levi Ross armspro.com LEVI LOSS Y LLC CT)M)Ml FIREARMS & AMMO 181 Raven Rd Port Townsend, WA 98368 1/16/2018 Jefferson County Commissioners - Response & comments regarding Ordinance No. 05-1218-17 Establishing 1 -Year Moratorium For Existing & New Commercial Shooting Facilities And Creates Citizen Review Committee To Develop Regulations Ladies and Gentleman, My name is Levi Ross. I've been a Jefferson County resident since 1974. I've owned and operated several businesses in our community. And, at one time employed over 20 individuals. At the end of 2008 I retired from Sunshine Propane where I was originator and chief executive. Having been, essentially, self-employed for most of my whole working life in Jefferson County, I did not and do not have a significant retirement fund. I found and planned to help support myself and my wife by continuing to work. At the beginning of 2009 I started to operate as a gunsmith. This is a business, Armspro LLC, I have and continue to operate. To operate this business I maintain a federal firearms license and am licensed in Washington State as a firearms dealer. I offer all associated FFL services including buying and selling firearms to and for my clients and perform the required background checks that must accompany the transfer of any firearm in Washington state. This business gives me an illuminating window on the gun owning community. To begin, I can report that in 2017 I paid $9,061 in combined Wa State Excise taxes. All of the local sales and use taxes were credited toward Jefferson County. Of this amount, use tax was paid on $67,718. This is the amount of money, spent in my business by clients that have purchased firearms and had them shipped to me for transfers. At an average of $400 per firearm, this shows that approximately 170 guns were purchased, just through my shop in 2017. This also means that approximately $32,900 of retail income from sales and service, other than firearm transfers, was generated. At an average of $75 per transaction, I had approximately 439 individual sales of firearm related work, accessories and parts. Of this amount, my income before federal taxes will be about $24,000. My client list contains approximately 200 individuals in the 98368 zip code. In the area comprising Port Townsend, Port Hadlock, Chimacum, Port Ludlow, Quilcene, 5equim and Port Angeles zip codes, this list contains approximately 400 individuals. Now, I am just one gun dealer and gunsmith in this area, providing this type of service to the sport shooting, law enforcement and personal protection firearms community. My estimate is that I serve approximately 20% of the firearms owning and using population in Jefferson and Clallam Counties. That means there are likely to be approximately 2000 active firearm owners in our local, two county area. This number is somewhat of a sophisticated guess, but, I think a reasonable estimate that you should consider. My clientele includes many of our communities, doctors, lawyers, judges, other local officials at the city, county and state level. I serve many of our local law enforcement, loggers, construction workers, shop owners, restaurant owners, farmers, retired executives, hunters, sport shooters and just about every type of person residing in our area. Many see gun ownership and use as a right vs. left or a red vs. blue situation. I do not. You see, I'm about as far left as you can get politically, in our part of the world. I self -identify as a progressive, tree hugging liberal. I supported and continue to support Bernie Sanders as my preferred political leader. I support universal health care, education, socialized expenditures on building and repairing infrastructure, cutting the taxpayer spending on our military by 50% or more and all the other for left leaning social proposals and actions that can help reduce poverty, wealth inequality and serve to empower and protect every American, and not just the wealthy elite and corporations. But, I am also a realist. Our Supreme Court has upheld the second amendment as meaning that any American citizen that can pass a background check must be allowed to be able to own and use firearms for any legal activity. I support universal background checks. I also support the proposal that any and all firearm owners might be required to be licensed, trained and certified to own and use their firearms. With that said, and though we are not there yet, I fully recognize that our firearm ownership rights and regulations could and should be added to. I believe there are ways to address the problems inherent in firearm ownership and use. But, being a realist, again, I also see that the emotional debate around firearm ownership and use only serves to delay progress and continue the polarization around firearms and the recognition of both, their legitimate uses as well as dangerous and deadly misuse. I often get into discussion with my clients about guns and their position in our social order. I can report that many of my gun owning clientele are left leaning in their political views. The number is probably as high as 40%. Another 40% are decidedly right leaning in their views. And, there are probably 20% for which I don't know if they may lean left or right. But, all are friendly. I regard them well. All are aware of the need for responsible firearms ownership and use. And, it is important to understand that the individual gun dealer, such as myself, is the last person in line to assess whether or not a firearm should be transferred to any individual whether that individual can pass a background check, or not. All of this background just presented is leading up to my view of what can help with keeping firearms ownership and use in our community safe. I believe the two primary requirements are - having a safe place to shoot and a venue and program for firearms education and shooting sports activity. The present Jefferson County Sportsmen's Association managed gun club is a historically active shooting range, that has been in use continuously since 1964. It is well designed and maintained. It is one of the premier shooting sports facilities in our three county area. It has been specifically designed and improved to create a safe environment for discharge of firearms, and containment of shooting waste residue and other impacts. It also provides a well appointed venue for firearms education and a variety of shooting sports. If this facility is closed or access is limited, I believe there will be a number of undesirable and unintended impacts. Some sport shooters will reduce their shooting activity and/or find other venues. Since some of the sport shooting activities at this range draw participants from a wide regional area, and in some cases from other countries, any of those out of town individuals will no longer seek the services of a local gunsmith, which will impact my personal, future income. But, they will also not purchase food, drink, lodging, fuel or retail products that they might otherwise consume. This will reduce some of the income that accrues to our community. This may seem like idle speculation, but, I have served and communicated with individuals coming to activities at our gun club from as for away as Germany and Australia. We have seen participants at our local shooting matches that regularly visit to participate from Whidbey Island, Puyallup, Fife, Redmond, Lake City, Spokane, Oregon and many other towns within driving range. These participants often spend the night, eat, and shop before and after the shooting match. Some sport shooters will resort to shooting on private property where they may or may not have the local owners permission. I would expect the shooting activity on private property to increase. Those properties that are not specifically designed and maintained as a safe shooting environment can lead to increased incidence of shooting accidents. Bullets don't know where property lines are. Some of this type of shooting activity already has already been shown to result in bullets impacting homes in our area. Opportunities to continue firearms education, in the way of hunter safety courses and personal firearms use will be reduced. This will not stop the ownership of new guns in our community, but will reduce the potential for those gun owners to learn about better gun safety, storage and use. I believe this also can contribute to decreased gun safety and increased gun accidents and misuse. I do recognize that the existing gun club creates a noise problem for those living close to the facility. I personally live approximately 3 miles away from the range, in a direct line from the discharge of shotguns when the trap range is in use. I hear the reports from both the shotgun range and less from the pistol and rifle ranges. I do not consider the noise to be a nuisance. But, I also recognize that I purchased my property with the full knowledge that a shooting range was nearby and that some noise from shooting activity could be expected. I also recognize that I am and have been a sport shooter and firearm owner for all of my life and have a cultural leaning toward accepting the impacts of firearm use in my environment. I also recognize that some individuals do not have a cultural leaning to accepting the impacts of firearms ownership and use. While I think and understand that any and all mitigating actions should be considered and implemented where possible to reduce those impacts, I think the balance of good our existing gun range provides toward safe and educated firearms sports use, law enforcement qualifications and those seeking training in firearms use for personal protection outweigh the noise impacts on surrounding properties. Those most vocal about stopping all firearms use, closing existing range facilities and stopping the construction of new facilities are not being real about guns, gun ownership rights and use. Even with proposed new firearm laws and ownership requirements, which I believe may be helpful in addressing the cultural divide between those who see all guns and gun use as bad and those who see responsible gun ownership and use as a right, not to be infringed, the number of persons who own and use guns for sporting activity, collecting and personal protection will not be changed. The best thing you and we, as a community, can do to control the incidence of gun misuse in our local area is to provide safe facilities for sport shooting and firearms use education. The JCSA gun club has been providing this function for over 50 years. A restriction on changes and improvements can only serve to reduce opportunities to add features that may reduce the chances for stray projectiles and noise impacts to leave the range environment or further reduce other impacts of firearms use at the range. Guns, are here to stay. No matter how vocal, emotional opponents to the real incidence of gun ownership are, the real key to gun control is to continue to provide a safe environment for shooters and a place where gun safety and use education can be provided. We, as a community are actually very lucky that we have a volunteer organization in the Jefferson County Sportsmen's Association who has so well managed and improved the existing gun club. I implore you to recognize my arguments and the benefits of what designated and safe facilities for shooting sportsmen, educators and citizens means in our greater community. Thank you for your consideration, Levi Ross armspro.com (A- I- IV t � effbocc HEAAWG, pE, From: kirie pedersen <kirie.pedersen@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 11:37 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Thank you for Moratorium on Shooting Range Greetings Commissioners: Since 1945, my family and I have been taxpayers and residents on Dabob Bay between Pulah and Whitney Point. Many of our friends live with their young families in the immediate vicinity of the proposed shooting range and weapons training facility near Tarboo Lake. In addition, over the past years, we spent much time and money trying to protect a nearby area for the purpose of re-establishing salmon habitat. It is my belief that a weapons training range does not fit into a rural -residential environment. Although recreation is a major draw which serves our county economically, attracting weapon and shooting based activities will have an adverse impact on those who come here to hike, walk, fish, shrimp, crab, bicycle, swim, boat, and get away from the noise of the city. Likewise, those of us who live here year-round have the right to be free from gunshot and helicopter noise. My choice to live quietly and preserve my family property as wildlife habitat (We are Shoreline Stewards) hurts nobody. Gunshots and additional air traffic and night light negatively impact humans, wildlife, and environmentally sustainable tourism. As lifelong voters, my family and I support you in protecting our community in any and all ways you can. Respectfully, Kirie Pedersen, M.A. POB 687 Brinnon, WA 98320 (360) 316-9066 C (,_�(TA V WADI&II.N t) From: Chad Wagner <chadder_box_13@hotmail.com> _ Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 2:30 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Cedar Hills Recreational Facility Commissioners: I would like to add my two cents regarding the shooting range discussion. I am a Clallam County resident who hunts in East Jefferson County. I have seen many of the places in the woods where people go to target practice. Most firearm users are responsible but unfortunately, not everyone is. Adding a professionally -managed option where people can go to practice with their guns or bows fills a void. This option can entice some people to stop going to dead-end roads with no backstop. As a responsible hunter -as the majority of us are -I totally respect private property rights, just like I respect the right of a property owner to develop their land to make a living, even if it isn't the lifestyle I would choose. Just because someone does not like guns, or hunting, does not mean that these activities should be banned. I truly believe that this business would not only benefit safe shooting but also supply Jefferson county with much need employment opportunities. Respectfully, Chad Wagner Craig Durgan 801 Olele Point Road Port Ludlow, WA 98365 HEAR!hJr, PECORD JAN 2 3 2010 Re: Moratorium on Shooting Ranges Dear BOCC, January 17, 2018 The recent moratorium instituted by you is vexing. It would appear that that you are attempting to pre-empt both Federal and State regulations and case law. It also appears that, once again, Jefferson County is lining up with one group to oppose another group. The dispute about having a gun range at Taboo Lake and the previous dispute of the one at Fort Discovery is really about one group's constitutional property rights verses another group's constitutional property rights. This has happened before, i.e. the New Shine Quarry. And, of course there are many other examples. As usual the tax payers of Jefferson County foot the bill through our taxes so Jefferson County can support one group against another. Why must the tax payers again subsidize what appears to be a politically favored group, again? I believe that Jefferson County should bow out of determining constitutional property rights and let the courts make that ruling. The best thing for Jefferson County to do at this point would be to process any building permits through the normal method. Let the opposing group fight out the constitutionality of the gun range in the court system and save the tax payers another expense of having to defend one group against another. Sincerely, Craig Du an (( - �O ( ( ( C� . ( - -? --�? - ( � i-rom: Nancy wyatt <nancywyatt5u�ugmaii.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2018 11:17 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: My letter regarding Feb. 5 Moratorium meeting January 21, 2018 Dear Mr. David Sullivan I am writing in support of the one year moratorium on the construction of gun ranges. You correctly decided to take time and care before proceeding with allowing another gun range to be built in our county. Some of the sensible things to consider are obvious: environmental contamination, noise, nearby neighborhoods, the negative impact on small business and the shear fact that gun ranges don't belong in a place where people have "vested" their land and money by committing to agriculture and conservation and a peaceful lifestyle. This year long process will hopefully examine the impact on the psychological, mental, and emotional (probably physical, too) health having to listen to semi and automatic weapon discharging for hours and hours, day after day, weeks, months and more. Personally I would have to move away from the home I've lived in for 40 years. Why would that be okay? Don't I also have the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" (Declaration of Independence). All of that would be in jeopardy if a weapons range was nearby. I hope during the moratorium you can clarify and quantify WHY we need this gun range as an essential service or commercial endeavor. How do gun ranges improve the quality of life in Jefferson County? I am wondering if we even need a place to train "paramilitary people"? It was suggested by a local law enforcement individual, that Jefferson and Clallam Counties should pool their resources and build an indoor gun range (soundproof) somewhere like Carlsborg. Expensive yes, but a great investment in our community, culture and health. I have done a lot of research with experts from the Department of Ecology to the Kitsap gun range representatives and this is that kind of factual information that should be part of the moratorium study. I won't waste your time including it all in this letter. In closing, I realize there are laws to "protect" and "allow" construction of controversial businesses, however, someone else's rights should not impose on another's. Doesn't it just make sense that in the future, gun ranges should not take away anybody's right to peace and quiet? Jefferson County has a few "pristine" places left. Let's preserve that. Sincerely, Nancy Wyatt Nancy Wyatt 1661 Dabob Rd Quilcene, WA 98376 360-732-4069 nancyw. aY tt50(a,gmail.com jeffbocc ((� 1- 34 - ( � HEARIN G PPCORO, From: Terry Reid <tmmsec@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2018 7:17 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Support for Tarboo Ridge Rifle Range Dear Board of Comissioners, I would like you to fully support the efforts of Fort Discovery Inc. to move their operations to Tarboo Ridge. This project is a win-win for county residents. It does not add a rifle range, it just moves it from a populated area to the most remote place possible in the county. Fort Discovery offers very unique training opportunities for county residents, local, state and federal law enforcement that should be supported. Thanks for your consideration Terry Reid. o Julie Shannon From: David Sullivan Sent: Thursday, January 2S, 2018 2:48 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Firing range moratorium From: John Collins Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 2:47:28 PM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Kate Dean; Kathleen Kier; David Sullivan Subject: Firing range moratorium I strongly support the Council's action to impose a moratorium on any actions on firing or gun range permits at this time. With the large number of gun ranges already operating, it is certainly time to review all aspects of gun ranges and their impacts on the surrounding areas prior to acting on any new permit applications. This is a prudent move that allows a thoughtful and fact -based policy to guide all gun range permitting in the county. Thank you John Collins From: Sent: To: Subject: To whom it may concern, Anthony Tordini <anthony.tordini@hotmail.com> Sunday, January 28, 2018 7:13 AM jeffbocc Shooting facilities in Jefferson County I am unable to attend the public meeting on Feb 5th. I am writing to help preserve commercial shooting ranges in Jefferson County. Please consider this during the public meeting on Feb 5th. Thank you. V/R Anthony Tordini From: Peter Harris <peterCcumillersheetmetal.com> Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2018 10:23 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: shooting range Attachments: Shooting Ranges within Jefferson County.pdf Please see attached letter regarding the Shooting range moratorium Peter Harris Operations Manager Miller Sheetmetal Inc. PH: 360.479-1737 x 125 Cell: 360.731.6460 peter@millersheetmetal.com 1 Jefferson County Board of Commissioners ( BOCC) PO BOX 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa,us RE: Moratorium for new commercial shooting facilities. BOCC, I have several concerns regarding new shooting facilities within Jefferson county and their locations. 1) Outdoor ranges have difficulty or cannot recover their spent lead, spent lead left in the soils leach into the ground with the potential to contaminate local aquifers. Lead leaching occurs at a more rapid rate when exposed to acidic soils and water. Runoff in rural areas in Jefferson county are more acidic due to rain water filtering though the dropped leaves of cedar and fir trees that make up most of our tree cover, potentially causing even greater leaching of spent lead. Any Shooting range that was not able to recover their spent lead and or is within the vicinity of a local waterway should be unacceptable. The PNW has enough problems with keeping salmon alive and Washington state the tax payers are spending millions of dollars a year in restoration & recovery and added lead issue in the waters would be detrimental. Numerous local Salmon, Steelhead, Bull Trout are currently classified as endangered or threatened. 2) We need to concentrate shooting within the bare minimum number of ranges to keep noise, lead contamination to the minimum and safety to the maximum. 3) There Is a problem with shooting occurring at local gravel pits and people leaving messes in these areas. New shooting ranges will not help this problem. We have a fine shooting range here in Port Townsend that accommodates the local needs and is never too busy or full and is moderately priced. For people want to go consume alcohol while shooting at cars, propane tanks, etc. this would not be allowed at any range as this is an unsafe practice and is the reason why a lot of people go to local gravel pits to shoot. There is also another range in Port Angeles and another one in Poulsbo all are fine ranges within reasonable distance and price. Last fall I was at the Port Townsend range the Saturday before the opening day of deer hunting season sighting in my rifle and less than %2 of the shooting positions were being used. 4) Indoor ranges are better for everybody. I believe that all new local ranges should be indoors. Indoor ranges can recover virtually all their lead and recycling it. They can be provided with filtration systems for the air so burnt gases and lead are filtered out as the leave the facility and disposed of properly. Indoor ranges keep noise down to an absolute minimum. The potential for errant bullets flying out of the ranges and hitting hurting someone is basically nonexistent. I am a citizen of Jefferson County and avid hunter and shooter of rifles and shotguns. In my opinion concentrated shooting at outdoor ranges in rural areas pose too much of a risk to our environment and are currently un needed as we have an abundance of places to do this. -Peter Harris jeffbocc From: Peter Harris <peter@millersheetmetal.com> Sent: Friday, February 02, 2018 1:58 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Shooting Range Moratorium Attachments: Shooting Ranges within Jefferson County revised.pdf I had sent in a previous letter last Sunday the 28th on the shooting range moratorium, Please see revised letter for written comment. Thankyou Peter Harris Operations Manager Miller Sheetmetal Inc. PH: 360.479-1737 x 125 Cell: 360.731.6460 peter@millersheetmetal.com Jefferson County Board of Commissioners ( BOCC) PO BOX 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us RE: Moratorium for new commercial shooting facilities. BOCC, I have several concerns regarding new Outdoor shooting facilities within Jefferson county and their locations. 1) How is the Lead recovered and what will it do to the environment? a. Outdoor ranges have difficulty or cannot recover their spent lead in a meaningful way. Typical western Washington soils have a PH of 5-6. the EPAs best practices guide for outdoor shooting ranges state that lead bullets and shot convert to lead oxide at a more rapid rate exposed to soils and environments with a PH below 7.5 at outdoor ranges and precipitate into the soil more rapidly. b. Any Shooting range that was not able to recover 99% their spent lead and or is within the vicinity of a local waterway should be unacceptable. The PNW has enough problems with keeping salmon alive and Washington state the tax payers are spending millions of dollars a year in restoration & recovery and added lead issue in the waters would be detrimental. Numerous local Salmon, Steelhead, Bull Trout are currently classified as endangered or threatened. 2) What is the potential effect on local Bald eagles? a. Local eagle populate the region and breed here in location close to water, I frequently see them at local lakes and along the Puget sound. b. Will the outdoor shooting ranges be placed in locations that would displace any nesting eagles or their hunting activities? This would be a violation of federal law. 3) New Ranges will not help in any substantial way shooting activities in local gravel pits. a. There Is a problem with shooting occurring at local gravel pits and people leaving messes in these areas. b. New shooting ranges will not help this problem. We have a fine shooting range here in Port Townsend that accommodates the local needs and is never too busy or full and is moderately priced so access to quality ranges are not a current issue. c. For people want to go consume alcohol while shooting at cars, propane tanks, etc. this would not be allowed at any range as this is an unsafe practice and is the reason why a lot of people go to local gravel pits to shoot. 4) Indoor ranges are better for everybody and the environment. a. I Indoor ranges can recover virtually all their lead and recycle it. With none of it entering the environment. b. They can be provided with filtration systems for the air so burnt gases and lead are filtered out as the leave the facility and disposed of properly. c. Indoor ranges keep noise down to an absolute minimum. The potential for errant bullets flying out of the ranges and hitting hurting someone is basically nonexistent. I think to serve our community and the values we hold the following minimum standards should be adopted for all new fire arm ranges in Jefferson county. • All new ranges be indoor ranges for all handgun and centerfire calibers, with recovery and recycle of 99% of all lead bullets fired on a weekly basis and filtered ventilation. • All large caliber rifle fire to be indoors with same recovery as above, or outdoor ranges have deflectors above shooting range to stop errant bullet flights, Use only of non toxic ammunition at outdoor ranges. ( no lead) • All shotgun shells use non toxic shot as defied by Washington state and stated in the fish and game regulations. • No ranges within 1,500' of a waterway, lake, river, stream, wetlands, etc. • Environmental survey and impact statement on Noise control or mitigation for nesting eagles. • All outdoor ranges be located in moderately populated areas where noise occurrences are common, not located in rural areas. Lead was responsible for up to 2.4 million waterfowl a year in the united states, the ban of lead shot for waterfowl hunting is accredited with reversing this trend. Puget Sound is still experiencing Swan die off due to lead poisoning from lead deposited by shooting & hunting. Information regarding lead, EPA Best Management practices for lead at outdoor shooting ranges Waterfowl Diseases Ducks Unlimited Thank You, -Peter Harris, Port Townsend resident, avid Hunter, fisherman and Shooter. ( C -, -& a- (4 ( -,5 3 - I � rrom: aiunca W-WIIU UIUe.neL Sent: To: Subject: Monday, January 29, 2018 9:49 PM jeffbocc Firearm range permitting I am the physician director of the Clallam County Jail and a Clallam County Sheriff Dept. reserve deputy. I am an avid sportsman and shooting competitor. I would suggest that if you don't want people shooting allover the county on various logging roads and gravel pits often in unsafe manner that you permit ranges in the county where appropriate, so people have an organized and safe place to shoot and learn to shoot. Firearms and shooting are, and will continue to be, an established part of our American culture whether we all agree with that or not. We must encourage organized safe facilities for people to learn the proper use of firearms. I urge you to permit range facilities in your area where appropriate. Thank you for your consideration. o�C Cir 1':3D.I � HEAPIW7 RxrgR� JAN 3 0 2018 Dear Jefferson County Commissioners, I. We support the moratorium on modifications to existing and establishing new shooting facilities: - This is an essential step in planning the future of our region of the county, which has yet to face this type of land use issue - This focuses discussion on zoning and the potential permanent and drastic change of community character/property values for an entire region vs. anti-gun/anti-business slants - Does not allow "bullying" by an individual to curtail a process that affects hundreds of "vested" residents living within hearing (and those who may wish to use areas within hearing) of the proposed shooting ranges at Tarboo Lake II. Outdoor gun shooting ranges as a small business in Jefferson County: Can it be called "recreational"? - Does gunfire from 7am-10pm count as "recreational" to people living in or wishing to visit the area? - Does police/military/paramilitary training, use of two helicopter pads and other "high intensity" explosive noises count as "recreational"? - What about the pre-existing recreational activities the area currently supports of hunting, hiking, camping, fishing, trail -riding, conservation and simply soaking up the peace? - Would the county allowed a festival or stadium there? - This is not installing a golf course/tennis courts — the noise itself will counteract the ability to have a realistic hope of "multi -uses" for the affected area. - This area is historically rural residential, farm and forestry land — one business shouldn't have the right to export their considerable noise beyond their property boundaries with such frequency as to inhibit the long established tone and quality of life of the full-time, tax -paying residents. - Is it reasonable for a 'for profit' enterprise to systematically undermine the quality of life in an established geographical area through the export of the byproduct of their business (relentless noise pollution in a rural area), all the while doing business in a non -conforming location? Can it be called "essential"? - Does the availability of outdoor shooting ranges in PA, Sequim, PT, Poulsbo, etc affect what is considered "essential"? - Is this business looking to really service the locals when it advertises for military -style usage, thereby bringing in groups from outside the county to concentrate the gunfire HERE? Can it be treated as a small business just like any other small business? - Do other small businesses (excluding forestry/mineral, which require the location to have trees/minerals) that create a large volume of day -time noise find appropriate land use locations outside of commercial/industrial zoning areas? - Do other small businesses affect the quality of life, property values and practical enjoyment of property for MILES outside the borders of said small businesses' property lines? III. Location, location, location... not all acreage in the woods is created equal: - The proposed site above Tarboo Lake is over 630 feet in elevation and the topography drops away from it to the north, east and south - Sounds carry and echo for miles in this area, especially gunfire, as we residents can testify - Short of creating an indoor facility or restricting caliber of weapons, large training session frequency and hours of operation, it WILL be living next to a war zone IV. Outcomes: - We accept that the final decision on this proposed gun range may be to allow it, but what reasonable types of restrictions can be guaranteed so that living and being in that area will be tolerable? - Can Kitsap County give us guidance on noise ordinances that curb day -time volume and restrict certain intensity of activities? - Kitsap County's 2014 ordinance concerning shooting ranges: http://www.pscnet.net/govrelations/kitsap/Final ord 5152014.odf V. A final word on noise... This is a 2007 PDN interview with Joe D'Amico about the Fort Discovery legal issues, found on YouTube. httos://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAuscRwOMW8 The entire clip is worth a listen, but here is what is said starting minute 15.38 - 17:50... Interviewer: Are you willing to limit the amount of disturbing activity in terms of sound, let's just say loud activity. Are you willing to limit the loud activity to certain hours? Joe: I don't even want to admit it's loud. Because I've been across the water with a noise meter and I don't think it's loud. Interviewer: Do you live near there though? Joe: I live right there. Interviewer: You live right there. Joe: And there are times when they are shooting that I don't hear it and I'm a couple hundred yards from the shooting range. Interviewer: So you are unwilling to admit even that this is loud to the people who say that it's loud? Joe: I don't know if it's loud or it's the actual sound that makes them uncomfortable. For instance, you're used to having a plane go overhead all the time. Well, if you hear someone shoot maybe that's disturbing to someone, maybe there's somebody who doesn't like firearms, for instance. Maybe there's ways we can do noise abatement, we're open to talking to the county and trying to find out IF there IS a noise problem, because we've not done a study, an official study, but I have gone around while they are shooting on the property with a sound meter and found that it's not more offensive than a single float plane flying over the water. Interviewer: Well certainly the drone of a plane coming in and out is different than the crack of a weapon. Are you willing to limit the amount of explosive - however you want to say it - we all know what a weapon sounds like, we all know what an explosive sounds like - are you willing to limit the amount of that kind of activity to certain hours of the day? Joe: It would be up for discussion and that was something - Interviewer: You'd be willing to do that? Joe: We'd be willing to do that, we'd be willing to move the range, I mean, that solves the possible noise problem you are alluding to. Then, at the last question of the interview, Joe is asked where he sees his facility in 10 years and he says that he sees it as a regional and national "first class" training facility. Personally, I think it that is a fine ambition, but he seems to think that he can create as much noise as he wants if he's more than a mile away from people... how far does he actually think gunfire can travel? Co(,I� fo X 357q 9 1�ij HEARING RECOR Dear Jefferson County Commissioners, My name is Jim fox, I live at 3748 Eaglemount Rd Port Townsend. I live on 20 acres with my wife and two sons ages 8 and 3. We have owned and lived on this land for 13 years. When we purchased the land we imagined clearing the land and building our home with our own two hands, and we've done just that. We cleared an acre, built a small home, a wood shop and miles of trails in the surrounding forest. We have a salmon stream on our property which was named 'Fox Creek' because the DNR removed a culvert in the forest and salmon started spawning in it the year after we arrived and this little 'nothing stream', became important. Over the years we've planted an orchard, gardens and essentially made a little paradise to raise two boys. To say this land is a part of us is a gross understatement. As our family has grown in those 13 years, so too have our careers. I'm currently ranked as the 6th highest producing Real Estate Broker in Jefferson county and sold 13.4 million in homes and land last year. What has also grown is our need for a larger home! After two years and $20,000.00 in designs, we finally received our final set of plans from Simon Little of STL Studio in Port Townsend for our new home, a 1,500sf $425,000 custom home to be built by Brent Davis Construction. We were on his schedule to start in June. Three weeks ago, I learned that Joe D'amico had exercised his lease purchase option on the Tarboo land and bought it, for 250% of fair market value. Seeing the writing on the wall, we have just scrapped our plans to build this year and are considering the possibility that we may not want to live at our home in the near future. Who wants automatic weapons fire 7 days a week in your front yard!? Yes, It is LITERALLY OUR FRONT YARD. 1.3 miles, line of sight from my and my neighbors land. If there were no trees, we would actually see his operation. I'd like to note that I am a hunter and a gun enthusiast. My father was a Police officer in Vermont and I grew up with guns. I shot competitively with the Jay cee's as a kid. Ironically, I had Fort Discovery custom build an AR15 for me 3 years ago. Point being; I am NOT an anti gun person. However, I'd like to know how the rights of a landowner who has been an owner for one or two months, trumps the rights of families who have been there for 10, 15 or 30 years? In my opinion it doesn't. A variance for land use might be acceptable if it were truly of no consequence to neighbors or the environment, but this is clearly not the case - and by what stretch of the imagination is his proposed and stated use either recreational or critical? It's a money making proposition for him, at the expense of my families and my neighbors wealth and happiness Last year I was offered $400,000 for my acreage by a client who I brought home for lunch. know from real life market experience that my property is already impacted by the prospect of the range by a minimum of $125,000. If the range goes in, my property value will be worth half what it was. How can a few out of county employees and some tax revenue of a military training facility trump the loss in land taxes on 60 square miles of affected homes and developable land? I have iphone audio recorded from my porch of the sound generated from an AR15 being shot from Tarboo Lake. (400 yards farther away from me than the proposed Fort Discovery property). This is 50db! Not something that you can simply ignore and whistle over. Our quiet country homes will be like living in a war zone. We already hear shooting on the weekends and it's not an issue. It is the definition of `recreational shooters'. It's on Sundays and it never lasts more than an hour. My wife and neighbors target shoot! It's part of living in the country. But it's short-lived and it's not automatic weapons. It's hunters sighting in rifles for deer season and target shooters. We're NOT Anti Gun Liberals! We're against inconsiderate neighbors who put their own desires and profits over over the greater good and welfare of the community they choose to impose their will upon I would also like to note that had Mr. D'amico sent out a letter explaining what he wanted to do and asked for input, he might have not made a "not friend" of my family and my neighbors. There is technology and means to reduce sound noise, from indoor use to trenching and berms. Impact studies could have been done. Neighbor input could have been considered. None of this has been proposed and none of it will be done. I fear now that since Mr. D'amico has purchased the property for such a large sum, he will be operating within the year with or without your permission. My family comes first, and it is imprudent for us to be building our dream home this year when, in the near future, it may be unsellable/undesireable and not consistent with the reasonable expectation of quiet in a rural residential neighborhood, should the Fort Discovery Range be approved. I urge you to see the big and small picture here. The loss of a community, millions in lost property values and the loss of one of the most peaceful corners of the county. Thank you for your consideration. Jim fox 14 80 131001 CD2 2 E - 002011002 ce A. :5010 3 e r°• j - moi' .r ,P t � a i 93003 a 6 o 0 _ � r CC-i�oaI A/�.i$ OCCuceaINtIv RECORD From: Alex Sidles <Sidles@bnd-law.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 3:57 PM To: jeffbocc Cc: Philip Hunsucker Subject: Tarboo Ridge Coalition public comment regarding gun range moratorium Attachments: Tarboo Ridge Coalition Public Comment Letter.pdf Dear Board members, Attached, please find a public comment submitted on behalf of the Tarboo Ridge Coalition regarding the moratorium on commercial gun ranges. Section 6 of the ordinance establishing the moratorium invited public comment, and this comment is submitted pursuant to that section. The Coalition also looks forward to giving comments at the public hearing on Monday. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Regards, Alex Sidles Bricklin and Newman (206) 264-8600, ext. 108 1 BR ICKLIN & NEW MAN LLP lawyers working for the environment PUBLIC COMMENT TO: Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners. FROM: Bricklin and Newman LLP on behalf of the Tarboo Ridge Coalition DATE: January 30, 2018 RE: Jefferson County Gun Range Moratorium The Tarboo Ridge Coalition submits this public comment in support of Ordinance No. 05-1218- 17, "An Ordinance Establishing a Moratorium on Commercial Shooting Facilities in Unincorporated Areas of Jefferson County." The Tarboo Ridge Coalition is a Washington State non-profit corporation whose members and governors are long-time residents of Jefferson County. The mission of the Tarboo Ridge Coalition is to promote sustainable development in the county that protects the environment and residents' livelihoods and quality of life. For several years now, our members have been aware that Security Services Northwest operated a commercial gun range and training facility known as "Fort Discovery." The facility was used to train Security Services' own personnel on firearms and also to train police and military. These customers were sometimes housed overnight in bunkhouses. The "Fort Discovery" facility also operated a small firearms sales business that distributed "rally point rifles" engraved with the facility's longitude and latitude. The "Fort Discovery" facility has now been closed down, but we believe Security Services is planning to open a new, expanded facility at Tarboo Lake on a pair of twenty -acre parcels zoned "inholding forest" (IF or IF -20). For the reasons stated below, we oppose the construction of the Tarboo Lake facility. We ask the county to use the moratorium period to establish sensible new regulations for gun ranges. I. The Proposed Training Facility Would Violate Existing Law For the reasons stated below, we believe the proposed facility at Tarboo Lake would violate the existing zoning provisions of the Jefferson County Unified Development Code: 1. Although small scale recreation and tourist (SSRT) uses, including recreational gun ranges, may be allowed as a conditional use at a rate of one use per parcel, Security Services' proposed training facility for police and military is a commercial use, not a recreational or tourist use. See JCC 18.10.190 ("Small- scale recreation or tourist uses means those isolated uses which are leisure or recreational in nature..."). See also JCC 18.20.350(3) ("The associated commercial activities [at a SSRT] shall be clearly accessory to and dependent upon the primary recreational or tourist uses") ("The associated commercial activities, in addition to the principal recreational or tourist use, will not have a measurable detrimental traffic, noise, visual or public safety impact on adjacent properties") (emphasis added). 2. Under the Growth Management Act no development regulation may preclude the siting of an essential public facility. However, Security Services' proposing training facility is not an essential public facility. Under the Growth Management Act, "Essential public facilities include those facilities that are typically difficult to site, such as airports, state education facilities and state or regional transportation facilities, regional transit authority facilities, state and local correctional facilities, solid waste handling facilities, and inpatient facilities including substance abuse facilities, mental health facilities, group homes, and secure community transition facilities." A firearms training facility is not one of these facilities nor does it have anything in common with any of these facilities. Even if it were an essential public facility, essential public facilities may be located in forbidden areas (including IF -zoned land) "only if no practicable alternative exists, and then only to the minimum extent possible and in accordance with applicable regulations." JCC 18.15.110(3). Essential public facilities are allowed in agricultural land, rural residential land, and rural commercial land. JCC 18.15.040, Table 3-1. Security Services has made no showing that the only practicable place for a training facility in the entire county is on its small plot of IF -zoned land—assuming a training facility even could be considered an essential public facility in the first place, which we dispute. 3. Although public purpose recreational facilities may be allowed as a conditional use on IF -zoned land, Security Services' facility for the training of its personnel and police and military, is not recreational. See JCC 18.10.030 ("Commercial recreational facility means a place designed and equipped for the conduct of sports and leisure -time activities that is operated as a business and open to the public for a fee"). 4. Retail sales and services, which would include the sale of "rally point rifles," is forbidden on IF -zoned land. See JCC 18.15.040, Table 3-1. 5. Campsites at the proposed facility may be allowable as a conditional SSRT use, but as noted above, there may only be one SSRT per lot, so the presence of campsites would preclude the presence of a gun range on the same parcel. 6. The proposed helicopter landing pads at the training facility are not allowable in an IF -20 zone, even if helicopter flights at the facility could be construed as recreational rather than commercial. See JCC 18.15.040, Table 3-1 2 (disallowing aerial recreational activities in IF zones). See also JCC 18.20.350(5) (aerial recreation in non -IF zones allowable only if "no permanent structures or improvements are required"). Private airstrips may be allowable, but only for "use by the owner primarily for noncommercial aircraft operations and, on an occasional basis, invited guests of the owner or for emergency purposes." JCC 18.10.010. The proposed training facility also is prohibited under the county's regulation on siting and designing gun ranges. JCC 18.20.350(8). Even if otherwise allowed, gun ranges in Jefferson County must "be located, designed, constructed and operated to prevent the likelihood of discharge of ammunition beyond the boundaries of the parcel where they occur;" must comply with the NRA's Range Manual; must be 100 feet from the lot line and 500 feet from occupied dwellings; surrounded by an 8 -foot berm or located in an 8 - foot depression, and limited to one range per parcel. Security Services proposes seven ranges on two parcels, closer than 100 feet to the lot line, with some ranges oriented to shoot toward Highway 104, and some ranges closer than 500 feet to instructor cabins and bunkhouses. II. Security Services Has a History of Causing Environmental Contamination. The former "Fort Discovery" gun range is currently the subject of a soil cleanup action to remove large amounts lead and copper leftover from years of intensive shooting. EPA and Ecology have found that these contaminants pose a threat to groundwater and federally listed salmonids near the facility. Far from cooperating with investigators regarding the contaminated soil, Security Services resisted inspection. From 2005 to 2006, Security Services denied Ecology access to its property to investigate suspected contamination, in spite of a letter Ecology sent to the landowners complaining about the lack of cooperation. Ecology referred the case to EPA, and EPA was finally able to make a site inspection in 2007. Even after EPA's final report in 2008, Security Services did not act to clean up the contamination. Only now, a decade later, is Security Services finally conducting soil cleanup, and only because the landlords of the former "Fort Discovery" did not want to be stuck with the cleanup costs themselves. Given this pattern of non-cooperation regarding environmental contamination at its old gun range, Security Services cannot be trusted to comply with environmental laws on its new proposed gun range. III. Gun Ranges Cause Detrimental Effects to Neighbors and Must be Regulated. Gun ranges affect neighboring properties and uses by causing noise, threatening public safety due to stray bullets, and potentially contaminating soil and groundwater. The best way to mitigate these effects is by locating gun ranges far away from roads, highways, residential properties, and recreation areas; requiring gun ranges to adhere to environmental laws and cooperate with environmental inspections; and by restricting the intensity of shooting. Currently, the Uniform Development Code places some restrictions on gun ranges—as noted, the Tarboo Lake facility would violate the existing code in several ways. But the current code does not go far enough to address the noise, safety, and environmental concerns. Among other things, the code's incorporation of the NRA's Gun Range Manual should be given careful scrutiny. That manual has been criticized as not providing adequate safety margins for neighboring property. The county should take the time to collect information around the county on measures that should be taken to provide adequate protection for neighbors and the public. IV. The Moratorium Gives Jefferson County an Opportunity to Consider Reasonable Regulations. The moratorium gives the county a year to convene a multi -stakeholder process to figure out how to do regulation right. Security Services and other members of the gun range community may participate in the Review Committee established by the ordinance, as may the Tarboo Ridge Coalition, other members of the community, tribal officials, and the county officials. This is exactly the right mixture of interests necessary to ensure that all voices are heard. As the recitals of the moratorium ordinance indicate, Kitsap County passed a gun range regulation that is both sensible and legally defensible. The Kitsap regulation could serve as a starting point for Jefferson County. The Kitsap regulation requires, among other things: All gun ranges to be designed, operated, and maintained to contain bullets, shot, or other projectiles within the facility and to minimize noise to adjacent and nearby properties. Gun ranges may not be used for training military or homeland security units unless these units' regional commands certify the gun range as compliant with the service's safety standards. The use of exploding targets is limited to one day per month and only during daylight hours. Within a shooting facility, only one gun range may be operated at a time. Gun ranges must file a lead management plan, which the county shall review. All gun ranges must obtain an operating permit that must be renewed every five years. Renewal requires an inspection by the county to ensure that the gun range is compliant with all regulations and laws and the plans the gun range filed with the county. If the gun range operator receives a notice of violation of its operating permit, the operator has 48 hours to make the range available for inspection. Any uncorrected violation or other non-compliant behavior will result in the gun range being shut down. 4 We welcome the opportunity to participate in the Jefferson County Review Committee to evaluate these and other possible regulations aimed at protecting property, safety, and the environment. V. The Moratorium Applies to the Proposed Tarboo Lake Facility. The moratorium ordinance forbids the county from accepting any new commercial gun range permit application during the moratorium period. Security Services has submitted documents relating to the proposed Tarboo Lake facility as part of a pre -application, but it never submitted a complete application. The moratorium, therefore, applies to the proposed facility. Security Services does not have any vested rights to build a commercial gun range. The county must not allow bluster or threats of litigation to coerce the county into violating its own ordinance. VI. The Moratorium Is Lawful The Kitsap ordinance regulating gun ranges was recently upheld as lawful under the Washington firearms statutes, the Washington State Constitution, and the Second Amendment. See Kitsap County v. Kitsap Rifle and Revolver Club, 1 Wn. App. 2d 393, 405 P.3d 1026 (2017). By virtue of their police power, counties may regulate gun ranges, because the regulation of gun ranges does not constitute "firearms regulation" pre-empted by state law. Id. at 406. In addition, counties may also directly regulate firearms "where there is a reasonable likelihood that humans, domestic animals, or property will be jeopardized." Id. at 405. Even if a gun range regulation implicates the Second Amendment (which the Kitsap Rifle court did not determine is the case), it would be subject to intermediate scrutiny, not strict scrutiny. Id. at 417. "In a Second Amendment case, a law survives intermediate scrutiny if it is substantially related to an important government purpose." Id. Protection of safety and property is an important government purpose, and the operating permit requirement is substantially related to it. Id. at 418. For the same reason, an operating permit requirement for gun ranges is also permissible under the State Constitution. Id. Respectfully submitted, BRICKLIN & NEWMAN, LLP 01 Alex Sidles, WSBA No. 52832 Attorney for Tarboo Ridge Coalition 1424 4th ave, #500 Seattle, WA 98101 sidles@bnd-law.com (206) 264-8600 ieffbocc From: Chris Sanok <mcsanok@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2018 7:41 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Please stop the proposed gun range February 1, 2018 Dear Commissioners, I support your decision to enact a one year moratorium on the Tarboo Lake area gun range My three young children live within a couple miles of the proposed gun range and their lives would be negatively impacted by the noise coming from such a gun range. Tarboo Lake is a lovely asset to the county. My son and daughters have trout fished there for years. Trading the peace and beauty of Tarboo Lake for a war games background soundtrack would be a tragedy for the many users of the lake. But most of all as a parent and a taxpayer, I am worried about lead pollution. I work for the Port Townsend Shipwrights Coop. The Coop spends a lot of time and money to manage and dispose of toxic chemicals and heavy metals. Presumably the Coop could save a lot of money by buying a couple of Tarboo acres and dumping our old bottom paint and sandblast media there. The Coop doesn't do that because it wants to be a good corporate citizen. The owners would worry about being responsible for poisoning the earth from metals leaching into the groundwater. The owners also have a suspicion that dumping heavy metal waste on the ground out in the county would result in some of them going to prison. The Port of Port Townsend just spent almost $500,000 on a storm water filtration project to remove pollutants from rain water before that water entered the bay. The other option was a $1.6 million dollar storm water management system. Port tenants all hope that the new system works, because there is a real threat that the state Department of Ecology will close the boatyard if the storm water is too polluted. That is just for copper oxide, which is much less dangerous to humans, fish and wildlife than lead. This country made a terrible mistake by allowing leaded gasoline to pollute our countryside for so many years. We now know better and are eternally grateful to those politicians that had the courage to stand up to polluters and protect their constituents. Your opposition to the toxic lead pollution from this gun range could be your legacy and your gift to future generations of Jefferson county. We know from experience that environmental regulations get stronger over time as our knowledge grows. A business like the gun range won't be around forever. Someday it will close. Then the county will own 40 acres of lead contaminated ground. The county taxpayers will own the cost of remediation. The commission and the county needs more time to ensure that the environmental impacts are sufficiently studied, that sufficient pollution control measures are in place, that the county is protected from the cost of eventual remediation, and that its partner in this project is a cooperative business committed to being a good corporate citizen. Respectfully, Christopher Sanok 3654 Eaglemount Rd., Chimacum, WA 98325 360-301-6282 Virus -free. www.avq.com From: Bruce Monro <ckykr@msn.com> Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2018 12:01 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Shooting Range at Tarboo Lake Area To Whom It May Concern; I am writing this letter to you in support of the new proposed shooting range to be located on 40 acres in the Tarboo Lake area. If I am not mistaken, Past rulings in Federal Courts have deemed it illegal to try and prohibit or change zoning laws, (see Ezell vs Chicago 2011,Ezell vs Chicago 2017, Ezell II, per Second Amendment) in an effort to stop a legal firearms range. Adding a new shooting range will help to reduce illegal shooting and damages associated with un -supervised shooting on public and private lands, by people looking to exercise their Second Amendment Rights to Keep and Bear Arms. Law Enforcement Agencies need a shooting range to practice their firearms skills in order to be both proficient, and safe while both on, and off the job, and be able to protect and defend the public who they are sworn to protect and to serve. Numerous agencies, including a Christian Aid Relief Organization ( who train people from all over the world in Survival in terrorist populated locals) need a safe location to train their employees in survival in potential hostile environments. It is unconstitutional in my mind to allow a very biased group of people to try and stop a business, and shooting range, that is conforming to all permits required, who has operated in Jefferson County in very recent time, and who employs local people and who offers a safe and reasonable location to safely discharge firearms, that are a Constitutional Right. Just because an outspoken group of anti -firearm's people make a big noise against it, does not make it right. There are others in the public that want and need this shooting range, and why would you take away a persons job and income? Where is a grandfather or Grandmother Father or Mother ,Son or Daughter, and Grandchildren going to be able to go, and learn firearms skills in a safe and controlled environment? Firearms are our Constitutional Right, and they should be used in a safe, well operated location, that supports training, and qualified directional support for shooting sports, Law Enforcement training, and Christian Aid personnel survival training. I believe the newly proposed Shooting Range located on the 40 acres in the safe area located in the Tarboo Lake area is a viable solution. Please support this local business man, who wants to keep his business going, and to help Law Enforcement officials, Christian Aid Relief Organizations, Shooting Sports Aficionado's a safe location to shoot and enjoy an American Past Time. Thank You Sincerely, Bruce Monro Sasquatch Firearms Training LLC ckykr@msn.com 360-460-3440 To Whom It May Concern: HEARS -7 r ( r February 1, 2018 I am writing in support of the moratorium on new gun ranges, particularly as it applies to Mr. D'Amico's proposed Cedar Hills Recreational Facility. As a property owner within two miles of the site, I am concerned about the noise created by a facility of this size and scope and its effect on both my quality of life and my property values. For many people in the Eaglemount and Tarboo Valley areas, this gun range would have truly disastrous consequences. We are faced with the prospect of owning property on which we cannot peacefully live and which we cannot sell for its current worth if this project proceeds. Mr. D'amico has insisted that because he has dug a well and submitted a pre -application he is vested. However, as far as I can tell from public information, his land is only conditionally approved for gun ranges. Conditionally approved is not the same as approved. To proceed with plans in the absence of approval via permit and zoning is not vestment; it is a calculated risk that he chose to undertake. Furthermore, I would argue that the families and farms within close proximity to his gun range are more vested than he. I am also highly concerned by the environmental impacts of his site choice. In researching gun ranges, the very first guidelines that I pulled up in a Google search reiterated the absolute necessity of siting your new gun range very far away from any water source.* This is a layman's website for sure, but this same concern is underscored by the EPA best management practices for gun ranges which states that gun ranges in high precipitation areas with acidic souls that are near existing bodies of water have a very high potential for contamination. Mr. D'amico plans to build on the shores of Tarboo Lake, risking heavy metal contamination of the lake, the water table, and local wildlife and waterfowl. Additionally, a facility of this size will have a huge impact on water availability in the Tarboo Valley, which I believe is already being managed in such a way as to prevent overuse and depletion. Approva! of this facility seems to fly in the face of current management practices. Mr. D'amico's supporters argue that opponents to his gun range are infringing on his and their Second Amendment rights. Yet nowhere in the Constitution do I see that one has the right to discharge weapons in a manner that is injurious to the people living in close proximity. They also claim that the moratorium infringes on Mr. D'Amico's private property rights. And yet, from what I can determine, the land is zoned as Inholding Forest which is only conditionally zoned for gun ranges. Mr. D'amico or his co -page owner, through the Jefferson County Washington Facebook page, has publicly claimed that the land is zoned for a gun range. The only land in Jefferson County definitively zoned for gun ranges appears to be Rural Commercial. I feel that Mr. D'amico is deceiving the public with his aforementioned claim. In fact, I have little faith that Mr. D'amico will attempt to be a good neighbor and work with those around him to 0 2 2018 �. C. February 2, 2018 Dear County Commissioners: My name is Pascale Sanok. I am writing in opposition to the proposed Tarboo Gun Range. I am 14 and have lived in Chimacum for 12 years. Our community is a place of peace and safety. Many of our neighbors are military veterans who suffer from PTSD. PTSD is easily triggered by gun shots and helicopter noise, both of which this gun range will make continuous. Tarboo Lake is one of the few lakes that has not been closed due to toxic algae. My family has been going to Tarboo Lake for years. My sister and I go to swim, my brother and father fish, and my mom paddle boards. With a possible gun range opening next to the lake, there is a high risk of lead leaking into the water destroying this precious water source. Mr D'Amico's money does not make him above the law. A moratorium is already in place and should continue to be observed until the pre -decided time. ALL GUN RANGE PERMITS SHOULD REMAIN ON HOLD. Thank you for your patience in reading this letter, and may it help you come to a educated decision regarding this matter. Sincerely, fa. Pascale Sanok P.O. Box 63 3654 Eaglemount Rd., Chimacum WA 98325 cc 7;�� (C Ick 7 _a,1� effbocc From: paragonguc@gmail.com on behalf of clave pearcy <paragon@3-1 para Sent: Friday, February 02, 2018 11:09 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: shooting ranges all for it I have recently moved here from colorado and one of my decision was the availability of shooting ranges in the area I have brought a company with me that will evolve into more jobs on the peninsula ...If there was no local ranges I could have chosen anywhere and would not have come here Dont make me move again Dave Pearcy Paragon Computers Inc Port Angeles WA 98363 360-775-2266 Cc --boc( f a 3 � effbocc From: Barbara Gatien <foghorn@olypen.com> Sent: Friday, February 02, 2018 11:54 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Proposed range tarboo lake I believe that the proposed shooting facility should go forward and be approved for the good of the county and surrounding area. The upcoming vote to "delay" permits for another year is a thinly disguised attempt to frustrate this lawful and beneficial project in contravention of the intent of federal law protecting establishment of ranges properly designed. I urge a no vote on the delay tactic by those opposed to the facility and urge all concerned to facilitate the construction of a much needed project funded by private funds. Respectfully: Ralph W. Gatien Sent from my iPad occ RECORD. From: Jerry Papers <jerry_papers@hotmail.com> Sent: Friday, February 02, 2018 11:51 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Public Comment for 05 FEB Special Meeting concerning Commercial Shooting Facilities As a 25 year public educator, veteran of the Air Force, firearms instructor and Peninsula citizen - I strongly support the development of new commercial shooting facilities in the area. Along with First Aid and swimming, proper education of safe firearms handling/respect is needed by ALL citizens - whether they end up needing those skills or not. Education is THE key to safety. Local Law Enforcement and First -Responders need local facilities to adequately train to meet the needs of the public in a cost-effective manner (saving their time and taxpayers a lot of money). More and more people (especially women and elderly) are making firearms a viable self and home defense option, and they desperately need proper training - which requires proper facilities to do the training. These facilities will also attract economic benefits as shooting sports are growing very fast, with people coming from long distances to participate in them - IF there are places to go. ("Build it and they will come.") Commercial facilities will also reduce the amount of illegal and/or unsafe firearms use on public (as well as uninvited private) lands - creating a much safer situation for all who enjoy the beautiful outdoors here on the Peninsula. The Peninsula is sorely lacking in these type of facilities - almost non- existent - especially for an area with a population that enjoys outdoor sports as much as it does. If anything, more should be built, and not hindered in their development. The positives of new firearms facilities meet the many varied needs of the public and far outweigh the few negative arguments. The logical choice is to expand, not restrict commercial shooting facilities. Thank You for the opportunity to share my views. Sincerely, Jerry Papers Port Angeles, WA (c :�cc IC1(a 9 - I � From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Dear Commissioners, Riley Parker <riley@happytailsranchnw.com> Friday, February 02, 2018 4:32 PM -A jeffbocc Support for the Ordinance Establishing a Moratorium on Commercial Shooting Facilities in Unincorporated Areas of Jefferson County Ordinance No. 05-1218-17 Moratorium Letter to BoCC.docx Attached is letter of appreciation for the Moratorium on Commercial Shooting Ranges. I have also provided some input on a few issues that should be considered by the yet to be formed County Review Committee on Commercial Shooting Facilities. Thank you Riley M. Parker January 29, 2018 Jefferson County Board of Commissioners The Honorable David Sullivan, Chair 1820 Jefferson Street P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: An Ordinance Establishing a Moratorium on Commercial Shooting Facilities in Unincorporated Areas of Jefferson County Ordinance No. 05-1218-17 Dear Commissioners: I am writing this communication to thank you all for listening to the testimony from the public on this issue and taking the appropriate action to create this ordinance. As I read the ordinance I found that it clearly identifies the interests of public safety, preserving the environment, ensuring compatibility with other land uses while promoting the safe use of firearms. The time period of the moratorium is also appropriate as it provides enough time for the creation of a work plan, acquiring and assigning the necessary resources, public participation and a place where thoughtful listening and decision-making can happen. Your decision to reference an ordinance from neighboring Kitsap County should also be applauded. It provides us all with an example from which we can either adopt in its entirety or tailor for our county. It reminds me of the well -crafted response provided by the Jefferson County Department of Community Development to the Pre -Application for a proposed shooting facility north of Quilcene. The response from DCD included the need for public safety and even provided an example of the type of area, zoned industrial, for a future shooting facility. In support of the ordinance and the eventual siting of a facility I would like to take the opportunity to provide my input on a few issues that should be considered by the County Review Committee on Commercial Shooting Facilities. The issues are about public safety, nearby critical and essential facilities, preservation of life and property and facility requirements for aircraft. On the issue of public safety I would ask that the County Review Committee seek a professional assessment of how far stray bullets can travel from gun ranges. I have been shooting for more than 50 years, am a veteran of the U.S. Army/Washington National Guard, avid hunter and reloader of my own ammunition for accuracy. Over the last five decades I have consulted ballistic tables for many different calibers of firearms. Most ballistic tables only show the usual "effective" range of a bullet as it encounters the target. Distances of a thousand yards are usually the upper limit of these tables. Unfortunately this does not include the "maximum" range of a stray bullet accidently fired at a more acute angle. In my research I found that an AR15 rifle has a maximum range of up to 1.6 miles, a standard 30/06 hunting rifle has a maximum range of up to 3 miles and the .50 caliber BMG, used by both the military and civilians, has a maximum range of up to 6 miles. Please have the County Review Committee consult with a Professional Ballistics Expert when considering the containment of stray bullets and setting the appropriate distances for safe zone buffers. On the issue of critical/essential facilities I would ask the County Review Committee to consider the proximity of electrical transmission and distribution utility lines when considering and selecting a location for a shooting facility. As I look out my kitchen window to the west I see the Bonneville Power Administration's 500,000 volt power lines which provides "all" of the Olympic Peninsula with its power and lights. Along side of the BPA transmission lines are two 115,000 volt transmissions lines, which belong to all of us as owners/users of power from Jefferson County Public Utility District #1. These lines provide the connections between the electrical switchyards and substations in our communities and towns. Unfortunately the high voltage insulators on these transmission lines have become favorite targets for irresponsible shooters. The problem is so pervasive that the Bonneville Power Administration has a Crime Witness Program, which provides up to a $25,000 reward for reporting those individuals who are convicted. Bob Windrus, BPA Security Chief, "cautions that, if damaged insulators fail, live transmission lines can fall to the ground. Since the wires are not insulated, electricity can pulse quickly through the ground, injuring or killing animals and people in the vicinity. The lines can also start fires." As an employee of Puget Sound Energy for more than 20 years and having held the positions of Journeyman Lineman, Operations Supervisor and Corporate Safety Coordinator I have seen the damage and destruction to these critical/essential facilities. As a Journeyman Lineman I have personally replaced gun -fired damaged insulators on transmission and distribution lines. The fact that the downed lines can cause death and fires is especially concerning to me. Please have the County Review Committee consider this also when selecting a site and contact BPA or PUD with any questions. On the issue of preservation of life and property I would ask the County Review Committee to consider the potential for forest fires should they look at forested land for a shooting facility. This last year there was a forest fire on Tarboo Ridge a few miles north of our home. The area is still scarred and burnt and very visible from Highway 104. The winds were strong and blowing in our direction. We were prepared to evacuate with our pets and livestock. We would have to leave our Scottish Highland Cattle to be devoured by the fire. We have spent years breeding the genetics of our cattle and that would be lost. Since purchasing our property in 2002, we have dedicated all of our available time and finances to improving our land, planning, designing and building a new home and installing fencing and barns. As we are retired I am not sure that we have the energy to start over and nor should we have to. This issue is very personal to us. With the recent increase in forest fires in Washington and California we all have an opportunity to learn from their devastating experiences. Please have the County Review Committee consider the issue of forest fires when looking at the use of exploding targets, tracer ammunition, and any other incendiary or explosives, which can cause forest fires. On the issue of potentially having aircraft access to a future shooting facility I suggest that the County Review Committee review and incorporate the provisions of the Federal Aviation Administration FAR Part 139, Commercial Airport Facility Requirements, and specifically the Advisory Circular, AC 150/5390-2C. This Advisory Circular provides the requirements for a public commercial facility to accept rotary aircraft. Safety for the general public, ground personnel, pilots and passengers is paramount. As a Senior Manager, responsible for all electronic and electrical systems, at SeaTac Airport, and working for the Port of Seattle for 18 years I have found the FAA requirement invaluable. The Advisory Circulars are specific and provide a standard used all over the world. I hope that this information will provide guidance to the County Review Committee should they need it. In closing I want to thank you again for establishing a moratorium on commercial shooting ranges and for the opportunity to share my thoughts, concerns, experiences and some expertise in a few areas. I support and appreciate the work you are doing as County Commissioners. I will also be submitting a volunteer application/statement of interest for participation as a member of the County Review Committee on Commercial Shooting Facilities. Sincerely, Riley M. Parker P.O. Box 638 Quilcene WA. 98376 cc: The Honorable Kathleen Kler The Honorable Kate Dean Philip Morley, County Administrator From: Robert Briggs <txbrcl4@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, February 02, 2018 5:51 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Tarboo Lake Shooting Range Dear Council Members; I am writing to express my support for the proposed shooting range/facilities proposed for Tarboo Lake. Both Clallam and Jefferson Counties suffer from a lack of safe outdoor range facilities for training and recreation. As a Westsider here in Port Angeles, I feel that I can answer a question that the Tarboo Lake homeowner's claim as a major concern. Noise. There will be noise, yes, but it will not be constant, nor excessive. I live near Fairchild Field, with light planes, occasional jets, and Coast Guard helicopters regularly using the airspace in my neighborhood. The neighborhood also has a log reload facility and an indoor gun range. Between all 3, It's not constant noise, and seldom heard when I'm inside my house. Even when I'm outside it's not constant, nor excessive. Gun range noise will be intermittent, a fact that the Tarboo Lake residents are unwilling to acknowledge. As for the helipads, after the Cascade Subduction Earthquake Drill was over one of the major lessons learned was that When the Big One Hits, helicopters will be the only way in and out as roads and bridges on the Peninsula are expected to be impassable. Sincerely Robert Briggs, Port Angeles Sent from my iPhone 'effbocc F. Im From: joelbartron <joelbartron@gmail.com> R-4 Sent: Saturday,February Februa 03, 2018 9:09 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Tarboo Lake commercial shooting range. Dear sir, My name is Steven Joel and I live in Port Angeles at 319 East 12th Street. My opinion is the development of the Tarboo Lake range is a positive step for the Olympic Peninsula. A range would increase local business traffic because of Competitive Shooting Tourism, allow our citizens who own firearms a safe place to shoot, provide a location for firearms safety training, and get folks out of State and Federal lands for recreational shooting with the associated used target trash that comes with it. Specifically; law enforcement, citizens with concealed weapon permits, and local military will have an adequate location for proficiency training. If lead contamination is your issue, our citizens shoot all over our public lands and the development of this range is a first step to corral this activity into a controlled environment where lead can be recovered. Respectfully yours, Steven G. Joel jeffbocc From: Sent: Judith Lucia <judithlucia7@gmail.com> Saturday, February 03, 2018 2:06 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Commercial Shooting Facilities To: The Jefferson County Commissioners HEia�lMG RE op,& We do not believe that another commercial firing range is compatible with the lifestyle we enjoy in Jefferson County. We already have two shooting facilities and certainly do not want the additional of a third, expanded facility—especially in South Jefferson County. We live on Quilcene Bay. Duck hunting season runs from October through January, four months every year. You never get used to the blasts; it is a stressful environment. It affects our pets, it affects everyone. We can't imagine living with shooting twelve months a year. We are concerned with the hiring of a consultant to look into the feasibility of another commercial shooting facility. Who will be hired on behalf of the residents of the South County who will be directly affected by such a facility? We are concerned about weaponry noise, increased traffic, helicopter activity, and the negative effects of such type of facility. We already have shooting facilities that negatively affect the county residents. Please, let's not have another! Sincerely, Jeff and Judith Lucia P.O. Box 321 Quilcene, WA 98376 ((- q (C k d - r. - lf� ieffbocc • From: Nerreca <nerreca@aol.com> [?t, � iG Fro Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2018 9:41 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: New Shooting Facilities It is really very simple. If you allow this facility you will be ruining people's lives. They have been ruining lives at Discovery Bay for years. I thought some of you lived in the country but I guess you don't because if you did live in the country instead of the city you would be aware of how far sound travels. I can hear my neighbors rooster a half mile away. You can hear the Boom Fest music two miles away. My neighbor's gun fire scares my dog and when he loads black powder and fires it scares me too. Automatic or multiple guns firing would be terrifying. This facility will not just be doing occasional firing like my neighbor sighting his gun before hunting season it could be all day, all evening and they probably have plans for night time firing which in the summer is 11 pm to 3 am. They say you can't find their property. Well sound really doesn't follow tracks on the ground. Please imagine sitting in your yard listening to the birds with a background of gun fire - FOR HOURS. And this is not BB guns for target practice this very loud semi- and automatic weapons from multiple shooters. Just imagine how you would feel if you had to listen to gun fire on your day off or at a beautiful summer evening out door barbeque. It is very simple. This is not a Syria or a war zone. This is not like people complaining about an airport when they move nearby knowing airport is there. This is people moving to quiet area and then you allowing unnecessary noise to impact their lives. One of your revised Ordinance requirements is to ensure compatibility with neighboring land use. You need to define land use as people living their lives and not having to listen to gun fire. The gun range needs to be where no one can hear it. It is that simple.Don't ruin people's lives. cC=aocc(cP,a,5 4 occ From: Frank Johnson <Frank24401@msn.com> Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2018 3:09 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Comments regarding Commercial Shooting Ranges in Jefferson County Subject: Commercial Shooting Ranges in Jefferson County I would like to briefly outline the main reason I am in support of Commercial Shooting Ranges. That reason is that they offer a venue for training and practice. A study from the University of Washington (UW) School of Public Health by Assistant Professor Rawhani- Rahbar concludes that forty percent of America's gun owners have not received any formal firearms training. Other studies have shown that without training, the occurrence of accidental shootings increases (data from surges in firearm sales correlated to accidental shootings after horrific shootings such as Sandy Hook). The bottom line is that making firearms training and practice easily and readily available will serve to reduce firearm injuries. Those on the 'anti -gun' side of the debate will raise the mantra of 'firearms safety'. I believe that the data shows that true 'firearms safety' starts with training and practice. Please allow development of commercial shooting ranges in Jefferson Couuinty. Regards, SD 'Frank' Johnson Sequim 1 ieffbocc From: Sigve <pacemsigve@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2018 8:46 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Fwd: Jefferson county shooting range Tarboo lake Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: > Dear Commissioners > A friend of mine who lives in Port Angeles recently shared with me the > proposal of a new shooting range to go in the Tarboo lake area . I have to say I am excited to see an outdoor Range be proposed here. it seems to fit all the criteria set forth to meet all the safety requirements needed & further more away from residential neighborhoods. I currently live in Edmonds Wash and I travel that way frequently having another outdoor facility would be great . The Kenmore gun range here is under constant pressure from neighbors about noise & safety. it won't be long before it is also gone. if not for that reason but for development reason property values. That all said it's important to have & maintain gun Ranges so that people can continue to go & safely practice & hone our shooting skills. it's a Great hobby & our 2nd amendment right. > Sincerely, > Sigve Helleren > Sent from my iPad jeffbocc N F From: Dave Kush <dckush2212@gmail.com> 1 � k" Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2018 3:50 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: New shooting range near Tarboo lake and range moratorium Commissioners, I would like to see a safe and clean place to shoot that also has on-site Supervision to assure it stays that way. The addition of archery would also be a plus. Joe D'Amico would bring this kind of a facility to Jefferson County. He should be allowed to proceed with his plans. I am quite sure that if Mr. D'Amico is allowed to go ahead with his development, that it will be a plus for Jefferson County! Respectfully, Dave Kush Sent from my Pad CC�ecc �C�t a •5�� From: Russell Cowley <russcowley6@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 05, 2018 7:57 AM • To: jeffbocc Subject: Range I am a 100% combat disabled Vietnam veteran and can't go into the mountains to shoot with my grandson. I would like to ask that the permission be given to construct a range for all to use. When people go to the mountains to shoot it leaves the door open for sparks, garbage and misuse. Russell A Cowley Sequim Cc-.'�occlk a- ti-ff • QIVQICL �awaiacLwviyniPub.nev Sent: Monday, February 05, 2018 10:18 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Shooting range moratorium David Alvarez here commenting (gratefully) from the peanut gallery. Kitsap County has a quite detailed ordinance on how to regulate a shooting range. Hours of operation etc. Could be enacted in Jeffco and applied prospectively to any application for a shooting range. If Mr D'Amico has not submitted an application and also paid the application fee, then he is not vested under land use law. See RCW 19.27.095. Maybe he has applied for the "spa" portion of his project but not the shooting range? If not, then don't let Mr. D'Amico assert he is vested. Finally, don't succumb to the Not In My Backyard Folks who might live near the site. Instead, let the permit application process play out. If it is a Conditional Use Permit process, then that result, whether it be approved or denied, is eminently defensible when loser takes decision to Superior Court under LUPA. What place is better for a shooting range than deep in a rural forest zone? That might not be the exact title of the zone where D'Amico has made his proposal. Or even an accurate generic description but the point is the same Be well Commissioners and staff. David Alvarez, a resident of Port Townsend. Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S® 6, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone From: susan miller <susanmiller@olympus.net> Sent: Monday, February 05, 2018 10:52 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Tarboo Area Proposed Weapons Use Jefferson County Board of Commissioners HEARING pF Please accept our complaint against the proposal to allow a shooting range for automatic weapons to exist in the Tarboo area. This is a serious misuse of recreational zoning which will have seriously bad financial and health and safety effects on nearby residentially zoned property and the families who live there and raise their children there. No family should be forced to accept the frequent and continued sounds of automatic weapons in their neighborhood. Neighborhoods of acreages, such as this one, do exist in which neighbors respect the right of their neighbors to safety and reasonable quiet. Please find a way to prevent this proposed commercial use of recreational zoning to disrupt and destroy the neighborhood with invasive noise filled behavior. Thank you, Susan and John Miller Port Townsend, Washington susanmiller@olympus.net (( _�5,oCc, V� 9, C) - f � From: Teri Nomura <nomura@windermere.com> "' i'.. Sent: Monday, February 05, 2018 11:09 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: In favor of a moratorium on Shooting Ranges in Jefferson county EMAIL ALERT: The Windermere mail system has detected the phrase "wire transfer" in the contents of this email. As a new practice, our mail server is actively checking for this phrase due to the increase in fraudulent wire transfer requests which are often sent via emails that look entirely legitimate. If this email (or any email you receive) is asking you to initiate a wire transfer, we strongly recommend that you contact the sender by phone or in person to verify the request and the routing instructions. We do not recommend using a phone number or other contact information provided via email to contact the sender unless it matches with information you already have for them. If this email is not asking you to initiate a wire transfer, please disregard this message. --- Dear BOCC, I am in favor of a moratorium on shooting facilities in Jefferson County. It makes sense to listen to the people who would be impacted by a shooting range. Actually this is ALL Jefferson County property owners and residents who will be impacted. I have been a real estate agent since 1995 in Jefferson County. I have shown houses and land from Port Townsend to Brinnon. From conversations with Buyers and Sellers I think about 90% of all people would NOT want to live near a shooting range (10% cannot hear well). Noise is the biggest factor- it is an ongoing and interrupted noise. That kind of noise activates the 'fight'or flight' instinct- which makes people constantly on guard. People do not want to live like that. Right now I live near the construction of Grant Street School. While that noise is annoying (especially the back-up beeper and the heavy thumping when they are compacting land); I know that the project will be finished, and the construction noise will go away. The same cannot be said for a shooting range. That is an all day year around operation. This is a TAKINGS. In the same way as the anti-GMA people called the GMA a takings, because they could no longer sub -divide their land and use the land the way they had been able to for years and years... this is a takings also. People bought their properties and assumed that it was a peaceful place to live. People purposely move away from cities and noisy environments and come to Jefferson County to be QUIET. This action would TAKE AWAY their peaceful existence and make their property values go down. Ask real estate agents whether the PT Gun Range has affected potential buyers-- or for that matter, the Disco Bay operation. I had a buyer last year back away from an accepted offer, because of the disruptive noise from the Disco Bay operation. I would say that the ASSESSOR will need to lower the property values on all of the properties within 3 miles of the facility- and not just houses. People who want to sell their land will not be able to get as good of a price for their land- even now their land price is being affected, because potential buyers can read about the issues on the Internet. Get ready to lower your budget again. It makes sense to listen carefully to the people who would be impacted by a shooting range. Actually this is ALL of us who will be impacted. Teri Nomura Windermere Port Townsend 360-531-1602 Fraud Alert! I will never email you wiring instructions. Speak directly with your broker or escrow officer to confirm wire instructions PRIOR to wiring. YEN � 'effbocc �,��► From: Consuelo Brennan <demondoll@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 05, 2018 11:21 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Moratorium on Modifications to Existing and Establishing New Shooting Facilities Dear Commissioners Dean, Kler, and Sullivan, Thank you for imposing a one year moratorium on the development of new gun ranges. I support this moratorium as it allows for a more comprehensive study on the environmental, business, and public safety issues would serve to clarify both county policy, and where projects like Mr D'Amico's might be most appropriate. Warm regards, Consuelo Aduviso Brennan 360-379-2602 (c:�,0(L (Gt 3.5,1� . lprr From: Rachel T. <RacheIT1006@outlook.com 6 j• r Sent: Monday, February 05, 2018 12:04 PM ' "� ►rte--% To: jeffbocc Subject: Ordinance 05-1218-17 Comment in Support of Moratorium Dear County Officials -- I am writing in support of the one year moratorium on commercial shooting facilities in unincorporated Jefferson County (Ordinance 05-1218-17). 1 have read the available online reports/webpages, including what appear to me to be interested private individuals' efforts to mislead the public into thinking that these individuals' postings about the proposed property development are official county opinions and facts. The representation that there are very few residents within 2 miles of the property currently at issue is inaccurate, as is the claim that the controversy, and the county's decision to impose the moratorium, came out of the blue. I agree with the statements in the ordinance that the moratorium is necessary, among other reasons, to ensure that the county has adequate time to assess the impacts and determine the appropriate sitings of any future gun ranges. Thank you for your attention to this important matter. Rachel Tausend Seattle, Wa (Washington native, with family and friends throughout the Olympic Peninsula) ct 13 1 eocc b' Eli Iffb From: Peter Bahls <peter@ nwwatershed.org > Sent: Monday, February 05, 2018 12:44 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: NWI letter to BOCC re shooting range moratorium Feb 3 2018 Attachments: NWI Letter to BOCC 2.5.18[2].pdf Honorable Board of County Commissioners, Please consider the attached letter. Sincerely, Peter Bahls, Director Northwest Watershed Institute 3407 Eddy Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 360-385-6786 www.nwwatershed.org 1 KAMPMEIER & KNUTSEN PLLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW PAUL A. KAMPMEIER Licensed in Washington 206.223.4088 x 4 pau.10kamprneierknutsen.com February 5, 2018 Via Electronic Mail Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, Washington 98368 Email: jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us Re: Ordinance No. 05-1218-17, Establishing a Moratorium on Commercial Shooting Facilities in Unincorporated Areas of Jefferson County Dear Commissioners Kler, Sullivan, and Dean I represent Northwest Watershed Institute and am working with Mr. Peter Bahls to evaluate the legality of Security Services Northwest's proposed new weapons training facility for the north shore of Tarboo Lake in east Jefferson County (the Project). I am providing these comments in support of the Board of County Commissioners' decision to impose a moratorium on commercial shooting facilities. Please include these comments in the administrative record for this matter and please contact me or Mr. Bahls if you have any questions or concerns about them. Northwest Watershed Institute has three main points it would like to submit for the Board's consideration. First, NWI appreciates the County's adoption of the ordinance and its interest in taking the time to obtain community feedback; however, NWI is concerned that the review process created by Ordinance No. 05-1218-17 will fail if it results only in recommendations for mitigation measures and if the committee does not directly examine appropriate criteria for the location and siting of shooting ranges. The one year moratorium is an opportunity to develop recommendations that clarify and strengthen the County code and development regulations as necessary to prevent the development of new shooting ranges in locations where they would: (1) degrade the property values and quality of life of surrounding private residents and landowners; (2) destroy the enjoyment of an adjacent public recreation resource, such as Tarboo Lake; and (3) impact treaty reserved hunting rights and public hunting opportunities in the surrounding lands. Recommendations for clear, legally defensible criteria for siting shooting ranges will be of clear benefit to the public. Second, we understand that SSNW plans to proceed immediately with permitting for parts of the Project that SSNW believes are not subject to the moratorium. But a "piece meal" approach to developing the Project will violate the review process mandated by the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), which requires a comprehensive review of the entire project, including cumulative effects. The County should not approve any permits, including water rights, or take any other development actions related to the overall Project, before conducting a comprehensive SEPA review. Third, SSNW is clearly incorrect when it contends it is not subject to the moratorium and when it asserts that the County must process its request for permits for the Project. We encourage the County to stand by both the moratorium and its position that the moratorium applies to SSNW. Section 1 of the ordinance establishes a moratorium on "[t]he submission, acceptance processing or approval of any Jefferson County permit application for any proposed use, development, proposal or project for the citing, construction or modification of any commercial shooting facility." Section 2.1 then provides the relevant definitions. And Section 4 then states unambiguously that the moratorium "is effective immediately upon adoption," which adoption occurred on December 18, 2017. The moratorium plainly applies to SSNW's proposed Tarboo Lake project because that project proposes the construction of a shooting facility that will be used for commercial purposes as set forth in Sections 1 and 2 of the ordinance. Section 3 provides an exception to the moratorium that applies to the "acceptance, processing, or approval of any Jefferson County permit applications for any proposed use, development, proposal or project for the siting, construction or modification of any commercial shooting facility that have previously been deemed `substantially complete' by Jefferson County." Section 3 does not exclude SSNW from the moratorium, however, or require the County to consider SSNW's proposal while the moratorium is in place, because Jefferson County has not determined that SSNW "substantially completed" the required permit application. SSNW and the County conducted a pre -application conference on June 30, 2017. The pre - application materials expressly state that one of the purposes of the meeting was for the County to provide SSNW with "a list of requirements for a completed application" and a "general summary of the procedures to be used to process the application." See also Jefferson County Code § 18.40.090(4). The pre -application conference materials also state: Discussions at the conference or the information provided by the staff shall not bind or prohibit the County's future application or enforcement of all applicable laws and regulations. No statements or assurances made by County representatives shall in any way relieve the applicant of his or her duty to submit an application consistent with all relevant requirements of County, state and federal codes, laws, regulations, and land use plans. Additionally, a representative for SSNW signed the standard disclosure on the pre -application conference materials, which states: `.`Information provided to a prospective applicant during the pre - application consultation is based on County regulations in effect at the time of the pre -application consultation. Revised or new County regulations could affect a future development application. A pre - application consultation does not vest a future development application." These statements clearly indicate that the pre -application materials and conference do not constitute or qualify as a complete application, and that participation in a pre -application conference does not vest any development rights. -2- PRONG RPCO jeff bocc RU, From: Dan and Carla <spinnermail@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, February 05, 2018 1:34 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Tarboo Lake Gun Range I am writing to voice my concerns about the proposed 40 acre gun range and weapons training complex at Tarboo Lake. I don't think we need such a massive training facility in our county. There are people and animals who have homes, farms, and businesses in the area who would be adversely affected. We were recently given a horse that we are boarding at Serendipity Farm in Quilcene. Consequently, we are driving by the Tarboo Lake area several times a week. I can't even imagine the noise of semi and automatic weapons being fired from 7 am to 10 pm every day. I am trying to figure out if it's possible that so much gun fire noise could be heard where my daughter keeps her horse, roughly 6 miles away as the crow (and bullet) flies. The peace and tranquility to the local farms, wildlife, not to mention the stress and pollution to the lake itself would not be worth it. We can't make another fresh natural lake after the shooting range negatively impacts this one. I would like to see the rights of the surrounding property owners be protected over the the rights of Joe D'Amico and his private gun range. Yours Truly, Carla Powell Marrowstone Island (ak effbocc From: Molly Douglas <donutmolly@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, February 05, 2018 3:05 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Feedback on Ordinance No. 05-1218-17 Dear Board of Commissioners; I would like to submit my support of the moratorium to be established so that appropriate regulations regarding shooting ranges can be proposed for Jefferson County. I believe this is one of the essential functions of county government. In most circumstances, I am in favor of reducing regulations that make it cumbersome for businesses to operate, however, in circumstances where a business has the potential to significantly impact the health, environment and neighborhood in which it operates, certainly regulation is necessary and desireable. I am also a supporter of the 2nd amendment, however, establishing appropriate regulations for a commercial shooting range has absolutely no impact on that right. Personally, living near the Gun Club in PT, I empathize with the noise concerns of the neighbors. I bought my property knowing that it was near a gun range and that the noise would be part of the setting. The current proposed location for a commercial range impacts those neighbors significantly, it seems right to have some sort of time period to address their concerns in a way that will be fair and rquitable. Thanks for your work on this issue. Sincerely, Molly Douglas Resident of District 2 360-559-9555 �- n�Y'�.i� Julie Shannon h From: David Sullivan Sent: Monday, February 05, 2018 3:26 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Ordinance # 05-1218-18 Moatorium Attachments: Tarboo Ridge Testimony.docx From: John Hamilton Sent: Monday, February 5, 2018 3:26:15 PM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Kate Dean; Kathleen Kler; David Sullivan Subject: Ordinance # 05-1218-18 Moatorium Commissioners; I am attaching my documentation in support of the shooting facility moratorium. I will be at the hearing and will try to present this verbally but want you to have it earlier. Thank -you for all you do. John Hamilton John W. Hamilton 1 February 5, 2018 To: Jefferson County BOCC From: John Hamilton 393 Sentinel Firs Road Port Hadlock WA. 98339 Regarding: Ordinance # 05-1218-17 Establishing a one year moratorium for existing and new commercial shooting facilities. I am in support of the proposed moratorium on shooting facilities within rural Jefferson County. This County is increasing in population over the last decade and will continue to do so. I believe the Commissioners are doing the right thing with calling for this moratorium on shooting facilities and get a public group together to make recommendations on how to mix the population growth with the business growth in rural areas. Many people enjoy using guns for hunting and other recreation and shooting facilities are needed to give people that opportunity. Also, many people come here for peace and quite and do not enjoy a lot of shooting around where they live. Farms with cattle and other livestock can be negatively impacted by continual gun fire in their immediate area. The quality of peoples lives will be impacted by additional or expanded shooting facilities in Jefferson County We have 22 shooting facilities within 50 miles of Eastern Jefferson County, any additional facilities need to be reviewed and see that they will fit into the neighborhood they are applying for. Present shooting ranges that are having increasing usage and using higher caliber, louder ammunition need to have a review of the additional impact they are having on their surrounding area. Some form of ordinance to mitigate the differences by those using gun facilities and those that don't want to be disrupted by the noise needs to happen. Is increased shooting facilities compatible with the County plans for future goals in recreation, agriculture, conservation and farming? I applaud the BOCC for taking this time to review the many questions surrounding shooting facilities and gathering citizens to help study and present proposals for resolving the differences that have surfaced. I encourage the BOCC to implement ordinance #05-1218-17, the moratorium for one year. cc$oa(GA a,s4 TO: FROM: DATE �H,IEARNGR�COR9fSi,p � BRICKLIN & N E W M A N LLP lawyers working for the environment PUBLIC COMMENT Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners. Bricklin and Newman LLP on behalf of the Tarboo Ridge Coalition January 30, 2018 RE: Jefferson County Gun Range Moratorium The Tarboo Ridge Coalition submits this public comment in support of Ordinance No. 05-1218- 17, "An Ordinance Establishing a Moratorium on Commercial Shooting Facilities in Unincorporated Areas of Jefferson County." The Tarboo Ridge Coalition is a Washington State non-profit corporation whose members and governors are long-time residents of Jefferson County. The mission of the Tarboo Ridge Coalition is to promote sustainable development in the county that protects the environment and residents' livelihoods and quality of life. For several years now, our members have been aware that Security Services Northwest operated a commercial gun range and training facility known as "Fort Discovery." The facility was used to train Security Services' own personnel on firearms and also to train police and military. These customers were sometimes housed overnight in bunkhouses. The "Fort Discovery" facility also operated a small firearms sales business that distributed "rally point rifles" engraved with the facility's longitude and latitude. The "Fort Discovery" facility has now been closed down, but we believe Security Services is planning to open a new, expanded facility at Tarboo Lake on a pair of twenty -acre parcels zoned "inholding forest" (IF or IF -20). For the reasons stated below, we oppose the construction of the Tarboo Lake facility. We ask the county to use the moratorium period to establish sensible new regulations for gun ranges. I. The Proposed Training Facility Would Violate Existing Law For the reasons stated below, we believe the proposed facility at Tarboo Lake would violate the existing zoning provisions of the Jefferson County Unified Development Code: 1. Although small scale recreation and tourist (SSRT) uses, including recreational gun ranges, may be allowed as a conditional use at a rate of one use per parcel, Security Services' proposed training facility for police and military is a commercial use, not a recreational or tourist use. See JCC 18.10.190 ("Small- scale recreation or tourist uses means those isolated uses which are leisure or recreational in nature..."). See also JCC 18.20.350(3) ("The associated commercial activities [at a SSRT] shall be clearly accessory to and dependent upon the primary recreational or tourist uses") ("The associated commercial activities, in addition to the principal recreational or tourist use, will not have a measurable detrimental traffic, noise, visual or public safety impact on adjacent properties") (emphasis added). 2. Under the Growth Management Act no development regulation may preclude the siting of an essential public facility. However, Security Services' proposing training facility is not an essential public facility. Under the Growth Management Act, "Essential public facilities include those facilities that are typically difficult to site, such as airports, state education facilities and state or regional transportation facilities, regional transit authority facilities, state and local correctional facilities, solid waste handling facilities, and inpatient facilities including substance abuse facilities, mental health facilities, group homes, and secure community transition facilities." A firearms training facility is not one of these facilities nor does it have anything in common with any of these facilities. Even if it were an essential public facility, essential public facilities may be located in forbidden areas (including IF -zoned land) "only if no practicable alternative exists, and then only to the minimum extent possible and in accordance with applicable regulations." JCC 18.15.110(3). Essential public facilities are allowed in agricultural land, rural residential land, and rural commercial land. JCC 18.15.040, Table 3-1. Security Services has made no showing that the only practicable place for a training facility in the entire county is on its small plot of IF -zoned land—assuming a training facility even could be considered an essential public facility in the first place, which we dispute. 3. Although public purpose recreational facilities may be allowed as a conditional use on IF -zoned land, Security Services' facility for the training of its personnel and police and military, is not recreational. See JCC 18.10.030 ("Commercial recreational facility means a place designed and equipped for the conduct of sports and leisure -time activities that is operated as a business and open to the public for a fee"). 4. Retail sales and services, which would include the sale of "rally point rifles," is forbidden on IF -zoned land. See JCC 18.15.040, Table 3-1. 5. Campsites at the proposed facility may be allowable as a conditional SSRT use, but as noted above, there may only be one SSRT per lot, so the presence of campsites would preclude the presence of a gun range on the same parcel. 6. The proposed helicopter landing pads at the training facility are not allowable in an IF -20 zone, even if helicopter flights at the facility could be construed as recreational rather than commercial. See JCC 18.15.040, Table 3-1 2 (disallowing aerial recreational activities in IF zones). See also JCC 18.20.350(5) (aerial recreation in non -IF zones allowable only if "no permanent structures or improvements are required"). Private airstrips may be allowable, but only for "use by the owner primarily for noncommercial aircraft operations and, on an occasional basis, invited guests of the owner or for emergency purposes." JCC 18.10.010. The proposed training facility also is prohibited under the county's regulation on siting and designing gun ranges. JCC 18.20.350(8). Even if otherwise allowed, gun ranges in Jefferson County must "be located, designed, constructed and operated to prevent the likelihood of discharge of ammunition beyond the boundaries of the parcel where they occur;" must comply with the NRA's Range Manual; must be 100 feet from the lot line and 500 feet from occupied dwellings; surrounded by an 8 -foot berm or located in an 8 - foot depression, and limited to one range per parcel. Security Services proposes seven ranges on two parcels, closer than 100 feet to the lot line, with some ranges oriented to shoot toward Highway 104, and some ranges closer than 500 feet to instructor cabins and bunkhouses. II. Security Services Has a History of Causing Environmental Contamination. The former "Fort Discovery" gun range is currently the subject of a soil cleanup action to remove large amounts lead and copper leftover from years of intensive shooting. EPA and Ecology have found that these contaminants pose a threat to groundwater and federally listed salmonids near the facility. Far from cooperating with investigators regarding the contaminated soil, Security Services resisted inspection. From 2005 to 2006, Security Services denied Ecology access to its property to investigate suspected contamination, in spite of a letter Ecology sent to the landowners complaining about the lack of cooperation. Ecology referred the case to EPA, and EPA was finally able to make a site inspection in 2007. Even after EPA's final report in 2008, Security Services did not act to clean up the contamination. Only now, a decade later, is Security Services finally conducting soil cleanup, and only because the landlords of the former "Fort Discovery" did not want to be stuck with the cleanup costs themselves. Given this pattern of non-cooperation regarding environmental contamination at its old gun range, Security Services cannot be trusted to comply with environmental laws on its new proposed gun range. III. Gun Ranges Cause Detrimental Effects to Neighbors and Must be Regulated. Gun ranges affect neighboring properties and uses by causing noise, threatening public safety due to stray bullets, and potentially contaminating soil and groundwater. The best way to mitigate these effects is by locating gun ranges far away from roads, highways, residential properties, and recreation areas; requiring gun ranges to adhere to environmental laws and cooperate with environmental inspections; and by restricting the intensity of shooting. 3 Currently, the Uniform Development Code places some restrictions on gun ranges—as noted, the Tarboo Lake facility would violate the existing code in several ways. But the current code does not go far enough to address the noise, safety, and environmental concerns. Among other things, the code's incorporation of the NBA's Gun Range Manual should be given careful scrutiny. That manual has been criticized as not providing adequate safety margins for neighboring property. The county should take the time to collect information around the county on measures that should be taken to provide adequate protection for neighbors and the public. IV. The Moratorium Gives Jefferson County an Opportunity to Consider Reasonable Regulations. The moratorium gives the county a year to convene a multi -stakeholder process to figure out how to do regulation right. Security Services and other members of the gun range community may participate in the Review Committee established by the ordinance, as may the Tarboo Ridge Coalition, other members of the community, tribal officials, and the county officials. This is exactly the right mixture of interests necessary to ensure that all voices are heard. As the recitals of the moratorium ordinance indicate, Kitsap County passed a gun range regulation that is both sensible and legally defensible. The Kitsap regulation could serve as a starting point for Jefferson County. The Kitsap regulation requires, among other things: All gun ranges to be designed, operated, and maintained to contain bullets, shot, or other projectiles within the facility and to minimize noise to adjacent and nearby properties. Gun ranges may not be used for training military or homeland security units unless these units' regional commands certify the gun range as compliant with the service's safety standards. The use of exploding targets is limited to one day per month and only during daylight hours. Within a shooting facility, only one gun range may be operated at a time. Gun ranges must file a lead management plan, which the county shall review. All gun ranges must obtain an operating permit that must be renewed every five years. Renewal requires an inspection by the county to ensure that the gun range is compliant with all regulations and laws and the plans the gun range filed with the county. If the gun range operator receives a notice of violation of its operating permit, the operator has 48 hours to make the range available for inspection. Any uncorrected violation or other non-compliant behavior will result in the gun range being shut down. 4 We welcome the opportunity to participate in the Jefferson County Review Committee to evaluate these and other possible regulations aimed at protecting property, safety, and the environment. V. The Moratorium Applies to the Proposed Tarboo Lake Facility. The moratorium ordinance forbids the county from accepting any new commercial gun range permit application during the moratorium period. Security Services has submitted documents relating to the proposed Tarboo Lake facility as part of a pre -application, but it never submitted a complete application. The moratorium, therefore, applies to the proposed facility. Security Services does not have any vested rights to build a commercial gun range. The county must not allow bluster or threats of litigation to coerce the county into violating its own ordinance. VI. The Moratorium Is Lawful The Kitsap ordinance regulating gun ranges was recently upheld as lawful under the Washington firearms statutes, the Washington State Constitution, and the Second Amendment. See Kitsap County v. Kitsap Rifle and Revolver Club, 1 Wn. App. 2d 393, 405 P.3d 1026 (2017). By virtue of their police power, counties may regulate gun ranges, because the regulation of gun ranges does not constitute "firearms regulation" pre-empted by state law. Id. at 406. In addition, counties may also directly regulate firearms "where there is a reasonable likelihood that humans, domestic animals, or property will be jeopardized." Id. at 405. Even if a gun range regulation implicates the Second Amendment (which the Kitsap Rifle court did not determine is the case), it would be subject to intermediate scrutiny, not strict scrutiny. Id. at 417. "In a Second Amendment case, a law survives intermediate scrutiny if it is substantially related to an important government purpose." Id. Protection of safety and property is an important government purpose, and the operating permit requirement is substantially related to it. Id. at 418. For the same reason, an operating permit requirement for gun ranges is also permissible under the State Constitution. Id. Respectfully submitted, BRICKLIN & NEWMAN, LLP 5 Alex Sidles, WSBA No. 52832 Attorney for Tarboo Ridge Coalition 1424 4th ave, #500 Seattle, WA 98101 sidles@bnd-law.com (206) 264-8600 (( =3©c( O ,-6 . I � effbocc From: Sean Corrigan <sean.corrigan.mail@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 05, 2018 3:51 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Moratorium on shooting facilities To whom it may concern, I recently moved to the peninsula and was shocked at the lack of places to conduct safe target shooting. When I lived in King and Pierce Counties, there was always a shooting range within a short drive. I hoped this community would be more open to recreational shooting. In researching different places in the community to shoot, everyone tells me to just "go out to the hills to shoot," along forest roads and into rock quarries. I enjoy going outside, and the drive to these unofficial local shooting areas is scenic, but shooting at rocks and trees is extremely dangerous. We need an official range to shoot our firearms safely. As an avid hiker, I don't know where to safely explore the woods without getting accidentally shot at, and the unofficial shooting areas are bad for the environment and look terrible. And as a shooter, I don't want to accidently have my bullets going towards hikers, and I would enjoy an eco -friendly place to shoot. Literally just yesterday (Sunday) I went to an indoor shooting range in Kent, in order to practice shooting for my armed security guard qualifications. I didn't drive that far solely for the gun range, but rather planned ahead since I was going to the area anyways and there aren't any good shooting ranges on the peninsula. This was missed economic opportunity for Jefferson County. I would be spending my money locally if we had the right facilities. For these reasons, I hope that we develop some good shooting ranges in the area sooner rather than later. Until then, I'm left the options of shooting unsafely in the woods, or spending my money elsewhere. Hopefully my perspective helps with the current debate regarding shooting facilities. Thank you. -Sean Corrigan rEv111. rain LdINUd cParnianualwicivua.com> Sent: Monday, February 05, 2018 4:56 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Jefferson County Commissioners Hearing February 5, Written Public Comments Attachments: Docu ment5.docx Dear Honorable County Commissioners, Please accept my letter attached below regarding the Feb. 5 Shooting Facility at Tarboo Ridge. Sincerely, Pam Petranek Dear Jefferson County Commissioners. February 5, 2018 I want to live in Jefferson County where there are reasonable rules for safeguarding public safety and regulating commercial shooting facilities that might be built in the future. A private for profit commercial shooting and weapons training facility at Tarboo Lake is inappropriate and harmful to the economic and environmental well-being of Jefferson County. Dabob Bay Watershed needs increased standards of restoration & protection. A shooting facility development would raise high levels of concern and go backwards for the environmental & quality of life. Please say NO to establishing new shooting facilities. See Jefferson County Dabob Bay Watershed notes below for consideration of this core habitat area. Pam Petranek 370 Middlepoint Rd. Port Townsend March 2016 Dabob Bay Watershed Tarboo Creek provides habitat for Chinook, chum, coho, and pink salmon, steelhead, and cutthroat. The East Fork provides habitat for coho salmon, steelhead, and cutthroat. Salt marshes and lagoons along the shore also provide resting habitat for migrating salmon. Osprey nests and bald eagle territories are mapped in several areas along Dabob Bay. Waterfowl concentrations are mapped on the eastern shores of Quilcene Bay. Portions of the watershed are within a northern spotted owl management buffer and a breeding survey area for marbled murrelets. Seal haulouts are also mapped along the shores of Long Spit and Broad Spit. Approximately 10% of the watershed contains mapped core habitat areas. The state water quality assessment (2012) lists the lower reach of Tarboo Creek as impaired for temperature and low dissolved oxygen levels. Several sites in Dabob Bay and Tarboo Creek are monitored for surface water quality. In 2014, three of these sites in Tarboo Creek contained elevated E. coli levels. Water quality in Tarboo Creek does not meet State standards for temperature and dissolved oxygen, and the Dabob Bay shellfish growing area is designated as an area of concern due to poor water quality by the State Department of Health.; • Some riparian and wetland buffers associated with Tarboo and East Fork Tarboo Creeks, and other tributaries in the watershed are low functioning due to lack of cover and/or land use activities.s; • Contains conservation and restoration efforts (armor removal, LWD placement, livestock exclusion fencing, invasive species control, native species planting, stream reconfiguring) in the Tarboo Creek system, and continue efforts to correct fish passage barriers. • Continue to protect WNHP identified high-quality vegetation communities in the Tarboo estuary and Dabob Bay.5 • Protect designated priority habitats and core habitats and corridors.5m; • Remove potential sources of concern for water quality (creosote pilings) in Dabob Bay, and continue efforts to identify and correct sources of fecal coliform.? effbocc From: Eric Taylor <spamcan57@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 05, 2018 5:07 PM To: jeffbocc; Kate Dean; David Sullivan; Kathleen Kler Subject: Re: shooting range moratorium On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 6:52 PM, Eric Taylor <spamcan57(a�mail.com> wrote: 5 Jan, 2018 Commissioners Dean, Sullivan, and Kler: I am writing with regards to the moratorium placed on new shooting ranges in Jefferson County, which you voted in on Dec 18, 2017. Judging from all the complaints in the past few years about the Fort Discovery shooting ranges, I would think that everyone including yourselves would embrace local businessman Joe D'Amico's plans to move his shooting operations to a more suitable location. But it seems obvious to me that this moratorium was dreamed up and passed for the sole reason of roadblocking him. In my opinion, this is a thinly disguised tactic as commonly practiced by governmental bureaucracies -- delay and / or ignore something that you don't like and don't want to deal with, and hope that it goes away. Just another example of why it is so hard for people to do business or accomplish anything in Jefferson County. I would hate to think that the county Commissioners might use political tactics like this to shut down something (guns and shooting) that they personally object to. As a county resident and taxpayer, and your constituent, I urge you to address this issue in a timely fashion-- none of this "one year moratorium" business. Either approve his application when it is submitted, or deny it--- and document proper reasons why you must do so. If it must be denied, I would urge you to work with Mr. D'Amico to find a way to work around the problems. It's about time that local government became a force "for" instead of "against". Thank you for your attention, Eric Taylor 172 Wycoff Road Pt Townsend, WA 98368 (f_3oc11G'ft a,5t� R,F)A!�1l' P,rrnon jeffbocc From: Bruce Cowan <mrbrucecowan@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 05, 2018 5:22 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Public comment in favor of the Moratorium To: Jefferson County BOCC I support the shooting range moratorium. Expanding and adding shooting ranges in Jefferson County is a big step, and we do not have adequate regulations to deal with it. They need to be the right size, in the right place, and with the right protections for our environment and the people in our community. The moratorium will give us time and opportunity to examine all the issues carefully and to make a wise decision that can be viewed generations from now as the most just possible. Bruce Cowan 131 Rose Street Port Townsend, WA (� ( -- F'5 0 ( ( [f� ')- , '5 , I � HEAP!P,J(-, prrnpr From: Deborah Pedersen <deborahgpedersen@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, February 05, 2018 5:24 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Fw: Testimony on Moratorium on Shooting Ranges Sorry - sent originally to incorrect address. ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Deborah Pedersen <deborahgpedersen@yahoo.com> To: "bocc@co.jefferson.wa.us" <bocc@co.jefferson.wa.us> Sent: Monday, February 5, 2018 5:21 PM Subject: Testimony on Moratorium on Shooting Ranges Commissioners, I write to express my support for a moratorium on permitting of commercial shooting ranges in Jefferson County. It is prudent for the county to take time to carefully consider all aspects of the permitting shooting ranges. There is strong public feeling that citizens should be guaranteed the quiet enjoyment of their property. With increasing development and population, this right comes in conflict with the right to conduct a shooting range as a business. County staff should make a thorough investigation of how this issue is managed in other counties as well as the laws and administrative code that affect this type of business. In addition, I have some concerns about the environmental pollution that can be caused by shooting ranges. This issue should be carefully researched as well. The moratorium will be useful for accomplishing this task. Thank you. Deborah Pedersen 131 Rose St Port Townsend, WA 98368 � r: �ocr (pt 'o PEN e From: Marvin Pitts <pitts@kind lwood.com> Sent: Monday, February 05, 2018 5:43 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Fw[2]: Written comments regarding meeting tonight Attachments: Gun Range at Tarboo Lake comment by M Pitts.pdf Please excuse the late submission of the attached comments regarding the proposed gun range and weapons training facility near Tarboo Lake. I misunderstood to whom I should submit the comments. Thank you for your understanding and efforts. Marvin Marvin J Pitts PE PhD 180 Lone Star Rd Quilcene WA 98376 208 596 1697 ip ttsgkindlwood.com -----Original Message ----- From: "Marvin Pitts" <pitts@)kindlwood.com> To: dcdC&coJefferson.wa.us Date: 02/05/18 14:21 Subject: Fw: Written comments regarding meeting tonight I tried to email the attached comments regarding the proposed gun range and weapons training facility near Tarboo Lake to David Greetham, but apparently I have an incorrect email address. Would you forward this email to David, or have my comments included in the written comments taken at the meeting? Thank you for the help in getting these comments to the DCD members. Marvin Marvin J Pitts PE PhD 180 Lone Star Rd Quilcene WA 98376 208 596 1697 pitts@kindlwood.com -----Original Message ----- From: "Marvin Pitts" <pitts(d)kind lwood.com> To: dgreetham()co.jefferson.wa.us, artsC) kind lwood.com, nancywyatt50agmail.com Date: 02/05/18 14:12 Subject: Written comments regarding meeting tonight David I am unable to attend the meeting tonight concerning the proposed gun range and weapons training facility near Tarboo Lake due to work commitments. I have attached written comments which detail my opposition to this facility. I request that these comments be included in the written comments collected at the meeting. I am willing to expand and/or clarify these comments as needed. Thank you for your time and efforts for the County. Marvin Marvin ] Pitts PE PhD 180 Lone Star Rd Quilcene WA 98376 208 596 1697 pitts(ftindlwood.com Date: 5 February 2018 To: Department of Community Develoment From: Marvin J Pitts PE PhD 180 Lone Star Road Quilcene, WA Subject: Opposition to proposed private gun range and weapons training complex at Tarboo Lake I am writing is strong opposition to the proposed gun range and weapons training facility which developers would like to locate on the north end of Tarboo Lake. The proposed land use provides no benefits to Jefferson County or its residents, and will impose significant detrimental impacts to the economics of the County and local businesses, to the Tarboo Lake Environment, and the recreation and quality of life of the land owners along Center Road. Economic The clients of the proposed facility would be passing -through transients to Jefferson County and area businesses. The self-contained nature of the proposed facility will result in little interaction between the facility's clients and businesses in Quilcene or Chimacum, and the transients will not generate any income for Jefferson County. The only income to the County will be through property taxes on the facility, and those funds will not compensate for the additional loads on the County's infrastructure. A primary load will be the increased traffic on Center Road between US highway 101 and US highway 104. The transients will travel from the south on US 101 to Center Road, and travel from the east on US 104 onto Center Road. These two intersections were not designed to safely handle the increased traffic. Leaving the proposed facility to either US 101 or US 104 will require a left turn at the respective intersections. Both US 101 and US 104 carry heavy traffic on the weekends and throughout the summer seasons. Additional traffic controls such as traffic lights will be required to safely accommodate the additional traffic. There are blind intersections along Center Road, such as both of the intersections of Center Road and Dabob Road. Both intersections are near curves in Center Road and provide limited visual distance for traffic turning onto or off Center Road. The region is served by one cell phone tower and an overtaxed internet system. Adding a large number of cell phone users will result in a degradation of a minimally functional system. It is likely that this facility and its clients will desire to use the internet, overwhelming the system's capacities and causing significant bandpass reductions. The facility will detract the desirability of development of other more compatible land use in the area. Potential home builders will not want to develop homes in the area, and businesses more compatible with the current land use along Center Road will not want to locate near the facility. Environment Water is limited in the Tarboo Basin, and the concentrated water use of the facility will consume reserves, and likely result in dry wells during times of heavy water consumption during drought periods. I am also concerned with the additional human waste loads which will result from this facility. While I assume an adequate septic system will be required, the nature of the use of the facility is likely to result in unplanned and uncontrolled urination within the facility, and potential contamination of Tarboo Lake. The listed activities in the proposed facility will caused drastic and long-lasting damage to the Tarboo Lake environment. Predators will leave the area, leading to uncontrolled population growth of prey such as rodents. The penetration of the forest with gravel roads will increase dust levels. The additional traffic from area outside of Jefferson County carry the potential for transport of invasive plant species into the mature forest north of Tarboo Lake. Recreation There are few lakes in Jefferson County which allow public access and provide a fishing experience. Tarboo Lake is one, and has a unique feature which is important to me. I fish from a small boat which I launch from the back of my pickup into the water. Of the four area lakes in which I fish: Teal, Gibbs, Leland and Tarboo, only Tarboo has both a place where I can launch my boat, and an undeveloped shoreline. Because of wisdom or fortune in the designing the access to Tarboo Lake, the parking lot and launch area at the south end of the lake have minimal visual impact on people rowing or paddling on the lake. The proposed facility located on the north end of the lake will destroy the only location where a person can experience of fishing or rowing on a lake in an undisturbed forested area in Jefferson County. I fully expect the lake would be used by clients of the proposed facility for training and/or recreation. Either activity will destroy the ability to be a part of nature on the water. Even if the lake is not used by the facility's clients, the noise and movement will negatively impact the recreational uses of the lake. The expected noise from weapon discharges, training activities and helicopter use will negatively affect the surrounding area and owners of property all along Center Road. A large factor in our decision to move to Quilcene is the quiet nature of the area. The proposed facility will invade our acoustic environment. It will also negatively affect any future development of homes in the area, and any potential for future property tax revenue from those new homes. The additional traffic along Center Road will negatively affect bicycle traffic. Center Road is one of the few north south roads in the area with shoulders wide enough for vehicle and bicycle traffic to safely use roadway. The proposed facility will discourage bicycle traffic on Center Road and negatively affect the businesses in Quilcene and Chimacum — businesses that the cyclists use and the transients using the proposed facility will not. Quality of Life It is obvious that the proposed facility is not compatible with the surrounding forest area and with other existing land uses in the area, but I want to point out a more subtle problem with locating the proposed facility near Tarboo Lake. I expect that the facility and its clients will follow disciplined gun -related safety, but I expect that the proposed facility will attract additional, less disciplined gun enthusiasts. These people would not be under the control and guidance of the proposed facility, but could camp in the parking area on the south side of the lake. They may well consider that if it is acceptable to fire weapons on the north end of the lake, then they should be allowed to fire their weapons along the east, south and west ends of the lake. I fear that the entire Tarboo Lake area would be unsafe for other users. The area law enforcement agencies would not have the resources to routinely patrol the three sides of the lake, and will have to resort to responding to calls from help from recreational users of the lake, and property owners near Tarboo Lake. (c:-i�o«Idlt asI� From: Gabriella Ashford <havenkidz@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 05, 2018 6:21 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Moratorium on gun range Please consider a year long moratorium on any new gun ranges in Jefferson County, Washington. It would give adequate time to study the impacts and include input from the community. Thank You, Gabriella Ashford Port Townsend, Wa Sent from my iPhone (- (- -IP)OC-C I a -a - r), t f rrom: uaniel Molotsky <kcImolotskyCc0gmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 05, 2018 9:52 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Keep the Moratorium and Do Not Allow A Weapons Training Facility in Our County! Dear Kate Dean, David Sullivan, and Kathleen Kler, Thank you so much the hard work you do for our community. I am writing you because I attempted to attend the public meeting tonight at the court house but was unable to get into the room and stay long enough to make my voice heard. I want to echo and reiterate the sentiments of many who I heard speak. I feel the moratorium on the weapons range (this is no gun range with the scope of their plans)/ paramilitary training facility is vital. I feel this is an incompatible land use with the area due to the recreation value and conversation investment in this area. I feel strongly that the weapons range should not be allowed to go forward with any development until the whole scope of what they are doing is examined under SEPA (as one speaker noted). I question the need for additional ranges if what another speaker said was true about the number of ranges close to Jefferson County. I am also very concerned about past violations this particular organization had when it was operating in its previous location. There were numerous articles in the PDN and The Leader over the years. I would be hard pressed to believe anything they promised to do based on their previous behavior. I hope you will create a situation that respects the people living in this area and does not destroy their way of life by subjecting them to something that you yourself would never want to endure. Create rules and legislation that reflect the values of the overwhelming majority of people in our community. Keep the moratorium and then create laws that prevent this weapons training facility from becoming a reality in our county. Thank you, Daniel Molotsky Port Townsend WA 98368 C(,�occ((t—o'6 Ig From: Hal h <halhenson47@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2018 6:08 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Gun Range Comments Comments relative to gun ranges: 1) Require new property purchases to include a notification that a gun range is within 1000 yards, and an acceptance of the ordinances that the ranges must comply. This avoids future attempts to change the regulations concerning noise or dangers associated with a gun range. People who currently complain did not do their due diligence in procuring their property. 2) Remove moratorium because we already have sufficient legal restraints on gun ranges in our county. Spending additional funds on expanding or modifying the existing ordinances is a unjustifiable usage of limited funds. 3) We need gun ranges in every part of the USA to maintain adequate training facilities both for the public and our law enforcement personnel. State laws require that the law enforcement agencies maintain and prove that they can properly use the tools provided, which includes fire arms. If we don't then we open up additional legal exposures for improper usage of fire arms by our law enforcement agencies. Respectfully submitted. H.L.Henson cc -- �,Oq (ai� a .6I� Julie Shannon From: Sent: To: Subject: David Sullivan Tuesday, February 06, 2018 8:01 AM Julie Shannon FW: TRC R14-P!Mf; Perr(NIV1111 From: Jean Ball Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2018 8:00:42 AM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Kathleen Kler; David Sullivan; Philip Morley Subject: TRC Hello Commissioners and Staff, I do not have Commissioner Dean's email and I would be grateful if you would provide her with a copy of my comments. Helicopter pads for arial training in. rural. JeffCo? ! You MUST be joking! Take that "training" to a military base, where it belongs. We have military bases all over the state so I don't think anybody can claim they don't have enough. land devoted to this kind of activity. The attempt to claim that this land use with helicopter training benefits JeffCo is absurd. Trying to impose this land use on the county and stating that EMS could utilize these helicopter pads for rescues is just plain stupid. If EMS needs a place to stage helicopter landings, you can use my land for free. I am on Center Rd, conveniently located 3 miles south of the HWY 104 overpass, about 1.0,000 feet from this "gun range". I am certain that any of my neighbors would be more than accommodating in. the event that their land was needed for this use in. an. emergency situation. Besides, a helicopter can set down just about anywhere, so we do not have a pressing need for recreational helicopter pads. The "gun range" must not be allowed to impact the neighborhood in this manner. Helicopter training is NOT compatible with rural life in JeffCo. Noise from planes, trains and automobiles is known to induce stress hormone production in the body which leads to hypertension, diabetes and other health conditions. These stress hormones are toxic and will. damage internal, organs over time. Thank you for implementing the moratorium and holding public hearings on. this issue. Jean Ball z Julie Shannon A `*e From: David Sullivan Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2018 8:17 AM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: TRC explosives training From: Jean Ball Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2018 8:16:18 AM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Kathleen Kler; David Sullivan; Philip Morley Subject: TRC explosives training Hello Commissioners and staff, Seriously? Explosives training in the woods of Quilcene? Now I know I must have bumped my head! I asked Mr D'Amico why he did not pursue building an indoor firing range and avoid all this trouble with the neighbors. His answer to me was "because I can't blow up cars indoors". This is not acceptable land use in Jefferson County. Explosives should not be an allowed or permittable land use, not ever, not under any conditions, not in any location (except on a military base) in this county. I grew up near a granite quarry and I am still traumatized by the blasts. We had chunks of rock flying through our yard that tormented both farmer and livestock, the ground trembled and our foundations cracked. I did not buy land in Quilcene to be tortured by noise pollution from explosions or fear of stray bullets whizzing through my hair. Explosives MUST NOT be allowed. Jean Ball PFAP;,N,,1C` I e ­0 .4 r . Jefferson Board of County Commissioner's PO Box 1220, FEB 0 5 2018 Port Townsend, WA 98368. Regarding; the proposed commercial 40 acre shooting range just north of Tarboo Lake in Jefferson County. Dear Commissioners, My name is Tony J. DiPangrazio, I am contacting you today requesting your support in approving a 40 acre commercial shooting facility north of Tarboo Lake in Jefferson County. Since 1962 there's only been one commercial shooting range near Port Townsend on the outskirts of town. With the growth that has taken place in Jefferson County in the last fifty six years there is a need for an additional commercial shooting facility. Personally I prefer shooting at a designated outdoor shooting range rather than on state, federal or private timberlands. I also prefer to sight in my hunting rifles at an outdoor range, rather than in the general vicinity I will be hunting. I believe there is an ever growing need for safety oriented, well managed shooting ranges where people can learn proper handgun safety and shooting skills in a safe environment by instructors. It is my understanding Federal law has confirmed local government cannot ban shooting ranges, and also that shooting ranges cannot be banned through prohibitive zoning. See: 2011, Ezell v Chicago, and 2017, Ezell v Chicago / Ezell II, per the Second Amendment. I am told the proposed commercial shooting range that is situated on 40 acres just north of Tarboo Lake would meet federally mandated health, safety and environmental standards. I was also told the range would not allow explosive targets or explosive ammunition. Taking into consideration the increasing numbers of home invasions and robberies, people must remain proficient with firearms by attending continued training and firearm education classes in a safe monitored environment. I'm sure you are aware that local, state, tribal and federal law enforcement and also private security personnel must meet firearms qualifications regularly. Having to travel long distances from their work or homes for required training is an additional cost that most cash strapped government agencies must absorb, usually by reducing services or expenditures elsewhere in their budgets. I would like to thank you for taking the time to read my letter and considering my request. Respectfully Submitted & ASSOCIATES�A INCORPORATED Ml T, � J: Jefferson Board of County Commissioners: Attention: BOCC, PO Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Jefferson Board of County Commissioners: 301 East 6th Street, Suite 1 rort Angeles,Washington 98362 (360) 417-0501 Fax (360) 417-0514 E-mail: zenovicColympus.net I am co-owner of Zenovic & Associates, a Civil Engineering Consulting Firm based in Port Angeles. We have been contracted by Joe D'Amico to assist in the land development of Cedar Hills Recreational Facility. All efforts are being made to present a professional, credible plan for county permit review. All of the other consultants that I have interacted with thus far on the project have addressed all aspects with a high degree of integrity and skill. We all want to do what's appropriate for the environment. Working with the Jefferson County Department of Community Development staff has been a positive experience, and we look forward to continued mutual cooperation as the project moves forward. Mr. D'Amico has demonstrated through the process that he cares about the land, the wildlife and the permit conditions set forth by Jefferson County. In closing, let me reassure the County leaders that everything under my control is being done with the utmost responsibility and will follow all adopted codes and guidelines set forth by the County or the State. Respect ull , Scott Head ick, P.E. Engineering Manager 1b e? February 1, 2018 FEB 05 2018 Dear Mr. Sullivan, support your decision to enact a one year moratorium on the Tarboo Lake area gun range. My three young children live within a couple miles of the proposed gun range and their lives would be negatively impacted by the noise coming from such a gun range. Tarboo Lake is a lovely asset to the county. My son and daughters have trout fished there for years. Trading the peace and beauty of Tarboo Lake for a war games background soundtrack would be a tragedy for the many users of the lake. But most of all as a parent, I am worried about lead pollution. I work for the Port Townsend Shipwrights Coop. The Coop spends a lot of time and money to manage and dispose of toxic chemicals and heavy metals. Presumably the Coop could save a lot of money by buying a couple of Tarboo acres and dumping our old bottom paint and sandblast media there. The Coop doesn't do that because it wants to be a good corporate citizen. The owners would worry about being responsible for poisoning the earth from metals leaching into the groundwater. The owners also have a suspicion that dumping heavy metal waste on the ground out in the county would result in some of them going to prison. The Port of Port Townsend just spent almost $500,000 on a stormwater filtration project to remove pollutants from rain water before that water entered the bay. The other option was a $1.6 million dollar stormwater management system. Port tenants all hope that the new system works, because there is a real threat that the state Department of Ecology will close the boatyard if the stormwater is too polluted. That is just for copper oxide, which is much less dangerous to humans, fish and wildlife than lead. This country made a terrible mistake by allowing leaded gasoline to pollute our countryside for so many years. We now know better and are eternally grateful to those politicians that had the courage to stand up to polluters and protect their constituents. Your opposition to the toxic lead pollution from this gun range could be your legacy and your gift to future generations of Jefferson county. We know from experience that environmental regulations get stronger over time as our knowledge grows. A business like the gun range won't be around forever. Someday it will close. Then the county will own 40 acres of lead contaminated ground. The county taxpayers will own the cost of remediation. The commission and the county needs more time to ensure that the environmental impacts are sufficiently studied, that sufficient pollution control measures are in place, that the county is protected from the cost of eventual remediation, and that its partner in this project is a cooperative business committed to being a good corporate citizen. Respectfully, 0. Christopher Sanok 3654 Eaglemount Rd., Chimacum, WA 98325 360-301-6282 February 5, 2018 �!Era?!Pf� RErOR� Jefferson County Board of Commissioners The Honorable David Sullivan, Chair 1820 Jefferson Street p P.O. Box 1220 " 11 ���0 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: An Ordinance Establishing a Moratorium on Commercial Shooting Facilities in Unincorporated Areas of Jefferson County Ordinance No. 05-1218-17 Dear Commissioners: My name is Teri Hein and my husband Jim Smith and I live on Old Tarboo Road. We support the moratorium as a way to consider how we best protect the places we love. When we talk about lead poisoning, the impacts of gun noise, the risks of stray bullets and even how to preserve our property values, that which ties all this together is our wish for a certain kind of world. In 2004 we bought our farm. It took Peter Bahls about 20 minutes to arrive at our doorstep requesting to plant seedlings on the section of Tarboo Creek that meanders through our property. This was our introduction to the nationally recognized environmental work done in our neighborhood by literally thousands of people including our neighbors, Scott and Susan Freeman. I am here to introduce you to Saving Tarboo Creek, One Family's Quest to Heal the Land written by Scott Freeman. When the Freemans decided to restore their portion of damaged Tarboo Creek —to transform it from a drainage ditch into a stream that could again nurture salmon— they found the task would be formidable... and worth it. Over the years I have watched them (and sometimes helped) stomp canary grass, plant seedlings, make trails, both bemoan and celebrate beaver dams. In Saving Tarboo Creek, Scott blends his family's story with important universal lessons about how we can all live more constructive, fulfilling lives by engaging with the land rather than exploiting it. This book not only serves as a model for preservation efforts everywhere, but also as a testimony to what one dedicated family can do for our world. And it serves as a stark reminder how much we in the Tarboo Valley have to lose if the wrong development is allowed. There are people who call our neighborhood opposition to a nearby weapons training center a "second amendment issue". To characterize the placement of a facility such as this on Tarboo Lake as a Second Amendment issue is either a mistake or a tactic. We have nothing against people owning guns and, in fact, my husband does. It is not about gun rights but is about our right to enjoy the safe, peaceful and healthy life that inspired us and our neighbors to move to the areas surrounding Tarboo Lake. I thank the commissioners for their insight to declare this moratorium and urge people to consider the message of this important book. Thank you. Teri Hein 781 Old Tarboo Road Quilcene, WA 98376 cc: The Honorable Kathleen Kler The Honorable Kate Dean Philip Morley, County Administrator A R B 04,oll cxEEx One Family's Qpest to Heal the Land S C Ol 'T F III E F NAT A N c< 3•al�tta 5rd February s. 2018 Jefferson County Board of Commissioners The Honorable David Sullivan, Chair FEB p 5 2018 1820 Jefferson Street P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: Ordinance No. 05-1218- 17: An Ordinance Establishing a Moratorium on Commercial Shooting Facilities in Unincorporated Areas of Jefferson County Dear Commissioners, I want to commend you for passing the Moratorium Ordinance (Ordinance No. 05-1218- 17 Establishing 1 -Year Moratorium for Existing and New Commercial Shooting Facilities and Creates Citizen Review Committee To Develop Regulations). I feel this is important for establishing reasonable and good guidelines for future development and zoning. I am here to represent the over 1,200 people who live or own property in Jefferson County who have signed a petition endorsing the County's effort to establish reasonable and good guidelines for future development and zoning of gun ranges. I have been amazed by the community -wide effort to inform the public and believe that these 1,200 signatures, given the short amount of time we've had available, represent a small fraction of the residents of Jefferson County who are in strong support of the moratorium. The signers support the moratorium to sensibly address the whole scope of planning for gun ranges in Jefferson County and specifically, they are concerned about the negative impacts of a proposed weapons training complex near Tarboo Lake. I will read the wording of the petition in a moment, but first want to state that people who signed the petition know this is not an anti -gun issue. Many have told us that they own guns. But they support the moratorium because they are concerned about one or more of the issues listed in the petition. Following are the areas of potential concern listed on the petition: • Danger to citizens on Hwy 104, Hwy 101 and Center Road traffic from stray bullets. • Hazard to BPA transmission lines from stray bullets. If • Noise pollution. • Harm to wildlife. • Negative impact on businesses in the area. • Negative impact on domestic animals. • Increased stress for residents with PTSD and other disabilities. • Significantly reduced water availability for building, agriculture or business in Tarboo Valley. • Curtailed use of Tarboo Lake as a public recreational area. • Increased cost to the county for infrastructure needs, monitoring conditional use and lost tax revenue. • Negative impact on area property values. • Irrevocable negative impacts on the character of the Tarboo / Eaglemount / Snow Creek areas. Therefore we support the adoption of a one-year Moratorium on the development of new commercial shooting facilities in unincorporated Jefferson County, Washington, and support citizen participation in the development of rational, clear and enforceable regulations of all commercial shooting facilities. In closing I want to thank you again for establishing the moratorium. This is an important step to take for the future of our county. Thank you forl the work that you do. Susan Leopold Freeman Old Tarboo Road Quilcene Z 5Q G N� 0 9 0 2 F— w a IL /m/ V/� / LU V 0 �0M Ii H LL0 0 F— N F - 5J G 2 F— IL0 V) A _ a r a foo ovi i N C O Q o a) F- E = j Z a) 0.0 a N a) Z O O (A�J > 3) f6 0 J (A s O U f6 (n-00 c c Cc: E�; > 3E (6 T N C E a) N M a) C—i f (n ..+_ O - M ^' .N c0'6 c6 c O 'o L CC ' .E f— (C6 N �C GE O C C U y 3 q - w a) @ (n a) ca 0 (D i Q C C C E N o Lcc EcB W 1 p O O V E U !` L a) O L N (6 -2 C) (1 = E U .O C O a) `� ILA`\ �'• '`7' C C -O O 0) C O — c i S 2 w76 p�yv�17'' 7 'E "a (6 . n "U TZ. C O p N fL6 a) O a) C X Q) V' O U y ,��► lV�i N'_ `� ca>wU V) E — c cm E Q � `� ca L co .L o NC O U O d O '— (6 Y a) f6 N C LO O CQ� O U O �.L... m o°�aF m U U i U E- C: )o c 0 a)>' o a y U U f O i Uf6 a) > f0 -@ E- 0 r+ C a) N c (p 1C Z (n C a o to • • U a) O N O pQ C O -O C5 • a0 L �_wyJ N E U U C V 2 0 0 0 E v z a C T �- N N 7 (n NO- O m O c O (� L L O 'C �... CL CL m a H 0 a. Z Ca G D R O O 2 H a a.D cu co N 3 0 0 4) N N U _ .O a M CL :U Z 0 •a)en a3 • � Sr n 0 0 0 .0 V) L T0rZ. aN _..TS � r �, (`6 N OU N Z = V Y C V) > O O � g7 ✓ .� V C C O O O O.0 ca i O wmco f6 'E .0 H a) C C \ C 5 N O a) '� can)U o cc N ° ° Q aa)i c c c co L a '0 .�r t� P, N N Y 113 00 • Eo E a) N m Vj a) O cc E 715 .0Z �_ a) W a >. 7 O p aS ✓ .\ i Ego°� �� _ v��.r 0�_ as � a� o a) T U T U E O to c n6.2 o �•�0�y o ) C C V U O a)Ca o- a 4 aa) c � � oQ ago E E 0 m o c uoi rn c Q ca C L o a) ns 0 M =Zcn O • • C N O .N r — N ca •C: O - T ° .LO N F— r CL N Q c , q� O ca. 1 O �t— +' t C N C 41 "� 3 w N y 1 '°a) > a) a3 D CO as n 7 C CL cN6 n IL— U d V ` ( Ad, tK� Y � (n L J C C O O O O C N N O y N y C cu y U c O,Opi- EU Z o cn > 3 a _O Q) N Q O O Z O O w U • 0 N O CO 7 U U (6 c W °' ESU �•' �r E L OL 2 T �p p L C E E O U C i (XO U O C C _ p w p — O N O _ — Co 4 O L (6 246 O ,2 U) @ (B C Y 01 N O •D •C f- f4 N C C c O : iA O m 'a co O Q p C C C E fn O f6 N Q f6 F~. cL U` m� p� U N NL cuO L c c E O O p U U E U U. O p L U w N MC (3 t6 a5'cZ�; � C ZC C p C 0 •� O j N O N }' E O (0 - Q +�'+ > _ m C� Vj C (6 U U .0 Z�(D w Q U =O C: 0 3 >o N V E Co CO -o c��o Q N O w 2-6 p L C. U C f6 C, p C C `- V1 f6 'L N E E E d •C C (�6 COOL U O O N C C m 3 �'v,�a� jai c O p 7 w p c O p O c c U 0 T i -6 � > U � U N .L N L Qp_ T C Ocu a Qo 1>1)�ID aO O � > O H v+ z c� a) c � p c $ C) a m p •w— 'O C) c p cu U y f0 3: UO N - N L >i (6 'V t Q p (0 � Ur-) N C p L r C C N U U = �O p to C O co U N zz O f6 >Q O p >m > LSN C C 7 L �.� D U O C (D CL (6 � U) N p- N 7 H 0- HU Ad, tK� — f 414v v �9 4 5, 0 L � X `- 14, .i fJ LSN � 1 14 1 p Z IL 0 Q D re 0 9 0 2 LLJa IL ti c� a) � Y � C O O O c cn c m o vi o a) E tq o N CD ' > O — O O) a N Z a) to o O a v CO o !n 7 C f0 a) ' 0 E.!= 0 EE O N • > = a) ` ca T N a) c EE E o C ) O o c—> ") C O —, O � C 0 0 = U g—� m cu w , o C p me .�H c C O U o O « in CD p L U' m S Q a) C C C f6 N as d E(n .2 U U N • L a) C Cl) d N V E U V V O UN f6 ..�5 E � CD _ U C '=co C 'D � fc6 C c o fB C C cu ♦+ .S a) t/) a)"O f6 LZ� U a Rf a)w ca L CO O a) C �a)_a >.o 3 Ecowt- io Ow 2o wo w" UC f6 m C C o m� O U a) > 0 CD E E �- y c � N f6 a p C f0 '2— Lo U N p3 c L L � 'O `p o N a) O C C C V U o L y U o� w U m E EL O O cK cu T C a) —> E .0 o is o r�. 0 a 0. otE �'��•- y O C �m �� m C d p a) N a) Z CO c p C r % — m CU co CD* C= � y j O E � 3�• u) j oa ui c o :o a ON Ca ID Y �N-, L C � Uco O a, V) C = O o �io�a � > a) Q V Q) CL c= O a) m M a c o ? (n n. �oaILmQ HU ti cc v v C � j U S • V7 v V J � � .S v i \ )A �� � '� •-mow o 0. ! o r iP ON V ti f i C CA J J IL I Z Q 0 9 0 2 ui F�- IL 0 a Cl) c� Y @ _r_ J CO O O U C N y (6 y N rn CL ._ Z CD t E •V y p (1)-5 f�6 y o a v� y m c N o p 0 N o O _ O O Z CL Jz- U) N to 7 y a U E C C` C N > O > E O C E fA C C> y Y V .0 o m _ (6 y O O O — _a f6 O .0 H N N C yca.0 O 3 o c U y U o (6 y L y m o3 Q aa) c c c c m 0 O c c E o 6 0 0 U U E U (6 U 2 m p OU O m f6N C (f C Q � N _ E U .O C o •` C a • N m E O Eo O f6 y p) y Q1 d N m O LL E U CL mC O O (6 0 o c c`a�3H .0m U �Ly p L O a U O O y f6 U E E N > C d y ca � 7 ay�os •cam m C N U O N 3 3y oa =�DaN o U 5 U >, C Q` y0 Q N O O T y O m o'>�o�a >, a • 2o o 3 rnc'n O c Co O rn N N c =Zc� c a) -0• U N O Y cu >. 4= • U N U -5 o 2 3 co o a C � =p � • � y ID �a wN— C a) y c 02 0'0 � 3Q o .. aaa)> Q C: c " T �= m m D cn ca CL c O pH y 2 L O ad m a F- U il w N o3 N. il V N� g Z O_O C F"' G W N_ 2� 0- a. 2 a2 CL M ILO Cl) cu cu O L J O O O O Ul 1 ` \- S � C r O ` ! \ S2 C W d •� C _Z to O > 3 (�(D�� -O O). o a)��ro (D -C O m .0 �N Z ` O o O — O N N O C "c6 U O O 0 U a) 7 0 E i as >+ N C E iC O a) E _ _ c Y O C 00 UO) a) d (n N 0 O O a) V- O .0 H N N C C o°'�(nv ocu s O .` N a) N p (n O) f— w a) maO a o 0 0 E IP w D7 _ UC C a .y�. •- C ll "4 a) iv ma) aa)) a(D) cd aZ— a)w_ 0 i cu Eas��� U _ _ 14 N f6 4E mo O a) to cu ` a3 2 CL O j d coo ` C c O S °� `) o > =� o 03 -C O`er •>. Y .n o c 2 (D _ e17 C C U U O L y CJ o '0 w v EL c nom' o as > N E o .16 @ a) ca > U > 0 Cf 3 S Z fn T C d O • • N N cn—� N ` T pf c o -0MO 4 CL a U) i�'/ a) Z E 2 d � N _ c`a o y '=D3 m a)O O 6 co 3 Q m 0 0) C C "O a) `• d Z 5a G N� I.L 0 9 0 2 LliH w a IL //D/� Vi W Ids 0 LLli H 0 _0 N_ J 0 co Y m c Nina c°naa) c `m L — ZE w v,Om r O 0 0 � U) Q � > o m L cn L_ j C E y O C O C (k) S 'C O Nm ;co x U f6 O to O O L 0 w f6 w- O J. Eco a) O) E C C O 0 O U c .N U U 'm C L in a) m O m Q a) C C C f6 O L C c C O O N 0It> ON CU S E U g c C O V > ns O E O m -o co .0z a) Lu >, C 7 C O O c '^ N m O a) NTIEmm E E U) m c Q � L c`B � �a�a>�csi oar 0 cmca, c> a o 2 CD�W C C U U O L ca f6J\� w F. '� C O '� Q U U .2- Q V) O) CO Q C ti " Z (D .- N a) a! r y •? O • C a) •Y 1.1 cu Co Ll n p a N@ L C d fC6 d O f6 3 QQ R `'CJ 'Z t6 O U C > Z a3 (n N OQ N 7 V v ,— a EL c`ua n. H U d O Z Q O H O w x 0 CL a ♦W V 0 O MO NWN LL O Z 0 N_ H J i CL O L X M .,N_. Q N N C f0 + m L (0 c �O Z O O ( a .O _ � (0 >+ N (0 O CL N N U c L J E N > � ci o l x N° ai.: y • O in co �- m `.a cog �'� ° c� r° o.. o i L LY H N N .Y O 7 •V N U Q N a) "NOICU Cc N �, \_ ° d O S� 'FA 2 U) U N rq > m p O a) e O O N V UV S.. 'X ca O N t0 C� U O c t0 U S t 'E 0 N>� o m 4- 3 ;� G Cf) rn ° a� rA ami �� N E 5 7 E 0ZNW. ° N r N cca -0 ° U o N > c m s `��m—L Q N L ° ocu o .°' U ° > c `�� coy, L :3 3 0-0All 43 fl O 0 o1 C O V V O L y=J _ t0 U U U >O, l J C Q O :N� N 00 j E O 3 o a) c O ° m.° - u a) to = aa'i �ca>Nu o a Z cl1 c CL -0.20 U a) O a) �� E O CO .O cc. -z -J Lam•C3Y O r-.. O r vi O .c a N N O� O H -Fo 2L t0 > l \ l^ E fd =3 fn (0 OL N ;; �j V _.NJ i -0 E O E"" N LO O Ls� L _ j' r—CD ca E (A � U im Z CQ C ND R O O 2 uia Cl)CL N C O m ID m C O O a) w 0 O E 0 m C O L 0 fJ�6 O O a a3 •U .0 C N C O CL m 3 0 a 40- 0 0 cuY a m O cC N O CL O a c .c CL m r 0 a CL O a> 7 Ncs cc a- �� C O o =41 i c 0 t5 a) m c°n d J Z�I- E � .� w i fn O a) O O 2 —cu - V O N Z O O rn— as cuL o O N U m y6 N U e 71 .2 4 0 �p a c6 c: OJ tNi i .0 H N ED 'o N E E 0 O O U E a) r ou N a5 w = d C to > m 0 E O N � C N N N .0Z� cm IDW O E 75 \ `L >, . O C p (O v V L LN co 0 0y=20o Uc_mw co0 o m ONm�U c 0 >a CL c co E p C w O U Q> 0. 20 a) q. , a> O O , y f0 U U 0 L-. U CD •C _ C O L O E- U) . N O m ID c) . CO .M v T. p> f0 V O 3C A (Q C N N C CCL Z� cn _ .O Na� a") c O . . C 0 .N \ �—C, mom. Y_ o� S CL n Q) cu E 8 C: > o .� ;C�►��► 0 o f-- O O L O L ` ` , \ . aILmCL HU d W K, G Z Q D R 0 0 2 0 CL /w V 0 0 r LL 0 Z 0 ,y J 2 a f0 V♦ m ° o L 0 C1 0� lk tu 3°� ON L O Z�O'0kv �LNiv aeric u 0 rn J z s� N -00 c v EE m > E i N U XN _° C C > f:w U O N m C m w O M m� ��C rntA V N E C C C O m ° m.- N U U) j V t 7 .L• N N N O U) :3 Y _ Q E � ,C C C m 4) 0 m 4)_Q 0 C L C N E m -Eo��a Eos m C> U N m +. c m Q5'C.l 3 N < L Cv- C v v •; m° O 0 m V - 0) LA 3 �o �m-Om N LJ.I E U m m c 0 m e N�o2�2 a>i0 E m >, t:' IT 0y -of o O j O U = 0O m Q — 4.. `� zs-- ai m m 2cx _O m m m U D 0 y r O, m m > 3 0� 0,0 (i �D 02 U � �5, c: CL C - c w- N ,E O m 1 O m V N 2 .0 m U > >,m•c m m c m m 6 =ma'CUD) m Oc m Z (n N c O• () N . . CU 0 CL 7g qFr- " f • °. U)3 d .tet L = -a91 rq4z Om N m �� Z C w L C T Y 1 co 0 O '1 C) Z (U M0 �� �OO.a-m0. HU a �� V 0 Y cu U) L J c C O 0 U c (on O y 0 p a) E Z " U 0 o O ; 2 a) ' � O 4 f6 mm � 07 C p O ` 0 a _ a) � mZ 0 w 41 O N y O .�. (n 7 ° f0 W o E� E o�� ��,�,� Aj O O C; ( O U a) N w A/ {L c - — O i� f4 C O O - Co D O O O Fn 'ffi O fl N 0 O Z O Y E H (u a1 yE C O - = c +r O Q(0 M J c U 0 s Y.1 o O m u a) fu p :, N m c G Lf� Q O C C C E y 0 (n f4 CD Q@ V O Li. i C C p O E m E U OU. O 6� N U O ` O N N .2. O) � 1-),2 O IM cu a-c� aci Z c C C > N C O C O E .«O.. ` ( O aS C OQ e ' 4v� 'Cu) 0) O) CU N m E. c C Z w Q U N c° ° c W o 5 o�� � ° U cu E 3 m F' LL Q o 0 0=_`0o L L a v c cu � p c c O O >cu Ea C ? 'O 'pa) N M `- O O O O a. C C .O-. U O N ac W 3 > a; p c o m O C C U CL O- T a C Ocu C ,O co E_ Q O CU d) cu .a O TO U 'O C a '> 3:C h O 'E C CflM U) O 0 O p _Q7 O O y p Z (n a) C Q. a -0m O 4) O C -Z O N "O cu U N cu C >It 2 3: -0 T O :5 O N �h 'V p Q N a) C O (n Q O a)� NE O C N 7 O = 0Q (/1 C p ` a) > "p Q CL a) C fu U >. O ��o�� H �aa-mn FEU S} a _ y Aj N ` \J) ig Z Ln H e ' 4v� E. c R _ Y t V 0 0 m F— LL0 _0 F- N H J 2 F- IL0 U) \.. r - to L 00 Od tp J C >' o O ami �w� CL V) LD �, a C: mm .= m°�� E� U C: Z O o 0c�a i A o r �� 0 r C O � p � � @ O •.. � 1iCl 4o = . a) Z o o o m v � �-0Uc 'YJ Yu :s E °C (OXO > 0 p m c — _ _ ( j u� ✓1 c _ o cN°oo� .o� .1 o g o m o _ vt a) Dc,: C: C ! F- m a) c I C', E 'c c a) o a 0 c '� = U o is \ti d - O o cn a`ni � o v, y� - — — ---- rn o c : n o c� -a c M N a) E v c �Z.a)6 N W m In m o m e a) E o_ o CL coC, O NN .m +- U O a) _a>> E E O N •7 CL p 1 a) mar a) v o > 0-0,01 T --0 : ar a) .1J O.coo C O_ �O Q m m > O m O �p > coo p Oa) m •2' a) 0 3 m�c°)n o m ns-: o_ = ar •_ m ar ° p_) p Z (n 2 c a ti ) a d• ' U p O N N Z' 0 Coll m •� t c 3 0= w o+ a) c oIn � 'N E 76 �ocr/' we _.J ) o m 0v cZ a) g2O�am Q m 3 o c 2> Z V m -2 C/) ma 4) p F— cn 0 L O L �� Q W m a F- U 0. --.174 �1 N N � Y ca L -j C 0 O 0 U N �2 CO O (DH E z fn 0 a) �� U) a) > a)L 0 Im -0 N a) Z CO (6 L U) a) `D -0 c O N > (3) N L U X > Co O m • ON m C O O N O N-6— cu 0 CUcu � E Y E 'E CU 0) to t6 •- N N a) cuO Q a) C C C d.EO w.Q Co 0 a) O O 0 U L ca o N )N M RSd m Or 75 � _ E U o C .` . 0D)Q0 •N2a)EaE) a) ca 0) =3 a) - -0 co -0Z ° a)W i m Q O 0 v o o r-�co E �t- m. o -- 0 _U C co N a) •(1) M Wy>ccLa -+3NLLm �'NooO G C U O V:3 U) O O U LC � a O � CO E j E e -O C O O CC o > CU a) is = a) •- (U a) Z CO N C • • U () a) to S :3 0 > ca coCOCU °L L =_ o a) 0 O cif m L • () > O C ca U >, 0),2 a) It to � (n cu a p o F- (n o . aacaa C o .N iJ a) U •V Q L L m 0— C.) @ •U C L 7 a) _ E O U U O _ O O � rn G 00 O _m N CD5 N N E N E v UO 3 c a) c -r3 o m m CDi E � o m > o m s o oa E Q 0 o c� () O-0 � a) N a) O O ca o" COL a C O N � •U wL 0 C. o 0 - CL :3 Q-0 to C (>3 a) a) . L tom- U -30 a s k C, 9 lu_ 1 , ,` c✓ o k a Y# :j Cl �j CO ♦W V g Z 00 W N_ � J 0 0. IL W V♦ a- 0 co M Y � M J O O O U a) -2 10 E Z,2 v> o a) cn' _O :3 0) 0) a) Z v� — a) cu CO L E o L _ (D N (0 E — (A • O (n N O c0 LAE��o E 'E a) to N .C: L C: co cn _ 3 � a) o Q a) c c c ao 'co .o im .E o O U U N CO m c0 Q 5 'C = E U O C •L 7 • a) 0O O .>caEaE) N h O -0 Z N W T O O a ao E caF- ,co=w o U_ c c0 a3 2 U U �o o >N c N m Oa N U a c m C) c w o-0-0 = cc V U o O cn CL L O Q t0E—>';E �+ T N _ Z U) a c U a) cu > �°��. L C-, (6 •---" O j =al O um a)> c �'0 (D tf coco OL p0Fao a d ca CL c .(D O U cu a 0) � Q L (n c i C N E E U O U U N w o CD C oocn m L L E t0 E v o O c Q) C 'O o N a) ac°i E U O O N > O T o O a) E n a O O > N N 0-0 L � (0 = T • a) o o m M.9 o C Q o _ O om cu U Q) O 0- 0 CL a=3 0- N C (0 3 a L c a) � H U 00 c-, Iz 1 J v� 7 (� s � o� P—N c1• �' '� . 1 L C t J =O l v \wry O O-�. d c9 0 N cu O w m M W C m L _0 C_ Z, " O U 5 (A L c o L ti m a o C h V 2 O 'O N L O Z O O h O O� N L W C m O (A O � W �' E�> _0 c E > E L m E d O N U (x6 Y O C > - U I _ _ = m -U C, O !t �. Ii C O _O m O 0 S �.. O wO U)m a Irl Q1 `� '� 0 = 3 U o W C o aic o Cl) N 8) c �a E m ��.ocnc Lo ^" li y i O U N m +3.. C� (� U O m 9 { ty V r c a yL h C O •V Z •` .� E c L 2 c`m O Q @ Eo E C N .0 U IF�� G� y a �z��o o- W N = T a)-00 >o 'VI� L a v 3 E�.2'�- �m = �'U N - 2 ` d wN 0 O O - i Off,, O O Qi fL -moi +mL- y c0�6 c E a Lm C � C C � C� O L .O N O Ufu V A _ a. 5 �/ /1 LLi 3 O L O 3 j w O-0 > U U Uco d C J w = N > d a c fl- o Q 0 0 a o m m E o L N '6 N >' m io 7 m C N = m CL y o Z (n N c E. C Q•• U N O N " m CD = ami -tf a m N O O_ L C p w d N ? ti 7 U p) L 2 > N > J �r O = .z. � .r ❑ " N O C O m d. !� aDmemo cu '— a)m - 1iEj m U) L co C c 0 N O U O N !� `LnC f9 CL O E •V C z w rn 0 a) -� o 0� Z uNi 0 0° J CL L T a) m . `� ° 0 O U)co W Ecn Q) = c �j °cu � 0 E E a) ° E C3 CO CU CD c _—> ° c�1 Q = 0 - 0 0 c ° 0 p Ca , O y ( � "O Y � Z Q a) `"EF–Co0 CCN �E c QM -j C cu wO C 0) U '0 G W 0 S 3 O w N C c ° e C co � m o mac= Ens ii 0 0 0 E U T O U 0) U 0 o O 0 U N Ca rC C_ a � C COcu O_ 75 C: :�2 a) E ` ° O c Z C C CD E9 >CUE m Nf6 NC nsO_Q .. C ~ c .0 Z - aa) UJ CL v Q>' • S ° 0 cu cpm 0 O a)O LO .Q > 0 y '\ O 3 V" Oc A/ 0 E c6 _TU C Fd F- t6 �J �... IL _ _ O O 2 Y L O � O a U C f0 @ ..+ N OCa�m�Uco EE li '0 U) co COL a O ` @ O /� C N (Q O N �O t O a) 0. 0CU ID a) 0 C 0. LLJ 3 0 >, a� -0 0 = gas = Oa? C= V U O a) 0y ` m O U T C CL a c a o Q a) O a o ns CO E> N E 0 m O0 U O> N U y ^. O > Z6 E "O 0 � .+ (%� N a = z ) D a Uas to O Q y C d• . U a) O N to co -0 T O y _> O a) E =ins a ) � U O O ✓ m = y0 — U) O1CL .0 (6 L 0 0 O O V 1 U) a) 0= ° io c 3Q L � • q = lczt 0 c°0 -ami 2E '� 2 7 m ca 0� N 0 a) 0 C _ �aILmfl. HU a 011 L0� DD Y cu cu C C o 0 C U U)O U o Q O y N N N c� O= • O (OL) ? O 3 a) o,> o 0 a �v o0 �NNz Q. j y >+ a) (o toLC L (D rn O U cri a) tn0U� ♦W E a) E V L O� ( > N U � O C j w ji. co 0 O in c6 'O O F'\ m �C Q d O Nom' co �. - °oV o C Q � QCD Q .ate In Q) Q m(D t m,0a2 y �� ire Q Q O U O a >,O F+ "a N t> Q L 4 U NM C' N N w C d UE Q C E N All \ CL" .0 •L .O 0 j c C "O �i O r @ .N E � O to L Q-- L r C: 2(u O �o=a(� QZ a Nt1Jav - O O A \Y 0 CU O - Cc o i Q U C (o CU) w LNC EO. J N � U) OO C O.0 U � O 0 CL C0 2-0-0.' O"a (CL):OCUO L>OOaoLLO .O OD Q a �QLgn ago Q. o (o ca 9 ?' y E oto a L O `- N C Q O co 9 O v >w 4-2 �... `O c CO) U a >' to a) w O If C Co t to t2 = Z (A N (OD) O Q m C O Q L Q. . C U O N d w N (o to -- N C >,00 = � Oj r O a) L E >i to - 4) V r 0 OL SZ I U) N C P � w . Q a) CL NE a� o� c�� v (D = _ o > a Q N C (C6 U >. a) �' o .o o 4) (u C a) U) to O a) OL a (o a F- 0 DD NP IA h; • �v j A- m 1 F'\ kill J • t 4 All \ 5 r 611 ""�"'•� L r _ A \Y 1� tit t I y Ln Z CQ G LL 0 0 2 W I.I. 0 a V I.L 0 m LL 0 0 N_ li t SJ G W CL0 Cl) ts� co � _ C L J O 4) V �V �v co (1) -e m ` a) a) 0CMCL 0 °y O~ E a U O Z U O —) a).—> a0 d Oi N 75 a) C75 $ O O._ 3—a a) @0 U) a) Z o 0 T (6 .L.. T i rn ` � O 0 (nn o Eow° o p cn U = X (n 0 a) m m a) U () c 5 > u) _ c0 in '' O d ca O O L 0 J l M f6 - ' Y co WV[_ CO ` Y 'E 'E H (6 C m U) cu'� (U L m - — o in aNi p m Q a) c c c m" 0 Eo cn .2 � O C, m O O CE m O E U O _T -O U_ U a) m p O � QS.c� 3 t m 00) = v N cm C .0 a) a C C _ n . y E C m Vn C O a a N E U W j 1 o Z = ° Q - ` N > O _ L a) 8 a) -2 N y H - U _ i a o Y o w° o M Ps` O a) (on)N �= ° E a) > � m E a in m ca _o a) (6 a) a) U O O C O 30 (n � C q _; r o � T a) .O a O C a) 2 CC U U O ° U > -°a ami U T ! c a a) ° o 0.0 �... m @ E E o io 0 c_a y > U co, > U 3 0) cn CM 0 0 a) as C O ) U C-0 N,U CD C 3a=Y °j O _• n_ 3 a) n m S � � o a v o c N c Q� O. N E 7 a ca) Q) -ER %c C rn C C U) — °) O a a) > ° Z OC C > CL 0).o 0 E d Q) ° c p a) ° c r c4 cn a) O- a) =3 G a) poF-U)0 so a 0 C d v CL W m I— W C� Liw 0 0 LL 0 Z 0 4 N F- uj CL 0 (0 N � x to c, s u woo N O v -p Q c c N N tNi� p N E a) Z to O O - o � • 0 a) -a Y) N Z o O �0 +L. to :3 a) o� U cv o `naU c o EO y ; a) ry E w�>� _E N LD p l a) C U �O = . O j N O - 9 Co L p _C In -0 c6 N `- ® O N ti N E (a C i- to ca cu oo --j `n m '— U U c a V 0 to Q) ca O w 03 LQ ca O •m O C I— m N -O p _p N 0 C L C O p U E m E d O •V U _ � N U p) N(0 +. 0,0 ca � 'c _ U C a) a) C D) C 't- � 6 _ • a) 00 O O ca (a L 4>coEE Q) L C W IJ U 16 a) `)n+ ZW a`) Nvoa2 >o E `� a� v a3 m cq o a=2 o = 0 6 a c a cn L c c 'coO 4 U N> C N o E E U) M— Oa O C cu O O 0 U O O N > o3 c �U O -0 aQ�oc �o c c V U 0 L y=••, > � U UU-0 C Q cu Q Q Q a) O ca L EE N 0m O t- Occ O O U a to N 3 C a) ma) O C Co O p Q) a) = Z cA a) c O Q c Q • U O O ca U C "6 _ ,Y O> — O Z — co • V OL rO a O OL LCa O U (a O a) m .0 N _S O O W N • 3 Q O �o> L C L a)S' L CL p)0 0 () a) N tCII 2 U) N a O ~ o -C O . OL OL F- U OU .r n^ �� tr IJ U `)n+ Q v MOA,. i 7 \ S t 1F E s`p A S S n t_ V') v , L .4� � N .� ! 0 a C D w O Li O 2 W LL 0iL A iL Cl) m (L> Y m m $ p c U N m 0) O N� E Z .p _ U O > ti m m C O �m , U � N 0 0 O N Z QL T U m. i p `n-aU c L o� > (DE �= x N p �c>$( �U O N Co c o o t p .oI)� m @o N E� c o 0)c E'c�o� o.0 m ' U) O c`a ) - U) O m O aN C C c m 2 E'CAg� m m -0 -DIB a) a)Z o- c c E m O O U V E U Nm .�. m� O O m Q _ E U O C m C p C "O •> N O O O m ._ E E o c m � CD cu E v .0 z W Q _ T. p N p O CII N N m > O E�°� �t p CD � ,� m � w o o U C CU cn C C •- m�m�U of +`• m> E Q m '� =3-p to L O L •C O O ,C U �O > C .L•• O a C C O O N U 5 -0a = 0 m 0 U T C O Q N O c° E o M C�' Q O O m p m m > U U O W 0 p CL =ZfA N C p_N • • U m O N O C — O ;_, N cu m U O = T 0 y _ m _ O -t Q O = O Q C fir- • CL CD i a .0 ,= C 7 N m O O m m >Q ` C N > N > CCU T m :0 (n m CL 7 p I— y 0 r O Q n. m Q f- 0 SUPPORT THE MORATORIUM AND STOP THE MILITARIZATION OF TARBOO RIDGE The undersigned are residents and/or property owners in Jefferson County, WA. We oppose the preliminary proposal for a privately owned, for profit, weapons training facility at Tarboo Lake for one or more of the following reasons: • Danger to citizens, Hwy 104, Hwy 101 and Center Road traffic from stray bullets • Hazard to BPA transmission lines from stray bullets -Noise pollution • Harm to wild life • Negative impact on businesses in the area • Negative impact on domestic animals • Increased stress for residents with PTSD and other disabilities • Significantly reduced water availability for building, agriculture or business in Tarboo Valley - Curtailed use of Tarboo Lake as a recreational facility• Increased cost to the county for infrastructure needs, monitoring conditional use and lost tax revenue • Negative impact on area property values • Irrevocable negative impacts on the character of TarboolEaglemount/Quilcene/Snow Creek areas Therefore we support the adoption of a one year Moratorium on the development of new commercial shooting facilities in unincorporated Jefferson County, WA and support citizen participation in the development of rational, clear and enforceable regulations of all commercial shooting facilities. Printed Name Signature Address Comment Dake f /1VE tJG S' lav- Uv /= q((. N�V �1 1 0 Qt der C 1J0 8-eyC.Iy0e*' e AT 0. u:Fnd a2rba o t2� 8 1 CLUJ5 9 r/ 3 01-0 12u h ?c G2 1 - 9 e3 70 pin ti c t _raA 1000 M ° 019 1(41 C�d � l Y O ( 1♦ ,�-2cu r� o _ Co o°I-E -- cn O (D -, c > L L :Q c Qi O f^ 4— 0 V/ Z O O > N c6 O cn v O cn `�-0 0 c > E m • o0) > m > o E o O U X O L c C > O v Co = Cn -Ln O O !6 .- O O yL 00�� o N E � ca o c c � '� U cn o iu Q U) N o o �' cm Q o c c C o � 0 O O U E U L N O L I L c C6 U L F O U O j ^"I� (B C4 CL � Lam.., O O = N N L <> m ° E ° CC/)n miO a;Eg cell as o 0 /� O N S -6 O E U Ji -0Z— a) LU O_ rk-, O cl o oc E cn p q>y -� 0 c Vl ,� U EO N_ U N i co vL- w O- O o S U c� (� O O C C Q O O CRL6 N co > cz L E L UO ° cz c 0 V U 0 (� O U O U > y cn I— O L ° RS O O a > M c T +� Q �- � n N 00 EO M O OU .O @ .Q- ZCn m c �°co 2O 3> =aE =U C6 r YE Z(3 O � O> o �V a)Ca� W0o oY 0 :3 �v- CL U) ca ° N E � (6 � 7 "O U � s o o ° m co 3: Q m' 1 qE °EO> U E m :3Cn m O F' w L L Oo fJ E c aa. m a c F—U a O© eco 0 n � U Z O0 Q L= N � J 0a. 2- CL UJ �M/� V♦ CL /�0 V♦ 9 C O C O N 0 v cn C 0 v Q O 0- 0 0 C a) c a) Q) cu "O v C P) v C W L h 0 N m N C O O v w O N O E 0 C O Y 0 N cu •U D1 C 12 N C O O. av) O O. 0 0 T .Q fU L 0 O CL L, ca C E O. v L v w a. O. O m v � Y (U M L J C O °O U v .Q U) ( (U Q O v F --E Z N O v cn v ;> U cu L OZ T CO tU O wL L U) : EU 0 U) > 4- (nx a) U cU C C > V7 ca CO O N N -2(U E I— Nv co tU Oco v o cn U) Qa) C C C Q- EU .0 U1 m -a-0-6 v C O O 0 .O 0 O 0.0 Co CU ,O C)0 (U OL 'C - _ E U O C v CM C O N ,> co E _v N 0)C'(n CD =3 v '— -O CU -OZ a)W >, . N O m ca -0C N a) O N L O U CCU (U v cc t" v v> c m -. rn cu .- (v a) O •C T cc v 0 U UU cu N a " o CUQ _O E T� C N . O O cU O v r .� U U > T M () CU = v •°' cu a) Z U)CD C � U v v cn n T a) • U 3 -0 = m a) cu cD cu O O 3 (OA O U C CL Noa) (U 3 N N a) •> a m O �c a)c a) N (DZ 0 N LO 0 . c� w `; a) W O a) N :3 Na0 c UO ca O E E(Dp N > >, a)) a) E " acc � L p N p V X C> N o � U N C N O C • O N O Q ° N _O . to O O N ma NU .�r O c6 �i c Im O O N N= N N CU p O.0 G 5 N LA Q C cD � ,c^ a3 0 c O p U O U Ea) O/ •"' a N U C) � p L U /i"i�� `/ U v� N M +� cu Q � 'C � ''O C: Z C _•E UQ CQ) ` •� 0 CD C a O cu • a)�OO .� E N E oco L Q CU a) 0) c ai cu a) a) ?y N vi ::3 (L) — a c6 a)W UcQZ Q CL p O W = `° cu ca :;-aL 5 C >oo N O O L U C (t) cU N(D N •N •t0 U C� O 4 CL OO �5y N NAi @ CL W O Q a0C pa O — C c V U 0 p L ;C Cl) O =3 a) Q CL NO Q O o Q oMa rpCDOOO >� vc MQ o co -r-- Z - � p N a= ( v) (1) CU (L) m70a=wrn gca CL N o Z W (L) C c a o N m O N ` �L- N . U N N c0 C >,— • U ?s a= > O O -r-*- a) > 3m— �Q R} N O � c a a= N aa) OL N E co a � a C: aa) '_' ca C CO a) U N =a) — 2 O p 0 N� N p C L N 4) U) cu �aamC"L N 3 tom- E�-U 1 C13 6, cc o O N ton 4 ..Q 0 - ow ON F— E N O) Z -O U O) cn O (U —Uj �� C cn N 2: N L to (U �\ O N Z O O �J Q} Q U N > N t6 ti O p in 0 L• E L o> v c E i� o L `~ Qi L •— E O X c ��>o� � G S o O O co co U O p T) -a p O �. N cn w— E f— c N C p q cu cu E co C a U °o io V S U co . _ C U U L Q O N m p to iT Q -g Q C Co p V> O lam"' O co U N O cm(� C�6 � Q � •L � 2� N � � � A '— p' L �v7 M O E �/� O (o > ti Q 1+ VJ co cn ' _ L E0 cn c 0 Z ai m C: 7 N— p p E QZ�(Do om U ca o L [U -O > o Q E cn 0 o E f° coo L a. U C C6 CoO C C O C U M `� U O O N L N>c co E E CL p -O WLO N L O N O o tll 2 U O O C p C � « > C o o -0 o a> o a o c o � N C C V U O L� � > U o� z >.c Q m N p m 0 0 �'V� >, co (o 00 co E —> E O @ 3 p CD (U O Cll CO .O i v O j N cm C N C CO tC' L N p ZU) 0 N ^ O Up L o (U Ol.., � 7 i' CL cod c Z c CL a E _3io--(b = � o co CL% O L Q a v ,^ co m m Cll N O Co U\ V 7 U U cow g o co 4) V 1�- Nq E N O O 3: Q m J %•� �S O �- E CL O CC6 O Q C ++ p O— >O m c� � U _4mco ... co m cc 0 . 8 2 c m ocl) E �. w . (no> o a a) L @w C 0) cu A CD w TCk- U).-Z CL= - p !A O U t0 L o EN IL E ° c0 >. a>,a) m LD 0`41 aa)) c c j u� /� L O O L O O A c0 O N f6 CY CY) N 1— mc c E J N f0 'C N C) O f0 L) O N .V y L 7 O ,« 15 N f0 pcn Q a) C c c (0 a c0 E cn .2 (p Lm-� ~ m -oo n CD c E co, O a) O U p •U N Mo..�.C d U O c�0 m a C C? 0 $ ` m = E U C a) a S ` E o C O a C> (0 O E O C�LJ m E m C c`o � -u,,N N a) a Z N W a t o' m c o C. aoi c --s N .O N E ca F_ cu > N ` ! U L L OL r= p w O a U C_ f0 NCC Q �✓ -C.� o mNc6 c EE (n CoCL CO.0 .0+ O U O> � co 0 ° D 2 or- � 0.� C C U U O L . Y C cam aQE �o0 a)o E�w E 0 m c o U O tf U) N Q1 a C a 2 a) •_ c0 N p — O Z (n 2 c .a c a) a �. . Ua) oN o 0)U) c cm0 o 'v — . U a) 3 CL 0 3 U ) 0 0- 4 1 Li a)mm�' 'D .0 V' L la Q Q) d �. U) O (D N Z J o > a) c 0 > C 0) O C J` f0 = in c6 CL U)7 G CL � (nmn. {t— U d �- 0 Z Ca C 6L. 0 a 0 2 LLI0- 0 CL () W N� Ids 0 0 m F— U- 0 0 z 0 _N I.f. F- LU W F— CL 0 U) `Q N c c o O 0 , `^ 0 0 m z�r • cn o o 3 U O > d Cn L cu � c — o 0 o ,.o m " "o o a (3) z o d N 0 5o in 0 cB 0 0�• E L cn > a� Q) a) L O U X O N C CUM N @ U O c U o 0 C Ld O -a m « O cn C N Y O) to U ~m O -� C �'. @ N N O N d 0 p c U o U O M" v_ c 0 cn 0 _ E U U co (0 C [�6 @ CL -C C 4 T O Q z Qi W Q U V \l\� .� ZlIr V ' \\ ''I� C L OO LL0 N > O ia a R2 "- -17 _ y O C) V - 4- a -:1, 4- V - :5 .. O d 'a �� V m > c co a ��m'L Lm LO N d O V O N C 0 C > o x"�0-0 >1 O >1 ��� a c 2 0 L.. E5 C � V U O70 CQ N > O U >, Q- C Q- N Q O (0 N E o 0 oo c°❑ L S' 3:cm(n C � OL = 0"gym o ° n O z U) 2Q cn o 0 O N CL 0 0 0 c z _0 � m (Z.3 f 1 21 O = < 755 vi o cn O (Acu N L C O C O CD- cn czMM S �� O > N > z �. C_ 0) 0 0 (0 d Y O o o v ° O vi L o ❑ E ❑ Z. vs a (D -� ° ��a•> L N -0cy) am C O « ° 0 O -O N - O ❑ Z C/) N Q -C (nL 4_ O (n d 0 ai `n U c L E LO fN4 T N EC L ❑ ❑ L ❑ U) C O c O N = O (n C O O - (S5 kA U u) E~ @ C Y N L? C O 0 N c U o M -j OO O _ �U- u) O yS y 0 0? *L to N p Q ~ m -°❑-0-5 a`, io T o L c c U Em 2 U 2 O°° a O U— OL V L O O N M C U O C CL 75 L N � _ U O = N c • N 0) � O >oo •� C oc� 9C� �v-0ca Ea Z LU n c oO M o 6 c o E0�0� L Off-. 0 O C 0- U C O@ N C 0 O L > CU C O V U O L� U CO O O T C Q (43 O T Q W p M C U � N d M CZ T O 76 •U (n ❑ N O U) 0) ° O ❑ /0) ZU) w C nc ?� N Q 0 Is V) o Ln�= o C v0- Q V) N L N O C y ❑ U C U = c .o Q) N a M M Q S a CLN C C Cn (0 0 N O Q d m a Imo- U d m' O' U 1 kA 5 a <1-19 9C� cc VI S r .a v 0 a 0 a 0 2 W I=- FM— W 0 IL CL V/ W 0 0 NmN LLLair a 0 Z _0 F— N_ a F— �Jy G WT 1 F— iL0 V/ co a) (1) Y a) f� L J C O ° 3 ° t c v. m V) -a"co U) c m Q - O 0) E a Z ti O N c�U6 OO N a) " O L U Z O O co° ON L = v cu N c E >CD EU) X E c � > a o owc° _M .2� a) O c� CO aa)) 0) a) cn cu a) cU�UU om �p L Lo N co p N O a) C C C (0 2 EL -c- i m m-0.0- CD.0 p O p U E V a) o a) U m 0 U O N M C C = E O O c a) .` » ° c 'a • > @ o ° o m •— EE a) ca3 a) 0) c) tea) --0a E5 Z Z a) W a= T O O O m 0-0 >o E�°� �� U L 0 U C f6 C C jai>�m EE V) a•` a o O .0 _° U O > C6 c0 a) aLO ) L 0 O C O C C U U O i U a a) O O U T C CCL ` -O Co a) O • C C .E o 76Q O O a5 ° N M'. - > U U a) m = a) a) O C Zcn (D c as • • U a) O O C- O a) 5 a3 O U • U N TO y 2 ° - ` r n N 'V a C -a "O— C' • t(n Q 7 .0 L O C a) N co O >Q C > N > c) .2 cd a) C w O Cn m O- N7 O �' t4 OL L0 • 0.0- m CL i 0 W 0 Li. 0 M0 NWN I.I. Q LL 0 Z 0 N Q ui J_ tL 0 co Z C 0 U C co O O .C: U C O L Q O 4. L O C co cn C N N c6 (D C O C N C O N cD N O rs O O O w O a) O E O N C O O cc tU 03 O .C: m y 0 i3. a� 0 CL 0 0 C O A CL cD �O cD o m cD O O N O � c6 C N Q O N F– E z O N N O .> — O � _ U) O Z O — b � � `naUc O CO > 4- a) L x N U CC > U - CD C O O O O co N (D co C co m N O <n N (D O Q o C C C a o '( .o U) m a -0 - c -0 p O COJ U L Q% L •� NM cD Q. _ E U O C • N � � O (n .> cu W � 0) :3 a) -0Z OW C mLa�n E m ` o :3 ca `- tt: m O (6U «L Q> > CD cnco O O O U (D�-0 C� C CO V UO U o m M O cD E !, ,� E C En '— N O cD O r .r U U > > -r- -E Q m a) CUa) z FON C U N O 2 _ > ca L N (z = O N O O N cu L N > N C CD C) > O.o O L C L N co (n cD Q p o F- ED O Q CL (D Q C N � U N C� cu O a s N O W E E (D O _ U U (D 0,0 CDO O cu L 5 N O (D a) m O U U � C N N C -0 O M E6 0- - o m � 0 _r_ o O 0) E Q O O O > c6 a 0 � m cD � A N O C = O cD cu Q' O CQ O QC O N N v O rL. O 0- a - CL QQ O Q N N � (D N O� a N � ham- U `o O C U) cD O N O L O U) O Q N Q O a� C N C N rrL^^ VJ C 0 U E v cD E U O cD C H A c`7 co ODO N �i a) C 00 .5 �a (DQ Z r N _ -0 O ~ C ` CO U O -a N E O a a) .(D W N O E co O cn � U a) p eo_lz co J co �g� �� N N r -.m CL cb o (D E °' = Z E • a) o rn us o a) 2 cnCD ° > L L is a> °cQ aa) - o cn a) 0 o Z o o cz w m . Q cin O L E�U� E(D p cn > M L E � o v) E > m c M M ° > o - v? 2 In m 0 0 � ns �- O � N E n�cc E *E F- n3�a�� c c C p •0 `n �' a) �U oia �, Q c r 0 - 0 v, A aD <(D c ° o a)C- J (� e+11, O Eu, p +o, cn L o Q Vip M a� > l 00 cz = E ° ° Vt4Qa) >co°E O° �•T cn E m m � L � m o �Z� °W p >..oa>o 00 ° <n O v - °7Z `J 0 :n vs° -2�°>o4Ec� EE L -0 (n � L � � Oofw. O C N U > as (Q a) (q a) C := LO p p 0o F- m U Q N a m a) C: >, Cl) m a0 -�'- E c = A-, 3: m in 0 Co O; p O pco:� p Q> �mi�@a� .� U)ami ° a � `► `w .� -E � � C) c - -0 c C6 > CL .L� j N _ c ate- acn cm ° ,l �.. N E � CB � � � (vv`/'� U O � �p CO a1 n3 N to •U= E C �Q 0).o a d M - cn c� CL '2 a d ° Q f- U G. , m co p U) 2 U m m � a) � J � O 00 V N u? Q con a) Q L .- z�f---V U) O a) 2 U) ° o. a) L O N Z O O a) M ccnn .L.. Gla U C6 `n-aU c �� E } O ca > a) O E -a)mL ° C m(DU OU0, t6 O N - O `M 0 cn L.E� o a) Z0 a) o U)M .c n) L ) 5 o U U) S L si (A +L in 0 to O 0) Q a> r C C n3 a' �E(n L° OC CD E co �000� Ea) L a) O L ° oE00c a)a) .L c O • a) o o E o 0 EL (D � o as m a) m E U -0 Z ° a) W a >..a)a o� �mQ0 a)0 Eco -0o L O (DU 0 4- L L= O L O o " 0 a)>Eo. EEE En o T3 0 8,2 C O � 0 -ft m L w 0 o-0 c-0-0 o o 0 Q O Q a) O m EE o m - -0-- Q 0 ` Cc:) a) c m = ao) . O O Z U) m 0 N d U a) O N o c -0 a4_J N - I RS -U 3: O ff,, L 2 -.0_ CL ° � i O 0 42 • Q V% L O@ C U 2 O ° 3y >Q O a) @ N L L ^>1 m V! w O p I- 0 a L o Q CL ca a I— U M 0o 00 rlj. \NJ � o � V k�7 _ 1 Lo -40 �O M� 03 i %P ? (Z�, a jI v, a� v N U) 111 `4O o o 8� d Z a 1n o N � �• l ` d C' CL M ca w � Y cu J C O O _ ° N U Cu O N NN C N D- o N f- E _w 9— Z U) 0 a) -Oj w 0 N N N > <Q C� L — O cm a N ca " O N s N N Z N 2 O O CL s ry O >+ a) i '- v� N v ip WN L N wv N c` C rR E o a) o c E V L 0 U C—>" C O N O O Q p N Q Q t0 W '.- O v Q N • V °a m Im -i V w to.9 N —` O O N N 075 0 S N to (L< O C C C f0 F- m o N s 3x C13 r �OO� V Ecu 0 LL= L N N m c p " ° 0 d 9Z rn =.EU 0 > @ Ca O C E O cti tL ©� X0'5'-acu EZ Co sz� ��' aL 4 A fl A O O t6 WN ( °(°�2.2 >o _ 0 3 N p L L E cater O. a m N CL t> C m_� of N 0 `"' U C C O NO ` � E Y� U) L N O a° OL CN O V O N 0. L = =C O G 0 U pm oc �� o > L co >'c A � L fl- tSS a C� A� tZ N C O O t6 i.I. Q L ° •O C p O tU tU t6 •a tL O L p yo U r .> U > a) m O .o < Cc N0 =Z(1) N aac): C iZ �. . U N O N C Q O N MO w� Cu) N (D N C �'' — '� ' 'S a_ - � ° a3 •� w O L a) =vi30 on ca C Q Q „� C. ai N N N E ca N � rn ..., c O -6 2.2 co C a>@ to MT aD > (D a CL N C N U >, CL c.o� ami mow' m U)ma- t �O~No "� so F- :z a ca a t- 0 ry 0 v m 3x 14 V Nc t AM T e� tL ... z < cc cc t 00 !� tp L J C C O O +�.TO L _ 01 O(~ E O U Z .- cm C m O 0 „a C o mL 7 m a� c a) — o rn - o 51--a a) " cn a) w mZ 0 O m aN Q 0 0 o U O O ca m N `n a U c c` M M Q > (1J O o CO > . Q L w a> c c CU CU c CU Ii L c o o l COO .) o Q 0 g mo 0 E (C C Y CO) O Y E O O C C E Q J mUo(nV 0m V 15 qizlt Q co 0 L N C C O U N , % a LL L Q N C t0 L � O �Qcu 0 �� 3 (yj M 3 > O W = ca a) (5.2 °L J m �O U N f6 Y c a 3 c eS Cuc) =EOL O.� w> N E E O co ..� V c ,� fn O �L Q N VA 0ii 0) N C -0 v1 N r O c N CC W E U 0 C .-CL M Y d T Z z N `O 0 F m m L m-0 > o _� O i _ r Q C OL -,- _ L O =' O { �� N OL a Y L + C@ N N C C Q -'" U LO 2 U@ w U 0 E d 42 � `�" rL N C E 0 - ca O J O �n L L ov .. S N m N a �o U p 0 ca CL L c o c Z 0 m> c m 0 - :3 -C `o ma73 c a W 3 0� �'o c m 3 O N C C U U O LACo 0 0 7 N ca45 co co CL o m c� E f E o m ,' . °� 3 0)a �.o c Q d ` mQ O o "oo �> cooio> 0 (D< _0 ca >, m a) c CO` cc v/ m a =Z.- m� ch cm co CY) O c m po O C Q .17 . N CD' N N >,!L -',o-0 • U N U :'`,s`, �J +) Z O> +L+ O tlY O N y O m cc 0 O O � I Q o C L C "6 v"' • a 0 f V m O N Zj ID CU 2Em� �C \ a U LA U= 7 N N ; _/� 1i a N o ��� m mw m O CL 0 ca F- CL a n m a - U a rn co O cA � U I I I t i l l I i glllllllllll Y ca cu �• Oo ��CN � o �.� L opE cu= Z0.p 3 �� N�p'� L isO aa) C o Q) L O (ll N •Q N Z O O ._ a3 • ((f L OL mc N O .`• N 7 p p.m p NaU c 0 E0 0 E 20 (>D E '- 0 N V x N CO N N p a) a) C C -i U 0 O n g O 0 p 0 0 N vQ O (Q '� C p a) 0 O -jN U O R) O a) ,U- to � �i N . Q a) C C c co p- 5 o Q) m - CD a) Q Ca O C L C(cD 0 U fi) E a 0 V t2J _ U L N CC .�. C) t� O U c _ E � C3) •` 3 C C a C p '> m O E N N C O ca A L C ca �L am) ca Qv -0Za a) LY Q 00 a) 0 > 0 o ` O .0 O CL C CC N C C N w U '>u O a) o 2' N p EE L a3 aN j o C •� O C O " c ° > pia o >. = ?: L Cap c p :Ep a) C o C U o L > U -COD v M;C CL aoot° a)o ca cuE)0ca p CCN CL «• 'Op a� ia O N = N O C 0- p .- ate) Z.C CLCD Q V U Q! O C O a •.N_ cu CI3 m ?— U a).. E 2 0 p L No�'�L C++aw- QN N a) C p U 2 O 2 N � O O • t0 t>II - ( Q p O ❑• *- C p C Co U A p � L p C) Q p m (n N fl O F- N O a) O s Q �.. to CL U I I I t i l l I i glllllllllll W Menw 0 0 Ix 0 z 0 Q� N a H J s a 0 Cho Eo Fcc � -� v c ? c ® 3 V� I.QZ 8 16 8Z I . 0I •C m E m >,m 9 E o ts Nt x yEo O w- `o Mcv Y O � 3 to II -eQmoc� iom t w p. o t3 co $ c �- c c E as �k- E @ E o ns C7 =E3-0 Lj >�0E o� a ci $C �'tv L 03 m c 1V .L. o Lo 0 J t° s �O 3: cw -109 0, cryo CL m >. c w asE��E O 0 cIVIM c ram Q- a�L a c v � o JE ? '� E _ ' lz CD $ ,o -1 4 0=O0a"O ' 4 �s 0 _ 3 ..111I'D:Wa F - IT SUPPORT THE MORATORIUM AND STOP THE MILITARIZATION OF TARBOO RIDGE The undersigned are residents and/or property owners in Jefferson County, WA. We oppose the preliminary proposal for a privately owned, for profit, weapons training facility at Tarboo Lake for one or more of the following reasons: -Danger to citizens, Hwy 104, Hwy 101 and Center Road traffic from stray bullets - Hazard to BPA transmission lines from stray bullets -Noise pollution - Harm to wild life - Negative impact on businesses in the area - Negative impact on domestic animals - Increased stress for residents with PTSD and other disabilities - Significantly reduced water availability for building, agriculture or business in Tarboo Valley - Curtailed use of Tarboo Lake as a recreational facility - Increased cost to the county for infrastructure needs, monitoring conditional use and lost tax revenue - Negative impact on area property values - Irrevocable negative impacts on the character of Tarboo/Eaglemount/Quilcene/Snow Creek areas Therefore we support the adoption of a one year Moratorium on the development of new commercial shooting facilities in unincorporated Jefferson County, WA and support citizen participation in the development of rational, clear and enforceable regulations of all commercial shooting facilities. Printed Name Signature Address Comment Date '116, q70 c t}v4i— �NA Ie r � yF��gGLt?N1UV ►�T Worcr 1©WIV 190 ISW 6Zo L► i rh � $ ' 1� V, 1)0 m ca m 1 v� n° U o vi O 1— Z -(a') 0'O N N N :� L (6 C p _ _Ocu '(2D ��4Z 0 � t� U) N O U Q N W 0 Ea°ivco CL rn E o 2 L E o L O 0 m) ° L Q LL L cn y -Q N O J Q O O Df°T 0) (n E O Z N C C N i= � N Q �/ ON U N 7 U L fOO 6 O QJ /o O C. � Q(D _ QL N i= 7 .2 u) 2.2 N mCD .0 N� a O N UU oE CaN> O LL N N C, d U—, O Om CL 75 'r- a) Z o) 2 EUoc-0Z S v O > ca O y- °' L j" QCCJ .� c0 % J F o - W a°i a) -00 m° O c�o0 70 E El Fc 11 CD bo 0 f5 o w p �p rn co •� v N 4- � N > C t0 � s= N i O 0 0 0 0 > „1 , C a 0-0 a. L O >' C N U OC t ° p�� Q1 ca C U V♦ > U U-0 w U >,C12�k i N Q a cm � y0 N C ` >, C7 CL o �� coco L L _ '-' (n .� O is ' `t , Tj is T "- •CL > O 3 C O C t0 :EN C13CL =�°'mao'i °n Ea0i� p Zcnm� �m v�0 to r Z con C = Y j O cv L Q m � 'CO p � : Q � —4 ' X � Q 3 %� O O L N E L E 7 O 4' Q` V m N N L N fn 40 U Y ,O j a) Co �' 1= 4)N N> N w O a QC U -EL TZ! 1 •_ U Fes- nam �vIL ! m cn2U lqq m C y O O O U C L p) O () E =• �U Zaw to O a) �w O N> U) L a) — fa d1 a) L C a) j -o () O cn N Z -0 O O N ca CL� O L cn _ m •L a) -a C) > . oE o W o rn Via) c) c— O t0 LO caY -Q N :a O U) `DEca- cc m a) 0 o m N 3 Q 0)Scc fU� 0 •o W '0 -a) m O L O O "y000� E m Ec >> L U N m CQ O 0,0 Oa m CL 'C =• o 3 c c� to c a)�co ..-c w> co E O m _ ✓ L m .LC v, c) vi rn a) a) co -o a� c a mW > a) p m+ . =3Z O m co coN � N -0 > O 3�- Em m ON �F- O a)_ 4 L i L o a) c O O_ U cca N - c m(n m "- U O O «- m>cM U) m E Est a) C L L m U) (0 U O O O 'S Co �'a O =3o a) C (D U O a) O :3 a) Cl c a 0 Q a) O m m E E C o m O TI- p a) co O a > � > v O _ m T m a) i0 c CU Q = 0 •� N a) O CL O Z CO (1) c CL Q) O cr• • U O C) c — O 'a 'N a > O E 2 'U — a>i n u mL U1 (n L O Q CL c • N Q cn a) _ _ � ) O m co0 =O - > a o Q O L L m� L p C (D c IQ) a) m U) m O- C O of-- to O O a a. m OL F- 0 lqq r let �r s IZ �cm ��, �� m a) � m U) C13 s J c c 3 0 0 � ami ° � a)i � -2 a 0 m � C criZin d 3 O a) 0 0> 0 a cn o — o 0) � m `000 a) �aa)a)Z (A a) 0 - 0L m in = 7 �aai.�m U m c` W O ° E ° > Q L O N m V C a) co 0 0 cu C Q L p ° 0 .� Z O W0- E� m a) Q O m Nom.=aim 0 p m 0 cg`s=U o co � O Q .L. y N 00 O c c c 0) a 2 Q m a E u).2 u) m��:� a) U O 76 O ° N� 0 Li. O LL_ >, O ° U a ��� m U L O L V o O U m C r- N m Ci C O Z c =U Q c . C c = O c a , c O c O N.��0� Om L c0 -OZa OW O• - n. >, . = a) o o m WN _ m eco >o = N O U Z. rn . o L �- E cu cu U () a m H1i. C O O 0 w— 0 O Q fn L Q 0 " ) L V c m p � 'O =� U c C O N a) 10 m 0> c m E Lj. ..I �- �nm�c`o Q =° Oca (1) °> ° cL 3 O p c c U Vo m U o y ) .S a n a am o m cE�..0 a) o a o m L m c o•E c o 'C-'03 O a L �O —. O 4 m 0 a) > ca V p � a >3, 0 m 0 '^ V+ Cc6 0= CL - .21) N O u) 0 Z CO m e c Q 0,. aa) a o • c N m Q p -a m a m Z, ca= 0) 0 w o a� =3m_m CQ m C O ..000 Q _ a ° wEL6 =a`� m w �m=o� a)m ` 0 0 O a m > a) a Q L O c M V m = O C� a) a) 0 a)m�v�m° > O p °n�F- rmn �_ L O F-' > a I—U r let �r s IZ �cm ��, �� Z 5Q G Ii 0 0 2 W a D U) LU 0 0 0 i LL 0 _0 r N_ J 2 0 V/ r% 00 300L) o \ T < < m Q) a o F- E- �' z a)oa) a a) Z o o w N 0_.r - ;cu U) U) �,� N O a U c C i 1 �O > O E ty ° m > a) y �r a) m .( O s C j ) V 4 0 C _ ,'.� C — O N tp _ w+ .j O p 0 0 0� V Q `O m w O 0Y fn Hm a) C C CCN`�11i m E C c a) N O i C O E2 •- N 7 O 0 m p _ a) m.o1— (6 O C C E f) CV O O O E V O N m w d U O m Q — 'C� CT -EN O 0 C C m O E O m CO -O Z m m W cu a U.► cc m CL C O a) O L N� > O N 1� Q U C f0 CC O 2U)M4 a) > EE w .� C m Q a O 0 L O C O C O O> s o� > m -0a o g a) v > U U a .�-� U a) "E NIKIS4 CL n O a a) o m m E> N E 0 cu c mr O � 0,� � CT O O Zcn c Qc - 2 d' . . O O O a) o c a .� �CN - m "L) 3a=>o w� o o COLa n Cc)- w�Loa) U)CL a) c aa)> m Z CL m.opa)� m �v� m C ��- `h a) p o � C, L O L i S CL 0- m a H U IL m \ Y N U) C L J C O p0 `\ O C N �' L` Q O N O C O N F Z a U O a C3) r O � O O O N L O Z O O i (6 . 0 N v J O rL. lA 7 U f0 rt 8 E2- _Q, ��W E O O T O E V •C E O � ; Y ) U C C _ N .r A/ LL O — . pin f0 C O O � _ - m .,_. 0 ` p O N v- O Z O .�-. m fn N N r Y F- d y C C OY (o 'C C d O Q CD o m � 'y � U c o� L C lil O . v1 N �p p O) G 'Q Q d C C < Q co d E c.25n `0 T O L li O O O E V O' 0 O U �U�m= O ` UO O � N N :9 C (1 C ZC •C C p j � O O C O � C E .N. O O f6 2 cu O> > N O N �'O O E U D O Oc = a 0 6 W N c L O O C 2 N p U3 E m -,R �20 -p m li C _ 0Op 2U O C (In c>u C CF- O E —3 o O a •C 41 o m 0 4u .O U �� O d o� a-c W 10 o = y O to c C V 0 y v+ > �@la) L.0 >c CL a O = �` Q a� p ✓ a o 2 o2 Sk _ccE'�:E OQ>)O p � .0 O 0 U 'ca -`po 4U-__ a - >' a� m O V- o n (n co a 2 Do)c�'n aoi m -4c o `p. Z(n t3 C CL Z' �' • • U N o c `- O N a Z- N U N f6 f6 T - ;,�, • U O +L O >i N 'V E C a N (6 U = • C 5CL a N N E p (Cf y 7 D 2) .0 C N 7 •L U C N N N y 0=.om N > 3Q O C ` C c�o °� CL ami a mc ) U)co0 O ~ h O` a� L O FL- . nIL mn I-0 \ `\ r i v J rt kAj \� n T N ✓ - Sk dC4`� U L-- �-, U ni - 1 a) 1 w. I -- . I ___r I NI 1 1' — \1 C r1t 1 y (U �. a) � Y M t. G Ll w J 1 C 0 0 .3 0 C m o« 0 cn a) 0 U +� OAF E Z• 'in O 3 Q) o •> a3 o �-�to Co arc a) L O a) >+N tOZ �CO G i o y bcn:3 C.) cu W a) N -0U c G G o o0. 0 =0) E t cu�, 0 E E V V � � "-CDa)L E Q O a) U N(o O N (j a) C > + co +_ C —— • O cn a) C O O cD 1 cuu O �O N O C Y N N E Do)fn Z O H a3 a) C C OM J U) cc •- o Q W��wwM■■AA■■ p 2 U 0) :3cn 0 L 7 G c ` O m — n 0 M O Q N C c c to a) Q cu a E ch ° u) 0 m ` a� O LE m� a) Eo =°°� p t_ O O (�!C N t0 CU 3: c �y �.II .✓ _ O Z • a) � O � m > o 0 o 0 a3 C co O Q a) +T C a ca m N W7 O a) a) a3 d C Z N W c 0 >+ . O p C 0 -cc W N o a) p� 0 to `� 2-2 Q) C a O 0 U 3 »� Eco 7 a) U a m _ r L Q U C a) p U C C p CD J - O f0 Can) (>a4 E EQCL � cnC13�� r+ a1Z. t0 C U �° O ° a 6 aa)) 0 ° `n 3'� L� M L-0 ° CL= W �, 0'�o°C �CL) p a) .a c CU 0 U a) p 0 a) c� L ST. t6 C •L a% O_ C. (� c Q a) C 0 A 0 c0 C T- O - O ca 1i Q L C p .E Q �' c0 O o a) a) aa)) Z cn O Q Q cn C c L Q U a) o O N Z p C — �- O U a) t4 0 o = 3 Q a) cc ctj M L O 0 O :3c6 C -Ow • Qcn p a) Q �E -c 0 a)2 v�icu a)0) r� U= o io> Q a) ° > m p C L � o °c) o ❑ 0 ami ,yL a � c CU Q a) :3Fes- ascus FEU U L-- �-, U ni - 1 a) 1 w. I -- . I ___r I NI 1 1' — \1 C r1t 1 y �. t. G Ll 1 G i E q( E V V � � 1 L4 .. r ` (�!C �y �.II .✓ Q � l r CD CKI � r+ a1Z. ;, 6 U L-- �-, U ni - 1 a) 1 w. I -- . I ___r I NI 1 1' — \1 C r1t 1 y 0 Q G M w O 9 O 2 LLIF- 0 CL V Y _ L J c o Mn c m cL4) ._ Z 72 CD 0 N O a) a a) O J f0 w U) p U c E 0 :3 a� o 0 c � c C:j C a) o o o.� ff'-a m mo CD `E -0(na'c E c 7 'E a> - O Nm'c cOnU oia U c yc -L - - - --- - — - -- cn 0 Al `� o i aJ ( ' VM � c� a 14, o ` 0.2 E .- OO y N M C� d U 0)c U-200>0--um—Et �oo o > c U um E a m' O O c >, U ., O > �4 � =3 C UU � c a O Q OO �E>�E om Z .- ".2) a) rt U N O "O �. >+ • U a) ' O> o 1 '� CL cu cl U) o D m = -0 o c �.r o Q �cc N� • a E> E Z J �• c c >, �.o d J �,� mcoa a) :3 c � o F- u) 2 L O L. 0-0- m a F-- C) d V T ; ig co J -j cu N to C6 (n N L CCS a? OSI— � `•U � z cn o cu Cn Cll '7 TS ZT N L Cn a} C ♦ .O N Q C Co � CU U N Z O Q (co n TN C6 �' Q L mcn-Q U C •E � �J � .� o C Ems• E °c�a•,m o �' °' x Q ) L m c j n v ( a L �,00-0 co�' Co _ Sl �+ ' o ° in co - 0) cn a� E c --Q`6 c c o cn E C J .0 cn U Q Co C6 U C = 75 a L O E �J O L6 O L C C A a v5 Q U O O O U O U L Q Q �� W U NCO c Ci a + ca E — = r -L 75 c o — cy �, O CO cc E m st3 oy c co 'J a lv L .Qz- N W Q O >. cz m�-00o 75 c: Cll N LO 2 -2 N — co C tL6 ++ .-a ✓1 y l� 1 / t6 Q _ L o Q 'a J d( - E a U C coN C c Q 4cA U -- _= co0 CD o a) > c E V)m o 0 o Q)a co C Q C 7 C 41) J Co IS ` Q} O C Q /V N � Gfl o co a i€ co o Q C Q Q Q 'co 00 E —' E Q 3, rn L Q p Q cz Q Q .C-) J 3 a)CL > Q 75 Z U)0 c "� CL N -20 r Cl) co CLF T — U (ll CD 75 MO C E co o Q co co cz co U ^M^, L c coc cc)) Q O UO O O Cn U N � a Z O "(D Qy L � is m c •- -0 N O �•NZ QL NaS c6 . cn L .L. U C9 L E w > O Q) C ° E O U CO X O O c> N U _ o oD u _ m c N oo a ca - o CD •� .� {- � a> c c a� o N U O ca N aNi C o Q o � c c o m'o o m n o L c co �oEoQ� L m o C6 U O U O N M c C co a c m _ E U O O c cu O 0 O C6 N E L 6 U N OO N i N— 4 COT U Z N W p = > o �ca c�co a)c EC" L oa) U O Ri N� c C ' •� V O O L O > O C6 Q CIS Co L O O O •a O U O > L En p � O�a � O �•� N o°gym ac U � _I'D eU > c Q L O Q O O M C) O �T O _ a O > om O O C', "U � O i O O c lo - LD zcnvc •�� O c — � • _ o O lS C4 '"U L Q O O NE 76 s 6 U = O -p O N C6 o Emco C L v o L CO cm 0 4 o CL m n t- U Qj � �• ��. � � � ```moi �r "J Q m T' q _ 4 0 U 1 4) M �v f 4 3 �- � s -41 co >. M 00 >rn O L CD D -0.20 CE C� Y Z I` _ OcoL U � � W O E :C a C o E c: @ o i)a0 co >' M W m < � O :D > p � cy rZ Q X C cz m L U O Q N _oa m C c C m o cn :2 U L No co co cn s J � a a 0 (Z CD co in m O? co E a,u Z O U cn O a) a) > -y co d U) a) � L o - o a (D - 'o a} s U) Z o 0 a m Q) U Ci3 m oU0 o E m > C �W � v E o L n) >, a, c V d ° m� CZ� 0 0 LL - cz O in oo� `1 ww 0v— a) 0 E M C �C CA u7 Z 0 c6 m - M � cz N v O M U o co Y.1 , w� °o L) (n � �00M0 s c a, c_ `�� G n Q c c cc 0 Oco = .� - L U a) _ C: a °' �e > _ o o o O U F o O �` — m N E4 w _ _: co L Q) Ciy a, _ , U _° � � as Z L a} c � �w -0ZCL _o WN c � as ��sco oc Q) T i 0 U Nogm� c co Q o o ; a (() L L O 'Q L U c c6UM, C W O A/ O " U P Ss > c TE c13 aco � E � (n a) L c a O C ZT U U) > 06 O 2 O CL W L O �y �i O C 0 SU O L CO> n a �M.o0.0. ID IL 0 C6 c6 E >' E C O c Q L L � O o v mv U O C6 � O c— .� U > a i za 0 > C6 4= N t CO Z U) a> c U) c O L lzi . • v a a N -0 p c ;- • a> 3: CD •� In o �CL C _ L O • > ti Q) O.0 L O N S a>m s a} _ • m p F- ° as c s o !- . n CL cu n f- U co >' M W m < � O :D > p � cy rZ Q X C cz m L U O Q N _oa m C c C m o cn :2 U L No � v `1 E , w� O Ciy ` r) w • ti R ti S 42 C ci co >' M W m < � O :D > p � cy rZ Q X C cz m L U O Q N _oa m C c C m o cn :2 U V g z O 0 F— LU N_ i F w J li G CL W �— a. O V+ m Y � (n s J C c 182 10 N m a o vi ° z p O O > � o O — O � Awa O A cN (D Z O O o C U)O o-(U- N C � U U (6 `'E 2 O � OL C a5 E L O T �N U C E E O N U X C C O O O U O i6 U c— OL • O ire cu C O O ctf U .a 'O .0 ,� (CS T E cn Y N f'- N N (n C c C '0 ,O —I O c°° c U 00— o m o 3 c Q c m� I— COtm 1 A N o v� ^3 E O Tp 0 •U M, N coo m a J _ E D C:_0 to >ca°E o� y� O L �2 m'—a E° o 'TZ wo d aoi O A C O L o C6 v c d 3 C L A > O Ec°>pl� UL Acis p 2 Y— 2 O O L CL A U C C6 C C cn 'RS w U ° o p a)) > m EE C p C O U (6 j O 0' (n(0 3 C N p "O O _T 7 �-C„ N -Q 'O p C O N `m p°cap > U U "p .L-. U T .0 CL a `� y0 a N O co mE>NE cQ oio O N OU O NU �p E'O'M N T N O � D1 O o_ � O) 2 ° co m Z U) a� c o ° p- C p Q.. .. U O O N pD NO C -OM �;' cC3 C_ _U >+ = : U 3 'O -_ O N 'a) E = A= a>i 3 m -V °- LM)L O a Q. CL C -0 • a'a � L Q) p w C U2 to C O pw. 7 • > N O U c c U T C CL a) O)o O p D O N C U) m Q p ° CL m Q U H o c-yv ^� r4 v� ^3 J -S.„"�,,.. 4� 4�Z ^ d ►N J _, ' rN m m � Y � J o b O 3 p -- c cN0 PD N c m n o m a oE Z N o Wit. m m m 0 L N 0) N C ° O o N N Z N t O O N • O (A O O Y U) C)ci o m ♦W 4) V z N 0 � E Q L C C; U N N --°zm N ��OO = m m4- N�~m�m coM E3 o S� Nc0 c °o °mc �m m U = o O -0N M p -r- N of -2 QNCCC l9(D ~ mEj� �0 /rya Lip o O U E o E — o 0 _ U vo H o V M N f0 2 C c6 Q � a: 3 aci a_ Z C .V O C C 0a- C o L C � > tQ 0 E O m o _ >a N �_a I N c0 m aZ� NW E U Q' tv CL >,. o o m V) aW cu� Q� >o L L Lmt E N F- N- N 0 p L O� i v - OL U C m N y _ m mv,m'Ev C C _ "Lo " EoE, a "L" ��'` 7 C- ° o� a� M o 9 >, O X33== O> -� o ° CL J L� ` O C C U O o m y m U i o .� T A Q Q m L m C Q Q n m->' N E 43 O O N ii.OL Q OO' m0.N � o cu N�N 4-12 v� cc - = o`° Q w ZcnNa Qac) C o Q �.. _ O O C O N -coo "= r N N ie SLcc t� c =a ,o yo V g 3mz� oo- °' m vi m C ° 'p . Cl. 0 CL OL O N E C y N C m m I O 3N ° m m o o= coo m c> 3Q m 3t _0 Cl. N C m U >, 0 O O OOL c) 0 1) ro ( C 0 m Cl) mo- m� > ° ~ N O L O I- > .norma HU rN b 93 fl a .\.L z E3 o c� Lr ir+ � CIL tv V) L L 1 J ` m m C ie SLcc t� Z V J .a 0 Q G D 2 0 0 2 `Z r a Cl) W L.L. 0 m LL Q 0 _0 F_ N_ J 2 0 V+ T� cu �a o N p > o a m � p � m- p d Z O O TO co aN L) C: E N = _ aat°ia>i� EE � v mx (n O c�> - W c o in 0 =_ 0 0 C, o - Co 1 o Mn EH CCU: �� E 'Eo - o 0 —LIN f°2Uw) 0� Q a) E_ aE.N°u) mom=a) '0 .2 0 N" o Z '� a •� o w d U C I' 'J as a 5 •`�. a) /J jj 1l 1i > O p E pcu ✓` �� ._ � ` �y c ca EO cw0 Fc-�6 L_I v� i a3 V) (0 Uu E b U) c c crE a a)Qaa� C U UC y i O .- C 1 s i i U .L.. UN cu T •� i \ cat a co 1„_:.r as E - y•E oia O O t6 .2- a Er's O� �. = N .2) N ID a Z U) a) c a O• C� a 'N N i ... uj O U O J CL o a) > a) 3: Z �C �C C T 0 co f0 Cn cu p p 7 C E5 d� L IL- U a 2 v ” t/ 1� m m ly N cu m cu c� c L —i O O O '> p U C N W Q O ai -E .a) Z N O a) cU6 v- i 7 m —_ p - C ,2 O a) O N -0 Z QL w >, N m . m L� s- cn O WW O L cn W OU C m M v 2 cn > m w v E �ca>,m SCE p ai L {) X C U p A/ 0 _ O (Dto p - t6 U QLj� N L p N o O O m m O ® r, m � U m CY Oct a 0 m E C C O O 0 pZ !�, J cn 0 m O m 0 N a) LL p Q w ai m p a> c c 75- Q C n C .0 L a) i O A/ c6 ..Q Co p E co L®L O O N U U L a) p 0 ui m U O C U O Z L C 4� • C�e Q 4 L ® la -0z �W EZ V Q _ Y Q >, C O C W N C m a) t��4 m L O O `O 2-2 a) C > O N a) ' p i 0- U C m C C m y..J U) � C6 W � O = C CL-+ C) O -11) O N 76 C C a) U p (3) O (3) L U) �+� U 0 Q 0 JL LO m m E-- E a) O m 0 i O N O a)m O N U> m Q L p ca r . � U R7 ' - U O /rte m (n CL C = Q} •� m a) C (l, O V p _N C aJ Q U O C O O 6 i `L- N U as �_ o_ a) L E _� _�= �m—o a) LCL n T3 _ Q co � E m U C i3 U -C O a) a) m U) O O O m m -0 'S QQ 4? a) > L N Z} Q CL a) C U > �.o�°�o i O a)� oa) m�cnmo CL ,� U tL m a H ly N c� n� Ao M N W `�n •� r, m a N !�, i ui 4� C�e a la _ V ca a� m cu c ma c O o O N C Q ` (.0`p ton O 01- E ,N Z o m m 3 (D NL (0 — 0) N c o o �Na)Z ro= o0 m �- a N CO Co L O ` n O U cif W`x-80_ �� t' E ON ' cu �E L O 0 N V cu C—> to __ O _ • O to C 0 0 0 CU U O zcc /A O cYi cc 0 -� c�'N�V N 0 c O (D C L C C tp 4 cL E ma°- m -0 -Qv 0 2(D 0-0 O C L C� o U E t0 E 0 LL 'r, c' U 'a o ,� N C)� U V VV 'm m _w "O (a CL -E :�-,3. N C .� 0 �C C L Q 0 Co -0 Z 0 W Q U Qm 0 O O t0 W��Vi d cu O N 0 > O Ce O 0 3 v,w0LL E cv>,t� 0. v m ("_ o O o O -C O L' CL (.> C (a Tu Lyir�` N � O LCL E E O'p C v0? CO) ` L Co 0 C ` O CL cc� G 0 3 0 0 0 'N t° Z' v cm m 0. W 3 o >, L 0 3 �- 0-0 �Q"o0C 20 O G C U V O L �'' > U �) acui.� O a (0 c CLao o a c'0 CL L O (0 L 0 E E O (t) O O 0 0 Co— 0 0 Q r > _0 'a> � OCL U) O Z CO 0 C L Q C OL O - • 0 N .(�D N m N C 2i 't —O -r- O CX O cm N L m O W C C 'a .- • Q (n N 0 N" 0 c N N ,m . 0 c O 0 U = 0 Co _ 0 O Lco— C 0 0 � 0 ai w 0 o m.o o — U) iB D- ( L C 0 0 0 O o. Fes- S' CL m OL H 0 m U) d Y m C cu -C J O OO m O 4) m T c m a ccn N s O'0 ~ E a)U _ C Z 0 O O 3 O N ' O O m L m a) c - O N O m -p a) Z 'O C2 O L yL.. .2 >+ U) m • L_ a L U Q 0 o E0U� o cm E E 0 - E E OU O Com m U O N U O c C > O O to m O p m L 2 H O CD to m fib C Y T E m co c c Y E'E o cu c cu'E 0U c U 0 7 o m O 3 L U -eQ a) c C C .N m O m EO ' O c CD O L c OU E m "O O O .V L s U U O U (�6 N m Y C) C� E O a O _ = c O C m c . O .EU O C mcu N) O E Ecm O Y m coN N a U c N W ZCL mm O c 0 a) c N p L a) ..O ��25 � > O -ate o 2 2- 2 0 d U C m coo C C O � ' (6 U m 4E U a) > C � O a) E E O a O O C a) c m a) O '� .�>+ a) > m p 00 3 c_C- L o a >, 2 p c c V U 0 L to c > U a) >, a N cm, Sa c a) .0 co: m E E N c O c O j U OU > a , U E >'�pE"O' OLE Cc Mo. 0 3m-rn m =Z<n •�-m p � c c a o c -pa N m m m U c 3 a =0 =O 3 m -5, N Q U,N O 2� Q 7 c a N a) N � 4) C N O U C m (6 U) 0 O > E > E C c T Oa a)'O Q) 4) w m = U) m a O ~U OL r > CL CL m a -O H U s m Q C� L \(i m r V r.. uj CD � 0 0 � � � LL 0 z _0 � � � F - .i � LU � � CL 0 � � \ ca M =a§ c o/// 0w i c @am o eR E / k ƒ\o% %k k / k� (D ��kZ o0 ƒ f k ' 0— W m o co E \� / § a) \ E . E omo c > / o c ' o m § g -0 m J» a■�� tE/§$ ED b\�22 /k §®$/ 0C, w ■ ■ o ƒ 0 :3 /.j 0 C: E M 20% E§ coo 05 02 E 0 (D /� c� o ° 0 % ©- ED 2% = (c 2 7 & f =2R■W a- ƒ' m k 0 f c 7§&e G2 E ® � / @ fj 0 /0 occa cf /$Jk om f V)co § \ a) r- \$ �k :3 kk ff\00 If 3/\f/ 0 2E2°\ °0 m \E 0m �kk�>-0 _= 0» �\¥07 ƒ 0) q 7o \ 2 $ r c § Cl -a.— Wk _ . o e »2e 0 a0 3:\U \/ V) k 2 L4 M \ / 0£ cu 0 fm $« = o > r % § k & » 2 q /\\E $ § c o R- 0 = o , a l m a e 0 c 0 m rn C •3 O 0 a) O a) L O E 0 Q) C O O Y fII O O t0 cc •U i3? O 0 CL co a) s«= O L Cl - a) a) c 0 A a) ca CL t0 O Ch O 0- 0 O it cu C E .O 0- a) a) ^w� cn W 0 Q 0 a) E a) ca ca O 3 0 0 (D a ro oa�i�E Z oa) v� a) (D o 3 co O a) Z NM L m -0 c O U • > CU 4— a) (4 U = x c�jv� • O � N Co F- a) E 'C a) u) co •S N L a) m O Q O C C C mO 3 O Q1 CO O Q) -03 O O U ,U 0 N CU cu C. 'C _ E U ca) D)O 0 o > N E N 0) tea) nZ(D cu cv-0c0 O �(owsi EQ) U F- O o U_ C ti) @ a) tu U Co 4L U m 0 > c m 'L N p N L U c c O U 0 UO ) co U CD U � O L0 N C CL L1 m E T N E O O tB O V a) _ = A � _ a) cu C (D .2) a) () Z U) a)) c CD +O- a) C N O> _ - 3 ca'� C L4 caL (a �_ O a) 0 �' • (D > _o�o ''^^ L m = V! m CL O �- N O a a- m a- c N N O U ate) w (� O a. s L N 0 -co .v cN E E N O O U U O v� o C o R) cn � (� (D a) a) .o E m O L U � C m C 'O O (a a) v E Z CL o to > O %U N .0 o O a) E m O O O > m m o � Q) O (D c a) O O m N Q O CQ O 'Q c OO -0 N ' a3 U L O Q. O Q Q. O Q N c a) -V L a) H U ca m� CO a ass L J C O 3 � � cu Z a0) E Z 'F O O O N L 3 co O m a U O Z O CO U > N (1) L C C- `l(A • O N C6 O d Co -(lD, E 'E m (n cu O L c y U O Q (D C C c m-0-0-0 a) CO 0 N O _V O O U cu U m 3 N m+. C (j Cu O � •C = E U .O 7 C ° > N O E to E m 3 N •--0 CO >,Z 7 O O cu oc0 ami L a�-0 L L � 4-0as E ° mow O ° S � U) 'N (9 to > w U N (D U L Co O O U O L N :3 o cc O U 0 0 = coU U• '00 U Cu N "O LCO C � TS d cu y E C O C O O > V U > 3 M m C N 0) = a) .2) as a> ZcnCDC CD c a) �h--_ (D cu • U 0 2 _ 3 cu >L L C O T3 L Ya)�° cu L O (> O = ° cuu c0u a: a (D > c c oQ E� cu cn cu ° p o� ° o . ndcua C Cu N d E U CL O m > 0 0� L 0 O r EQ 0 O > a) 0-0 L yL,•, Cu (D C N O O m O c a 0 Qc O a) 'o .N— (u 'U a) C 0 CL 0 0_ O O a° :� ani � o a> HU as a� ca m t J O O U p U C ca N a) ` tmn c Co O a) f— E N m z 1 .— m0(D N'V 3 m �m m La) (D L co QO a) C O — 4- . m +. m O a) O m Z (D V 0 y L a) W ui a) m OU U O E E N• a) o c m p E V LE o m c Q 0 X m C C; U v.6 QLi L p 0 U) — " O -0 N v� O O Z N N E c: ,C a) Oto C C O le F w Q-i Om V O (a 0 N N p O O A/ a CU Q (U S p C a- u) o � (p m a� _ ttU (n 0 m >1 oco`o0 00 Eco LL_ L O ) O (� ♦ `' v U N M R CCY mQ5'L 3a Q Z m ='m0) 0 =c O c y.>m0E E 0w L O >Q °' a, �' coi moi L�� r > m OQ :3 N — a a) QZ� �w E U (D �- fl.. a . O C O tp W 0 Nc6 ca N N O� 0 O 1i. C. E cow 6F °' � a c O o O _ -�- Q 4) O Q N Q L U C N m QJ C C O a) �" o m0mcc�a EE E .- `Co O O CL a) 3 ca a) (1) O U ��� � O a) `L°m a-W�_ M= O U O C>1 L -t> ca c U U O ,. U (Da a) _C cl Q. O- co C 0 Q O a o m y` m -.p E .p o ca O Q O v— p N C U U > cu Q ,� U p W .� v= p = N wC O 'C CU r� w p -Z U) N C V O_p C Q• • N O C — �- aim— O N 'a = m. 2:%v ca >' =N m UC m 3a= >,o o L o "= > = 3 m- L a m a3 v U) m U L O O -0�N O QU) cN E(D y N C O Ur 2 a) m m (D m O .O a7 m a) > Q -0 a Q (D c ca 0 a O o ` O a) O a) CL m p (D O � U Imo- a- ca a H W 0 0 W Fa - 0 _0 N_ J LU 0 cn Ll cu co C O OCL 0 OCD � - c Z "a a U to o a) y a) O) N m O C O 3 a:),) a) L y O) Z 0 0 cn w N 0 O O .` 0 •f6 8 U C O y > O E o 0 N CE O C; 2 U .NO. U N C ' C — . O t� fa - O f6 w C U O O N Oco - a3 cm co -r � as '� U o m C) O N •V o L O OM Q cm �' c�`a � °' rn •`—' $ o 5 _ t N 16 ..0., C (,� C `^J c� \e. - �0.. l•V M m =EU cm a' ` J1 c Osco ,c 5 m 6 E N C !e 0)C N D1 O a) ,.rte -aZ� aa))w n� �JTj ` • c 6 5 c X a Uc_cum� cc q �► `�� V o mN•cao Oa) 0)M CLo c o c °= o o 0- CD o� o C N v n r CL m77b ago f6�'�.E om J m o n _. 0 3W -I we .2 C n o c 0 � y w N O U J • _ •._>'. >u V- O cu n j •-._? a ' — '� 1Y CL a CL 1 �J c '� ate) ) CD O N 2L O C �ccis00 O 0 c co m� @ c°n m �.. 1 -• m Nc@Q- O Z. W 0 Qi � w ® to .�. a O) O rn @ N c a m 00 Z _ Td? co . N 6 +�+ m O tv @ @ a U c c U W p E V• > j m troy E O@m� -E a) c j N U M O— O W @ @ wa y O O r-' Q O Q_ -e O f6 O to Z Y �E}'t°m rfl Qoco im o @ v,_ 5 o m @ O - rn -2 Qd=cam ca � \ � 040 N d E .2 to U E ca Lo0� o� v(1� :3^a jr LIL _ 16 co O'd E o o c ca Zc s- c p v- Qm E E o co v, m Qa @ E c M Z = a) W CL C, • O O ° @ 1 Q O O N c f W N o�Q ^ E °' r o C� Co o 0 0° m \1 Q CL �JF=cm�m ca c .j�' v �umi�Lo �o �; 1 L CL 2 m m -J CL W 3 m mot= O c c U u 0 i Vi L •� Qo Q@ c O@ @ Q. 7g L y o y U C:0 m cnorn oa •'A^ @ v♦ U) p CD ca m c am { c a v o o ° N cos c' tU@ZIm ie 0 _ o CL 17 o L4) �y 3� V i O C t io N V O O O N> .Z L O • @ 'T @ @ O ` O c CU N L- c O CL C O) CD o Q m C Bro v 4) 0.)cu —jca C: 0 o W �C) — c . 0 SB (DCl) o co CO 06 .— *5 a) F- E f\#% a) (D -0 0) U) (D a =$ — .- 10 m 15 CO 0 0 C') z CL (D M Co 0— 0 ca E (D (D o > a) E X E (D (D 0 > /ak�\k 0 WCU©-0 to u-) E FTU Cco: 14) c cm C: E 'E *r_ 0 0— 0 m 0 U) :3 75 -r-v) a) (u 0— C, o -FU (D (D E- a c ._ , E u) .2 0 :3 — 2 w -0-0-5 0 0 c - C: 0 0 (D E 0E (D (D U.—S 0 2 CD 0,0 N m — q a -g: c CU 0--5 — :;:; ME 0 C a) (D c: o C: a) D)o 0 m E— - E (D c cu co 0) -- a) co 0) 0) (D (D -0 CC E 76 mZ— a) LUCL - =3 a) � 0 -0 c (1) 0 " (D > R E® // _@ //22» (D 0 r- cu = (D ac @Co 0 ■ >E E M :3 CL -0 0 0 O® ba 0 " i�- C: a)0 a) 0 C: (D (D 0 0 C) 0 :3 a) co L) t �o -c t CL (D 0 CU C CL a) 0 c E —Cn I= E 0 m \2! 0 >a) 0 -E 0 j-0 C: CU 0) 0) 0) 0 CL Z (n a) 0 .6 - a) — -0 N a) -0 cu �L-a) m 0 (D 0 0 > 0 W 0 ca CL a) CL C 0 (D 0cu m W > ca 0 >1 C)) 0 CL ƒ :3 o cn 0 0 a m O—L F- 0 -x: M 0 C) 0 CO CD cl) o Z 0 a) (n (D -�L' -a CD -j6 a) c) 10 -0 \-6 :3 -0 %/ z (D M 0— CU >, Co 0 CA :3 E(D o (n > CU (D E E X M 0 > 0 0 co 0 0 (D 0 0 U)30 U) Co -0■ m U) 2E/cm a c E *E 0)— a) 0 *rl0 cu mo 0m co =) 3r$ CD = -5 0 < e 3 c c 5(D a -,,E w 0 co m A-- 0) -0 �o a CD -0 -0 0 0 c - 0 r- E 2 (D E m (D 0 0 CU M o coQ 0,0 N C: m 0-'5 *c m E 0 0 E 0 0 co > co 0 £% CD c 0 0) a) a) (D -- -0 CC E -6 m Z:R a) — ID 0 $c M 0 -6 c t &R 2242± a) 0 c cu M (D '- = 0 (D Co (n CU 4- C.) > C M E E (u — " :3 0- -0 Cl) ca m 0 = 0 a) 0 a) 0 > A cu a) 4) :3 3: = '0 0 a) -0 0 C: a) C: 00 0 t a) crj (D , 0 C CL ®$ c Izz °E E 0 m (D 0 > Co 0 CA o z a) u)a) m a) CO, - aN) 'a = >ata o 0 cu 0 /2f CU cx :3 a) CL 4- U) :3 -0 0 m mCL a) =3 o F- cn 0 0 0 Z CQ G N= R 0 Na 0 2 LLJi 0 a V♦ �W V 0 0 m LL 0 Z 0 N_ LL a J m W F— a. 0 ;� Jo mN �o 100_ O p o cv o oi N Q L .- O O E N Z o '(D <n O'� a 0) 0 cm N o c N L O N N Z QL > N c6 o cn ° b cn c N �aU c U C: L E U > N N N E N f6 o N OU c — > (0 — •.r O O O (0 d — Co w- O to m C Y N E E F-' f6 N c c c N — O C `n v'N (U ooiv <na>Tao a> c c c Ta L -0-0-0 -73 •• oc Lcc EUO 0 00 �z ° U o - N M CMO Ci iL e -E8 ° L .c O C aVi � O O J az 2 a) LU Q"_ 7 3 co -0 Oc Q) N000� >p E co T a m` r, VJ o" �_ = � O � O oa) Q '> U E cn c m Q L p a (n L p _c 'L O c � � U —O > o c c V U 0 L yam.. N° 7 O N co •C V U 0 L U T c a co Q L O O O C m TN.E O (II tc0 U o �a o� =ami.-m0 C zcnwc Q0 O c -°O o cc U 3 a — °> w O 2i f6 ''V 0 d �` cn O to L O c S 'NDa ° `n CD ca oa c� m Q m L c > Z of c m2cn co cz a) o \ C OO co CL o N E o Z U)O o c0 6 w U) O i c o G p co cn o Z O O cn — U) � y 7 O O 70- `n-pU c �•L °c`na>aa))�E U) X N U X N p C > y _T) U pin ca O o N t0 w O E Y (0 O1 N � N o C C E CI 0 O N � O +-.C: -. � °NSU Om; C L \ w o O U cm Q o C C (a a) o- Ecn O CO < �of � a a) Z O i C (6 k- A O o U E o 'O a) U _ o i (Q U 07 N m • a) p o > N O E O p �y J m aaiE� aiaoi J �Z� a)w c- m o a ca • n c oo a) Dm N o� � CD L . — O -C o � o0) • ns m `n'ca U E E cn o > c � a ns ' �(ano �o t c� L, 3 c- o o v o� ° o c g o C r V U o ice. J U O -=a, -a,-) .N� o .5 .. U a) � (6 •) E 0 m J o°)Coll Uo �•2 �y ca -Eons ca R a) cuo, _ Z� =cn m c Qr �t • • O o O N y � t` :E f0 (6 • V -�— >+ —., • U O <J Gad c6 = N 0 Q J tv 0 Mn 2 0-0 Eo�� o a)o 1. o=5 m > �� Z pi .o 0 ate) y i O o F— cn o F o 'L ) a s c� n t— U a; � � � : gz 0 0 P W N � 0 a. UJ � 0 I-- cn \ % § =-jR �0- C.) m$ee m c m e aoeE f \ ¥(1) n e $ ± \ & :3\ 5®=0 =$»2 /f cn -0/j E cn > U) X E£/fm 0 0 § cuc n yM.c2§ ®�—mQ §� G / R 7 0 M o ƒ/$// CO2 -0-0ƒ 2 c 0 0 o 2 ° a) o / NM C: /20c o & § 0 � ± ° E $ k\/w� 5 a) - _ M =2£mu /,2 0 cu E m - ku E »«@ //) $27�f W >.c (n - 0kk / a) :3 2c $ S 0 /\) C CL 0 _°$ n k .2 2 > >\\f7 ƒ 0. m 9 2 m r c + . . 0 0 \ )(n > = J . O » 2 e , o > acu=L C: 42 / [ b ®(n •@_§@ \ c22> /R/"a) �2mmCL 25eu)e OL a- m e k .) %k 7: \/ /$ ./ E / R // CD 0 $ 0) / r @ o E M §/ R § a)_ % % k § EZ 25 /\ f 0 0 § E E /$ \'D »/ f .§ c= 2: 0 / ƒ /$ @ 'B /0 0 CL // fn ce \k k� ƒ 0 RU W 0 � � 0 0 � � � U. 0 z 0 Q N � � � � W � � � 0 � U) ± \ =j0 � 0 a> (4-0 o»eE f7\) �E$/ $ o = \ 5®=m a>a)z ƒf / m = m E0-0 \ Co ± { �5>f� 0 0 kE Eee» k\ 3$\ § 2 q / R « m m o ƒ Ea) Io:a$ ==mac 30 0 0» 2cod/ q\}� n 0--5 c > E 52 § ° CoE E k 0)C: 5C=m =zfmu cu /o 0 7 2 b \ k E°�«F- 0 (D 0 a) \(D) CCcn m> _ m m - CC 7§ \k0\ / C:c m 0 o 0 =t = CL m e / C0. U ct // k/EE% fk�k� I e m » Zmec ¥, oe �aG--a f\f%0 I—aG> �®0 /afJ» / [ C :m=0 0 co 7�> O) o c co Oge=e _ CL = a §\ /7 %/ 7: /\ \ƒ } E E /\ \ca \ 0 0m \ / /� /\ 0) 2 § 7 0 n 3 Q E Cl Z CQ G 0 li 0 2 LLIF- 0 CL CL Cl) W N� 1.1. 0 0 NmN LLLCL H 0 Z 0 N_ F— J_ L2 r 0- 0 0 I cu Y CO cu L .J C . O O O a)y-2 mU O c H E Z � O O to L N = N -0 U C O to • > L > Qi X C — > C=6 to O N N C O O 2 .n � NNE E'E��a) in cm ' to U C.�N=33 m co 0 Q CD C C ti O m 0 O U (LQ U j N (6 .. C o c6 Q5'C� _E U O C 4) m O E a3 E E CD U1 6 N 2 a> •— -o N Z O O c to LE cu Q L L w- as 2 Y — 246 (n L � to 'm OM m > c co U) m `L � L 0.9In (6 a) 3 C C C C O O O V 0 � to U 6cl,o t6 d c9 E—',m E o�as�a> E CD cc CD a) .� Z in N C �. a) ti C n >+ — • U O N_ E 0- N YOL) T O Co 1 L C C N >, a) co U C) o a) as cn m o- p a� to o CL a- ca 0- iL 0 — L C o .N O `= 2 N C' @ O CL C L to 0 C �U L C E E O O _ U �U (0 w O � c o m .r- 3 cn a, 75- a) a> E E UO 0,0 3 C m O c9 E v Q o� >o m' o m o L - Am I: 1 I 'r I -- 1 V 1 TV —1 11 11 - w -- rn N C d 0' n �i -ro y` cc �. J ls�y `.V �. V pL I: 1 I 'r I -- 1 V 1 TV —1 11 11 - w -- t n 0 Q w 0 t'k 0 0 UL li 0 0 N_ Q J_ G i CL0 qZ L J C ti..v a•.� 1 , r Mn CL � d C c6O Y r Z O w o - ( U to O N (D a) > m -a o ! ! =3 0) me vl o ao'i o' L m 0— CO _.� u' > _ , o cu ° ° E m m CO 0 °o o .0 .j.. o J � Q O C C C m m y '0 O O OU . V O ..../ m Cl N c6 .�.C� ( J �O .� fl ..' — 'C C l U) • _ E m_ C 0 /J a� c' vi rn 0 0 •,V � � .o Z W a o c E E m coIn o ca In m c o m o �.0 °� �� I O O fc6 ca E —' � E o s r C - a _ m o ._ d o E p cn a� Q c _ Z cn N C a O N • U O C O •_ 0 CL i Y ''^^ c C O U) cc C1 C 0 o m O T O E O a) C O O Y m J O O cuH N U c�a m c c O CL m a) 3 0 CL0 N C O m > .Q m O m N O a 0 CL m C E CL () a) N O CL a O CD m Y m m � J C O 3 oo CD M- m cu 0 aa)) E Z cn O a) y0m.> D L � m — _o m o �Z cn r C>, a) m . L () c E (D • > cn 0 — c C > lig+ U) • O U) m CO O N a m (qm C 1G C C N U) m .-cn mc-'�—'3 a) c o C C a E cn .o (p O C O 0 N •a O N m .0 c :1 m ac E U ° O �. SEE N CD rn m — o m Z 0 0 cu 0" C ° La,m N � O = � 0 CD :3 � O U C m U) a) cam— m mcom i> w cn m c m CU a)? ° v 7 CO C L C c O U 0 U U U. •° cc --2!, T O fl �'— C :U:) o m m ° m > 3 Mw OC•o m o) C cn = (1) a) Z In (1) c L CD r a) cn C 0 • U C - T O > m 'V C �v L N O Ccn .0 m w O 7 O C C0 co (j T m�c)mo- 0o—cn0 . admCL c a) � w 'n m CO CL s L (n 0— C: C L E OO O U U � w 0 O C c O O 6 L 5 @ Cl) m � E m O U 0 3 C m c a o m O a) 0- 0 O > > O a) � C T C O ca ma o C fl. O Q c O Cl) o a) Q r a 0 3 aN 3'D V! C m 3 Q N O >; d � a) 3 HU r4 ca Y c (0 J O O O L)o co as a) L C a)CLN ui 0 a3 L y L OE 10 _ C� _ Z N O (L) n (6 O (D L N ca O m a) C .— O O � (6 O N � _N Z O >ai'co. -L -(n _ 0 0 D 0 ,co W L o F- a) > L = E V E oNma� =E Q O _ M V X C O m CO O N U Q) Com" y /�/ =O — C O O O •• V aT O O Q Co O OZ O N E E i— N O C C o co E_=c� U) co o a O U vi = f� Q��coffi D F -Q dM E Z O (n _ 'U N L toO W L C E N F T O O V V E U o/+� :teO .0 N U y fU6 a C Z � C _ E U O C C "O C O > c O O m O j +-' � uj p� N N C 0 = :3W Z _ a) W EU Q G > c Q ca > mmnco o Q)c a) L .0 > O QO Lr_ i O Q U C f�0 N 0 C C O O O m coco E O J Cl) as co a) CLo /� t� = 0 > 0 O .0 (B U >i 6 `O ii N = L O CL Li.j 3 >' °� °' ° T O N C= U U O O O O a) CO L- (6 C vi 0 U ?- Q Q C Q O Q a) O Q L — C 0' 4 > U CL O L O 0 > O 0 >, N 3mmc`naa0'i C oa CL =Z(n � c Qa c nd o • • c o 0 co >' — + U m 'C U) 0o ` E _—O—a> �0- f0 C�O� O Q ° N E ` N QN 7 N a) L a) C fn U N u7 C 2m +_.� 0 0 L O CD ° ami > a) O Q `O a) C ` > O :3L Ca 0 0 cU) m m Q Q p i- m - :3O L O F- 3:Q m Q F- U r."m 130 4e ca a) � M. to L J C O O C N a) c0 0) Q a) — s O V •O a)E C cn O a) w O i U c6 C O C e O O OO -0U Z O O �c TY c0 • O a O U 6 to 7 `)-oU c U (6 o L C�LL � O E O a) U O l c O cn O U 1 C) C cn — Cc 0— O O2 .cu� • E C ZL Oo a) E C a, E C �O .O o O ,L, in a) o Q) O) c� .=c c E000 O N ( T 7 �zzi OO .01 O C O O E O LL O O U U E U O LO c) ON CO c� CO CL 75 3 c Z '3) O O >COE O c6 O ) L O QQ C ��,�_U,-5 a)LLl a)a) EQU .0Z'O Cj C= O c6 C 0 a) C W N N c N m �.o = N IL U E m �T U 6 a) .0 Q O O � � .,r O te � O a U c m �5 L'm c c o J_ o co y voi co c a3 f E E O O C a C -O 'a))L p "". U> .L li (� N p O .S .� �� 3 C --a A CL W c T +LO. o oO c o O r c0 O O O O O w N C a a c a L o a m a o O i '�. C O ofo a O O> U U> U o m T 2LEE: m m as C c0 p Q = co)p) ' 'a:'))� pO d Y C o 2 c Z (n C o a� OD - a) Q cY • • U a) O C w N 'OD N c0 U "d (2 cc c T— .O+ • U �-0 o y o 4) N 'U O_ = O Q a 7 "O C Y N t o N c6 ` a) OQ N (6 3 a) 0 L T m.o 0 CL O a =3U) m a �- 0 H � c(n0 a r."m 130 4e M. C d s O V w e 1 a Tn C'1 • 7 �zzi N C Cj 0 z a 0 0 w x oc O a a W 0 cl R 0 0 NWN 0 Z 00 r _N li `a r _J 2 LUIL 0 V♦ ��M c� a) � Y N cu L —j C O O O t C c a) s -e cu O Vi CO)a N W cuE 0) L a) "v 0)o _ . cn CO N a) 1 L O •— O Q) N CD O N rn Z O O O .L. m :3 tI3 a� `n�U o Ear. O w > E L N E E O co a) C N OU i C e O 0 cu O O N m y- N ca cn Y Q)im F—a) cn = p ` CU — o 0 OU CO :37 a7 �L 0 0 m O cn cm a)c�c iv� c0 ~_ a ESn o U) m02aO L o (Q O L C O a�Z E c0 >, O p 00 V E U •(� U U L O> p N U p Z N a j'C+\ N p� = E U 0 O N C p .� x O • >c0 O E p N Vi ;++ C L c co m C cn 0) a) N cn � a) •— -p co 75 CL 0o -QZ- NW V a >+ • p 0 0 O co CUO O N O N «pL a)-0 O :3 cu > O N E fQ .0 o L - L o --.o— i o Q CL .o'4' O N 2 L C C O j0 cOmmEU EE CD co f (0 'L ig cn a O O U O CC o a+ > o � 3 �_r o-0 >. -0-0 o g a) ��_a)° "-C 2 Ut m :50, L- c ca`'�Q ago L •— C p Q) a � U U � > M 'E U_ (A a) N m cn Q) C a3 O a a = 0.0 N N Z U) a) c Q N p L• a V p O N O a) 0 CCU c0o 32 o cl to cn co -0w acn CL NE co =-0 Z V= O p N f0 a) as cz 3 Q cn o O L = L a) >CL r_ co o o c o 0 a) c0 CA m a a) L O ~N OL r -O CL d ca a I— U ��M �s t e 1 y V IN to L C � c v Y J z ( LA � �_ D 2 4 O O w JL ac 0 CL a N ♦/W /V li 0 0 m ii 0 Z 0 LU 0. 0 oko m a� - Jme Cc .. O m (v p Q 0 fly }-- E p = vs0® -5p momma acm L 0 m C o rn n N m Z o 0 Tm (B ► CLN o N > SOL C E C C > — to � U C O ; m U .2 a N O E O m C Ec�mm -6= o 'n Ca - v,0 cu co o mGcc asm bo moo m a, o=m i N) ' 4� o°ooh E� �� CyI .Q �1� P o U_ E S mCL ZCO) �m - �= ca �a >cuo`�° a� N m :.Ozo a m OW .nm� >o SL � Q tq O :3 ca AK 3 1 m � O O C C 4iT U O > \ L 3 � 0-8 o�ao 00 c°88o X. y U a a (DD r� Wo- S CE' -m 0 o > i v m . m = m is ° cau ro T> ���°' o�� =Zw w cm f/1 o c — a •- U Q1 O N � �- N — cu - U s 0 0 I:fa tg w a U=o ma 4)'o °•�m> m� C� a ED _ cn m a (D r 7 v ° w OL O GL' a a cu CL v 00lz� Ca 0 0— L = cu CL cm ovf-E ZO—,— N U S N O v t6CD = L U CCS fll =+ N O Q} a Ny Z O O l Y to O ai �c6 o ui y 0 ++ L ,.J O w. N O U O .+ N Q)AL o y v L 4 cwo LO p � U — X N v �_>�N �U 4_ i g =O — O u, m = w+ s. cn = oocu o O N_6 c O d 7 ' o N N E O g 71 f 0 cu Q o cn 3 cn = v Q N C C C (6 .✓^ pQ co a- E O 'O -U v o O L v ca O C= O 3 �` V c = v �r ,, y K N O O O U U �."s ('� cuC N CCS = d �,_.. '� V !N (�•+ �— m c2 75 O7 U O = v > _ `= O a s O O co E ID �.— co CZ � Co o— o o -� a Cl U c m v m _ Q -J (Y� U a'c��� Ov v vcn> c mu E (n c Cn L Co L O ++ Q) `acv -� ov v ami CD O o v U j (D'� U � O U m. Q ca. O m v O >.co (6 C6 > 00 U O RS r 1 O m Q d !? N Q CD m � U U v C6 N _7 v CL Z C/) N= U 0 CL N to—:E C: to cg Z S2 L C1 coC6 �-, -�.. U 0 ul L X O � � Q O ley ..� S cS f2 CU L f?. CA ♦ S. spy � m _ i v y v (B :Dv �-� z O a• �:. cg o a v o •�i�ctr �S z =U� v > Q O)o v� v oco m0 dJv d " .-� vol c� � U 0 Q N� 0 50 G `2 r a a. a) � Y f6 cu L J C O O O C/) a)4-2(UO (pnd C .Fn O N . a) a5 O 'n 0 a) > a C O L n3 _O O (D ,p U a) Z O O a) -• w E O 0 N O .LJ (n 7 OaU U (6 C U CD C L E L m>, a) 0 Q% L C EC C O c U X C C @ O O U a) p C C = O co CO 0 0 = m pm a3 - O 7-0 co C Y'E CU O N E C C C 0 O O p c U) U O (o O O N � �? (n N c O +`� O O p C C C _ (6 COC a C u) 0 U) i m N O CO V E N OC CD U — p i U N (6 r M.012 (� U O `v mCL -C� 3a C ,� C p ,> (06 0 E C O N r M C (4 _ c rn O N a) c c � CD •- a (o .0Z.- a) W aU a >. . 0 0 0 -0 O (6 C a) > =,- O ESTU L p 2�= O -5-0 O_ U C m m N C C > C 2 E m co L O. "° CD C 200�5sL O C U CD —O > O 7 C L� a p C 0-0 N a) C C U U O U :L,) w m CL cCL"2Q (D f6 m E Tin .0 O M .E C p O" O� (n �M =a.m00) cc CML p U) 2aC L O_ -Z • • U a) O C — O N a mL) m c > = :r U a = > o a) o E•V (n L O a N Uj E L 7 a a) N L C O O C Y. U= p• 3 Q U) ° a m > a� � OL a C C L T a) (p U L O c p 0 d a) N C cu?cnma 2mn a)=3 Q �aau) It -U IF `v r r a V 0" ry l kA S Y .yw Y �o CA Q � A Am S i� a Z M a` G 0 Q G D w O 9 5O G W a a. Y m L J C .foo U U C a) 4 -2 C9 UUi 0) T) C m CL L .— O a) - E _ Z'O—•— O U U) O >-� U) (D 0 0) L U C6 U C O O 0) j U a) O v) 0 — Z o CL CO L in L) N U c Ew > CU E cc o - _ O V1 ••V M c N O O L m 0—.— cu O Ln E H a) C E'E c o a) - O c cn� U o m �, s — UC Q a> c c c m -0 n m oL c c E to 0 0 0 0 E U L 4) O N m r0� an d U co a L CU S E U O C N c 0 o c a • > 0 E 0 m •> m E L a) c m �n 0 m a> .0Z� a) W QU > U p O C6 " -0 75 N N O L"aE m� L U O U y- a)-0 U C CO Im c C tt-cu M Y O > E E U) m' �CLo M CCD U O O 0 In t o o � D �j 0 (D U) ami .s m Em C OL O Q N O m E E o m ._ o'm m O a) m n U U > 4- U co C "O iu C M Q) m ZCn 0 c ac • ' U a) U N O C - � 0 r 2 � - U N O D (co UO O Q C • Q U) E L C N C U 2 O O 7 >Q 0y • _0 a) > L C C L 10 y L Q N 7 (] .aa- mQ F -U 4� 0 v r•+ C U 9 �3 S N � C n �n a � r c to d d w Lto CL n Zz� tW V 0 0 m Q LL 0 Z 0 F- N F - _5J uj G IL 0 1 cu a) m Y a) a) L C 0 O 3 0— U C N N N O N N c N C. O a) E v Z <f) O O a) to N L (B w- a) C O _ o O� _ CD a)z cn _ O O C_ = ca `l • O N a) L a) C U ia CU 0 Ea) • 0 C N �a �E a) c > - N OU O O to O a3 O 0 N� co •� O U) a) N a Y E �— N a) O) N C C a) E C C O N O o 0 m y v) 30 i a) @ 0) m o Qa)ccC E u) a .2 m oo�� a) a) o a3 O L C C 0 0 U E (u E U >+O U N N E U V a) C 5 .L _ E U O C 3ai a) 0) C L :3C 'O C •� >a3OE 0 c W-- a) — L a)cu 0) C U) Cl) a) a) cn =3 a) — C_ >, Z 3 0 0 o a) 3 4)oa).6 �o E f0>,t - m O O O 0 "'' CL Q cccco Na) .0 CC N 4 U O �- a) a)> C C. p C -0 Coca O C Z � o O a) O ,_ U oc m-0 o "S 3 � L o .0 :3 a) CU O r U���i> >, C_ c Q L - co a) O t C 10 O O O O U a) 9 'U co CU -F �j 0) C N 0) o C (Q o rn = a) cu a) oCL o z cn a) C Q- a) Q ch • U 0 O C N N O .N O U vO- co C - O O E= '3 ca Q C $ Q :3 - L ca CO)° �> L C a< O L T C L CL o0 ` V- — �CL m3cncuCL �n.accun. :3 HU 1 0 1 I�x w, \ \1I 1 �W Y 0 0 i.i.i P— IUL0 Z 00L Lu J a. ,0 U) ca Y m ,•�; j `� Po as ca N u) -2V a \ \ \ h C O Q = \ O) Z ~ 9 'U • to O m y0 m �N(DZ 00 N A _ 0 O U �- � � m • m C m '1 E ii Am> C E m C �> C• O N m a Oi O N O C Y O) N Y "' E� cQ m c c J =0U O W ON NO V ? O 2 O m C C C cL E .r 2 U) M.0 A Izz -O O a U vS- (6 �� ID N CU Ci _ co .mac c mEoE aca am) wo MM E v � C 4Zm W p CL 0 00 o EQ NmLm as o a �mm 32:,mr- o'D -0-0 o c m m C C cmj N m O p m N @ C C 'p tQ v CL c O cs c a ;� r m ca v ca m W C ca to = m 2) (1 m aCL t1 p r fn m C c•Z • V m a 0 fi 0 N CZ3=y-O yC. p '-CfCL C O w • Q N CL uzoo� 3Q �- v u1 Om > cp •Z" -� O O t- C '- CL 0 C >, L p c' o a m m e m m��ma O� ca 0 -r- CL � l 00 0 Q � F- 0 LL 0 Z 0 - � W N � F- F- 0� IL 2 CL W D 3: Cl) �- CL 0 F- U) \ $ § 0 \St o §¥ co Q) Q) -0 _ _ CL m@ . 3%/f. 2\ 2 7700 23 0 ®�2\ 5 0 = 2E c �) CL 0 /f m= c u n f 7=Q/ 0 E2 § & - E c k ( \ § ® E 0 rb= x = o �/ m /2> U) § :oo \2 \ 0U) a 0 3=�= E-aS 7( 2 .-1® f §�� $\ \6 o o @/$/k � m = = o \& t ƒK\// 0 Za) e E-0 %3 # C: 2 = ° c $ E 3 f 2°%E® 00 °\ (\}E\ ®o a =0-5=� x£0.2 ±_ _ \\\�\ \\ ( k 2 2f 2 E® .0Z7mm a. m 0 � C } m�Q 0� >0 $ 7 \ / % E f \ 2 //'/\ k /» 0 co a3\2t § � / @ _ > 9 = E \ % ®m % 22 ma) 0 o / > 0 �\m�/ 0 k\2§c �/ a / o ° E o % > JJ22\ =°°/m 0. o§ E \E 0\ \ \ \ > ° m �7E2\ /\ 0 3: a) k\ / �\ %kms/ /\/ 0 /\ @ E�#\\k \E \ ) 0 �¥ ƒ � / 2 £ \f\0 c= $ 3 ' = S > \ 7 /k/-1 \ƒ 0 n 2 m = a\ �750-q // \ a 0 �LL 0 gz 0 0 � � W _ � F- F- _ w � 0 (L IL LLj M Cl) � 0 � CO) 2 k =2§ »\// m = o 4) E f2%% c@$± $ ZI (D . m m 2 / ( ' > $�g\ 7£>co cu 0 0 .Ln cm \\77& (nm- U) C-) Cl) m m o < a)§ c 1 0 Z - co -0 2 c 0 § m N\ }: R cc c s c �E»p\ %&§o 2 IM E 2 cm cm � m •- _ � =z7ou ƒ./2a E)/%\ \ °= o \2\ _ > C: m � m m - � \$v/2 oc� m�=o= £cSoo /\22f 2E°°\ cc E ƒ > 3 > n0M 2 U) ) / Via§ $ \\ S ISS=> »oae §2J2 - q [ G @ CU __ $ c 0 m 2e> c "a) e g m m a o L M ' . e a = _ § § E CL \k 2f (D cu \� ?0 %: 5/ 0 ƒ \/ cc .6 /tf0 t \2 CL §k \� k� ƒ g ee po cu co 03 a ° oar► - E — 3 U)oa) -, 2 N w CD •> p o a� - w -0 O cu o N N Z 0 0 Y �a>co a•� a) _ (� O ` y U W o Eva _a) E E E s Q o C�>�� U) C) Q o N a c6 w o a� I Z O `� E a E QO -i C O C K ci O c6 <.i O m U UO -- O to N p co m Q N C C C fp a) .2 U) y O O -a) A/ N O i- C E O I ii .. 'D O 0 ,U E U O O W0 cy :3w O a -5 -E- E C E 0 L Irz Q z � �y E . c a) o o ti c O 0 cu E c N _ e �-- c �oco EU y Z N W a C7" llL W N .2 -Fu o R c6 °' • t� F.. o 0 F— F- oy= o Y o v` !� 4 FL, Cc: a� � M p` cn c0 4E U O E "� ai c'a ECL O z' -moo 41 c6 N, L CC C C U O N a W o = 2 O O 0 0)U 5, CO F— > Uro � a).cz E � T a- a �a�oa mo � a o m m >� E o 1i ` Q- o �•�=o co O Z o 2 c C Q 'IT . 'U O O N N C — 0 f m >=; U m J S -0 O I O Nvi C) � N O a J� . cl N O N E S (6 :3 C (6 t p N (CD d d h� Q �J ` n -�• (� QO = @ U �` 91 D C1 .r_ 0 N N N" 0 ` V � 2 N N m Cn @ Q- N f a2 c6 a F U 4 Z CQ G N� O O 2 LUF- 0 0 a cu do �o y cu cucu 30� aNi c m n W N cc- O) E= Z cn o N L = 1,51 cu "- -0 CD @ o nNa�z o0 a� co • p 'nn L .rw`0s 'n-aU c E•L c � m m � m ° um) >,a>i cE 4� L E C Cy 0 cu A • ON N 0 O CoO 0 O (o w O . M 4) C c E c N Q O •0 0 75 C? cnn N co p OIn a� o m EO O L c c EE N... Co0 4 V V N co ... I (� c /� -U n l VV S v co E `o c a3i o �3: c� j� 44lao 3� L N rn2 cuv �' % Q' 7 e) f� m OE U �Z N W _ _ >+• m 0 c �; cn •�+1 L QVICUd — L w o l cu INI uo, ca>2 E E Yc �NcLo'Lca 20 o� 0 o-0 0 o(CUL v O n c o _, > ca of OCU a _1 o cco a� cu •2 > 0 > 0 O In) COO) � N � P O 0) co 0C C� r =Zfn c C na) �Y o y` O_ • -0 --0 co. CD M 3 — > •-• o cc C O N a .0 C 0O N 2 p S a)N � a� (D o cU o CL d co n Imo- •' J Cu a) a) Y N tp L J C c 0 o 3 0 +J 'm c m a) .a 0)) N 1 a) N C m n O .2 — E L :_ 0 'U 0) C • N O a) —Oj 0 4 ° -0 Cl)) a L � _ T O (6 • L L' N d' 0 V) CA -OU c ca Q W ♦•J O o EN• > tea) • , /� \3O E o � 3 E --:rv� 0 a) U N (a O O a) C 0) :_ U — CP /may Li. 0 O O O C6 Q L O L O O -2 CO N C Y fa w O s� wC Z 0 (D N Y E T E E I— C6 O C C ° f� Cill E'm C a) L @' NU O : =• a0 4 O O U N 7 Om O .O Q a) C C C N D a mE. =°� 0�� �� C—n � o L c V E ° a°} 3 U LL N C C) 8 O U-0 0 O U ..�.. (6 (D = E U O C 'O Z O O O co .° y>0E° cCLo O d ��� a°'i ca c� 2Z�_ 4)T E v C o mw_ n__ a.. n > ° ° C O Cp W N C 0) O fL6 .Q O O L a) -0 NLS a) C > O ° U 3 tv � N. -z 0 a,. 'o c�La 0— C Y° a N L L n y° U C fa C6 � �C)Co—EU C C OE 0 mm`� En J�_ Cl) N o ao� a) -o i■LLI c m C v UO0 ° U wa)0 L ♦/� v, N > i- V U U 'O O 2 O T C r CL n o 0 m L O O�-n m EN E N O O.>, o co n L ° Cu) m 0 O c C6 �''2 0> W. rn ,n o C Q r C13 O 3 rn p) a) cu a) =Z(n o CL N c c n° c O n Ua) O C � ON ie w_ to 4) CoN co O 0 o a CC N N N 0�,� • QN n CD a) C Cn 7 O Cp C C c cv Y O 0 O Co a) 02 0 • r- - 3Q a) O CL L > °c0U>, o CLO o ami c Co U) Co n �O~� 0 0 t° nd m n I—U ` � 1 4 r d' ♦•J 0 ' • , /� \3O \ --:rv� CP ` f� ✓ 4 C—n t s- N vV v IL vl� s v < >a 13 D Z Q 7 O H O w x 0 a CL W 0 0 0 0/� 1.1a U. 0 Z 0 Q N OC J W CL 0 _Iw m Y N m O p 0 U C O 6 N 4 .2 m L a) ca CL oa)t-E= Z 2 O -- O U N a) w N m C N o 3cm oaNa_a))Z OO _ L � a) v 0- (n m 0 m > E a) a) �E co>� " 0 N m = cc g--0 m w- o .NE�Cm o= E 0 0 0 a) 0 0 m ._ U�wU 0 c n N M 0 a Q a) C C C to a) a- Ejou Eo m-0-c=p N a) a00�0,0 EU U m U U 0 N CO ... C (, 3 C ma5L '� m _ L o c a • a) 0) om y>t6E ...L ID C O) a) a) �aa))�-0m EU -0z a)w 0- >, . 3 0 0 0 m ao a)c CD -oma >o Ems=,� -0 U o L= y p L o FOcmCUU) c 5 m m =c4 " O () E� Ea a) to m>'L . m o 0 a 0 L �� ca m N U O a) 3t O� ) -00 �a) C C V U O i - O U U :E UT C 0 Q` O O o 0 �• c w.ip co E E o a_ oomom �-- .> U U > w- U >.m h-- a) Cm _ a) O) N a) O aCL zcnc Qm 0• C N O N m a—� mU >.�= •� • U a) 3v= >.o- o Ca D 0 ma MO 0 C — -o w- a M L m O 'o .nN-+ � Cl)c 0 = O0 ca m Q L= C 0 >. C N a) C C13 (A m a O o F- N2 -r—O a_ a. m a_ !- U 6-1 C m O cm Lo 0 co 0 a a) Cl. O a) C m C m , c aLS o m C O U E U m E s U m C c C \>cn cn 3 0 m 3 L m c m � a �O ECJ Y OZ 0 r .oa X ~ ca L U O -0 co E O a E U N cl a)0E O O co 2 0 OQ m a a .mI L Cd 6 U) � ¢ I� o � Qs m 1 � 6-1 C m O cm Lo 0 co 0 a a) Cl. O a) C m C m , c aLS o m C O U E U m E s U m C c C \>cn cn 3 0 m 3 L m c m � a �O ECJ Y OZ 0 r .oa X ~ ca L U O -0 co E O a E U N cl a)0E O O co 2 0 SUPPORT THE MORATORIUM AND STOP THE MILITARIZATION OF TARBOO RIDGE The undersigned are residents and/or property owners in Jefferson County, WA. We oppose the preliminary proposal for a privately owned, for profit, weapons training facility at Tarboo Lake for one or more of the following reasons: • Danger to citizens, Hwy 104, Hwy 101 and Center Road traffic from stray bullets • Hazard to BPA transmission lines from stray bullets -Noise pollution • Hann to wild life • Negative impact on businesses in the area • Negative impact on domestic animals • Increased stress for residents with PTSD and other disabilities • Significantly reduced water availability for building, agriculture or business in Tarboo Valley • Curtailed use of Tarboo Lake as a recreational facility • Increased cost to the county for ultrastructure needs, monitoring conditional use and lost tax revenue • Negative impact on area property values • Irrevocable negative impacts on the character of Tarboo/Eaglemount/Quitcene/Snow Creek areas Therefore we support the adoption of a one year Moratorium on the development of new commercial shooting facilities in unincorporated Jefferson County, WA and support citizen participation in the development of rational, clear and enforceable regulations of all commercial shooting facilities. � � : \ ,�,4 V� \ � § _ 0 �0? §w 2 /ftE �® E Zk o e � a / f §/ $F o Z 00 / 2 k ' 0 — 0 f D U) G o o m : a E o o / § & E E k § a® \ k ƒ ƒ / / S 0 ' 0 / § / M / @$=—e a2�=� J0 m� o ® \ / % 9 7 \ / kk�$/ \\ o o § 7 cn m o m o $ & / 0 R ƒ//GG// =0$ ƒo m 0� 2(D E E k E§ t 2 0§ 22�=§ 22 42 E52 a) a) o .° f �/� §E y % /E * 2% / / /� m k [ 0 c k =27m2 ¥,em± E. 0 c e = c * 220 " W- E c f / _ @ 0 //72± /0 CL oc\\b �« / %J720 °2 e > 9 U) ° % E E .� o //\07 / \ƒ 0 § R £ o / > $%\00 �/ � § 0 2 @ f § \ _0 m g »� & c CL 0- ® o cu E E o m C) a) ) / > /\ ®«%\7 / k7§/ �/ / CDoU) �k $ / -0 % ° / o \ $ f k 0 k \ /2J3J CL :3 CL / / [ G ƒ V) =oo a==22 2 0 2 § > / k /c 2 a) -E5 3 / / \ CL m \k ,�,4 V� /wj. pprnur -Z/5 FEBRUARY 5, 2018 COMMENTS FROM DCD ON ORDINANCE 05-1218-17 FEB 0 5 2018 The Jefferson County Department of Community Development (DCD) recommends that Ordinance 05-1218-17 be amended to make it possible to do noise testing at an existing or proposed commercial shooting facility during the period of the moratorium. The proposed amendment will: Allow potential applicants to obtain noise data useful to them in assessing potential mitigation measures for land uses that may be required by the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA); and, Provide useful information for drafting the proposed ordinance by the Review Committee. The proposed amendment is below. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE MORATORIUM ORDINANCE: ADD TO SECTION 3: This moratorium does not prohibit noise testing events at any existing or proposed commercial shooting facility, provided: (a) Each noise testing event is conducted pursuant to a work plan approved by the Director of the Department of Community Development at least 30 days prior to the testing event, after consulting with the Director of Environmental Health, the Director of Public Works, the Prosecuting Attorney, and the Sheriff (or their designees); (b) The Director of Community Development determines the event and workplan are likely to produce useful data for assessing possible noise impacts at the facility which can be used to inform the Review Committee's work required by Section 6.6; (c) The workplan proposes to use best available science; and, (d) The workplan, at a minimum, meets the standards in American National Standards Institute (ANSI) S 12.9-2005/Part 4 for Noise Assessment and Prediction of Long -Term Community Response and offers to reimburse Jefferson County for the cost of a technical consultant to review the workplan. V, .�s , I am Un�rnsZc9 t' U runs o►,-�-�,,s �+s 1 �-iers�er�h�-P �' �r�ln �-o a roly) use- IaiS-1 Why o� t� c n "5 Mon {-a fib,c� ar of 5)r)e s J Ca s}a1s��bCCU- yagop('wAf-- n-i-D�n�.n l�U�eS.;s �� rnon wha l�a.s no h ,S r'eS SAS PI c cs a �ev'ese (vt I's uod- :)�"Aaw*w' 'IDo rn apse W 'wcen'�s Ate- cNr pol �csz Q S �Ur 0- n.e-A VI A, k-, ; o• ��i-car� o�y aK�, ► n vbl v`eA CjL vis 4z1'n olls+r�x- ' J o- cam m � �-} roj-A +- �j�,arra S car, r-oN cK44 m % a n i f 1 - Le oro � na czw -Fo �ppra pc�;o-t e d Q4 w N+1�.M p.•Q c�-1 d nQ.�Yc) i 41 -Lx-) W wnaxt pnC 5 0-� �,�1-��� • I hc.� Sem do 5-lv,at- pq.m;� �- 1�+w� i S � � s c Q.ns,s�--u�t- w 1�t1�► a ul�r--P- 4-cr �s 'S'T c'-6-Q rNa c �o�t vie r v ped G-S o. P°1 i f �CaQ �V d tU-►� �n.�vn �r��S �. s�p� P c Arr c u reps-s-co E5 a 01 CAt'a m-�P- -tkja� o naf- r-�, 1�c1 ve, t p �-S Q rro n fir' OJL-rj��-t c� m uM ���j , Par+io-,4oA� s uc� c�H M`�d ash �-� 1 ' �u"� � S a-� c ,M pateL, o4 a F � UnS an I he nd 1,5w 1I;vt� J;���'lQs �n Y\j U' �.� 15 naf C �b �S �5 Camm -",+ gv�) �`�� � ►-� rises n�, Jae m GaS f-CkC, l ,4j4 �)o-S n e iGlC12 r4,S s- C�u�fvt�Q �an�i,�c u rns Qu,lcmc wA' 9g February 5, 2018 ************ Regulating Gun Ranges *************** Peter Newland Jefferson County is the gateway to one of the most unique and majestic areas in the United States. Millions of visitors flock to the Olympic Peninsula each yepM ff4rffl*t its beauty and partake of its cultural and recreational offerings. TRC supports the moratorium because it will provide time to draft regulations that respect the special qualities of our area, provide for future growth and safeguard the vitality of Jefferson County. Experience has taught us that, under current rules, enforcement can be frustrated and expensive to achieve. History demands enforcement costs be paid by gun range operators, not Jefferson County taxpayers. Besides protecting the County's coffers, it is of paramount importance that new gun ranges not damage the environment or degrade public safety. Further it is important that such facilities be compatible with the terrific things that are going on in our communities and throughout Jefferson County today. New ordinances regulating the construction and operation of commercial shooting facilities should require strict adherence with industry best practices. To further assure theua blic's safe , the inclusion of other recreational activities at gun range sites should be prohibited and siting commercial shooting facilities near public waters or already established recreational activity should not be allowed. Further we recommend that every shooting facility be required to pay for and obtain an Operating Permit governing the scope of activities and which is issued, denied or conditioned according to a stringent set of standards. Failure to obtain an operating permit or comply with its terms should result in immediate closure of the facility until all corrections are made. The moratorium committee should look to nearby jurisdictions for examples to guide their deliberations. In closing let me say, we understand that many of our neighbors own guns and wish to maintain or enhance their skills in a controlled environment. The task ahead is to assure that can be done in way that does not disrupt current lifestyles and assures that Jefferson County grows with grace. It is really very simple. If you allow i fac t d!e: ruining people's lives. They have been ruining lives at Discovery Bay for years. I thought some of you lived in the country but I guess you don't because if you did live in the country instead of"%Y you would be aware of how far sound ,travels. I can hear my neighbors rooster a half mile away. You can hear the Boom Fest music two miles away. My neighbor's gun fire scares my dog and when he loads black powder and fires it scares me too. Automatic or multiple guns firing would be terrifying. This facility will not just be doing occasional firing like my neighbor sighting his gun before hunting season it could be all day, all evening and they probably have plans for night time firing which in the summer is 11 pm to 3 am. They challenge us to find their property on a map. Well sound really doesn't follow tracks on the ground. We all know you can hear something and yet not see it or find it. Please imagine sitting in your yard listening to the birds with a background of gun fire - FOR HOURS. And this is not BB guns for target practice this very loud semi- and automatic weapons from multiple shooters. Just imagine how you would feel if you haAo listen to gun fire on your day off or at a beautiful summer evening out door barbeque. It is very simple. This is not Syria or a war zone. This is not like people complaining about an airport when they move nearby knowing an airport is there. This is people moving to quiet area and then you allowing unnecessary noise to impact their lives. One of your revised Ordinance requirements is to ensure compatibility with neighboring land use. You need to define land use as people living their lives and not having to listen to gun fire. The gun range needs to be where no one can hear it. Don't ruin people's lives. It is that simple. February 5, 2018 Jefferson County Board of Commissioners The Honorable David Sullivan, Chair 1820 Jefferson Street P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: Ordinance No. 05-1218- 17: An Ordinance Establishing a Moratorium on Commercial Shooting Facilities in Unincorporated Areas of Jefferson County Dear Commissioners, I want to commend you for passing the Moratorium Ordinance (Ordinance No. 05-1218- 17 Establishing 1 -Year Moratorium for Existing and New Commercial Shooting Facilities and Creates Citizen Review Committee To Develop Regulations). I feel this is important for establishing reasonable and good guidelines for future development and zoning. I am here to represent the over 1,200 people who live or own property in Jefferson County who have signed a petition endorsing the County's effort to establish reasonable and good guidelines for future development and zoning of gun ranges. I have been amazed by the community -wide effort to inform the public and believe that these 1,200 signatures, given the short amount of time we've had available, represent a small fraction of the residents of Jefferson County who are in strong support of the moratorium. The signers support the moratorium to sensibly address the whole scope of planning for gun ranges in Jefferson County and specifically, they are concerned about the negative impacts of a proposed weapons training complex near Tarboo Lake. I will read the wording of the petition in a moment, but first want to state that people who signed the petition know this is not an anti -gun issue. Many have told us that they own guns. But they support the moratorium because they are concerned about one or more of the issues listed in the petition. Following are the areas of potential concern listed on the petition: • Danger to citizens on Hwy 104, Hwy 101 and Center Road traffic from stray bullets. 0 Hazard to BPA transmission lines from stray bullets. • Noise pollution. • Harm to wildlife. • Negative impact on businesses in the area. • Negative impact on domestic animals. • Increased stress for residents with PTSD and other disabilities. • Significantly reduced water availability for building, agriculture or business in Tarboo Valley. • Curtailed use of Tarboo Lake as a public recreational area. • Increased cost to the county for infrastructure needs, monitoring conditional use and lost tax revenue. • Negative impact on area property values. • Irrevocable negative impacts on the character of the Tarboo / Eaglemount / Snow Creek areas. Therefore we support the adoption of a one-year Moratorium on the development of new commercial shooting facilities in unincorporated Jefferson County, Washington, and support citizen participation in the development of rational, clear and enforceable regulations of all commercial shooting facilities. In closing I want to thank you again for establishing the moratorium. This is an important step to take for the future of our county. Thank you for all the work that u do. Susan Leopold Freeman Old Tarboo Road Quilcene LU C) � 00 z Q � _D Q 0 LL 0 Z 0 .m I -- Lu F- F— F— w M 1 2 LLJ IL 0 F— U) £cu k _ § � o e2»CU .U) c @ ooRE ¥Z0 e27 k A o 5�=m =2a)2 /f cu (D 7'D/c CD o W ' > m§±§ c3$3m CU \ m R k 2 \cuE E *E \ & cn�2 .—aU §2$2» ® o @ o �Ek§/ 0-0 2 c `C @ 2 ° % o d NM @�3 If: 0C o & § o ® 7 CU E E k%/a0) 5 0 _ @ =27mu 0 § f e/\/ E a e £ G e 0 ock7` %7%/2 2m3@ \2&/ 0 f\� cj� (n �\ / k c7 S § ///ff 2\�0m cu E E kƒv�% /�\�cm . _ a): M o mme� + 2J�£3 = J . cu » 2 e o > » �•� a cn2k4M E & m �@_§© / E\r> CY) 0 c®2�@ c 2 m ■ Oaem0 CL CL m CL kk_ f ME �k 7: Q-/ k\ 32 / E // C13 7@ k / g � / § §k Q 0k » § /f / cu % 3.) 0 /k _@ f 0 § § E E /$- k �/ /� c= 2: 0 / ƒ /© 2/ /0 tCL k2 §k \k $>� & :3 // ♦W V li 00 Z0 Q 1. fY.l R F- 0 LL O Q� {i Z 00 Q =N � J 1^�1� 2 CL W V♦ 1i 0 V a N c O (D (v a) m C O 4O a) O a) O E O a) c O O a) Y N J O O cL`o r ca U 0) C CU U c O a (a 3 0 O a) c O 75 co .Q O O (0 N O CL O 0 - CD O O CL CX. O m Y � M L J 3 c0 O 0 O U a) cp -0 cu O O F- _ Z. N O () cn (D a) - O 01 Na)Z cn = >+ a) N L ++ O N • > L (0 >+ a) to X U c �> cn _ • O U C OO N .0 (0 NE F- N (D E 'Ea) cn N U U C U «J cn a) m O Q a) c c c m -0 -Z- aN CO O N O O O D U L 3 N N +�. Q N CL 75 = E �_ o c L C O '= E aa)) N 0) r N a) - 'O ca �Za) Lu • o cu 0 N ( O N m 3 ca E UF- _ O L U c (0 Ncc a) N tn•QS�L- U +Ly > L (� O O a) _O U O .� (0 > a) 3 c C C O U O o (0 N c a O 0- E EE C) a) N () �+ w �.> >, M .E a) cum U O) =a).—M a) Z U) a) c V U N C) c r y(D N O >+ O _ O _ a) 'y cd 'V L (n L C 0 N E L co U N 0 j O= O N m • � 0 > a) c O U T c)po -a) m :3 (n m Q- p H v) 0 - OL m a - aacva N a) E 3 CL O > o � o N .2- 4-- o c Q O .Q c O N N •U Q) � O CL O Q' a :3 CL N 0) a) > (D10 - L C a) H U Z CQ L /_ li 0 0 2 LLIr 0 IL V+ ui N� ii. 0 0 NmN LIL 1.� 0 _0 N_ 66 r J W 0 V+ NO t° OQ a) ` jr,J co m t/1 .c J c o y 3 0 c p vi m U) C a) U) c �Oa) 3 v��oY v o o c�-0M,m o — o a) MNoZ 0 m L. >, N (6 O_ N O m2- O p ` M 7 as V m N V) c > V o E a) U a) 3 0 rn E 2 cc* a>ic E `p . a) C _ Y cO is m Co c U)o c• O o T U Co ` O m � O m O O CD -D 'E H cc6 N m 9 Y o O O m ti o 3 m a Qaa))ccc m� JO o m a E'u, .9 U) o cm CL c 7f c rn = 3 U) �Z a a—,L kik �iw Qo y U, ro w q o ® 3� a) Y a)L 2-2 O R f 3 o m v ~ a) w ` �'' `�'- cob Ow`•�.i a vEcac� cc O cn 'cu c 0 4E V E Q O m a) w w a) > (` L C13 c p c p U m> l/ m p �O� j� C) -10D > CD � m \\ a) c o F- oc ° � a) To a c a m 0 Q a) O l ca 00 m m E> E o m ) 3 O �O cn > co o m m .Q- tmn C O m c m R rj ( N o. 2 N n N N _ �_ ' E c o Z� a) c c ?�Cv7 —O L•• U N p m E 3 v= o Y o r- 2 3 a:� a) = a a �/1 M x �- c° 10 n i .e' S c Mo is z =Ca 5=° ooC > a a) m mo o U) m oa a) � c «s a) E 0 0►- cn 2 s o c= E a IL m a 1--o a_, `� cn cts U ca (D9) Y t J o 3 ° U o vi °.2-2 `5 0.� o a°i� E ° Z:2 -,- 0 L) O O a) N 0�°a N LO 7 � IOU, a) F m N Z O O N 'Cu . p N rL L O U Id N C () 3 N M A a) C E 4- a) E a) Co N U C — > 0 =— • 0 vl W — to C N O O — m O N E O C a) O) C EEC ° L o'N wU °o is V) -C 3 O rn N C C C (C m 22 p O aN m O L C C E m a 0 O D U E U L O L cu N o w 0) U O _ E U L C N N O •L : � c a > co E o cu E ° c m -0 z W a U >• O O 0 0 m � C O O C -IDL°-0 >0 —C ID �m t L y = o o C (p C C °-n'm mo EE Yan > m ca vN, `6 L m O a L 0 = O U O > cu CD 33 oa c a 0 o r U t 0 E U CD T C CCL CD0 mE c- _ c. a O U OU > cu 30) cnm °a =zU) a°i c aa�i • ' U NO N Ca O C b _U a> , c o cu 0 aca CL '� a V) U 3 O Cc: cn C ns O cu a CD > N > co ° cc -ami or m=cnco°- Lo p0 CO r0 a as a t- U rn C 'C a) w U) a3 O a) O O U) m O c Q a) C. O a) C a) C a5 C O CD (D c O v E L U ° _w C 3 co N r a� a) .5 O E Q Y .0 X ~ c0 U 0 CD E o �- E a O 'E ) '�u E 0 05m0 C N O v AJ �S �J Z } Q 1 r.: j R LMM l »r N� ' - a w rn C 'C a) w U) a3 O a) O O U) m O c Q a) C. O a) C a) C a5 C O CD (D c O v E L U ° _w C 3 co N r a� a) .5 O E Q Y .0 X ~ c0 U 0 CD E o �- E a O 'E ) '�u E 0 05m0 r Z CQ G D 2 0 O 2 LLI2 H O M CL //M/� V/ LLI V O NWN LL 1.� O O F— Q N H W F - IL /O Vi m C) p Y m C u C O o ° U C N w Q m a) ,� C m CL Q) oa)�E Z'— rn o w 42 (n a) a) _0 m L co m C o m o a) m o -0 U) a)Z OL > m m O L O U C C i •C N• = OL m W > a) E 4- L xu m CEn ; Z a 0 F- 0 2 LU0 a Cl) W 0 0 m U. 0 Z 0 N_ Q F- J LLI 2 li 0 U) �� 00 - oui o a> - 4- • V) O a) -� (� N ' O) 3 .Q U) (D Z O O cn�U c � IS L O T 1_ ca T a) E V --oma' to L)X OIn- .r ° =- w °-0 — m o y' C o m m O O C L �. o �0 � �� �Eu�c m0 �� ° 0 C E 8 C: 0 0 E m ai L =5o N (a c� U O 7- E U O c m Z. L ca m > o S- Uezy Y L o Loo � o� f7 � Q a m T c coo a - --- - -O O L L — N O N 4•- U p m O .� m (0"a) (op O C c V U O U m U T � cc'' p Q m pO f6 p0 .0 - N ._ m N U O m 3 0 m N p O C \ =ZCO 2 c Qm • • U N O�,�E 2 N '- U � -0 O L p S to co �2 0 :3 •.0 Q •� ~ y CL G1 ° m S O a C76. z m p cR U T O T ° m � +_�n m = i / @ n• L as a U) 0 W O O W F— LLO Z LO Q NNN Q F— J_ 2 CL O cn N � -C —i 30oiri CL o a> F -a> } Zai-' . v,o0) �. 0 a> - -0 0) �• L U) m (D o a 0) a> Z o o \-- > O t6 0 cLo 0 o 0�U VI c L nn E a r O co �, a>> a O O L E Q) 0 c>3 as a> 0 p �� c.} m o O 0,2 0 cc �;. ca c o cm 0 E S `"EF—m0 cc E rn c�•� QU)U °o.m V f>3 (`7�L C U /> (n m 1� � � < a) O O o m 0 0 0 co N L a> O N N L c V 23: p� co Q 'C a) _ EU O C a> v i = 7 cn o O N J i Oi �- Z _ a) W 0 V > O O (0 y v> >m c> E E a> > c cLo a a ai mL O O o �oao_c L o .0 V O 3 w 0 -0 15- C:Sl) ()o U o U Q) < O E o a o @ E O (0 0 0 m, J = 0 CLZ (n 0 / a> N l 70 oCL Q 1 J �.�• u n N E L CB "a L 41 N N C caso0 o d .. 1 L � /�, L � O �-- ♦w V 0 0 W U. 0 Z L0 Lw r a 0 CaT A CU �. m m N N a� (n C m a m z-aw tp O O -, 7 o�voi•> aa� =]A mono, op ao ° m s� N_Z )- ;M, Ofn o .`. to 7 oE N t �! O m c m a N U O O O � N Y y m C E 'EH m m +. O " J m m c umi U O N U C O _ O) n mL C C m 4) Qd E O U E V N v V m co3 m +. O U ,0 �r Nca w C d 3 C U _ ` C m Z C p m N 11 U `S► Ty ID ((aa i m C m C 0 N m � N .QO � O m w m 'o U L g : i O o CL C (a C C 4 J Cn 1 O, m 00 m «�- OM E a -01 C p C m U o f �(D 0 0 ami m C C U (� O L w 'Cm N m Q C 0 C O m m _ E O fa = r C p > (a U .m w .� ' '> 0 'C ate+ r m 3 N d1 o. = m '� m m � � p Z (n N C p O O m m Q NO m U �i M.5 O o a td fA 0N p O j V �.�ML CL �. A % Oa c'oN 2 t m :3 m a o. a m "a - H 0 d ---j ✓ co 15� 0. cu a) Q L a' = to .O OC 5 ~ U �, m X1'1 n Z O O N > a) a) t0 a) C CD _ O a .Q�mz 0 �� o ' Q N 0 £ a m ca JJ 11 W 0 o U C L a ate. E o L C a o C `U) Q) x ® L _ p X v) p i _ _ V U w a 0 Co (n C Q) O O 'E- U O XN U N C (n C G °Im in N c6 Q a a�, Q Q a) C c C m ca d. E '(n o _ - CD -p N (} O i 'J UU �� C o� ca U L C U p .. v c6 O ® ^' N M) 55 C O C)_ mr 'V .0 E L) O C a) O O� Ca ' E E o �Z� a) LL! Qv O W C a) Ly N > .O w V !- �sc VC II'p U) i� U 00 O_ .CL p O 'a s Y ^+ cn L- -MOL ti d l v L U C a) Q U O O {jam J cPu o Cl 0 a) U o > 0. c C CL 8 2,o C m W o ccz U o L H ID F— a) U iii t� Q Q Q a) p .� i. m 000 CL L (� L i�/ � O O p � U y O> O 6-> Off: f "m p �� cq � p Q p -Z U) N C O 'N p—O C:) �• �aY N — cSf • V L a C 3: :2ID Lo OO 0 a -0 X In 4C'U- 7 x > C m i 75 L19 N C CL� U_ fn C a a)_O Qw N O O V $� Q a) C O U >1O 'a N D CSF Cn c6 C ++ 3 a) O O Q p� � � U (n OL L O n. c6 o d G- J � p cn � U ♦W V O MO W LIL O Z 0 P N CJ G 0. O ca oo ou = Soai r omi-E m- Z:2 O N -5 w z u 4) WZ Orn Q L 7 (0 m C y O rn 0 ' �5 S. N L _ L 3 O R>.a>s c E +� (D (D E C ; ? U � O a DL— m -.1-0,0 W Co O A E c0 m o c E VI)-}-- E -EcSD� O O U N _ M r 3N O cm D-. EO � O U) -ij i m "3 -a�0c �0 440 130o 8 "q -� % S M> ....cO� O -Oo u� Eu . mo3 O N rn ua �¢ N om" a 3= G 3 =E5oc (D 1U -� toE E 7g lL6 z 4 Q - C> a 1 .2 m`�J 1�, t , el 4� > O -' v rn �L O L L @ }, N ' rl '� 3 E 61 Oho = � —gym od d "� iota IE u EE .+ Nco L � Q. L ;ao � L� 3 o•v �- -0o= c= V V OID mo L \\ =Q oQ ago . mo � � o o w -22L ma`s if rn o�rn=ra,on at Z0) m c Q= � v u @ o o c — O, to >+ m u m� C 9 O 2--0 -r T O_ 00 oCL � �1 t i3 a L =gya 3 o m a CLVJ M D p k- w2 t O Q n. 0 CL t- U 4 Cj W Q 0 0 m LL 0 Z 0 N J_ ui IL '0 Vi (a i T o c� C 0 o 3 0 (a 0 � (n .Q o ri CL 0 E N. S Z A o N (06 N o m c N QWcz W 000 �w(o o� p N L E N N N E O N N a C E C @ U N C ; W C O = O z N C O O p O W fi O lGc C N 0 - O -! c +n U 0 w p O (p U r to NM t O3 Q p Q (0 OL C C O O O V E (0 E V , Y N U- L U - (6 0 - d) s p p O 30 C> m O E 00 E N L N CO) w 0) � Nl0 to C 7 e- -O W MZ NEL{ QO Q T. 3 N p Z. O M ® mo0-0 >o E o -0 L t L p O n (WU cc O '(o •: U O N N> (U E O O N LO O ` O C O C "- U O N O 3 C r O -O T m Q(D O C N N C C V U O ca > a- C:p `) O Q N o w L cc E E 0 to O c) N> j U O W r-l6 0 � 2 N t6 y Z Ui N c O fl p- C p CL N o e ?�, wM U _ O>--. O .N 3 (a -gym V Q � C O V (g i 0 O. :3 CL _ • CL N N E N O m C '= W - p N (p N fa O=Oa3LQ -- . > 3 O CL L- C N L C C O a N N Y L m j of-- v) 2 c O i T 0 cd N C • E 0 U V Q � or a3+ E � ti> SUPPORT THE MORATORIUM AND STOP THE MILITARIZATION OF TARBOO RIDGE The undersigned are residents and/or property owners in Jefferson County, WA. We oppose the preliminary proposal for a privately owned, for profit, weapons training facility at Tarboo Lake for one or more of the following reasons: • Danger to citizens, Hwy 104, Hwy 101 and Center Road traffic from stray bullets • Hazard to BPA transmission lines from stray bullets -Noise pollution • Harm to wild life • Negative impact on businesses in the area • Negative impact on domestic animals • Increased stress for residents with PTSD and other disabilities • Significantly reduced water availability for building, agriculture or business in Tarboo Valley • Curtailed use of Tarboo Lake as a recreational facility • Increased cost to the county for infrastructure needs, monitoring conditional use and lost tax revenue • Negative impact on area property values • Irrevocable negative impacts on the character of Tarboo/Eaglemount/Quilcene/Snow Creek areas Therefore we support the adoption of a one year Moratorium on the development of new commercial shooting facilities in unincorporated Jefferson County, WA and support citizen participation in the development of rational, clear and enforceable regulations of all commercial shooting facilities. Printed Name S" ture Address Comment Date -7 124/ y837 L u -IF g'-�es tdl /V0 W/�/� 2cI" Ti kee 9 r ?Q Y N occ,) ova \ L (n 0 a) r L N L O N Q � o a) .o �.. a) n U)(D Z Q Q 1 E T Q) CG N ...�� a C5 7 a) N a U c _c U >_ `- Q1 . Q7 � W N' X N E 1 T O O N r' cc'i � O Q flJ U � � � O O a cz O ( O CD Y �— n3 v C0 alp" "jj L? p •0 J U .N U a m C�i pj Q a � - U) (n O N a) Q cm a) 0 -C a a) c c c �� co ow o 'a Lo o m� > _T O O O O U E co au) U O1 O aN co C C O Q>) m 0 E O C6 l U) y a) L \_ . a) cz U) -B z a) LU CL _ "LZ ,, O Q >1 a a a M 1 `�1 U cz m n) O N c , ! N cz ° m vi e L c L — L 0 o a) Q� >, a a c a > U a a cti Q O t o Q) — w >, co CL m co (6 n3 .E N .- a c6 0 oa)�oa ca .Q a)>Q _ �–.> N O T a 0) C: p C O zCn N C Q p Up ova) oN m.5>- (c6 T �= .� V Q) U Z a> � _ gy m 2 o n a x U) d) = O � O_ � CL a) L Q t c o L O N v n3 N D U m a) �= M 0 Q) N Co d N 0 E Q) > U) 2 0 Z 1.% 0 61.E 0 S uj ii /iL 0 M U) f6 N Y L J c 3 O O O U y .o M CL oacil—E Z 'F O N CO O N ,> NL O m cy .o O a) Z �T a 'co L U) : E�U� o > L CO T N o L U c c> rn • ON (4 C O O CD 0 Com co E .;= N ca•�'o w O N m O C( N •C C C Co 0 N C O O N -0O O U U R5 U 07 O N M C d m Q-s'cam E ,U 0 O Co O E Em 0) C 0 �� m Tz. O O O C Co O O L N m L N N 7 M E O vE- O U C Ny N O (6 U .` O > t6 to cu 'L •D O L CU m O N U O c > C Y C O O O U o � w U C O 0 Q m E T E y r C O >U OU > >'�E Q) c0 = N .- M Z Cn cl) c C> • v m 0 h-- N 0 - O 2 — > 3 m o L N C O f6 L O O O = O N m � 0).0 C] O m U) fa CL o H O O . C: CL ma c N O U 'D O) N c c O C..oc L (A m L CD E U) E O U U (6 O c C •O O o m fA 0) f6 N i N N Z E m Ev O O C O C "C O m ll r,w 60 at �: N v r'PiN 3� h� ups C flT: 'O £ y .'' SUPPORT THE MORATORIUM AND STOP THE MILITARIZATION OF TARBOO RIDGE The undersigned are residents and/or property owners in Jefferson County, WA. We oppose the preliminary proposal for a privately owned, for profit, weapons training facility at Tarboo Lake for one or more of the following reasons: Danger to citizens, Hwy 104, Hwy 101 and Center Road traffic from stray bullets - Hazard to BPA transmission lines from stray bullets -Noise pollution - Harm to wild life - Negative impact on businesses in the area - Negative impact on domestic animals - Increased stress for residents with PTSD and other disabilities - Significantly reduced water availability for building, agriculture or business in Tarboo Valley - Curtailed use of Tarboo Lake as a recreational facility - Increased cost to the county for infrastructure needs, monitoring conditional use and lost tax revenue - Negative impact on area property values - Irrevocable negative impacts on the character of Tarboo/Eaglemount/Quilcene/Snow Creek areas Therefore we support the adoption of a one year Moratorium on the development of new commercial shooting facilities in unincorporated Jefferson County, WA and support citizen participation in the development of rational, clear and enforceable regulations of all commercial shooting facilities. Printed Name Signature Addres Comment Date )' 1 % "/' 4�tt� % 8 7 lid, AN rTY *PSS. J ffi �61liRh v' -Q &O r` 3� I t t � l/6 0 L �t-j'y,)U t, Vitt f Sefi6 mp r Ver � ; w11A y %/ Ru a o POIN r war iw Nai ix< ��w co i t a'nprQe2 C4-1 SS �1 .z is er 8 Signed petitions can be returned in three ways: Mail to TRC, P.O. Box 177, Quilcene WA 98376; Turn in at the Chimacum Comer Store, in an envelope Attn: Rob Story; or give to a Steering Committee member. THANK YOU. Z a0 G Li LL O 0 g z 00 Xq~ LU _N F- F- F- F- _ w J a� 0- W CO) IL 0 Cf) N C O U m C O O a) L O 2 O E O a) C O O 0) Y m J O O .Q m r m w �U w rn C .0 co c a cc a) 3 w 0 OL O O A a m O m p O CL O a c0 C a Q) L a) N O CL CL O m m a) � Y m m L J C 00 p a) !A Co cn a O E Z in O a) - O � L U a) Z � Nul m E Q) U a) ` a) X Q) U m C > U O N m c O O `SEH-c�6v E c = 0 C m . +L !A a) m O Q a) C C C �Ev) O 7 �_ \ o ID 0 c0 p O U L - v 7 N m C ('J m a 'C = E U o c -,-L .E CD O Um E E a�vi m 7 a) - -p m QZ4) UJ >,. 4)o 0 ymaa)-0 :3m E j F- a -C 0 0 U @ 4) 0 > c m + U) m .L L m C a) 4- U O � cn 4) r� o y C C v U 0 U U-0= U M N Lm C a a cuE �0. N O O > U U > Mw 4) C y m _ a) .- m a) Z W a) C Ni U () .a a) m O _ - = > a w L a) ca U m aL+ - Z) O O m m -0 o > C N U O) o () m U) m a p o �- CD o . aama c o vi U) a) N '= a) U � C O QO. L � U U (0 U a) E N O O U w O � O C Oc O m L � m L a) E E U U 3 � m � C � O N C C O a) EE 3 a O a) �CD > o'D D 10 (D Q) o C I- 0 m •- O 0 :E C d O .Q C O N U N -t O CL o a� a� N C m i ?Q N > O c a) FL- U -AO cl Z CQ G 0 0 2 F— w 0 a. 0. W 'W V 0 0 in LL0 Z _0 _N M 2 LU w� I.i 0 m v � Y m O O U N -2 m oE Z h O N cn 2 N w L � m O O) (/) N Z O N m (naUc O • > M �L—x a) U CO m > cn O w m m�7 m to Em c Y lmo E c m v m o Q 0 r- c c a.MEunocn WO -0 w O -0 0 Q O U U L O N CO c C7 m CL _ E U O c .mrnc0 M a (D UJ coo 0 N m ° 0 03 U m @ a) m N m` U L ai > m Y cn m 'L O C �O U � In c Uo co c a a m E Cn E a7 O O > U U > r NO :m 5 O) c co 0) 20mw Z(Amc U a) O N c m • U fl- >,O 3 m•� ;v L N CN m_Oa) O = O m m L m > N Cm U t O 0 N N m U) m a Q O �- coO . aama C o N N N U N C +J . O Q U) O m C U 'C L 7 O C E m 0 U m O � N c o 0- 0) +rn is ;v L I_ m OU U �O 3 C: a� c -a o cu C C O a) E a ` O 0 � o cc T - a� o O m m .2- 0 O U C: Co O CL C O m m •U N � O CL O 0 - CL 3 Q N (D Q a) � C N FL- U I tVw\ _ vd1 V �vi W 4. Q: co VI ku =yf. �xr C ea: I /oo J c -C c o o o °0 R' `J -2 vi i .r N L 0) V± CZ _ c Co O Q) F- E "O � .❑ a) ++ r — Z - '— U Cn - Cn O > -Oj i L C60) CD — Q) O — p `2 -p (D co O 1. \J U)QJ U) N Z O O p L in ch _ U t6 � O O .L O U > W t^ O Q) Q) O U> O L C U O ® O _ CU RC,Q) L o>O oo 2 Z cu M, nO U -0 co O R O Q mU R U N p o m L .�� O — N v m 0 y 0) Q) 5 a G -0 Q _� c c o Q (6E M p p L U _ 1 p A/ i6 O L p c 03 t6 LL o o o O N U U L E a� C) L (� i \� c co ®.v ® � R U CA N C6 U O c _ E v o 0 G) Z Cll o, c c O > R O E O C6 (n 0 (3)T Cn c ui CD c O N c I� c -0 Z� o W o 0 G~ C W O cuR N p N Q) O N O O p _ p U _ p L p L O L �A L SZ U C C6 c c Tit Q VV U I— pE m "O U s C6 O c ® U) (3) {3 m(D N U L O Q) N 0 cn 3 o-0 CL W >^ o o c s D =0 _N c O D U OF- o0cvt at°i.� cfl Q) CZ L CL 6 co 0- >, Cl) O 2 i 0 O NQ c m 0>0 CnAi ON OR > U Nas® 0 6 N > >+ f6 Q) CO pp. C (Lf R 4) Cl) N Q m NV� \J .� V+ CD p Zcn N c ac fah 0-20 "Zi C) c -0 - cC'lY co (6 O — O SZ Q O i m CL N E@ U U O 'S QQ , O Q) OCa C6 N> R Z E �= U p C L c> of N C2 U �? .0 m Q) c +-' S F- 6 R C1} C6 L O n a n d a a h 0 .M 0 FF- c`a !L- {j c� � U SUPPORT THE MORATORIUM AND STOP THE MILITARIZATION OF TARBOO RIDGE The undersigned are residents and/or property owners in Jefferson County, WA. We oppose the preliminary proposal for a privately owned, for profit, weapons training facility at Tarboo Lake for one or more of the following reasons: • Danger to citizens, Hwy 104, Hwy 101 and Center Road traffic from stray bullets • Hazard to BPA transmission lines from stray bullets -Noise pollution • Harm to wild life • Negative impact on businesses in the area • Negative impact on domestic animals - Increased stress for residents with PTSD and other disabilities • Significantly reduced water availability for building, agriculture or business in Tarboo Valley • Curtailed use of Tarboo Lake as a recreational facility • Increased cost to the county for infrastructure needs, monitoring conditional use and lost tax revenue • Negative impact on area property values • Irrevocable negative impacts on the character of Tarboo/Eaglemount/Quilcene/Snow Creek areas Therefore we support the adoption of a one year Moratorium on the development of new commercial shooting facilities in unincorporated Jefferson County, WA and support citizen participation in the development of rational, clear and enforceable regulations of all commercial shooting facilities. / V PrI / V 0 Z CQ G 0 0 2 uj 0 IL 0. Cl) W 0 0 0 m LL 0 Z 0 Q NN F- J G W F— CL 0 mm � ° ° �� Co L.o G Q Z13)~ L) • Cn O � 0 40- C� Q O N Z O O - TN�(o �� o_7-0 J c i v � C: o co T m c E o L E 3 mo Q Co O £ O FT Co N O £ n t% O m 0 0 O O C � � U z� o o M 0 O O V E O L ° L k� N (6 y CQ U �O w> 2C O O Eo O Co _a) 0) C? Vj CM N (ll N76 0o W v � -a E N L. Moi, C: (z O a) o > c co E O V) m L to O m ° , o w o a o� o c .5; o ' C V O O Cll ° N O N C O cm, O CB C ET Eo- .0 opo m S o -r-- E m Co c 0 = v .� M ro ° ° Zcn 2 s Q° coo e- � � — � co •� /y ,� 3 m � Q CL0- i :3 tj C L -0 cm > S Z N 0 (o U > ` ^ S �.s Cllr �� 7 vJ m 0 m a fll p f- Cn OL L O .a�ma E -U a YYY 1 m a) (D Y � L J 3 O 0 O U oaa))F- E a Z O CD N a) ' � O m � _O O � a) Z T N a3 w o •> 4 CD L_ D Co m C C `., U • O U N O O O L .2 -a E� c co c o 0 ca•� U) b 0a)coo Q m,c c c �E�oco O O c O O N 0a) U 7 N m .O• (� m a�•o� _ E V O o E IOU) Of � D c6 t�Z� NW T . 3 O O L a) tq `O O 7 c4 E O OE�twooa) N N > (B U) t0 0 rm 00 a) U c9 > C��ID UO U O `p N U .L.J U c CL ° a 0E�}'E ooaa0a) r > U c) > >+�E a)m Z cn ( c • • U a) >i O O > Co -0 - L L O L O a) O O m c6 L N > CD 0 m U T �.o0 2a) cu=,coma O F— (n O . ah- coa c N ,(6 m � U a) N � O O Q L U O 76 � U CD L C E E ) U U cu 0) CA o 0om L :3 0) m � L a) E a7 E (03U U O C 0 0 c "O O ca N a) E 75 a O co > O L O c c O a) E 0- > > N N 0-0 () a3 >, O a) o o m c3 n O v C d O •Q C O a) -0. m U a) :s O -f 0- 0 O Q' a=3 CLCD (n 2 J C a) 0 HU :n1r" d` o: rl r tVVVV � (S -AJ J vh i ih tri �NJ x � if lr• C a G D�/ 2 O CO G 2 F- 0 a. /m/ V/� / m 79) Y c0 ..0 � o ° c c6 0- L ._ O 0) E 4) r Z a - U cn O O N d L _0 O) L O f6 O C O N O O N O — Z O > 0) =c0 Ln co y L y 7 " C f6 C (0 > N C N U O E C — > to +-— O in (6 — f6 r+ N @ o (0 -C rn� E F- N N _ O E C C O L 0._ U)(6 (/) U O (0 cr. C U U) O L 1r2 y O N O Q1 QU C C C Co a) CO O O D U• �~ b �' l M v ° O Ln V L � =f0 CEL ct �3 c o lel rn Q) .0Za)yj C cu l fl cL0 n c o (2)c c0 T -oro ° - o L°, o N- 1 _ U ` (� U O � Q moi-•- �� � � �. .L.O >B C (0 a L O CO O U °> r� �� s cu O_ CO c0 +�+ 0 E O Co , o ° 0 3 c c0 u°i oo� C S = Z co N c nQ C . c Cf • U O O N O O (n C . 4 HE >+t Co' 0)' 4 3 0- > o ✓ .� o ql- o � � CL y $ N E L m 7 "O t i co ° y O co `It O C NU >+ L ✓ (S �.00 (3)ami mo V J co �cn m o ° f `-� J EM �a w.'c m L �42-e o. 0 m A N =+a J 0 m N m Z 00 0 r W m o �U0 �'A �� t7 E > .e E p c ��>Xw tL° ° � im s m � �o p Oma te a O€ro- �-0 Q� �rn 8 O LL m'i�rn= o V 0 CO 06 LQ = E o� c a� 0 C C C • E C 00 O Q m m 0 mui m� WT Ni 0 3�� .i �a c p p G1�'V� g � `►- o o a Le `1 � Q V -i =W 8o -. _ ; ci O°j4 m.5 TO CO)c a l0 NUJ WEA°E o� $, •- :ao .02 r 0 N �CX 0 Z c ac c p !to= loo Ti z' > -Sj�. i _ .gm � tea, m a ON �W 0 o O � O tC i0 > 3' Q o CL JS. 0 3 to ca m mca 0 EM J Ni 1 `1 � Q V -i i d EM Y cu co C w _I C O 0) 300 aa)) o -a a) �ccoa 0) 0 a) F- E ' vn o a) oom> cn z `o °)oom 4 M j -0 a) y a) o a) Z _Y >a) • L W O N y j U a U S c E o CD > O N U x ul a) C C > 2 U . � C cu ii Q O C O 0 o O CU N ZO _O .0 a) .� m c 0E O 'Q a) .-W E -x rn Y cu _C m wco.cV o J m o c`Qa)_cc o c a = Q o =.off ` is oa �caci E' IUL o w_ a0 EI O O o0� U +�. C U 4 •� N (UO O� O z0) =Ec.)ac ma c c oc z 00) o �C m w' a7EE o O a) c � (D ui °) a aZaa)w E� Q c WN o CL cu a ca (a 0 c 0 o co _— 0 3 0m0E� >o a coo c O O U H O i2 4-- 0 � 0 o o LQ r C — a) Q U C M U �- - cu C C v" O a) to >c0 J 'O Via) EE 0... zCI- acn��co =o m �Ba)yo0 C o �Z� C W T w�a 0� o oa w' a) o U 0 0 � ~ o a co CD 0 >c 0 ca m �> �- a 0 0 0 _O > M UO a)c6 (n m 0 0) a) m cm co o Z cn a) a 0 L U a) O �ya)c;N Vi U a3 >. - . U O >,0 0 w� E 2 -�_ > o _ 3 ca a) a mm ti 0 c o Q c a a a a a)a cn m a y •U M" -C N = O •— 5 a) N a) cn ° a is m 3 Q a a C c :3o m U >. O.o0 m > 0a) o 0U) m 0. m e • \ A cu cu c o o \�i o o) Z -o —. T > I� v� o .cZ moa)�N ° _0,i mc) 0 0 a) o a) @o o Z O o T m co 0' -C 0 `� 0U L1.1 S 0 o ai "Eos aaaaaa� C C C> N U O I" O O tq N - (6 pU) O « C t a O •0 M� a f0 w O � ZN y E N C O Y i- a3 a) c C 2 .0 Q c c c is a) a o '55.2 o r A -A O o E aM s4 >, -2 C)"L O w, MO N6 U - o d Z o O� t. c 7 a) J Q � z �_ � W CL UJ a) N 4) 2 .fl > O a Q _ C ID N a) > C m E C 4) 0 0 0 •_ •C //�� O > Ia O o _� c O 62, ;[ ' C >, 'a C l O +-, ED - O D U 0 CL a c CL o a c 2 p o o(mo > 2_2 O > U U V) (B O 3 a) .� O) 0 Z(q N C aC CL 0 0 ON 10 O E _ - 2 a cu CL T Y N'o <m t0 N p> c a m CL o as U> 'o a) mC0 L ` 11l o 1 co Yi -j� �0 7T i �, aco ovi ca NvOi Co a .� U) o (D °; coo o 0 0-0 75 a) Lo a> (1) Z o 0 > a� co as coo o ° 75 W o U c > L a oma, � � C° i L >� Qi EC L ® L L C a a U X VJ O Ca 1J O O o v U O c6 � O -0 Zp BUJ E o C o Y C E: Q' Qcn M .c N o '� C _ 0C U U) C y C Q O 4� G 0 cin N m O cm N L G( O C C C c6 � _ "� Q Q m 0 0 �—O co N L O 4i7(��v g O -Q -p C a) lel z > A/ f6 O L C E co a) ,,} C 0 O O V rC a) "�� Cn O `j S6 U L O1 C U O CO ® N c6 C Cf -E U 2 C O c o > O a o cz \ Cn — C: Y; \j 0 ® . > C6 ® N M N Q Z :2 a) W C U QQ >, c O O UJ N ° o m ��� ° � �'M'°gym �o U) LL c � Q O as •>% w U � s- Q U C Sg N C C �m>EE a� L C ° L a CL ` ) a LI_ u) � � ai j ..... A .L- LL{ Lo� -0 �oaS'°o .7s �° Q g C: o- O Q w o +.S >M c5 mE O t6 N 00 o Q L r C° Q o ° o>MU> �_v L a)Q 0 : 0)L c O ZCO 0 c CLC a)� L U a) O m tl� o .20 v m'v L C'1 Y cLo6 v ui o o �' ��5 X ~ N O N C4 U) 7 D V m a) cu i O m m Q aJ O ath 0 > E CL �o�mL °> T :o�ai ° o c Q L o l a� o �cu o cq 2 U z CQO G _D Q R 0LL0 I.L. Z O O S G WN_ F– cr. OJ CL �. W Cl) a. O Cl)V co C r J O ••r opo m 1 M �N cu pN E m Z p , .— a) 0 rn p — O O - p N -0 ow -0 �,Z OO V >, 'Fu -. "� cLa ` -t O _ V1 a>`n-0U c E U ` 0 . 0 _ ` E 0�>,� �_E N C U 0 X N 0 C > co0 O of mC 0 p N lllv�% -0m OY'� ca F- m m c c m N 0 0� p0.0c c=o cno mo m.��33N� O r fn N m O Occ Wo O+ m.o�� m m� is oL C = E ca .>. -0 0 0 U V E V t� I V U _O U N .� Ccy 3 = Ln j C '0 ..2 C C C N p�- C '> m O E O m +N+ a) 0) c (n a) CD W d6 cu Q U=Z — W lu 0 O _ co m \� O N c T N a) OL 3~ -- Ea�>+U� i M1 K. o� 2 ° y o Y° -'aa M - It - OL 0U to ca w o m '.- > C 0 d E E 'C3 '0 fn co Q. N ` m •? O N m 0 d°= O N >, p c N v c U UO co m= 0 N N m I > U - a) U >, Ca.C n O Q N =O . m m E E O m y O co U> V �O N Z Ocm , Q 2 N CL •- CoN =Zn a) 0 cL CL .C p:N O N_p z — _. ON m U cu >,= 4)-t°mo . E=3ccaaa vi cn 0 — L Q C N CL n , V CD N E ` m 7 "0 0 N m 0 o (D > CD d N m > O C L T z N= V CL O O m m o� 0 Q c := O °' oo~N° -Ca v CL n. m n. U a Cs Y t6 C � u Q) Cl)° Cs w � N OQ) F-- t.0 Z w ' v, 0 N co L � N C m O =3 p — -0 0) (n 00 cn C U)"6U > E Q) L co > as C L O (1] CZ C p 0 •�' MD 0 0 C `' L W NN CY CACh c C U) C 4> O U +�'+ t6 .0 0 :3 L C a) p a)LL O Q? _C C C^� _C6 f1Q E °000°J �a C) C a N U 0 L C6 N t6 p� V U 0 � •C m CL L >i c _ E U C N • p C "O O L • > cz o OC O cz U% fn GL (Dcz C RS L 0) c N 0) a> a> 7 N co E U Z p ma o U 0 �C E in N L 0-0 > o -0 •� H U coO p Cs L Q1 co O a) = a) 0 a L U c U' v C c q U .z�- _ (n U E 0 c > E a =- 0 •L O c6 a> a> w U O m C 0 L a) O C D o C C U U O 0 I- D 0 a) U) N.0 64 p U N > C CS >,M C Q O 0_ a) O (6 00 r .p = 0 c CL . O M U a) U Qa L a) Q N CN N CCD C C Zcn m C 0.m G �� U N O N in m Z 2 ' a_ o c- ~ CS •.0 CL �_ _ CDm L p p N p C fA cq C U u) 0 E mcz Eoda) o Q m; y E �CD> � z ��CD a~.ma �ti a � � o U) U D Z a 0 �a 0 w s f - O CL IL V N� 0 00 WNN U. 0 Z 0 H _N J i 0 V/ co LJo oui as wcmn. oE•� C v, O N 3 p a O m0 Y C ° °am o O = . Z °O. L O w to :3a)CSS C) � ��UC� b O E a to > p �:C1 E O N N N C E OCn V X I Q1 C6 U) 0 QS CU U N C COY to =— C — p N C6 - Co ° C 0 0� U w � C/ Q ° N .fl cc w O \. O E H CM m J C C y U O its V O @ 2N N 5 .2 < Q).G c c m Q E O o fn v as V t y, m °' \Q` oE c00 aroi D 0 0 (� ,V EO W p � N CO m (CD : VC C a ` C O ST O ° O t6 — I cn Y (U _ n °' 0w E" J ° >.� � (D -6 apiac l� 3 `gym �� to 1, o :Q a oai M U E E O N > C CLtf it O CD m c ° O ° ° > O• Y O 3 C w p a A a? •O O C O Y C C O V O ` Y N O coEn > U U a� U A •E -�..� n �C.E'oa aso m c° E ?' E o co O p CV cc U O m•sZ V N >+ Ctf d0 0 (6 RS pO i3f to rn p Q C N CO N C Q! CL =Zfn N c ao to CL c 0° ° y :- r- as CSS c 3 -0 O y o '' "v cu 0 CL C 0 6 n 1 n NEya °a Y - O (D CD 4to CO w " f ...r Om m N< > Z "( CL O) o c° 0a °� � D C a� O cm O d °' = S •�. °o. 0- m a 1- U a 0.0 g z 000 G WT m li F- 0 - CL 2 -OJa2 CL ,L ,v�wJ _I CL 0 Cl)v co a) Y a cu cu L J C 3 0 0 0 a) y -0 m o ac) Fcu E Z N O a) N a) L � co — o m N N Z cn T N '(U co m N = N a U C O a) N O N a) N C i + N 0N t0 C • O O N N (o a f0 Y F- (a a) N O C O L m 3 r na)m0 Q 0 C C m0 �-: i C O 0 a) d 0 O D U N N (o C 0 CU n�c� E U0 > ca 0 E :.. E (D °' rnc(n rn m• - a co mZ= a) W °) o co • c0 a)La)-0 V) 0E cu =ns O a) ~ U •- U C N L N 4) a N L o U ca) o 3 0 0 C C a U O a) O = a) N U Ua+L+ U aco co c n T 0 n N E Y NE r N C O U U 1 r T@•— a) N Zcnac • • U () 00 a) c ca T— = • U 4Sa=� 0 = L = N L L ca C:CD L N , N a3 = O a) 0 a (f°) > ) C C U T O)op a) N cu :3 m n p5F-co0 nWcon c (n� m •- � U a 0) co D. .c L N O C U L = m E N O N U U N 'o � O O) (n C C a+ O O N t =3 co 0) m � L CD E @ EU O O U ,o 3 � ca o m CU aci aa)) E v Cl . o @ > o a� a cLo � O c c O a) 7O' .- o `o Tu oa �CL) L L .0 T (1) O c .p O Q N — O •U C d O nC O 0 a M U a) C +L+ O tf n O n CL= Cl - d) a) HU Z 00 WN {.i. OJ 0.2 CL W �^ " 1.01. cn J m Y N f0 cu 3 O O U N O N E Z O o N (n L N > .— O :3 CD 4- Q NN Z N . CU N N `n-aU c O N > N v L L O C > CUN c _ NCU - N N H CC o EccL) N M — o N U C N O CLN C C C E•N°UA)` W W Q c O 0 0 O U Co CU . C Q N C -c:L �: _ E U 0 O > C O �,•NEE N N C;)a C Q3 ._. -O M -0 Z :R o W cd c O (Do0)-0 CU E T V O U c c0 @o '-= L - 76 N > C N L o N LO N N N o � U o 0 o = -r- a) 0 C O U O O O � N N U U -0- U C C N 0 C o E ; E O C) N ft5 U o 3 cu 4_ p +. C')C N = N .� 'a—U) E N Z (� N c • • U o O 0 cn N T — ;- • U O > �a) N O N O L N EL N O N f6 �_ O N O O c0ca C� L' >+ OO O U c:tf .- r -,N O c4 (n m C_ 0 O �— co O a d m o_ C .N O U W m - O Q L L N U (0 U r L E C E N O o v U co 2,0 p N O O m -C 5 N t� N ^L` W Z E N E v L 0,0 3 c N C "O O m O N C_ o>0 � o 0-0N T N O O m t6 2- 0 CQ O Q. C O o N �U N .� v Q 0 C. O C C. CL N 7 'a N ca a NS N " L c N C HU OA v m u o N -0NmZ oua? �a W4) ESU c u 0 .°gym �E E J8 N O w� 8'Q 7 Q 0 12 i ¢ m c ..m Q co v .o a }— ro oag ocE to 0 9 S= Em ow d 2z$w c0 wfo m�� — o� t-- Lo o m LL j� Ea now m °- o �� o D CL _ Soo 0 to - CL Em eo E = E 0 a T m m $Zy! $� V -CL m � o�cm aoic Mal m10 p-0 0 m m <. i c'o > e7 U ` d a 0 0 w Q U. 0 z 0 H J a 0 v3 c�3 � m is c 0 c zoc� N m G' o 3o g m amfz y o oOwls m ��m 1200 !6 Yr �N am ' L F_ imp.2teaZ m p w jqotcS Em ma TO c� c�d3m t Z 9 C C p wC • m p r O Qi Em "' E a g xe:ow o 7lg� CL 0880 'um m Q. 'Q 0. O m coN 4 d 8� t6� �. mH a �& z� 2 Q 4 • •Os zi r m = m c0 0 mr i_ t CL N m 0Am) aN m U = 0 m ld • W C C CL C 0 5 � a o~ a F U ♦W V N� I.V O O W H LL O Z O H N_ 5_J LU G 2 CL O U) m Y N 0 CO 3 O O U LA -ecu o N Fp- E Z CD o N N � @ O N N Z cu (0 N .L. N 7 E -0U c O N • > N � N `- X C C > N O N N a o o NECUCU E C C o N (Sf .— N C N =U «�� 3 u,aNi�so a a) m�:3 ° 0 0 0 0 p U N N w C 0 m Q� ,r� = E :L- C:o w'O E CO WCY) :3 a) —�oca .0 Z N W >,. 5cO 0 .Q w�La)-0 N ° O t0 E a) t5 w 2 O FE O� p N w � c co .oN�ca (0 N N U 0.9 N 3 C J_ C C O U O 0 o 7 N N U U C Q � Q N E >'wE C N . p N cB O N A (d C a)(a = a) -- M (D Z CO 0) C cn p • C N (D M >+ = • U 3v 15 =, O _—� - > CO 0 M .0 N C p w - Cc: N o= °civ C > O C Co U >, C O N N (0 (n N Q- p F- N O CL d m � C N N N �= N U N C T-0 -0 O O Q N 0 -cu C U C 7 N C E N p O U U N 42 o cc O (U 5 N � -FU (D a) E� cu E U U o 3 � a a) (D -a o m Ert n r- N CMC) 0) N N U CE Cd Y Z N 2 m X ~ C m U � N� E °a E •- U N Q� O E C — E �o� (n � U Z 5Q G 0 LL 0 m F - 6i ^a. 0 Cl) /W 1..1 li 0 W Lf F— LL 0 0 P N_ F— cJ G i 1.i. 0 cn co m J C .� O O O U a) 2 - 0 c m a 'o a)f— E z 2 cn o '0 >_ � U m _O C m a) Z m — E2 0 cn E U > i m T 0 m a) UM co C C > CO C O (0 a) O O ` O m .0 — m Fn m E 'E H (C6 0 cn m C CD fn V U o O Qa) C C C u) O co C0 ..00 -0 N C CO O U O 0 U — L• N m O �5� m n 'C = E U O C L .0 o O >cuEcu m 0) c uj m .0ZW T . o mO 0 -0 `) 2 c m 0 a)� — O U @ a) C, cn > c colo -000o.L O U m C0 OU O U O -0 � U U V O m 2 O m C CL E > E 0 CO > o U > =a)a'mm Z U) a> c N m -0 — w 0>> >i m .V c o ° N c E 7E o a ) O 0 m m 0 C (C6 U O).� C) N CII =3 (n m n 00�U)0 n� m a c c O a) E a c o o m C6 > a) O-0 2 m T a) O o io mO' U O � C O. O ac O a) 0 N m U a) � O � a O 0 - CL U) cn c C O a) H U 3 L tv M ct �7tO O:, z' 1 R U) ay 01- r: a; i 171 17 m Y a3 L J c 3 0 0 U 0)4.2 W O a) E Z O a) N � N ' N cu O m N N Z T N RS N :3 N O U C N > O N = X U O CU C >CUN c — ' O U c O O N .0 m N a3 C Y E � aa) E 'c N cu c — coi U @ N' 3 "'N O a3 O Q a) C C c CO -0 N O -O o O U U 7 N CU w C c� cu n5-c� = E Uo c c : c o M w m E E a) (D ecu; m (D— ' -o CO m Z � N W C o a) m E > U H Y = w O N a>3 �C Um N w a) ` N � N" f600�v O c c Cc O U 0 U O -D w N U U -o c6c6 C > o E n m =- v, .E c o > U U > C NN =o.mmami Z U) w N N E 1oU a =. 3c6'C52 U) o 10 o cw-0w- . N�_ CO N O O cu m • a o > c ccu u c �p - ami cu cu CL p o N o nCLa3n m ami E U n . Ocu L O C c O 4) 7 C" O O > m o O'D a) az o T 0 0 o ca c6 O c a O 'Q c O N -0 f0 U o .0 w O 0 0 - nm n N =3 C >cc N > o a c 0 HU cfl N 00 3 rn aa) w o c aci � v 2O 3 CI Y Z o 2 m X ~ cm U N� E O a a> CL F- .0 F ami o ' rn'cc E cn 2 U ,� UC x ti E,E �y FRIG M k � Biu U i c^ , C 3 � GS cfl N 00 3 rn aa) w o c aci � v 2O 3 CI Y Z o 2 m X ~ cm U N� E O a a> CL F- .0 F ami o ' rn'cc E cn 2 U ♦W V 0 M0 W a LL 0 z 0 a H J 2 CL 0 I-- (0) ca ca O V 3 c U M O Vl y ... e m . c a7 0• O O Z co O a) O a7 a) O CA.. Op O O a) +. y a 0 Z w. r s� b W w:3 � ca + E W W W + aa)ig0 ` c E X N8 7 � V — ONO ;-� o N O o m .. r. ME��m cc m:p O E jIra � N U N ON O w ! a) .. Co OCD�/ a E u) o(cn Z 0 �Qz OB o c E cu —0ou E0°)) ~ O Na7 (� d d —E- CU3 _E y>asEEca L - mac �a) � Z a) W CL ���S >o ca 4- o °'— �� a)4- ww o w 04) a)>cm EE Co O 0 0 O 00 C T b O > 0 3 `oo' ma c gay C O 0 O 0 O O U) N L) '6 t TO C O Q C O C ca -� E o of •, O U >'V Tai a)a3 0 civ 0 O =o - asap 0 Zv)a)c n0 Qi c O O to O > O _3m:vm o� C--04- 3 N E O y N C 0 O O m O 0 N} N< Z 0)0ma)tf ai m � (n m 0• 130 z Q � � Q QLL 0 gz 0 0 n I -- LU N R � 0- E a. W M Cl) a. 0 � Cl) F k � 0 k / 0 \ \ / k � \ CDF- 0 L) k E L) f / \ e /co ■a &$ /(g X30 §J� fes$ 20 §=m c\f ka.J k�$ ce 70 gid\ § j �-i ƒ co o §L) m m ®= m 0 � e m, 2 0 « % CL E o c fes® mom t\: A.J: �em7 =o( / �°:�-� ko E' m \/) & / ( \ / v c f / \ E m m m k 0 t k . \ , } k/\kms �/ E . o « 2 \ 2 / 0 2 2°% J% «m -= ®EME cn 2 2 c to L) \ \ G k a)\ o 6 m cLKf/k ƒ`. /0�kCD Em \ e( » �§2S/ _ �t-0§ 0o �� EL)2 � ccm \_ ®�mE/ cc= /� � k/7¥2 K2 c =33mw a. E m% co cu o 2" $a 2 G e E7��® 7f t 2 2%6 £ o n oc§74) c{ k Qgat �m> °© EE cn ® % g o 7kk ) $� 2� k 2 = C) 2 k 2 k 0 / m o ° ° % k o»D �� 0. Ca k/ CD \- 0m k kk§L)% °� 2 � # _ _ 0 E % ƒ 7 b k / 2w2c / �$ �2}\\ \ }\. gam#»o £\\ \ \ a ID t E $ 222m E2 o2 �\ /b/ L) '675 2 2`�E> �\ \ § a a-5c2(D cu @ m a "E- t = \ =2 �ka@/ /3 F k � 0 k / 0 \ \ / k � \ CDF- 0 L) k E L) f / \ e /co ■a &$ /(g X30 §J� fes$ 20 §=m c\f ka.J k�$ ce 70 gid\ a z � � � 0 � � 0 2 w � � � 0 CL 0- � � LLJ CD � 0 0 � � F- U. 0 z 0 � N � � � � w � � CL 0 � � � % § / k / / \ \ G / / k \ � & � k : f C: / k cu _-j§ 0- 0 a) o=»CU .® c M e a(DeE Z \ 5 ) e $ / 5®=0 =$f2 /f f. »\/j / c ` > (n X > - q /»k�k .2 % 2 Ewm» k\ �2/ § 7 in n o M o ƒt/// �-a'0 2 c 0 § Q 2 °a)o / M0 0) NM CO cu CL 5 = » f 7 3 § o G § o °7 CU E E k\caa 5 0•- _ ■ =Z3Qu '/m / C _ /E/\ E § >«R ///n m 0 M 0 @>.c M m - M I kk�/ 7 \/\oc 2 c S S § /\/- C CL m E C:) .2 o > >7\$M ƒ E: % / 2mec: 0 C)2a)m > _ @ . o �2e>o I• -s-!-- > m0 T) ae ® C:-0 / § / 0 $ o mm fCD> C: C) m 2 $ M E Ole(n2 a a co a k .) /& -k 7: // c .\ E // k0 cc \k 7 � / j Ek §/ 3 c 5 m � § E-6 0 > .$ 2\ f 0 § § E E /f \k I/ /� �0 � �/ 0 .§ ƒ /� /o tCL CL k� 27 \k k2 // C U) m O m o L O U) O a Q m Q O m C m G f6 G m 0 N i O U E U fC E U m C 3 H iD >. C`7 3 m 0� m � m � � U Q � cy +.�Z m Q m,= t0 x ~ C O m in m U O O N E °a E CLF - 70 L H w m O E c = E co p in � U (s m m Y M i J C O �i p U C N m m N fn (D •O m E 'm ) Z 7 O m L) � w m m t6 m C cn n O m m Z O Q. C4 O ML r� a! 7 U f0 E m m o:3m5,� G m m 4= m cE m t m x C to p U C > N O to C 0 0 m 0 (B y -0 m � v- O 44 U f6 Y ME1—m(D U cc E ';= 0) o wC- 0"��U m a] m C C C _� i6 m E ca O m v� m-Opa p m m� W 0 C O O m O U E m m U O 0 m � M � 0,0 .� t�! co ate• � _ E o c C 3 m m -a c 0o c m @ o c m �m--om o U Q flZ mut > m p m m C O O c6 a7 C m�`ov� CD E m w 7 m rL y p0 w O _ (A CD O m> C m E E 0 fn M n m mmt5� U o5 O: C 0 O -O .in C N U CO O U m } U zw ai .E J V -0U N (6 m T c C 0 Q m E E m 0 ommpm o c0 > U mm = m N 0 -- m O zU) m c nc a U m O c — O N r O L o V a«- O am m t c a) m O= Om t6 • �Q (D > L m T a D).2 m i O w T CL m m m C m � U) m O_ N :3 O F- UO L O O_0— m Q H 0 C U) m O m o L O U) O a Q m Q O m C m G f6 G m 0 N i O U E U fC E U m C 3 H iD >. C`7 3 m 0� m � m � � U Q � cy +.�Z m Q m,= t0 x ~ C O m in m U O O N E °a E CLF - 70 L H w m O E c = E co p in � U N m v� 2 J V m a `' V m 3 C _m w 'T Z m V IL C U) m O m o L O U) O a Q m Q O m C m G f6 G m 0 N i O U E U fC E U m C 3 H iD >. C`7 3 m 0� m � m � � U Q � cy +.�Z m Q m,= t0 x ~ C O m in m U O O N E °a E CLF - 70 L H w m O E c = E co p in � U O 2 a 0 0 LU x 0 CL a c� Q C o 0 Q) -Q (mo T o (D Z .R O O — O � O Z L -00 C O N > 4- U) L - x C — > tU C 0 C/) N N -0 N C Y E 'E (II (n (B C N +L N O O O N C C C Ev> O U) m -6 Q -6 N O O 0 N OU _ O U N CO U O) Co CL _ E U O C N 6c E U: Co ' E N :3 a)--0cu z N W m �o cu o @ 4— :3 CU (n L U C (6 O (n N U) +L- U w N L (� 0N NO O U 0 .0 m >, O � o o (� E -C,, E U . CD N (B ° O 3 m' C O (� = (D .0) (n N Z in � C O N (D 3 a= > o _ — > 0 (n cu L L N E 0 N =Omco o • a) > U C m U > C).� N N (a U) co 0- e. o H o acoo- N a) a� U N N 0) O n U) L (n O (6 C •U L E O O N U U N 0 co C :« O Om L 5 U) C) (6 N N N Q E N O cL U C N C "C O m V 1 � V J V C Q: �-- 'HiNINA11to'', Tarboo Ridge Coalition Recipient: Tarboo Ridge Coalition Letter: Greetings, Support the Moratorium and Stop the Militarization of Tarboo Ridge Signatures Name Location Date Teri Hein Seattle, WA 2018-01-06 Mike Ferguson Seattle, WA 2018-01-06 Charlene Conrad Kent, WA 2018-01-06 Mike Biskup Port Townsend, WA 2018-01-07 Barbara Jo Blair Sedro Woolley, WA 2018-01-07 Linda Blair Missoula, MT 2018-01-07 Diane Haas Port Townsend, WA 2018-01-07 Suzannah Barbour Mill Valley, CA 2018-01-07 Jacquolynw Ploof Port Townsend, WA 2018-01-08 Cyne Okinczyc Port Townsend, WA 2018-01-08 Sheila Lauder Port Townsend, WA 2018-01-08 Laura Nencetti Sammamish, WA 2018-01-31 vk SUPPORT THE MORATORIUM AND STOP THE MILITARIZATION OF TARBOO RIDGE The undersigned are residents and/or property owners in Jefferson County, WA. We oppose the preliminary proposal for a privately owned, for profit, weapons training facility at Tarboo Lake for one or more of the following reasons: • Danger to citizens, Hwy 104, Hwy 101 and Center Road traffic from stray bullets • Hazard to BPA transmission lines from stray bullets -Noise pollution • Harm to wild life • Negative impact on businesses in the area • Negative impact on domestic animals • Increased stress for residents with PTSD and other disabilities . Significantly reduced water availability for building, agriculture or business in Tarboo Valley • Curtailed use of Tarboo Lake as a recreational facility • Increased cost to the county for infrastructure needs, monitoring conditional use and lost tax revenue • Negative impact on area property values • irrevocable negative impacts on the character of Tarboo/Eaglemount/Quilcene/Snow Creek areas Therefore we support the adoption of a one year Moratorium on the development of new commercial shooting facilities in unincorporated Jefferson County, WA and support citizen participation in the development of rational, clear and enforceable regulations of all commercial shooting facilities, ;, 11.4 p,filiu rMa,,,u w. �u r 4 �4 i2�110s a W � * x a v J3 '7 /vp ik _ r vie, ala d 1281 C :./Wq — 17/ 3 20E5 oan+►t? �ar,'frG�� � 12-81 v41 T.,�e. 2/3/201 w Z a 0 0 2 2 0 CL Cl) 41� 0 0 U.0 _0 H _N i LU CL I- 0 co 0 °ccu n3 oM 3 oc vi CO v -- o a) F– E } C U O) Z -2 O > 3 U 2 a) -O O � L 3 (6 O .U- m a) a) a> Z O OOL U) W L O yL+ to 7 4) U M Q) -6 U C s i EO fB T N c E ��a,L E a) c C U OU O O to O U 0-2 N 0 d M --- � •U N � -O (4 � O Jp YE h- (9 a) c c E E •�^ c g p C L G—I H a o '2 CO m o a a) a) B c E -2 Cl l� E� CC o .�.E o c c > O E o S y , L C: W CL 00.. > 7 a) pO N (0 @ N C O a) c C ) O L 2-2 > O -3— L=o w— i o c O O U •c6 V O a) w o>Eco EQ _ L O C « 0 0 C U o > A O 7 Cp -O ���o� 5 a o y C C V O L -C U m o m C 7 > a c a T C Q C O .1 - L > O IE r 0 3 m� 0 o Co �a CL 2 0- m m o O Z (A a) c o aci y CL 0 U N O N �, i O I C -MQM cp T _ U a) O J c r O- > O w v _ f6 .0 •� Q N C O (�0 Q U 1 C fn C ty m > Z / V CL 0cm0> o c D L a) m d `+ o Q 0 a) i Z CQ G 0 0 2 LUH w 0 a W 0 W F- LL0 0 F— N J_ W 0 cn m m Y m fn L J C CO O 10. C a) UAL a = m O vi L•� L o a) I— E Zw y y- — •� O a) N a) > m m O fn In (6 a O C) O — O O)- a) N O a) .0 (Cn) 2 Z 0 L TN.m . to p E2 7 O Um ti0 -0U c La) • a) Em T O = E ` O n U a) C; U U C — CD _ O cu _ O O _ U m a� m = -'Q'S EF O1 @ �a) •m " ,O CC(n '0 U = a) U @•� � O o .2 L .a < a) c c c -�6 E c m O= E m TO y p O U � a) U — E U ` MU O7 0 O 0 U O U T N m r C �1 c mCL = = a) 0) C ,E .0 yO O C p C a w C .� w> m E o m E —12Y � sm rami � mo) tea) -o .0Za) W n.- a T a) p = O (6 > o 3 a) -0 ' E O H m L O O O •.. C ,� .,L•. — i- O a) —o y 0 Q U C m C C 'n •m 0 O a) O co EE "O ya)>ccLa co m -O O 0 O U > = 3 O C +•� �m _ m O i 0 00 = a) O C= V U O L L .+ N O 0 a) U m CL co T a)0 m -`$Q mE��E O C oia 0_ m > U > U fmn > m C C N 0 2 •°) m ami Z U) a) c g a p p K • . U a) d O L O :E O E = 3 M a) ra o U) O " = a N nmiE�m� O� •.LJ •U m L- j N m O2�i6 (6 �Q U) fO c > = > E � CL 0- a) U V- �' C) .o o a) a) m�c/)mO p H L O OO O- m O- F-- U m foo C -� VI) —12Y co 117, s L c LM ` c m Z 5Q G 0 0 2 W F- 0 Cl) W D 0 U. Li 0 0 r N_ Li. H M 2 uj0 V/ a)� � Y m �. s� cM Ill foo d M c w U ,N C Z 72 �- •U t)0; U)a'(1) o m m e C o 0) :3 -a o - o U) Z o T2 to y cu O 5 U)o U c c 5 All E a) • > c a) 3E >� ° u O°Ons wo (D �C �cY 0)U) E 4 Q� 'E .0 H a5 a) .c C E h m O cn m•c NU o0ia V C U L O C C C (6 a 4 4v R -COO 6 C co E N �, U a) N (6- Cd C (S t6 E U • j (B O OE O N L v1 7 a) •— -p N hT � Z ;� W p, v OJ •� n`�i > ac)) O O N o a)c to CJ O N a) O E m T � -O co U � w U C >c� EE to (6 7 CLO U O N m N N �0-0o C C U U O i .L.. U O w v c U m E�o M N E J` T(t3a > O� wr 3 07 C N Ol • • U a) O N o l V� _ ->OCL _ No��m CL C 3 n' c a a `on Vc = c � y aa) >ani Z` -211 Qr o)._sma�ic o� c Da� o 4: n30cnmo n IL In a FLU a 1-y� - co u U) o (D �a)m> o m �4-aaa mo oo .L. U) O U m O -00 EV u E QJ 4J CD E a) — m cn y, Vo b L — > � _ o co 8'o cu m O O Ln m-� CD (n E 1ID '� U o cLa �n N Ecc , N o 0 o m -a o m a E L c m 5 m a y -c:m 7 J U _ ai C N O7 o aa m I O U, .� m E E L t�^ (n �wo,E-,,nm C� oZ osw a _ o > m o o� E �mQao a�� �.f` UJ 4Ni `� m a o -m�' U of m °'>�m E� o L � a .0 •� o , o� .��. j -m� L mai V f•�- - � U o ° � � O > 'Z `d� `.-) cfl N O Q N O v 'J > t - a) Cl) >, C �j m co _m F -to .� O QRS . V .__� ,� 67 O I% m O 41 m d >< > m _ > O a v m cco R ...:� � m 4� .� Z V) N a Gf 1 O 00 • U N a N 0 0 LD a It �+ Q `,� S m— v n / Qp V` V �J1 N U C -0 X o = Q �/ O_ co m L ccoi � aJ cn (n C m U? m Q Q2 �, U ��/ `� a E Q.. n m a I— U a s ` �— i a� m 0 1 c7)2U 4 04 g z O0 W N_ L_ r LL o� IL LU �D/� V♦ CL O r V♦ {0 L J C 3 0 0 O N�2 {p U (0 Q O N h- E Z N O N cn _O U) N Z �+ cn Q% C O N • > L _ N U t0 X C C > U C O O N O N U) CU -6 N U @ N U c O N cn � U N M o <(DCcc dE0).2U m O =) w N C0 O p 0.0 L a! {0 U N M {0 C_ "C y� = EU O C 0 {ll 0) O > O E E -0Z(,w a @� O 0 o m �e M {a E O {){- _ 0 OL m ca v> '{a0 a> > c (o v�{a'LL {u CO ON 4U O ,_ Z J_ -0-0 o c C c V U 0 N _ U '0 O LN 0 N C Q. m C O E O N {B O O = N •� M N Z U) aN c r N 0) Q 3:70 = O > O M L L -L- c L C O 45-2 O O {0 m • -0N > C C Co 0 >, " m_U)MCL oo�CO0 • Q_ d {p � c N N C �O Q N O M C .0 C L � N _C E U) O � U U O CD c O m L E t0 O U U 4O C N N C '0 O N O Q_ 0 �D 0 {0 c N O O (0 O U CQ O a C: O O "0 ' � U N � O Q_ O Q_ 0- 0 Q N 7 '0 U CU a) N ? O T C r (a O 0) O O U) O E Q N Q_ 0 N C O c (0 N 0 CO O F- 0 0 U E U m E L U m co C H O >, M cu cu 00 O N O C -20 :D N 3 � Z N 2 X ~ C CO L U O O a .Q C O N O iT) 2 U vo '. I N 'J .J S CAi qt4 � v L 74 tz .�. 1 �In r4l\ L lLO I�Ilk C r (a O 0) O O U) O E Q N Q_ 0 N C O c (0 N 0 CO O F- 0 0 U E U m E L U m co C H O >, M cu cu 00 O N O C -20 :D N 3 � Z N 2 X ~ C CO L U O O a .Q C O N O iT) 2 U � � C a CO o J �L3a� co 4 7 U i p ... 9 E Q kV ) C L �- m m Q] c Z3 A R _ >+ co '�U: O L C r D E C1 Y Net m CO n € y cn 2i U �cu c -j C O O p U c cpn N � Z p . � V O O > N ° 70 �o a) -0 C vz o 0 � mai"� L _ L U o� W O L to O U m C ♦ R 0 E 0a) O L Q) W L O @ N N O c—> cn O C y O O — 0 m O p m v- O m E c c o o Q0 FuI 0 Q^om.=�l�^ E (n m0- .O VJ L a) 0 LLa)"• pL U O O m Q C L Q) z U c _NCcE>m OQc) O 0 m 0_ .), C: cu O Q O-6 ZQ E 0. CL , Q) o o (6 W N Z3 .0p wLoLL > o N o ENT�� o• pig L Qo O w O w 0 Q/ a) ° -a c>u cu) E E O J —� 0 L N o m Q L o a^ v 0 mvo�� � � pay 0-0 CL Q -p cO U M W Z C c C V U 0 L CO > >' Q Q c Q O Q C a) o Q. o m ca E —' E 0. o io O CL L O O o m a) p O U _ > n3 Q 2 0 m Q) pQ (n p ZU) (D 75� O .L, 70 �' O N N O U Q) C >i —_ > o o 2 . Q = > c0 ,N 0 O o Q a- U)Q C N L N N m� "= C a) 7 6 (A c 2) m p U = 0 ._ Q) m m N o mm • 3Q a) O L C N > O QL (D L C (D m?cAmCL (D Z3 > . ama 1—U � � C a CO o J �L3a� co 4 7 U i p ... 9 E Q kV ) C L �- m m Q] c Z3 A R _ >+ co '�U: O L C r D E C1 Y Net m CO n € y cn 2i U M O o COO _ U O U5 z-2 o.0) O > 'clS N ° L :3 oo 70o o �" a) O v Z o 0 �Ta��i aU) L N W O o LE to o U c U (Q = E N N °�� a>) N _E Q L O a) L_ N 0 N O > U) tfC13 o o 2 2 _ - c� Z O Q (o o (o o E 'EN O -j O c '- 0U o tII o m M � N c U N CO Q a m�0�°� I- m _0 �m N >1 7 O O V m 0 LLw' or- N U U L 61 C U O L o 0 U tCUU (0 C N (6 .C� (� N c— -C � U 2r _U 0 C N O C z C 0 L C C 0 • j@ O E N ��. g2 O L co p �O'-�� Z o W Q U O OO W N C ( 0 O L N 2 U '- L' O O U L O E (a (>L) LL p 2 2— O O Cn �- i 0, L � L U C {� 'U C C O N N O t > > U(0 OC Lu E E rr 6i. 0 J -0_0 N 'an) o a to = O N v V OC O O �' L CLW C ' L C O YL>. 3: (D O C C C U U O O y 'If U T O a- .2! CL cL CQo ° (��a. o OO N0OO t > +O O Mc O O O Q.- C Z U) N C Q C Q V7 - • U QS O N -6 ?L' v– C6 . U fn o tu >' '� • 3 = CQ--) >0() m - L Q (DO� QU) a. N E N C: C .. coCoo U S pN N • "a N > �S Q O L o (L) L 0 C) �. F -6 d cu Q H U IN n3 o a) Y � (a � J C O O O U O a) f- E Zin O a) N a) '> - O � -O Q) n N a) Z O EU 0 U > L U X U) O O N(6 w E H a) E'Eto ca C:O� ca C-) U)�� Q a) •s c o: �EcnOap m 0 N O 0 U O 0 N O O D L (a U CA N N C CU a - = E U O . a)oo m E (ED (DN 0) C: tea) QZ a) LU > . a) c ca0 O 0La)� Co o :3 CD oo�� i O �(D>•M L L ca cov0o� Oof >, is °) �Oc C O U U Q3 O a) U a f6- O E L, (a c Q � E �. O N m O N .> U U > = CD a) Z U!) (DCD c 4)a 3 = > O TL > >i N 'V Q L N E Q) -L- C) a) 0 O ca ca > o co U) 0 O F- U O O.0_ a) Q ®R O a) Q O 0 > a) o-0 cu O a) . a) O C' Oca m . - - O O O - 'Q.. O � 'N O U w O 0- 0 O Q Q :3 Q U) 7 _0 U CID a� 0 L Fes- U @ c co i, M u 00 a M V D U 3 — 3C�Y r Z I-- Q — _ MMO W 7 CL Q) a) L F- A @ O i � U M @ @ O O O 0 O c Q) U) a 0 ui � Q) L O a) E Z -p a) O @ U a) @ O v L � co — o a) c 0 a)z 00 to a" `' 0 U) — W O a) to a U c ^' U @ L O a] • E ^> O m L C E Q L0 O> M N O U LL O c OU N O O - v@ p O L U _0 @ U) MZ @ v- O ca aa)) p@0 E -N UoU 0 Oc m O @ V• O O c 0) a) Qa) c c io �Q m0D°- 2a) �y LL (p O c L C E @ p@( a O 0 o_ o 2 Ea N @ G Uo C @ cO 0 v- c > @ E a)p O @ Q v 0) m (nN �`° a) 0 0 a),— -0 @ Z W a)CL E U G > O. >, . :3@ O o @ UJ O N 3:U O L N O a) O 0 Q '- O y O LO Q U Co M a) c c O U@ U E J@'L@ L D - 2o i p N @ @ a) 4-U O > .� w CL > (D MD TW C O U O a) C i >O+ f�OiS > Q C: Cl Q N O CL L Ci y= = 0— CO @ 0 u) Z @ O Q / 0 zcn a) c Qo C Q d" • • U a) _� O N M:.. o E = 0 = a) L Q @ D C O.- N 0- Q L N @ U w @ O Q) O (n C @ U) a) U O @ m a N > s> Q @ a OL L @ C M U A 00 o0N(1) 00 2cn@Q- 0 O F U a)� O F- 0- d @ 0_ I- U @ c co i, M u 00 a M V D U 3 — 3C�Y r Z I-- Q — _ MMO W 7 CL Q) a) L F- A @ O i � U m � ��� M l'n c ° o > U1� w.. 0 3O� ^, a �'��M U) Q) �: 's y� ?��• Q) v mom �� ., CD L >i N L •� O) N C _ ° O)0 O v _ a Q) a) Q O O a) Z T Q)6 Q ✓r @ v Lv ® Q) W o a U c O L@ T x Q} •C z f C' J V T L m LCD Y T o v NO Q, G = C VS D U {� 4 L LO o ' � Cl)o m i�@ aOo ° 00 ® @ cn @ 's @ L m U 7 U ° Q @ a) LL �' o Lca) E@ a) >, O ° O U N . LL m O a) Ell \ 01 L a) O7 n Q @ QL ° QZ� @ W(ID QU `jam `� n ` \\V �( O W N 0 L �� > o f�` �� L L 3. U Iz L Iii •c CL C E E IA 2) N T ' OC E cu ° ° CL C W •N @tea) Via) s s O OL O c CL UJ ° ° �\ O �@, O D U° Cc: L a) 7 a) (� � w U UCO �wY N.� C.0 Q L O @ TM L 0 L a O OU > U 3 a) 0 >m'EQ) oa c a) cn o zcu cn (Da� 0-20 CL r a)W-0 @ QY U @ >��=� U N U w' 3�= o� rz o CL CL CM i N O (� @ Q W O L c- o, 4� s — U O o � CL �.00°'a) o0 Q- 0- @ n f-U @ o to � U W O ® w 00 Z0 Q M 0LL0 Z CO 0 G W _N O-1 a- -,x IC- W CM —I F— M /0 O O (B US C 0 O a) O a) L cO C O a) C O O Y (0 0 0 cuH w �U 42 c C O CL m a) 3 J..i O L L2 o N 0 a cc .Q _o a3 cn 0 0- 0 CL c� Q ID N O CL 0- 0 O O O a) 4 Q (DU O a) i— E z O Q) U N 0) .�! v L U) 15 O 0) Q v Z cn (� L Q, L 0 'coo to L — X C > f co C: 00 O 0, aJ � � cc E"E�a) cn a3 •— �•� O 7v (n a) O O Q a3 C c C O m-002:9 a) O O V L a) N U Sm N (6 C C) N Q5'C�_ =E�o� O E Eco a) 0 � o) � •— a ca azo a)w 0 ��L2-2 E Y v E— O = _ C L Q � L (n N U @ a) > C N CU (II a) Q) O U O =�°o O O C a) (n U U � U C C � .2QN �E—Y>NE 0 > .� cu a) Z U) (D CD o > = U 3 a= o = � .O a) to O N L N L C Q) _ O O O45-2 (II (6 L N > O C RS U o' o (o cn cu 0- 0 Qd m Q c o cn .N ( U a) O °Q0 L (n O � •U^` W C E O N U �U O O CY) (n C C O (II C :3 (n 0) L E E U 0 O c o m c (`� m a) E v 0- 0 co _oco �O O Q) 3 CL O O> 0-0 cu �l a) O c w.. O m co o Q Qa o N y a) � o 0- 0 O Q' O_ C 0- U) O _0 N m 0 a) o HU C a) CO (a O L O CO O N Q O > () a; 0 CO aa)) F O U U l� U () (0 L� r U) ti >, Cl) co co co L C (D D 2 O SOY �z 0r= X ~ 0L U N coo O a) E or- .� aF a�i°E c — E co O Cn � U p rq V.. Iz y V 75 v) \jt !s - U v C cx \ p\ `+J Ca � � 4 LP _ �L * C a) CO (a O L O CO O N Q O > () a; 0 CO aa)) F O U U l� U () (0 L� r U) ti >, Cl) co co co L C (D D 2 O SOY �z 0r= X ~ 0L U N coo O a) E or- .� aF a�i°E c — E co O Cn � U gz 0 0 TW _N i Q LL J 0� M D_ �^^ 0 co o a� iri r � c c ° O ° o ui Q) �cm •- O -0F 'U 0) Z N O a) (6 ° L 71 0 a) c O m 4_ u+ vz o 0 "'aU a) 0 c 0 > : 0 E L (6 T a) E E 0 L O O C c O — . 0 U) nJ c O O — O N 0 -0 Co V- O ,F- N0) N E Cl) M a) E Q) C C - 0 J N�'NU c °oia in a) ca O 0)^Q^ a) ,� C rrc^ E LL s 'O � L (� OL C 0 a)O E N O O O U — L N L U C 30 nso-�L S E U O C a) o� o>tM E E0 �0,cu6) a)aa)) N a) - 'O M E U C -0 Z W Q c Q cu >, . a) O ° O O f0 a) c °co NvO0-0 ,.- >.o U CII E F - p c 0 � o o = E o � () �- 0 V% Q r_ cu M a) N `- O a) _0 U) M c c a CU C- u7 L O Q L O N 0s O U > Q) c O O C ..O O O a) o c 5 a) Q Q Q O Q T a) O ° ca E—> �, E 0 m Q L L 0 r C OO > V O > Q cu 'E .V @ O Q ) (n 0) m .- n5 a) S 0 Q U) o z c C Q d' • • U a) o O N a i w U T = • U a) = E t6 UN CO Q C QO C QL a)—=p L U L U) • > Q Q) O CL L C L a) 0 co L ca V) m OL u) O t O Q a- a) Q 1- U <>C 0 n. 0 a) O T O .Q 0 O CL Q cz E .O Q m 0 N O 0 - CL a O 0 (Dco O Q c *w! `� 1 co i�r mo 0 o �6 a L o ,D �— E ' Z 0o 'O CD - d V 0) f— .L "� -0a) Z O d o > m co . o � o L co10 c.o �� �, ` ,OT2 r o O U ca X > (D O c f:v tt77 O O (n n3 - E ` U1 Q N O O- C -0 co 4- O. d O In •� .E F— co as c c a� o o `� S In U '� U Q co hO as 2. {— a Q o c m o a> a3 :E -cc 4 ` > a L c c co .O o ° c°�i o U Lt N _F� U M O t _ c^\j C Ca � U L > c ° ° J 7 a? -aO E U l Q T . O O O > O \ i' 6J v N M T i- a `iL O c6 { (J �'m mo O m _ l co 0 a� ° L o w rco CLO > U > J c_ O O L C C"�� Q 00 ��0.• Y � a) � CD ay U T > Io a g L O N O O >, ch C T a Q c0 00 o o ca rn oa > Cu U TC6 O =� Co 3CDm 11 a � �; � caa) z(n2c a °O vas o y a� r� a} L n' CO cJ O :3 W �` V_ X O coo- O_ cn I t� N N O s O a1 d C O a) Z o _O Q 1 `_• �•/ \�� OCL a) L• c O U a) mCcaUT O) .o a a) m m j O ~O O i `� - n. n o a - U IL - a) co o cn 2 U 0 Z CQ G Li. 0 i ii 0 2 LU0 M I W Ii 0 0 W U. 0 Z 0 N_ 5_J G CL 0 U) L m (D Y � 3 00 0 U o c C6 ��Q �_a) o -a0 Z o a) U)�'0:' 0CD (D c Oo :=' -0 a) O Na) 0 Q N _ Z O cca)(a 0w L N O U m 00 •� L 2N•ac): �E •: a�i�0 cE () 0 M D 0 O cn c6 c0 N O O � o � t6 � O F- a) a) O) C N C C O N :0•O (nU.N�U 0m C: m -r-0 3 FU Q C C c N E d .2 (n La) m��v a) a)7a OL C C E M p O 0 U V E U L ai O L a3 U L o O 0,0 N m a 6 3� (!f Q 5 i N _ E .L j C 'O N rn c O "- c O O c0 ' cc E Y-' L CO a) a) E U a)W Q_ 8 -2o a)� > o E�a m U L p 0 o U C f6 NL C _ N � C -0 M> EE °�>�m O rn m Q_L 0 O O U > � 0-- a) �3c00 � o C C V U O � .�., (DC C 0O Q a) O r j O N o�m0> a) _ U_ >+N 4=- O a) co = a) .� N O Q z N c v `v 0 N o c � .0 O ff. 0 Q N p N N 0 7 c v '� Q ur a) > 0� L � L a) o co " Q_ (D . w3 L L � O o F- a) 0 t 0 OL (v Q_ 1- U .o 0 rn c cu O m 0 O O Q a) Q_ 0 a) c � a) C N N O C O U U (0 E t U a) N L� r co .>. M m co 3 aa)) m N -0.20 C7 Y O Z N � 2 -0 oX H c m U (] � U oa E •� E w 2 U N — ' to 'J £ r� Sze � �' •._;� ..�' C �.1 V \rJ' ell �g C L f L N C � - zE m -) 1 V ti' CL\ ° L .o 0 rn c cu O m 0 O O Q a) Q_ 0 a) c � a) C N N O C O U U (0 E t U a) N L� r co .>. M m co 3 aa)) m N -0.20 C7 Y O Z N � 2 -0 oX H c m U (] � U oa E •� E w 2 U n3 cu m v) cu L J C O° O O (B U N v} -2 cu O N U N O E z -0U tO O U v L D 0 aJ C O Q C N Z F- (u • L ` Q• -C 0 U) O U) U M W��"� O oy =L �ac� t^ V E > L :O X11 N M C L O N (D L m M a) U N fi O— O C/)c6 C ° O - N v ❑ L O 0 U)° of c0 O (a O O cu E c c O m 0.0 Q co -j c �'N (nU c Diu G o m o -Fu Li -0,Q .S c c cu o- E m-0 LL O ° O UO (0 U` O) O v U O L O U N (6 C C) v– � = E U O C O O Z C • C . � C � OQ NII ( E = O O � aQCZ U) O 0 O W ULN w WN`c 0 �O�Cc 0) U (� 4 --ca m O 0L° w O cn L aU(D C C m0>ccu a) U) cuQ CU EE C 0 cn 0 O CL o of Co Q) j L o ° W O 7'' 2 O C C C U U O N L w x N O _ 70)- N (6 a) c N -0 O N > C 0.o a 0- (u c a o a ca E > a) 0 o iu L a �— ° O Q =vm�� o� cn O Z (D N C Q C aU N O N N C •�U p _ > O N L E _ - a ) 0 - L 0 a cu L o N — C -0w • CL (13 O N EN C O O C (1) (U N O N > v _0 Q y O C U >. cu L c a Z)) N i Z3 O .O c •>+ n, r^ (u y/ m O cu a),' Qq Y c6 °Q v c 0_ co O U O vi p Y Q cu m N c CL -� 0a) m— c Z or-•. N U 4 • (� O a) (II N � O •> -p v-. e � C" �J �C C FF p _ O O m �� � () O C7 a) O v .p a) M N N Z O O J V tV in a) ui N O U U �� O N 7 Uco �lY O o O (1) � (� U) Qa) N E its c Y 0) N 0 O .� O M -j N iu •� voi '- O co C j 1.Y 0 co p cco Udf `c L O +`� (D cB O N� �, Q Q co E (n � O 0 0 o a a`°i T 3j c �s _ V N .� c CyU c r. co Q Z m = '� U c p cu �L c o N :T c Qc aZ� 0 ) QamU)] cU CD a)w y �C y ` L i W-0 c p O > O 3: E0cu F- Qo ° � � o w o 'art v� vj fl OC: �� (n (0Cc O Q a) CO c .LO O V c o rr w o m CL o ����� ; sf� �. c >. w -Q -a ..�.. O 0 O c O U OU q w CO U �aJ_ <D .9 �' a Coo c co a o __ M OL L = in . 0 m I 4 z.- 3 rn a O 2 co = CO 3�cNm =fII - ca a =o��o pa c w a) n (D c c c p Z cc c a opoo� W a�0 a L v N a�'�� c i >, — c, a > N N O CL (Q N c O N• O Vii (�� X~ N N E a) c N �: i :J c� cu m N N= o kEm V i V N O E 0O O c6 c6 3 Q a E a) O L c> a) CL m o cu 0>,CD o U m co cu CL CS F- > O F- N `O r O i V O O E a s ns a !— U a. °) CU 0 C N ._a) L O U co O C Q -C U ca- C U •� L C E y O (D U U m O O 0) C O m r � rn m � m (D E cc E U U O w C 'O O ca N N EU O ca C: > a) r a m = O O N M a o O m 0a ° m "+ a� m o C o m m Q - O U C m O n. �C o m a ca U N w o C - OCL Q. 3 Q O 3 'O C C13 3Q a) 0 m !L— U Cl) C Cl) m 0 O C0 O m CL 0 C m C m .S a) O CD N C O U U ca E t L ca L 3 I— m � Y co C L J C O r-+ cuca m Y N cn C m Q o O F- E Z C to O() OO a) y .. L m 3 ° O 0) t y N Z �+ a) c6 m L- o a) +L (n W a) O EcN N E m >, as L (D L ° a) U m X a> c > O v1 OC ' O tocc Q0 O O (0) L Z Y `�Eh cCv N cu E Qp �ocu•c a)M c — U to 0 3 Y.i O , ° m mia o .o L Q m 5 C C E = Q m a- w OCn ~ m p N /1/ -°O m o L C C C 0 ii U. ° ° -0 O O U U L = LL O U N CO .,.., C c� O m a•>=� i a> xE$C �Z C 'o . O C o O ca N '" M ° E E O �... N rn C 0 CY) 7 a) — m O 0 -0 Z a a) W W_N Q O_ A . 3 O O m co MM O U O a) OL L3 Q m 4--:3 m 0 ■ C O — i O L r O U_ C ca N L A/ lig O <ato ca a U Qa U) cc -0m�°Lm cid a)0cc L a)°'Z'� m c O L 3 3 C r m •C '3 3 w i• O a) C C O 0 C O ° U a) > U t v w m IL CL Q Q O Co m mE— E O Q L — C N O U > O .> _U 0 co 30) a)M CO) cu o =ZcAaLmic V) C a a �r • U a> �mco— rn m >, w= m m U C v _' f =3c�a_m ar U m M fq i C 0 p 0 N NEL m�U, O U - O N _ —O ._ 3 a) 0 m m CL a>=m0T o r•°p m m 3~CL o tL- a. C N ._a) L O U co O C Q -C U ca- C U •� L C E y O (D U U m O O 0) C O m r � rn m � m (D E cc E U U O w C 'O O ca N N EU O ca C: > a) r a m = O O N M a o O m 0a ° m "+ a� m o C o m m Q - O U C m O n. �C o m a ca U N w o C - OCL Q. 3 Q O 3 'O C C13 3Q a) 0 m !L— U Cl) C Cl) m 0 O C0 O m CL 0 C m C m .S a) O CD N C O U U ca E t L ca L 3 I— 4 C L VJ cu 0 a o L N .n 0 c Q C) 0- 0 m C a C co N O CO a) C O U E U co E L U a co .E c > M co 00 .L. a _2 O EcyY Z a 2 LL X F- O com U O � y o a a H o 'E C: 0 � � U 0 (D 9) � o ..0 - C O 4 0 a cn 0— co a) c�co Z ah ? o a) o v 0 o —o0a) vt a Co L Co m `n -0U 0 0 � 0 Q) � L L �' L — U x N C \OO M — / Co C a _ ocnv LO a a L ° M -0"— co C� U) C O a) U a m .0 U) O a m o <( a.� c co o- E cn 0 v) F- m O 0 = - -6-0-a (D L6 O L C O OU U > U N Co C 0 C o Q) O) O O j a) > iii E ui C� D a) 0 co 0 O Z ow > a O L a U E 0 ca 0 n L co a O _ 0 > CL6 CZ 0) L L co O C a O U �r C S' � a U a a > co a a) CL o co � > E L ° •�.- o a co° Q) > cn a) co Ci = a .'2n) co a) co 0 vJ Z a)) r- Li U Q) C) C i- cn Co u) co N C > — •- -0 = O > > co (n o 0 co C 0 a _ •- O a) a > O 'z a CLQ7 0- C O U >, 0).0 a � mw a 4 C L VJ cu 0 a o L N .n 0 c Q C) 0- 0 m C a C co N O CO a) C O U E U co E L U a co .E c > M co 00 .L. a _2 O EcyY Z a 2 LL X F- O com U O � y o a a H o 'E C: 0 � � U a z Q � M R 0 � Q � 0 2 w � � � � 0 IL a. � cri uj � � � 0 0 � � � � 0 z _0 � N � � � W x F- M 0 � � \ / 0 \ o ° 2 $3ƒm ) E / G Z E /\ . o e f 2 // / 0 2 ƒn= \0 I £ »e'e, E -C 0 // E /\x\ � E E I = � § %m / = x % \ / ° 'o o 2 \ .(n -0 M 2 0 e � 2 ®E�)f /7 / � / \®$/ \/ ° @ / 2 o n e e = / 0k// \\\\§ /\ £ Em % 2 0= 0 2 E/ NM �2 2 m e 5_ a§ G / G 0 c c § 0 \ \ \ 22°E / g° c / a f 7 9 E/ Z=eQ E. \ w . = e 0 o . 0 \\\}/ >0 © Ecc T m § \ /t 0 /0 E o == m / \%%/\ )ƒ %° _> _ [ E \ �. \ $ § \ % 2 0 \ / § / ± ® f 0 = 0 $ 02 0 / C:c / / / / � 2 /\\/a (/ G = e @ ° ® _ \.CL / � ¥ _�. g /.$ 3 ° o� � @ > n �$\\M G 0e o ®cmcmo m 0 \ G 2 / _cm _ / / )U) ƒ/ \ 2\-0 0 / \ \ 2 e § °m 5 E 6« m z J \ a \ % _ / \ e £�o$m ' \< m / \ E > f \ f a m§°°» 2 { M: � /3 M Cl / / \m\ /E/ w O CL I rt c _a a) a)" m � T-0 aU) U = U •� L O a) c E O N U U _m am O 0) (1) O f0 N � L a) � E m E a) U ,O 3 c a) m c 'O O m N � QU oia > o vCDc��a L O O N E a 7 O O � CU O � a) L m m o oco m .a O U o CL C. c O N m U N � O CL O O' a=3 rn fn c >m N L- 40- >; a) �- L c FL- U rn c m O co O i O O a CL O N c a) C m N O a) F- 0 U E 7 U m E t U f0 L H m m � Y ca -j O 0 3 ° cNo m—co "m Zrnoa) c o y a>-- o:rn 0 z N m . L p y�U c O Ey. a) E N y ,9N N L L U X C C i to C OO fn L O N O L y E c m Y Y I- m m m C c m c co O � .-v w N C Q C C m ao'� og) CO a) o O 00 U "Q O N V 0 U NMZCO ,� m a'c:�, c _ E U _0 c c • () O m �•= Q -E a) w a) M S> tea) --0m 0 W c O �Z O m cL0 m.Q c o O 3 0 " a c:3 CU .: E vH LO O O a U C m c N O U � U a)2 m C/) 0>Cm -p c v m co CU a) cu a) co L O.0CU >, Y c ° 3 c 0 c C C O a) C U ° ° m a Q C a O C om _ m E >'� E Q =N- 0 ��, ° w 0> U> O U m co cu o =Z CO C <n c CD am) a o U m (n m >+ _ U c 3 -v= m a) >, o = > E =3�U� cu N o MD L a ° '` v a) ac) L a) N Lm m N cO p) V m L N = 7 y D m m a aa))cmU>1 :3o c - m CLo a i -H- . CL cu a c _a a) a)" m � T-0 aU) U = U •� L O a) c E O N U U _m am O 0) (1) O f0 N � L a) � E m E a) U ,O 3 c a) m c 'O O m N � QU oia > o vCDc��a L O O N E a 7 O O � CU O � a) L m m o oco m .a O U o CL C. c O N m U N � O CL O O' a=3 rn fn c >m N L- 40- >; a) �- L c FL- U rn c m O co O i O O a CL O N c a) C m N O a) F- 0 U E 7 U m E t U f0 L H %' , R— c � v Y m N J O or - 0 3 o coa)vim-° m omcaE ui z - m` � c v o m 'D 42?y:A t13 O CMOc 0) `0 N m V-) NZ N 0 L 0N j m a0 U— 13 N W m Fav C a ° N c, c� O X U B N° 4 N co �< Q Iii. O o o Or- v co O O 4O N tSi z O ��=m € 'c��� �_ wo Q c �'N �U o°gr Go N— L =G Qmccc mm tiv oz'��m c'caa E U o LL. U (6 U = U O `c N CO c 4M -co a 73 'c� 3 c z c•� o G� O C: M0� E Oto w o=m _ <C mm� c-M m Z� mw ma.m ao am 2B W T (m°> oc U3 ° mEM w° a° - .5 N m c c O O _ m LL -, O co N CC 4-- V �N>.=c'o EE ��_= CL C° //O SJ '_ ii mo S� wo cc N > CL c 3 �O » , m Q -0 O -a OO' . o o U o CL m a ca a mo Q. a 9_�E O a OL- roc vm >U tea vccO w 'co"c= ri r.U o o° wOo=oo oca vZc CL C: r-�N N—LT ooc - 0N N m l0 - N• U = a = O N N U roO > t -go 'D Q m", q"- . 00- QN cC U = O m N N v o= ° m N 3Q c " >' O� c a Oo f0 m f' ° �>. ° o�uoima me aa) H �CL cc C. Fc -U %' , R— pV IMLIS �c r ■ s J v y S 13 �y 4 �< ;tr- r M l �4 a tiv pV IMLIS �c r ■ s J 0 Z a O Lin O m W F-- cc Y N t0 �L J c O O tN6 O N O N E C Z o v o o:rn �- -O d) .0 d) z O rL fn O N tLu `�vU c ON E o N N L r U N G �> w- N O C O w L Q cn o o L y E(Q c Y E 'C ~ O N sa �, m (D o M-0'-03 0L- - .« 0 M 0 aa) o�.sc 4) c6 OC L c c a O O V V tj N U 3 N @ IM M CL T: E U :L- CD 0 c • > N O O Q w>. 0 °' v C' vi CD -Oz:n a w C N 0 (0-0 C O o n2 £ _ o �� �F- o .�w� o N N 1� cid Un 'Fu U � • � y o c L U) c o.��� 2 w c r = L D O C c O OO •C > U O N +�- U -a I-- U Q 0. C Q N O OL Q L m. O V V O t3� cn O z t4 N c Q. O V N N cn _= m a> ca cam'= o N =scam CD "� rn «. i��CoCD N O = O . (D -' w> rn.Om4U) U) �admo. c N ,4 N C �4 m c Q t 0— E —p •� L C E N O N U m o tm U) O N 5 rn m � C cu EU U ,O C N G a o m � L m � U a o � > o L .rc o O N Q O O L OD � O L fQ `� T O O O N t6 �- o U O a. Q C O N a w m 'v ar � o CL a cx o m -o cn c v co � O t— U rn S f6 O O L� O 0) -0 O Q Q O c N C c0 N 0 a� O U E v ro E t U c c F- a z Q W � � � 0 0 � � � LL. 0 z 0 � � � � � � W � � IL 0 U) 2co k 3-§ 2 e.4kk @ ■c.� o — cm 0 \k 20 � �§� $ 0 CM �c / .00-f 0 0 00 3 k EI�k §k E /��@ \� £[ b ®b=x e @ 2f>® o o a I/ oo@ 4) a MA E §—C�@\ 0)� u_� 0 —M 0 2a■�2 �k k &§i$$ ® k� -0 -0:6 e� « /0002-8 2§ ■ 15 C. � 5 fr- k ■E2� 2 3: E £§ ow 7 �ƒ2( %§ K E� Icak�£2� mf g \ $ § 2 C Mk.kk 0k # § -0 Lm R 2�k$° 20 0 EE £��-Se. § '0 �®mob® 20 ��� c -0-0.0 = 0\ 22 § 2 §§§8§ 0. CLM ca0M s§ CL ® ®I�i§ §$ $ k$§Sk ®ƒ 2 ■ &g2k -\co§/ ƒk 0 A 2CL � 7a22I v / g f k @ k M:3 r CL ■ 4,)� o m © g c m CL 0 ® k�c- CL £ '®moo© 0c _ e LV). 2222 ■ 0 e_ 3 < \ 0 �kk�ƒ \� k J �acck 0 0 I ik 00 ZO CQ m G OLL 0 g z 00 G WN_ I.f. a� C- W a O 3 as a) Y a) U) L J c SoC6 3 0 0 0 c N C a3 0 ;D f _y o a)H E a 'U m z m N O a) ' w 3 O Na).> N 16 �rn N L 7 a) c - 0 F a) �., Q m 2 Z o 0 u N a3 L N p tz U 7 N-0 cO U (6 c ` a) Eo w > E E L M. E a) C c6 y CD U c- O O w a) cU 0 0 T _ f6 3'�' 0 O-� a) .N N � O v- a f0 C Y yEF-ca) 0) (0 O cc Y E 'ca) =..o O ca uoiU a) :3 om O 22 3 � 5 ma) c: a E '� o fn m� m,:p a) ` a) NQ o c L c E @' E U L 3 O L 0 c� ` 3 C cv : E $ c 2 � rn Lc 0 w. c :� 0E oa) lz a) rn ui 0) c m a) a) _� O Z N Q U C 0 W >.. 7 a) 0 O N (4 c L a)� L L > O S ^ E U a) L 45 OL _ w Y 16 O a) N > fLa EE to a3 ' O co Q O C @O C +�' U 2 j 0 ov g a) 0 �j a OU CD .5 T Q Q `- O Q c a) O as E—y E o m L � r- c 0 •_ � (U O Q a- > U W U -,, .mc = 't a 0 =a')L aa) Z U) N c oa .fl- N 0 CL • • V a) c - O N O N m U c 3v= 0 y o E >i mN 0 Q QN L N-, N L c 0 =o fn C 3Q CD co o m m � N > o� Q L a) 0 L O Q a) CoQ - a) m� ?O @ 2 m m a O F- 0r- :3 O S o- CL m n I- U 3 Ice- tTJ f C J 1. h Ice- tTJ C 1. Ice- tTJ 1. m (D U) Y � U L J c c O O 0 3 0 c aa-) um) Q N ,a` )) o a)E = 3 Zv)om � a) a) ,> o m 0� c m o �-0a) mo a) y(1Z 00 >a)m Q'� -: O o w = m 0 W N U�v� c" C7 _ L a) L L E O O C .a) U a) C — > to iL• O c O O N U O 0 •(n (0 a m � o ZU m cY O)m O Y E f' m a) C c a ��U� o C W O m .0 U= L C O U— 0 m= a) g c m a) D a E.. a 0= o a) R m -0 U a) -Z m O L c c Em O � EU �-- O m�Lrn= U m m- c U -0 �m m fl.j•c .7 a) a) a�J _ •E U C 'D 0 .� y> a� 0 O f6 O O 43) L qL U = a) --a m LU E a) E -0Zv a)v n >. = a) 0 o m a c m m m. c 0 a) c W N o 3 U) 03� U E m H v m o ,sm, o � o (p L ocm- c 8 coc L :E ' o m a)mm>cm EE O C -' c a) mmO o LL =n C� O c c O L= 3 j .t.. O CL > y-0 W O � 0 L) U p - CO)y > U �-ot_ m c v/ Q a c CL o Q a) 0 Ii Q @ - � in .E o Q O o a) m. is o ' �U-_-_ v o c U '�ca)m cm m n Sa). maa)) oa m o Z fn a) c a N C Q • U O O to m >— a) • U a) 0 c 3a= >,ow > O a) E =3c�a-C Q m c o `w ` Q= 0 COCL c "0c0 Nc .�. U m .L+ O O m = a) i a) O = @ N Q a) U 0 a) > a) 'S Q N c cm 0 7 0 C _0 0 a) N C a) m 0- d = H O pl- m 2 t 0 Qh- ma F -U V N� LU 0 ZO Q M O O �Z C0 0 C WN OJ CL W v+ IL O U) m a) a) cu Y m N -C J c c O0 y 3 OU) M v N cu U) — - Q O a) F- E Z N O a) 0 0 0 - 0 � a d a) N .Q Z O U) O N a) -0 O E N a) E LOm>,N L V� L a) ` O N U -Cu cuX C C Caw (1) 0 = O N L 0 0 00 L O { m YF- a) m N C O 00 N m O L Q N ._ c c m aEN.2 F- pp o ._ 76o -0-0 c = y� p O U U U NmoC)Ci m m ac:.:, 2 E.0 o c c 'm 6) 0 .2•= m E E Q a)m6) -- 0 a)• —a m c = Z a) W a > • a)0 m = ° m = o 0 a) Na) U Ecc -ym .>, U F- N O - w O O U C Nd O` cu N CO m w U a) b 0> c M M.— E aa) oanLLm mmoo.c V) = 0cu c .T. U c 0 - =3 3� 3 > a;�a o = 0 w0 a) U O > U Q. C- ca�oa o m m E->'- E CL L f�pp c]._ O 0 .2!U U > a= a) .-� M a) u� p =Zfn a) c c C) v m _ a a O 0 OC 2 c 3a= > o = a) > =3m -L) `m U)oAt) mL a)Emm� rn_ mt o a) N a) 0 = O 7 L V) a (0 f9 a Q a) =m U >, = a 0) C N 'C o D FU -m0 >d F- > . mama c 06 O U � 0 � C N O aU) U 7 N C E O _ U U m v� O ) Cl) O m L = N D1 m L) 2 a) E E v L 0,0 3 = CD v ca o m O a) E Q 0a) m `oa � m m " T •c a) o o m m .2- O.0 t' 0 O .Q c O N a }N-. m •U O � w O CL O Q - a:3 � v, a � c a) >m a) 0 > L) C L O F- U 0 a G 0 50 GLU L_L 0 a CO U. 0 Z LL0 1� a N a a 0 c Y 2 (6 C C J C O O 0 3 pco c co N cn .0 cu Ocma O v. 0 Q) E w -E c Z�"-' (n 0 (D -, m cn" 0 _ L j @ 0 o (m a o c a) .0 O a) Z Y >, a) co 00 0 a cu -t= = 4) 0 7 Q) U N S'v �aL) L N • o C L E o 0 0 0 E 0 L_ U CU E U a) C C � C cu— O O in a)V 0 0- (6 L p y c6 — Y E .� F— co CU C) OC a) N U to p o cu O M.0 O " O N O L 7 m M p c C -� Q NCco c6 E f6 OC L C N O E cu Z o V U E V c6 U O U N c0 w C� O p U `� c�0 cu a7.0 = E U o C C a) 4) 0) C C a a) 8) C O .s U ,> a) 0 E cu w- C O c6 Q .« N (0 p) 0) C N 0) L C N a) a) O �Za aa)Lu aU Cc, >, • 0 0 0 0 m c co cuU a) O 0 a� 0 3 0 a) - E :3 Co >, F- 75 a L' Q U C M N L L0 C C CD a)° -a`n)>cCUEE C (n CU L 0 0 L Q 'C O U) cab C O C>, U 0> 0 m U) 3 c °� a) >, ca OOa)cn a U .0 CL a(SUE ..— O- C Q o a) p O L Q 0 T ca E E ) c. (Q O_ L O c) a) U 0 0 0 (B .a O > U > 4-- a c4 > f6 4 a — O 'C ns cu a 2 0 •2) CU6 CD o a y o, Z U)a) cCL a c d CDN c oN w (D cu m 'v to c6 > _ .— U -0 > ow a) � O = > CU (D (n o N c 0 a Q) a a)_ m a) (n 0 CL=a cm = L :F 'U a3 L0 a) O Co a) O L C N>CL N c a) a 0). o c a 0 °> O o CU 7 U) L a U) cu L c H m n IL -U M m � m o 3 00 6 c mam c°�na`�i O N� E Z o 0 - cVo to O w v rn Qi L m a) c o D1 m Q a) Z O O 0 coL (n v U c L ON > co� E ��� (A -coy 0 N m = .0 o CU L NE T CU N cc E c 0 caC a) N =O m �:3 c :3c y c 3 co: v�mm0 a E (n .2CD` a, m°0Q�0 W OL c c E m -000uo EU M 0 ` O O U O N m+O c Cl 3 c (a a; V O C N O -•L c c'6 • .a) O O o O m 'y>—� E — L Oc N O a) a) a)-aEU Z O W CL N -0 O - m • .0 c O a) c U) N LO " N O Eam) m -N 0 a)' CJ ,� a) w«- O -CO U c cu N c C m �n CU •.- v E E y m C a L m r o m O N S UO a) 0.9 (:On cu "0 wo 'O O c =5 a) c cU V r 0 L +. U o�o i:-6 >, C m O OO. a) O " - O N �F O L CC c a) m c m _ - W ami 0 a ZCO (c aa) • • U a)O N 0�+ D N c N : U S O O o OR =3cu oa c ° a co CL L::3'0 .�N+ a) y 0 c oaiam CU0>1 o W � c0Q L Q o 1- v) OL .c O . adma F -U (O Nco 00 3 rn ami L a) E U �5 EcYv O Z ti N _ -0 X ~ c O ` U m OQ NU E °a E a) ami CL o E E IM ��v Q % as p v � \ \ E �S � O � Q V N .a Q � \ L J . RM N "y d 2 — (O Nco 00 3 rn ami L a) E U �5 EcYv O Z ti N _ -0 X ~ c O ` U m OQ NU E °a E a) ami CL o E E IM ��v � % \ § -j E ' St \ //\E �L- — k t 2 72 JSoo %a 0 ��0 2E $ » = - o �n CL/ \ \\m SD 0 E ® o § § E k } \ §® - E E « x CO 2u a) ƒ//3� :L- § 0 \ ' k $ # \ gat®cu 0 ani= ®®coE) 7c 2 %\C f S/ cgm;� \\ o @=.r . \- � ƒ § ƒ \ $ / 7 � C13ƒ E % / $ \ _ \ ��(D \ 7 K \ E { S / ) 2 \ § E\}2/ °/ 0 /\ ° � \>a�( \\ 2 f E § =z7»± a. CL f')2 \ °° ) )0 \/ a n 0 \ C & »§\ } §\ / \\> E\ 22 a \>2k/ u / e \\\ƒ± \\ ƒ k%)00 �± `� °° §c \\\\ ®} k =e©oa e2 /C\E o / \mm00 °- 5 � \ 7 M � a § R e % _ « $ E 0 �k/2/ k§ / C)Jk�\ /-0 0 2 / \ \ f\\\/ \ @3\a' 0 �y CL /7 / �\}\� 0I«=/ °3 $ 2 ' = S 9 } \ / \C) f 0 7� =gm=_ b= / �amCL // � February 2, 2018 �b" � .A�a I �RTORO To: Jefferson County Board of Commissioners The Honorable David Sullivan, Chair 1820 Jefferson Street P.O. Box 1220 FEB 0 5 2018 Port Townsend, WA 98368 From: Scott Freeman 680 Old Tarboo Road Quilcene WA. 98376 Re: An Ordinance Establishing a Moratorium on Commercial Shooting Facilities in Unincorporated Areas of Jefferson County; No. 05-1218-17 Dear Commissioners: I am writing to thank you for your prudent and thoughtful action in adopting this ordinance. It clearly delineates the need for the County to gather expertise and public input prior to setting appropriate and reasonable guidelines for siting and regulating commercial shooting ranges. Your emphasis on considering public safety, environmental conservation, and land -use changes appropriate to existing uses is laudable. Both the short-term and long-term interests of Jefferson County citizens will be well -served by this ordinance. I would also like to commend your decision to reference an ordinance from neighboring Kitsap County, which provides a well -researched and implementable model for siting these difficult, but important, facilities. In recording my support for the ordinance, I would like to draw attention to several issues that may deserve special attention from the Commission. In each case, my concerns are motivated by a recognition that thanks to the untiring efforts of a large and diverse coalition of Jefferson County citizens, working in conjunction with an array of local, state, and federal government agencies and tribes over the past two decades and more, this place that we love has become a national model for public- private partnerships devoted to preserving natural areas, productive farmlands, and working forests. During our time in the County, it has been a joy to watch young people start successful businesses and wonderful families, fully engaged in building a vibrant rural economy. Something very special is happening here. Given that hunting and shooting sports are part of the fabric of a healthy rural landscape, I ask that the Commission consider the following in setting guidelines for siting commercial shooting facilities: 1. Prevent the loss of working forest and farmlands. The County should make it a priority to avoid conversion to non-agricultural uses when siting gun ranges, including taking land out of timber production. Once lost, these productive lands are gone forever. We cannot have a healthy rural economy without a large and healthy base of productive lands. 2. Pay special attention to proximity to natural areas of special concern. I would urge the Commission to consult closely with the Jefferson Land Trust, the North Olympic Salmon Coalition, the Northwest Watershed Institute, and other non- profit partners to identify areas of Jefferson County that have received, in some cases, investments of volunteer time and financial resources over the past several decades that are valued in the millions or even tens of millions of dollars. I am thinking in particular of the Quimper Wildlife Corridor, the Chimacum Creek watershed, the Snow and Salmon Creek Watersheds, the Tarboo Creek watershed, and the estuaries of Tarboo Bay, Dabob Bay, and Discovery Bay. This is by no means an exhaustive list. The conservation values of these areas is priceless, and would be severely compromised by ill-considered siting of commercial gun ranges. This is a clear instance of making sensible decisions about land -use that serve the interests of the local, regional, and even national and international community, especially in light of the clear and present danger posed by lead contamination. 3. Public safety must be paramount. Stray bullets are inevitable even in the best - regulated facilities, with a frequency that is proportional to the intensity of shooting. It would be tragic if the Commission did not set sensible guidelines for minimum distances from shooting ranges to dwellings, roads, and public recreation areas. Without such guidelines, it would be hard to consider fatalities or disabling wounds from stray bullets as accidental—they are almost inevitable. I want to thank you again for establishing a moratorium on commercial shooting ranges, and for the opportunity to share my thoughts. Thank you for upholding our country's best traditions of public service. Sincerely, Scott Freeman cc: The Honorable Kathleen Kler The Honorable Kate Dean Philip Morley, County Administrator ( C -4<( [CA -a .6 -d HEARINGNTORO FEB ns zoie I support your decision to enact a one year moratorium on the Tarboo Lake area gun range. My three young children live within a couple miles of the proposed gun range and their lives would be negatively impacted by the noise coming from such a gun range. Tarboo Lake is a lovely asset to the county. My son and daughters have trout fished there for years. Trading the peace and beauty of Tarboo Lake for a war games background soundtrack would be a tragedy for the many users of the lake. But most of all as a parent, I am worried about lead pollution. I work for the Port Townsend Shipwrights Coop. The Coop spends a lot of time and money to manage and dispose of toxic chemicals and heavy metals. Presumably the Coop could save a lot of money by buying a couple of Tarboo acres and dumping our old bottom paint and sandblast media there. The Coop doesn't do that because it wants to be a good corporate citizen. The owners would worry about being responsible for poisoning the earth from metals leaching into the groundwater. The owners also have a suspicion that dumping heavy metal waste on the ground out in the county would result in some of them going to prison. The Port of Port Townsend just spent almost $500,000 on a stormwater filtration project to remove pollutants from rain water before that water entered the bay. The other option was a $1.6 million dollar stormwater management system. Port tenants all hope that the new system works, because there is a real threat that the state Department of Ecology will close the boatyard if the stormwater is too polluted. That is just for copper oxide, which is much less dangerous to humans, fish and wildlife than lead. This country made a terrible mistake by allowing leaded gasoline to pollute our countryside for so many years. We now know better and are eternally grateful to those politicians that had the courage to stand up to polluters and protect their constituents. Your opposition to the toxic lead pollution from this gun range could be your legacy and your gift to future generations of Jefferson county. We know from experience that environmental regulations get stronger over time as our knowledge grows. A business like the gun range won't be around forever. Someday it will close. Then the county will own 40 acres of lead contaminated ground. The county taxpayers will own the cost of remediation. The commission and the county needs more time to ensure that the environmental impacts are sufficiently studied, that sufficient pollution control measures are in place, that the county is protected from the cost of eventual remediation, and that its partner in this project is a cooperative business committed to being a good corporate citizen. Respectfully, Christopher Sanok 3654 Eaglemount Rd., Chimacum, WA 98325 360-301-6282 February 5, 2018 HE.A�!P1G (?�rroo Jefferson County Board of Commissioners The Honorable David Sullivan, Chair 1820 Jefferson Street P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 FEB 0 5 2018 Re: Ordinance No. 05-1218-17: An Ordinance Establishing a Moratorium on Commercial Shooting Facilities in Unincorporated Areas of Jefferson County Dear Commissioners: My name is Diane Johnson, at 1521 Dabob Road, Tarboo Valley. Thank you, commissioners, for establishing the moratorium—it will give the county time to carefully consider issues like lead pollution from gun ranges, and options for mitigating actions that can be required in conditioning permits. Why is this important? The United States EPA manual (Best Management Practices for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges') clearly summarizes the environmental and public health risks of lead pollution.. Animals, wild and domestic, aquatic creatures, including fish, birds, and humans ALL suffer serious neurological, physiological, and reproductive effects, even coma and death, from lead poisoning when blood concentrations are high enough. Infants and young children are most susceptible... they can suffer brain damage, learning, and aggressive behavior problems from even mild lead poisoning. Even lead dust brought home on the clothes or hands of shooters have affected their families. (See Attachment A: Figure 1-1: Effects on the Human Body from Excessive Exposure to Lead.) THE THREE KEYS TO POLLUTION: WATER, SOILS, AND TERRAIN 1) WATER—source (rain, ground), annual precipitation rate, acidity, velocity, rainfall intensity, contact time, soil cover, 2) SOILS—glacial till, clay, or sand, humus, acidity, soil chemistry, depth to groundwater 3) TERRAIN—slope of drainage, wetlands or water body nearby All of these geologic and soils factors influence how far lead, lead paarticles, and lead leaching compounds can travel from the site, and therefore, the exposure possibilities for wildlife and humans. Jefferson County's ridges and valleys were formed over many thousands of years of glaciation and tectonic plate movement, creating underlying oddities of structure unique to this area. These oddities in the substrate, and the possibility of all soil types occurring together within a small area, make it impossible to tell from the surface how water is going to behave underground. Our hills are basically gravel pits of glacial till, with high erosion potential, and stories about well -drilling tell how hard it can sometimes be to find any seam of water, or alternately, tapping into an underground river! We here also understand drainage problems, as we run into caps of hardpan clay that keep water on the surface and create runoff problems. If there is surface water, such as a lake, stream, or wetland downgradient, the potential for lead to adversely affect the surrounding environment is much more serious. And all the experts agree that shooting over or into water bodies or wetlands should never occur. (See Attachment B: Table 2-1-- Common Physical Characteristics at Ranges —Potential Risks and Benefits Associated with Range Operations.) The EPA', NRA 2, and National Shooting Sports Foundation 3 have all recommended best management practices concerning lead containment, reclamation, disposal and necessary record-keeping. I hope that new regulations would 1) require the proper assessments of soil, terrain, and drainage by geologists, hydrologists and soils engineers, 2) condition mitigations in line with best management practices suggested by the nation's experts to guarantee the highest health and environmental standard s5, and 3) verify that facilities are in compliance with OSHA, EPA and RCRA, with required regular maintenance .4 (See Attachment C: Table 3-1— Summary of Key BMPs, BMPs for Preventing Lead Migration.) Thank you. REFERENCES: ' United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Best Management Practices for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges, June 2005. 2 National Rifle Association, The NRA Range Source Book: A Guide to Planning and Construction, June 1998. 3 National Shooting Sports Foundation, Environmental Aspects of Construction and Management of Outdoor Shooting Ranges, lune 1998. 4 MT2, Nationwide Indoor and Outdoor Firing Range Lead Reclamation Contractors, http://mt2.com/firing-ranges/`outdoor-range-services 5 Meggitt Training Systems, The Ten Commandments of Range Design," htto.Ilmeggitttrainingsystems. com/about-meagitt-training-sysems/10-commandments-of-range-design ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Figure 1-1: Effects on the Human Body from Excessive Exposure to Lead Attachment B: Table 2-1 -- Common Physical Characteristics at Ranges —Potential Risks and Benefits Associated with Range Operations Attachment C: Table 3-1— Summary of Key BMPs (BMPs for Preventing Lead Migration) cc: The Honorable Kathleen Kier The Honorable Kate Dean Philip Morley, County Administrator BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges Effects on the Human Body from Excessive Exposure to Lead If not detected early, children with relatively low levels of lead (as low as 10 microgram/deciliter for children) in their bodies can suffer from: - damage to the brain and nervous system, - behavior and learning problems (such as hyperactivity and aggressiveness), - slowed growth, - hearing problems, - headaches,and - impairment of vision and motor skills. Adults can sufferfrom: - difficulties during pregnancy, - reproductive problems in both men and women (such as low birth weight, birth defects and decreased fertility), - high blood pressure, - digestive problems, - neurological disorders, - memory and concentration problems, Brain or Nerve Damage - muscle and joint pain, and - kidney dysfunction. Lead affects the body in many ways Slowed Growth Digestive Problems Reproductive Problems (Adults) Hearing Problems 1 1vul C -1. r-►rec[s on ine human Body from Excessive Exposure to Lead Chapter I - Page 1-5 BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges Table 2-1— Common Physical Characteristics at Ranges — Potential Risks and Benefits Associated with Range Operations Physical Potential Risk to Environment Potential Benefits in Preventing/Managing Characteristics Contamination Clay, acidic soils Acidic soils contribute to lead dissolution May impede percolation of water through -- increasing the potential for lead contaminated soil contamination Binds "free" lead ions -- may increase run-off May benefit growth of vegetative covers Difficult to reclaim lead via sifting/raking Sandy, alkaline Contaminated rainwater can easily Alkaline soils may inhibit lead dissolution soils percolate through soil and groundwater _ i Easier to reclaim. lead via sifting/raking •,� a` ' _x1rerneiv ;II�At. iinso-i! ..bili nom-':•nn�: vegetation Sandy, acidic soils Acidic soils contribute to lead dissolution Easier to reclaim lead via sifting/raking -- increasing the potential for lead contamination Contaminated rainwater percolates quickly through sandy soils Steep Rolling May promote off-site drainage or None Terrain drainage t0 ...-s ie surface vvaier bodie< - j Can impede recla.nat;cn c` c _�!ed 1 xN_'; I Expended shot easily recovered Flat Terrain Rainwater may "pond" in areas, promoting lead dissolution and contamination Off-site drainage minimized Wooded areas Mav imneac leap rPclam?tic; u� ivi,ie; i E in_sicinp equip p-rit, ciifFicjit tC I Ma;' ;xovkle habitat for On-site or VERY high potential for contamination None contiguous surface when shot fall zone is located over or water bodies adjacent to water; increased wildlife exposure; increased lead dissolution. This is NOT an option for successful range location and may be more likely subject to litigation and/or governmental action if lead is deposited into water bodies Vegetation Lead may be absorbed into grasses, ':;round covers s;vw down surface water run - other wildlife food sources I on and r oni Lff '{jer iL" n can a t _it (e.; the s oiis Chapter 11 - Page II -3 BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges Table 3-1 — Summary of Key BMPs BMPs for Preventing Lead Migration Monitoring and Adjusting pH Chapter III - Page III -19 BMP Option Advantages Disadvantages Lime Spreading 1. Easy 1. Does not offer a 2. Inexpensive permanent solution 3. Effective 2. Will not work in extremely acidic conditions Immobilizing Lead BMP Option Advantages Disadvantages Phosphate Spreading 1. Easy 1. Does not offer a 2. Inexpensive permanent solution 3. Effective Controlling Runoff BMP Option Advantages Disadvantages Vegetative Ground Cover (e.g., grass -,-etc —) 1. Easy 1. Requires periodic 2. Aesthetically pleasing maintenance 3. Relatively inexpensive 2. Must be removed or 4. Effectively slows and reduced prior to can redirect runoff reclamation 5. Some may "bioabsorb" 3. Excessive vegetation lead will interfere with reclamation Organic Surface Cover (e.g., mulch and 1. Easy 1. Requires periodic compost) 2. Aesthetically pleasing maintenance 3. Relatively inexpensive 2. Must be removed prior 4. Effectively slows and to reclamation can redirect runoff 3. May not be suitable at ranges with acidic soil conditions Filter Beds 1. Diverts and treats lead 1. May require hiring a contaminated runoff licensed engineer 2. Low maintenance 2. Higher initial setup cost 3. Assists with range drainage Chapter III - Page III -19 BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ran es Table 3-1 - Continued BMP Option Water/Sediment Traps Dams and Dikes Ground Contouring Controlling Runoff (cont.) Advantages 1. Low maintenance 2. Assists with range drainage 1. Low maintenance 2. Assists with range drainage 1. Lower initial setup cost 2. Assists with range drainage Disadvantages 1. May require hiring a licensed engineer 2. Higher initial setup cost 2. Higher initial setup cost 1. May require hiring a licensed engineer Controlling and Containing Bullets — -- -i BMP Option Earthen Backstop Sand Trap Pit and Plate Trap (Sand) Bullet Containment Devices I Advantages 1. Minimal (if any) initial setup cost 2. Accepts firing from various guns and directions I. Low initial setup cost 2. Ease of maintenance 3. Accepts firing from various guns and directions 1. Low initial setup cost 2. Simple installation 3. Lead removal and recycling requires less extensive mining Disadvantages 1. Build up of bullets increases chances of ricochet and fragmentation problems 2. Lead removal requires mining 3. Potential decreased value of lead because it is less clean than lead reclaimed from other trap systems 4. Does not eliminate lead's introduction into the environment 1 _ Build up of bullets increases chances of ricochet and fragmentation problems 2. Lead removal requires 1. Lead builds up on top layer of sand causing ricochet problems 2. Increased bullet fragmentation 3. Higher level of maintenance than sand traps Much of this information was obtained from Action Target's Bullet Containment Trap Technologies video. Reference to various pros and cons of individual bullet containment devices is included in this manual for informational purposes only. The USEPA does not endorse any particular bullet containment device, design, or product. Chapter III - Page III -20 Chapter III - Page III -21 BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges Table 3-1 — Continued ControIIing and Containin Bullets Cont. Bullet Containment Devices cont. BMP Option Escalator Trap (Steel) Advantages_ Disadvantages 1. Can be used indoors and 1. Deflection plates require outdoors regular oiling. The oil used is hazardous and can easily migrate at outdoor ranges 2. Relatively high maintenance 3. Poor lead collection because the bullets may become clogged at the spiral collection area at the top of the deflection plate 4. Increased bullet fragmentation 5. May require rubber curtains to be placed in front of the trap to slow bullets 6. More noise 7. Possible creation of lead Vertical Swirl Steel ( ) 1. Can be used indoors or dust 1. Does not accept shooting outdoors from all directions 2. Bullets are captured in 2. Corners where each unit pure form in containers, meet can cause ricochet thus removal and recycling and fragmentation problems is easy 3. More noise Wet Passive Bullet Trap (Steel) 1. Can be used indoors and 4. May 1. Expensiv- a lead dust outdoors 2. Oil and water mixture is 2. Excellent results (i.e., low hazardous ricochet, low fragmentation, 3. More noise ease of removal) 3. Bullets are captured in containers, thus removal Lamella Trap and regcling is easy 1. Can be used indoors or 1. Rubber strips quickly outdoors become destroyed and must 2. Reduction of lead dust be replaced 2. Potential fire hazard 3. High maintenance 4. Scattered lead fragments mixed with rubber can migrate; lead contaminated granules are hazardous and r uire special handling Chapter III - Page III -21 BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges Table 3-1 — Continued Controlling and ontaining R ufltA ;. DnU Bullet Containment Devices (cont.) BMP Option Advantages Disadvantages Rubber Granule 1. Can be used indoors or 1. Rubber strips can outdoors quickly become destroyed 2. Reduction of lead dust and must be replaced 3. Minimizes 2. Some pose potential fire fragementation, compared hazard, although fire - with some backstops retardant/resistant materials are available in some designs 3. High maintenance 4. Scattered lead fragments mixed with rubber can migrate; lead contaminated granules are hazardous and require Shock Wb—sorbingConcrete 1. Adaptable/can be s ecial handlin 1. Mechanical lifting and formed in any shape handling equipment must 2. Can be used to reduce be used during installation erosion in soil berms/target and maintenance emplacements 2. High maintenance 3. Crushed concrete can (replacement) costs potentially be recast after Removal and RArvclina If fragments removed od Hand Raking and Sifting 1. Easily done by club I. May be more time members 2. Inexpensive consuming at large ranges 2. Weather sensitive (i.e., 3. Can be done outside works best under dry operating hours conditions) 4. Relatively effective 3. Exposure to lead and Screening 1. Effective lead dust possible 1. Vegetation must be 2. Potential economic removed returns 2. Weather sensitive (i.e., works best under dry Vacuuming I. Effective conditions) 1. Weather sensitive (i.e., 2. Can be used at least works best under dry accessible ranges conditions) 3. Less vegetation needs Soil Washing be removed Effective at cleaning the 1. Vegetation must be il tremove the lead rnon-load removed rties so one is left with soil Chapter III - Page III -22 I (( �cc fcA ��­rq ./( Feb. 5, 2018 P F tA=f v ., I G Pt� r TO: The Jefferson Board of County Commissioners, and the Shooting IIF�McNlarium Review Committee FROM: Patrick Sullivan, a Port Townsend resident and Director of Communications for Fort Discovery, Inc., (patrick( ssnwhq.com) in support of commercial shooting facilities. Please review this written testimony as an attempt to match claims made about commercial shooting ranges with facts. RANGE SAFETY CLAIM: "Stray bullets" are a concern, said a member of the Tarboo Ridge Coalition. FACT CHECK: The BOCC's key point for declaring an emergency moratorium is based on "safety and health" and lists RCW 9.41.300(2)(a) which allows the county to restrict the discharge of firearms where there is a "reasonable likelihood that humans, domestic animals, or property will be jeopardized..." However, there is no evidence that any commercial shooting range in Jefferson County has jeopardized health and safety. There is no evidence of stray rounds on any range with which Mr. D'Amico has been affiliated, and no evidence of stray rounds from the Jefferson County Sportsmen's Association range (operated through a county lease). The range safeguards to protect health and safety that have been in place locally are effective. The county's contention that a moratorium is needed to protect health and safety is incorrect. Established safety rules would apply at the proposed Cedar Hills Recreational Facility range near Tarboo Lake, which included but are not limited to: Eye and ear protection required. No ground - level targets or trash targets, i.e. glass, metal or plastic containers. No exploding targets (Tannerite is the most common brand name for this product) and no incendiary tracer ammunition. No drugs or alcoholic beverages are allowed on the range. The Rangemaster has authority to not allow anyone to shoot who may be under the influence. The goal is to provide a safe shooting environment with knowledgeable range staff to foster an attitude of firearms safety and respect so shooters develop the knowledge and skills necessary to practice safe firearms use. Some people may choose it for self-defense, some for hunting and some simply as a recreational outlet. Nearly 10 percent of Jefferson County residents have completed the necessary background checks to have concealed carry licenses — men and women who need a safe, well-managed place to learn how to use their firearm. Statewide, 10.23 percent of the state's population have concealed carry licenses. LAND USE ZONING CLAIM: "This new Fort Discovery facility belongs in an established industrial or military training area where the existing noises and other impacts are already of a similar magnitude and duration," wrote the Tarboo Ridge Coalition. The TRC attorney contends the activity is not allowed on Mr. D'Amico's property, which is zoned Inholding Forest. FACT CHECK: According to Jefferson County Code section 18.15.040 on Specific Land Use, as listed on Table 3-1, the ONLY ZONING where outdoor shooting ranges are allowed is Forestland: Commercial, Rural and Inholding. The use is allowed through a Conditional Use Permit, a well-established county process. Commercial shooting ranges are not allowed in M other zoning classifications. The Department of Community Development acknowledged as much in June of 2017 by issuing a pre -application to Fort Discovery stating that an outdoor shooting range could be established on the Inholding Forestland, through the Conditional Use Process. Federal case law (freshened up in 2017) prohibits a government entity from "spot zoning" to make it impossible to site a gun range. Mr. D'Amico searched for years to find a site on the North Olympic Peninsula, preferably in Jefferson County where his family came in 1927, and as far away from residential areas at possible while still in a location to make it a viable business. County officials including members of the BOCC have told him/asked him to find a more remote location. About 66 percent of Jefferson County is public land, which makes it difficult to find property in the remaining 44 percent that is not already bordered by residential development. There are a dozen official No Shooting Areas in East Jefferson, all centered around dense residential developments or park land. Thousands more acres are in various "conservation easements" and the U.S. Navy has used $11.3 million in Readiness and Environmental Protection Integration funds to purchase development rights on 11,400 acres in Jefferson County. In all those situations, commercial shooting ranges would not be allowed. The facilities are specifically allowed, through the county's established land use process, on Mr. D'Amico's Inholding forestland property. As a practical matter, the proposed Cedar Hills Recreational Facility may be the most isolated site in East Jefferson County. It is surrounded by commercial forest land — the reason the county chose forestland for shooting ranges in the first place. The nearest residential neighbors appear to be 1 mile to the west (and an elevation drop of several hundred feet) and 1.5 miles to the southeast (also with an elevation drop). The nearest residence in the direction the proposed shooting range would be facing is about 1.9 miles. Like it or not, there may be no more remote location left in East Jefferson where a shooting range could be sited than this piece of property, and county codes establish a legal avenue for a permit. JEFFERSON COUNTY LAND USE ZONING MAP & KEY ATTA CHED THE SOUND OF GUNFIRE CLAIM: "Any sounds would not be popular with us," said one Tarboo Ridge Coalition member. FACT CHECK: Washington State code (WAC 173-60-050) is clear: "sounds created by the discharge of firearms on authorized shooting ranges" between 7 am and 10 pm are "exempt" from any attempts at "noise" control. Also, the Jefferson County Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.70.060) specifically exempts complaints against "the lawful discharge of firearms," which includes hunting and licensed shooting ranges. According to state law: Local laws and ordinances that are inconsistent with, more restrictive than, or exceed the requirements of state gun laws shall not be enacted. That fact indicates that to cite "noise" as a reason to curb commercial gun ranges is not a legal argument, as the county cannot restrict the sounds of gunfire beyond what the state allows. All that said, Mr. D'Amico is committed to creating a commercial shooting facility that follows Best Management Practices, including appropriate mitigation for sounds. Also, Mr. D'Amico has generally had his range open between the hours of 9 am to 5 pm and has typically been closed on Sundays. PROPERTY VALUES CLAIM: One shooting range opponent has claimed such projects "result in a devastating decline in property values." FACT CHECK: According to the Jefferson County Assessor's website, none of the residential properties nearest to the Jefferson County Sportsmen's Association range has had a drop in assessed property value. Based on a review of the tax roll value for 20 properties, including the residential properties closest to the range, none have been devalued since 2013 (which is as far back as website reports). According to the Jefferson County Assessor's website, the assessed value of 30 properties belonging to people who signed a "noise" petition against the ranges at Fort Discovery (now closed) near Gardiner, citing declining property values as a concern, none (0) actually declined in value. Also, Commissioner Kate Dean was recently quoted in the media that the sound of U.S. Navy "Growler" aircraft "raises concerns from county residents about reduced property values and tourist revenue...." Please note these facts: Navy jets using Outlying Field Coupeville are closer to Port Townsend than most parts of rural Jefferson County. The City of Port Townsend's tourism -related tax revenue in 2017 set a record, and, assessed property values within the city are going up, not down. TARBOO LAKE CLAIM: "The public benefits provided by state-owned Tarboo Lake should not be sacrificed," according to one opponent. FACT CHECK: Tarboo Lake is owned by Pope Resources, not the state. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife manages a day -use "water access site" at the lake, with a primitive boat launch. No overnight camping or campfires are allowed; garbage must be packed out. Hatchery trout are planted in Tarboo Lake for public fishing (which is best in May and early June; the WDFW website lists "no opportunity" the remaining months). There is no trail around the lake — public access is limited to the boat launch and small parking lot. Tarboo Lake is accessed by a dead-end county road. Pope Resources has allowed "walk in" hunting on its property around Tarboo Lake, although that access is subject to closure due to logging operations or wildfire danger. Pope Resources does not allow target shooting on its forestland. Joe D'Amico's proposal for his property bordering the lake does nothing to hinder public use of the lake access site; in fact, having people at the other end of Tarboo Lake could deter illegal camping and fires at the water access site. Also, people could eventually camp at Cedar Hills Recreational Facility while using Tarboo Lake, expanding public access. The facility's proposed shooting ranges do not point toward the lake. Since his property includes a portion of Tarboo Lake shoreline, it is in Mr. D'Amico's best interests to protect water quality. Tarboo Creek's headwaters connect to Browns Lake, which is north of Tarboo Lake. It does not appear that fish can exit Tarboo Lake via Tarboo Lake Creek to enter Tarboo Creek in the valley below. 2 PHOTOS ARE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENT & WILDLIFE CLAIM: A shooting range near Tarboo Lake "will totally destroy land values and destroy wildlife habitat" says the president of the Northwest Watershed Institute. The shooting range would "reverse conservation efforts" in the Tarboo Valley, wrote one person. FACT CHECK: The claim about decreased property values has already been debunked, based on Jefferson County Assessor records of properties near other shooting ranges. The only thing that's going to lower property values here is another nationwide economic Recession. Regarding the "wildlife habitat" concern — land development would occur according to county permits, just like the rules that apply to other property owners. Wildlife access won't be restricted; deer will probably love having more open, grassy areas. Domestic livestock won't be introduced into the natural habitat. Wildlife won't be hunted on the property. The property's timber won't be clear-cut — unlike adjacent commercial forest land, which certainly has affected wildlife habitat more than any of Mr. D'Amico's proposals. Mr. D'Amico's former shooting range site had an active eagle nest (an eagle habitat study confirmed no harm; eagles would be visible while the ranges were in use) and regular visits by coyotes, bear and cougar. Wildlife become accustomed to human behavior, including the sounds of vehicles, machinery and even gunfire, when it is non -threatening. Consider the 300 -plus deer who live year-round within the City of Port Townsend. Tarboo Lake is five miles from Tarboo Bay. Tarboo Creek flows from Browns Lake to Tarboo Bay, not on or through Mr. D'Amico's property. The proposed land use development would be done according to county permits applied to other properties for septic, stormwater, buffer zones, structures, etc., and include a State Environmental Protection Act checklist. A wetland study has already been conducted. Fort Discovery, Inc., is contracting with Metals Treatment Technologies LLC (MT2) to develop a site-specific Environmental Stewardship Plan that meets National Shooting Sports Foundation Environmental Aspects of Construction and Management of Outdoor Shooting Ranges, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Best Management Practices for Lead at Outdoor Shooting ranges. MT2 is considered the nationwide leader in their field, with experience at more than 1,500 ranges nationwide including the Seattle Police Department Firearms Training Range in Tukwila. Environmental protections and range safety are paramount, both to the owner and users. The facility may actually draw firearm users who now target practice at dead-end roads, on state, federal and county property, throughout South County, including near Lords Lake water reservoir. That unmonitored (but not necessarily illegal) type of shooting causes more environmental damage than anything at the proposed Tarboo Lake site. The Washington State Department of Natural Resources is concerned about uncontrolled shooting and target practice in forestlands, and has encouraged people to use commercial shooting ranges. LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING CLAIM: It has been alleged that the proposed shooting range would support "militia" or "para- military" training. FACT CHECK: What do people mean by "militia?" Are they talking about the Second Amendment's all for a "well -regulated militia? "The word "para -military" describes renegades and rebels as seen on TV. It does not describe what takes place at a licensed commercial shooting facility. Gun owners come from all walks of life and across the political spectrum. Mr. D'Amico's primary business, Security Services Northwest, provides training to its security guard employees. Firearm qualification is required for armed guards to be licensed. SSNW personnel are contracted to work at businesses and events, large and small, in three states. SSNW also staffs a small Counter Assault Team of people with military and/or law enforcement backgrounds, which is contracted by the Department of Defense to protect maritime assets. Personnel trained by SSNW are considered by the U.S. government to be worthy of protecting billion -dollar assets. A commercial shooting range is required for the proper training of federal, state, tribal, county and city law enforcement personnel to fulfill firearm qualifications. The Jefferson County Sheriff's Office and Port Townsend Police Department use the Jefferson County Sportsmen's Association Range. The Washington State Patrol, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Border Patrol, U.S. Customs Service, tribal police, and the private security guards who staff the perimeter at Naval Magazine Indian Island, for example, must also seek out a shooting range for required training. The further these people must travel — the closest practical options are 75 or more miles from Jefferson County — the more it costs taxpayers, and the more it keeps these first -responders away from their families. Commercial shooting ranges are open to the public, and there won't be discrimination on who could use the range, as long as everyone follows range safety rules. Some people have suggested civilian firearms training be conducted at a military base. It is not possible for civilians to enter a military base, such as Joint Base Lewis McChord, while in possession of a firearm. Occasionally, U.S. military personnel seek small -unit training opportunities away from established bases while preparing for combat duty overseas. Mr. D'Amico believes in the importance of supporting our military. FIREARM CALIBERS CLAIM: "There are more large -caliber guns" these days, which amplify "sound" concerns with shooting ranges, said one Jefferson County commissioner. FACT CHECK: The typical cartridges that people shoot for recreational use have been around for more than 80 years. There are some newer, larger caliber rounds, primarily for long-range (1,000 -plus yard) hunting rifles. Most commercial shooting ranges offer 100- or 300 -yard ranges. The per -bullet cost of some of these large caliber guns is more than $5, so owners typically do not shoot them a lot. According to several national sources, the most common cartridges sold in Washington State are 9mm, followed by .223/5.56,.45 ACP, 12 gauge and .22 long rifle. None of these are considered "large" calibers. What has changed more at shooting ranges is the prevalence of sound suppressors, even with people who shoot smaller -caliber guns. These devices greatly suppress the muzzle's sound, upgrading the recreational experience. Licensed shooting facilities require customers to wear ear and eye protection. Complaints about "automatic" gunfire have been made, alleged to have come from commercial ranges, recreational ranges and from people shooting in the woods. Federal law greatly restricts who can own an "automatic" weapon. The sound of one or more semi-automatic weapon being fired in 3 -round bursts can be mistaken, at a distance, for automatic gunfire. "HUNTING WITH THE RIGHT CALIBER" CHART ATTACHED POPULATION GROWTH CLAIM: Jefferson County's official press release justifying the moratorium says: "A key goal of passing the Ordinance is to develop and adopt regulations within the next year which preserve and protect the continued viability of commercial shooting facilities in Jefferson County in the face of increasing population pressure and density of conflicting land uses." FACT CHECK: Yes, history proves that people moving from urban areas into rural areas often have a different expectation on appropriate land use. The BOCC's attention to potential conflicts is appreciated. However, there is no population boom taking place. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the population of Jefferson County was 29,872 in 2010 and 30,466 in 2015. That growth of 584 people (1.9 percent) over 5 years is not exactly a land rush. The lack of affordable housing and economic opportunities in Jefferson County are well-documented, which limits population growth. IT IS A BUSINESS CLAIM: "This is a private business proposal," wrote one critic. FACT CHECK: The property near Tarboo Lake was listed as real estate for sale, and it was purchased by Joe D'Amico — who has family roots in Jefferson County dating to 1927. Yes, he intends to use the property as part of his business operations, which includes Fort Discovery, Inc. It seems that is what many of the Tarboo Valley residents do — use their property to support their personal business enterprise. The county zoning code which restricts the development of commercial shooting range (any range needing a permit is a commercial range) to forestland zoning: Rural, Commercial and Inholding. Commercial activity is allowed. The proposed Cedar Hills Recreational Facility would also have a public -use component which (as explained previously) could enhance public use of Tarboo Lake. The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan outlines county support for business, tourism and recreation — all three of which apply to commercial shooting ranges. Cedar Hills Recreational Facility would generate tax revenue both from property and from retail sales. The county needs tax revenue. Jefferson County government is going broke. According to Jefferson County Administrator Philip Morley's 2018 budget report, the county's tax base has grown an average of .07 % for the last 8 years. The state allows a county to increase its tax base by allowing for new construction at a max of 1 % each year. While the county's tax revenues average this combined 1.7 % growth a year, the cost of doing business grows 8 % a year, Morley reported. "The gap between 1.7 % increased revenues and 8 % increased cost is not sustainable," Morley wrote. The county's General Fund "Unreserved Balance" (money used to help balance the budget) is more than $1 million for 2018, but is projected to drop to $138,116 by year 2022. Solution? Some combination of more tax revenue (made possible by the state or county, and/or voters by way of tax increases), fewer expenses (personnel accounts for most county expense) and/or encouraging businesses that create jobs and generate revenue. L A co'-uj 2jj (1) ill Mile Jill!! f /)J'iI ENTE SRd 1 � parson lake Rd s N 4 o' i� I r3 Andrews Creek `6 t D � _ Jr� '76 S LELAND { t � E nb vvi. 1n � 11741, t# Tarboo �Ba� 1808 RF -40 +1 a� + ` + G w _ UILCENE 4 J it A, rr. Let 07 nba�f ra Quitcene eeF a; Bay x f% AL -20 Local Agriculture AP -20 - Commercial Agriculture CC - Convenience Crossroad CF -80 - Commercial Forest CF V/MRLO F.PF-A - Essential Public Facility -Airport FPF-WM - WM Essential Public Facility -Waste Management - GC - General Crossroad III - Heavy Industrial i IF -20 - Inholding Forest LAMIRD/CC LI - Light Industrial LI/C -Light Industrial]Commercial LI/M - Light Industrial/Manufacturing MPR-BRN MPR -MF -10 - Master Planned Resort -Multi -Family MPR-OSR - Master Planned Resort -Open Space Reserve MPR -RA - Master Planned Resort -Recreation Area MPR-RC/CF - Master Planned Resort Complex/Community Facilities MPR -SF -4 - Master Planned Resort -Single Family MPR -SFT - Master Planned Resort -Single Family Tracts (1:2.5) MPR -VC - Village Commercial Center - NC - Neighborhood /Visitor Crossroad PPR -Parks, Preserves and Recreation RF -40 - Rura 1 Forest RI - Font Resource -Based Industrial RR -10 - Rural Residential RR -20 - Rural Residential RR -5 - Rural Residential RVC - Rural Village Center UGA-C - UGA Commercial UGA-HDR - UGA I ligh Density Residential 14-24 UGA-LDR - UGA Low Density Residential 4-6 UGA-LI - UGA Light Industrial UGA-MDR - UGA Medium Density Residential 7-14 UGA-P- UGA Public UGA-VC - UGA Visitor Oriented Commercial (aw — Q A m r as U)X m r X a m m 0 m m q r n n 0 f'1 a M M G) o M C N N a 2 C3 3 � O og M Z m G7 M a N . ..+i W G7 mr as an • • 0 CC•�occ (��•5 �� To: Jefferson County BOCC From: John Hamilton 393 Sentinel Firs Road Port Hadlock WA. 98339 HEARINGJ February 5, 2018 FEB 0 5 2018 Regarding: Ordinance # 05-1218-17 Establishing a one year moratorium for existing and new commercial shooting facilities. I am in support of the proposed moratorium on shooting facilities within rural Jefferson County. This County is increasing in population over the last decade and will continue to do so. I believe the Commissioners are doing the right thing with calling for this moratorium on shooting facilities and get a public group together to make recommendations on how to mix the population growth with the business growth in rural areas. Many people enjoy using guns for hunting and other recreation and shooting facilities are needed to give people that opportunity. Also, many people come here for peace and quite and do not enjoy a lot of shooting around where they live. Farms with cattle and other livestock can be negatively impacted by continual gun fire in their immediate area. The quality of peoples lives will be impacted by additional or expanded shooting facilities in Jefferson County We have 22 shooting facilities within 50 miles of Eastern Jefferson County, any additional facilities need to be reviewed and see that they will fit into the neighborhood they are applying for. Present shooting ranges that are having increasing usage and using higher caliber, louder ammunition need to have a review of the additional impact they are having on their surrounding area. Some form of ordinance to mitigate the differences by those using gun facilities and those that don't want to be disrupted by the noise needs to happen. Is increased shooting facilities compatible with the County plans for future goals in recreation, agriculture, conservation and farming? I applaud the BOCC for taking this time to review the many questions surrounding shooting facilities and gathering citizens to help study and present proposals for resolving the differences that have surfaced. I encourage the BOCC to implement ordinance #05-1218-17, the moratorium for one year. �s CC=�cc Ic� � KAMPMEIER & KNUTSEN PLLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW PAUL A. KAMPMEIER Licensed in Washington 206.223.4088 x 4 paul@kampmeierknu.tsen.com February 5, 2018 Via Electronic Mail Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, Washington 98368 Email: jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us Re: Ordinance No. 05-1218-17, Establishing a Moratorium on Commercial Shooting Facilities in Unincorporated Areas of Jefferson County Dear Commissioners Kler, Sullivan, and Dean: I represent Northwest Watershed Institute and am working with Mr. Peter Bahls to evaluate the legality of Security Services Northwest's proposed new weapons training facility for the north shore of Tarboo Lake in east Jefferson County (the Project). I am providing these comments in support of the Board of County Commissioners' decision to impose a moratorium on commercial shooting facilities. Please include these comments in the administrative record for this matter and please contact me or Mr. Bahls if you have any questions or concerns about them. Northwest Watershed Institute has three main points it would like to submit for the Board's consideration. First, NWI appreciates the County's adoption of the ordinance and its interest in taking the time to obtain community feedback; however, NWI is concerned that the review process created by Ordinance No. 05-1218-17 will fail if it results only in recommendations for mitigation measures and if the committee does not directly examine appropriate criteria for the location and siting of shooting ranges. The one year moratorium is an opportunity to develop recommendations that clarify and strengthen the County code and development regulations as necessary to prevent the development of new shooting ranges in locations where they would: (1) degrade the property values and quality of life of surrounding private residents and landowners; (2) destroy the enjoyment of an adjacent public recreation resource, such as Tarboo Lake; and (3) impact treaty reserved hunting rights and public hunting opportunities in the surrounding lands. Recommendations for clear, legally defensible criteria for siting shooting ranges will be of clear benefit to the public. Second, we understand that SSNW plans to proceed immediately with permitting for parts of the Project that SSNW believes are not subject to the moratorium. But a "piece meal" approach to K . developing the Project will violate the review process mandated by the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), which requires a comprehensive review of the entire project, including cumulative effects. The County should not approve any permits, including water rights, or take any other development actions related to the overall Project, before conducting a comprehensive SEPA review. Third, SSNW is clearly incorrect when it contends it is not subject to the moratorium and when it asserts that the County must process its request for permits for the Project. We encourage the County to stand by both the moratorium and its position that the moratorium applies to SSNW. Section 1 of the ordinance establishes a moratorium on "[t]he submission, acceptance processing or approval of any Jefferson County permit application for any proposed use, development, proposal or project for the citing, construction or modification of any commercial shooting facility." Section 2.1 then provides the relevant definitions. And Section 4 then states unambiguously that the moratorium "is effective immediately upon adoption," which adoption occurred on December 18, 2017. The moratorium plainly applies to SSNW's proposed Tarboo Lake project because that project proposes the construction of a shooting facility that will be used for commercial purposes as set forth in Sections 1 and 2 of the ordinance. Section 3 provides an exception to the moratorium that applies to the "acceptance, processing, or approval of any Jefferson County permit applications for any proposed use, development, proposal or project for the siting, construction or modification of any commercial shooting facility that have previously been deemed `substantially complete' by Jefferson County." Section 3 does not exclude SSNW from the moratorium, however, or require the County to consider SSNW's proposal while the moratorium is in place, because Jefferson County has not determined that SSNW "substantially completed" the required permit application. SSNW and the County conducted a pre -application conference on June 30, 2017. The pre - application materials expressly state that one of the purposes of the njeeting was for the County to provide SSNW with "a list of requirements for a completed application" and a "general summary of the procedures to be used to process the application." See also Jefferson County Code § 18.40.090(4). The pre -application conference materials also state: Discussions at the conference or the information provided by the staff shall not bind or prohibit the County's future application or enforcement of all applicable laws and regulations. No statements or assurances made by County representatives shall in any way relieve the applicant of his or her duty to submit an application consistent with all relevant requirements of County, state and federal codes, laws, regulations, and land use plans. Additionally, a representative for SSNW signed the standard disclosure on the pre -application conference materials, which states: "Information provided to a prospective applicant during the pre - application consultation is based on County regulations in effect at the time of the pre -application consultation. Revised or new County regulations could affect a future development application. A pre - application consultation does not vest a future development application." These statements clearly indicate that the pre -application materials and conference do not constitute or qualify as a complete application, and that participation in a pre -application conference does not vest any development rights. -2- As far as we can tell SSNW has not yet submitted a complete permit application, nor has the County determined that any permit application for the Project is substantially complete. The pre - application conference materials suggest that any variation of the Project will require a Type III conditional use permit, the application for which will require: a master permit application, a supplemental application for a conditional use, a project description or narrative, a SEPA checklist, a stormwater plan, a wetland delineation if required, and any Department of Community Development fees due at the time of application. If SSNW has not submitted all of these materials, which we believe to be the case, then SSNW cannot have "substantially completed" its permit application. Even if it has submitted those materials, there is no evidence we are aware of that the County determined SSNW's permit application to be "substantially complete," as required by the plain terms of Section 3 of the moratorium ordinance. Thank you again for the Board's thoughtful approach to the important issues presented by SSNW's proposed Project. Northwest Watershed Instituted appreciates the opportunity to comment and it stands ready to work with you and other members of the community to resolve these issues. Please contact me at the email address or telephone number in the letterhead if you would like to discuss any aspect of these comments. In the meantime, NWI encourages the County to stand by the moratorium and to insist that SSNW await the outcome of the County's process before moving forward with the Project. Sincerely, Kampmeier & Knutsen PLLC Paul A. Kampmeier Attorneys for Northwest Watershed Institute -3- �- ( :-�>%Cc Ok ) - (� - ( � HEARING R'S'Frnp) Hello, My name is Pascale Sanok and I have lived in Chimacum for 12 Year�.OTT gp ng because my family could be directly affected by We proposed gun range because o our proximity. Q. There are many reasons I stand against the gun range. However this is the most primary. Tarboo lake is one of the few lakes in this area that has not been closed down due to toxic algae. For as long as I can remember my family has gone to Tarboo to fish, swim, kayak, and paddle board. There could be a high risk of lead leaking into the water causing contamination of this precious lake. A one year moratorium is already in place. I propose that we continue to observe it until the pre -decided time is up, at which time the elected officials while be able to make an educated decision concerning D'Amico's proposal. Eaglemount is my home and I don't wish to see its peace and tranquility destroyed. Creating a moratorium was a wise decision. My family and I hope to see it continued. Thank you for your consideration. CC. I At FEB 05 2018 D I ae'e, Umu,/o tv 4u LAJ klt-� cc -fi�xc fA a - '5 - (f January 29, 2018 Jefferson County Board of Commissioners The Honorable David Sullivan, Chair 1820 Jefferson Street P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 FEB 0 5 2018 Re: An Ordinance Establishing a Moratorium on Commercial Shooting Facilities in Unincorporated Areas of Jefferson County Ordinance No. 05-1218-17 Dear Commissioners: I am writing this communication to thank you all for listening to the testimony from the public on this issue and taking the appropriate action to create this ordinance. As I read the ordinance I found that it clearly identifies the interests of public safety, preserving the environment, ensuring compatibility with other land uses while promoting the safe use of firearms. The time period of the moratorium is also appropriate as it provides enough time for the creation of a work plan, acquiring and assigning the necessary resources, public participation and a place where thoughtful listening and decision-making can happen. Your decision to reference an ordinance from neighboring Kitsap County should also be applauded. It provides us all with an example from which we can either adopt in its entirety or tailor for our county. It reminds me of the well -crafted response provided by the Jefferson County Department of Community Development to the Pre -Application for a proposed shooting facility north of Quilcene. The response from DCD included the need for public safety and even provided an example of the type of area, zoned industrial, for a future shooting facility. In support of the ordinance and the eventual siting of a facility I would like to take the opportunity to provide my input on a few issues that should be considered by the County Review Committee on Commercial Shooting Facilities. The issues are about public safety, nearby critical and essential facilities, preservation of life and property and facility requirements for aircraft. On the issue of public safety I would ask that the County Review Committee seek a professional assessment of how far stray bullets can travel from gun ranges. I have been shooting for more than 50 years, am a veteran of the U.S. Army/Washington National Guard, avid hunter and reloader of my own ammunition for accuracy. Over the last five decades I have consulted ballistic tables for many different calibers of firearms. Most ballistic tables only show the usual "effective" range of a bullet as it encounters the target. Distances of a thousand yards are usually the upper limit of these tables. Unfortunately this does not include the "maximum" range of a stray bullet accidently fired at a more acute angle. In my research I found that an AR15 rifle has a maximum range of up to 1.6 miles, a standard 30/06 hunting rifle has a maximum range of up to 3 miles and the .50 caliber BMG, used by both the military and civilians, has a maximum range of up to 6 miles. Please have the County Review Committee consult with a Professional Ballistics Expert when considering the containment of stray bullets and setting the appropriate distances for safe zone buffers. On the issue of critical/essential facilities I would ask the County Review Committee to consider the proximity of electrical transmission and distribution utility lines when considering and selecting a location for a shooting facility. As I look out my kitchen window to the west I see the Bonneville Power Administration's 500,000 volt power lines which provides "all" of the Olympic Peninsula with its power and lights. Along side of the BPA transmission lines are two 115,000 volt transmissions lines, which belong to all of us as owners/users of power from Jefferson County Public Utility District #1. These lines provide the connections between the electrical switchyards and substations in our communities and towns. Unfortunately the high voltage insulators on these transmission lines have become favorite targets for irresponsible shooters. The problem is so pervasive that the Bonneville Power Administration has a Crime Witness Program, which provides up to a $25,000 reward for reporting those individuals who are convicted. Bob Windrus, BPA Security Chief, "cautions that, if damaged insulators fail, live transmission lines can fall to the ground. Since the wires are not insulated, electricity can pulse quickly through the ground, injuring or killing animals and people in the vicinity. The lines can also start fires." As an employee of Puget Sound Energy for more than 20 years and having held the positions of Journeyman Lineman, Operations Supervisor and Corporate Safety Coordinator I have seen the damage and destruction to these critical/essential facilities. As a Journeyman Lineman I have personally replaced gun -fired damaged insulators on transmission and distribution lines. The fact that the downed lines can cause death and fires is especially concerning to me. Please have the County Review Committee consider this also when selecting a site and contact BPA or PUD with any questions. On the issue of preservation of life and property I would ask the County Review Committee to consider the potential for forest fires should they look at forested land for a shooting facility. This last year there was a forest fire on Tarboo Ridge a few miles north of our home. The area is still scarred and burnt and very visible from Highway 104. The winds were strong and blowing in our direction. We were prepared to evacuate with our pets and livestock. We would have to leave our Scottish Highland Cattle to be devoured by the fire. We have spent years breeding the genetics of our cattle and that would be lost. Since purchasing our property in 2002, we have dedicated all of our available time and finances to improving our land, planning, designing and building a new home and installing fencing and barns. As we are retired I am not sure that we have the energy to start over and nor should we have to. This issue is very personal to us. With the recent increase in forest fires in Washington and California we all have an opportunity to learn from their devastating experiences. Please have the County Review Committee consider the issue of forest fires when looking at the use of exploding targets, tracer ammunition, and any other incendiary or explosives, which can cause forest fires. On the issue of potentially having aircraft access to a future shooting facility I suggest that the County Review Committee review and incorporate the provisions of the Federal Aviation Administration FAR Part 139, Commercial Airport Facility Requirements, and specifically the Advisory Circular, AC 150/5390-2C. This Advisory Circular provides the requirements for a public commercial facility to accept rotary aircraft. Safety for the general public, ground personnel, pilots and passengers is paramount. As a Senior Manager, responsible for all electronic and electrical systems, at SeaTac Airport, and working for the Port of Seattle for 18 years I have found the FAA requirement invaluable. The Advisory Circulars are specific and provide a standard used all over the world. I hope that this information will provide guidance to the County Review Committee should they need it. In closing I want to thank you again for establishing a moratorium on commercial shooting ranges and for the opportunity to share my thoughts, concerns, experiences and some expertise in a few areas. I support and appreciate the work you are doing as County Commissioners. I will also be submitting a volunteer application/statement of interest for participation as a member of the County Review Committee on Commercial Shooting Facilities. Sincerely, Riley M. Parker P.O. Box 638 Quilcene WA. 98376 cc: The Honorable Kathleen Kler The Honorable Kate Dean Philip Morley, County Administrator �,. r H', Jefferson County Board of Commissioners The Honorable David Sullivan, Chair 1820 Jefferson Street P.O. Box 1220 FEB 0 5 2018 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: Ordinance No. 05-1218-17: An Ordinance Establishing a Moratorium on Commercial Shooting Facilities in Unincorporated Areas of Jefferson County Dear Commissioners: My name is Leigh Hearon. I want to thank the County Commissioners for taking the wise and prudent step of issuing a temporary moratorium on new gun ranges. We need this time to ascertain how commercial shooting facilities can best be assimilated into our community. My husband and I live at 7360 Center Road. For 35 summers, we held weekend chamber music concerts on our property and welcomed thousands of Jefferson County residents onto our farm. Despite the crowds of concert -goers who have visited us, until recently I've never really known many of our nearby neighbors. Most of our properties are separated by fence lines and large parcels of acreage, and unless I meet someone at our roadside mailbox, I am unlikely to ever make their acquaintance. But because of the gun range issues now facing the County, I've had the great pleasure of meeting many people who live close by. And I am so grateful for that opportunity. I've met farmers, ranchers, bee keepers, horse and llama owners, scientists, academicians, artisans, authors, Vietnam veterans, and so many more interesting people. We're an incredibly diversified bunch—yet when it comes to our commitment to preserving the peace and tranquility of where we have deliberately chosen to live, we speak with a single unified voice. Most of the people I've met are not anti -gun, nor opponents of 2nd Amendment rights. We are simply for the intelligent placement of gun ranges where the commercial operator can conduct his or her business in ways that do not conflict with our own existing businesses and lifestyles. As Jefferson County commissioners, you represent a remarkable population, and the job ahead will not be an easy one. Yet in some ways, the issues seem so simple. Take leada substance that has long been eliminated from gasoline, paint and other household products, but still is an essential component of gun ammunition today and largely unregulated. If lead ammo is left uncollected, it can wreak havoc on people, animals, and the environment. We know this. This is not fake science. So it only makes common sense that any new gun range should have a lead management program that is rigorously and routinely monitored—and enforced. Persistent noise from gunfire is another key issue. We know that protracted exposure to gunfire can produce severe physical and psychological effects on humans and animals alike. Ask the people who hear it every day from the gun range•in Port Townsend. Or any of the many veterans who served in Vietnam or other foreign wars and now live in our community. Acoustic shock disorder is also real. It should be paramount in your minds when you evaluate how far the sound of gunfire will carry from any suggested gun range site, and for what periods of time. I hope you will find a solution that accommodates the existing needs of your constituents and will also allow a gun range to co -exist among us. But if, in your exploration of the issue, you find this improbable, you may want to consider a permanent moratorium. The bottom line is that humans, animals, and the environment should not have to suffer in order to further a commercial cause that is not essential to our community's health or future. Sincerely, Leigh Hearon cc: The Honorable Kathleen Kler The Honorable Kate Dean Philip Morley, County Administrator ( ( �7�) )(T [Ck) Testimony on the Fire Arms Noise 'Ordc To: The Board of County Commissioners From: George B. Yount 71725 th Street Port Townsend WA 98368 February 5, 2018 I thank the Commission and staff for declaring a year's moratorium regarding siting and operating private gun ranges in Jefferson County. The citizens of this county are threatened to be jolted out of the beds, living rooms, patios, where ever by firearm discharge. It doesn't matter how loud, distant, or next door. Each single shot or semi-automatic report is saying to you and our communities, "High... I am hear on your property. I can be here because I am exempt as a nuisance, but your dog is not. Get used to me because I am going to outlive you." We have discovered that mom and pop private gun ranges can be in any part of the county. So Port Ludlow, Kala Point, Cape George, Quilcene, Port Hadlock, Port Townsend can have gun ranges nestled in your midst. This is not a 2nd Amendment issue. If some folks want to justify inflicting noise on their neighbors, it's not found in the 2"d Amendment. This is a noise pollution issue. Here is what I would recommend you resolve this. • Develop comprehensive firearms noise ordinance and fashion it similar to Kitsap County's ordinance Chapter 10.25, Firearms Discharge. • 1 would recommend all commercial gun ranges must be indoors and sound proofed so that no firearm noise goes beyond the property limits. • Every discharge will be monitored, recorded, and assessed a fee of between five to ten cents paid to the County to help offset the sheriff and legal responses that are inevitably going to come from affected angry citizens and communities. 1 would be happy to provide details on how discharge can be monitored and recorded. • All commercial gun ranges must be conditional use and that means if the conditions are not adhered to, their license to operate can be voided. • There needs to be a community conversation about the size and scopegun ranges. I would like to see this happen sooner rather than later. • I would also like to have a discussion about private airports and helicopter pads. If a gun range plans to provide training for third parties like governmental agencies, it will require adhering to FAA AC 150/5390-2C - Heliport Design includes air space considerations for approaches and departures, and landing specifications. It also needs to include citizen involvement. cc -`NC( Ick D��-i8' February 5, 2018 Jefferson County Board of Commissioners The Honorable David Sullivan, Chair 1820 Jefferson Street P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 M t t Re: Ordinance No. 05-1218-17: An Ordinance Establishing a Moratorium on Commercial Shooting Facilities in Unincorporated Areas of Jefferson County Dear Commissioners: My name is Robyn Johnson and I live by Tarboo Bay. I want to commend you for passing the Moratorium Ordinance (Ordinance No. 05-1218-17 Establishing I -Year Moratorium for Existing & New Commercial Shooting Facilities and Creates Citizen Review Committee To Develop Regulations). It is a very wise step to ensure a thoughtful, comprehensive plan for shooting ranges in our County, with citizen participation. I have two points to make: #1— I urge the Moratorium Committee, when it is formed, to consider the Kitsap County Ordinance (#515-2014) as a model for Jefferson County—including the following four provisions: • The purpose of shooting ranges is to learn firearms safety and to practice shooting; • Firearms discharge is restricted when there is a "reasonable likelihood" that humans, domestic animals, or property will be jeopardized, while preserving an individual's.. Second Amendment Rights; • An operating permit is required to assure safety and adherence to law, and; • Discharge of firearms is prohibited within 500 yards of any shoreline in unincorporated areas in Kitsap County, except under very strict conditions. #2— A word on intensity: I urge the Moratorium Committee to make a clear distinction among shooting ranges, based on intensity of use. The need for residents to learn firearm safety and to practice shooting is understood. But a traditional shooting range with target practice is entirely different from a paramilitary complex with helicopter pads, living quarters, mixed uses, and explosive activities such as blowing up cars. Respectfully, 41-r Pt -A 501__ Robyn Johnson cc: The Honorable Kathleen Kler The Honorable Kate Dean Philip Morley, County Administrator February 5, 2018 FEB 0 5 2018 Jefferson County Board of Commissioners The Honorable David Sullivan, Chair 1820 Jefferson Street P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: Ordinance No. 05-1218- 17: An Ordinance Establishing a Moratorium on Commercial Shooting Facilities in Unincorporated Areas of Jefferson County Dear Commissioners, I want to commend you for passing the Moratorium Ordinance (Ordinance No. 05-1218- 17 Establishing 1 -Year Moratorium for Existing and New Commercial Shooting Facilities and Creates Citizen Review Committee To Develop Regulations). I feel this is important for establishing reasonable and good guidelines for future development and zoning. I am here to represent the over 1,200 people who live or own property in Jefferson County who have signed a petition endorsing the County's effort to establish reasonable and good guidelines for future development and zoning of gun ranges. I have been amazed by the community -wide effort to inform the public and believe that these 1,200 signatures, given the short amount of time we've had available, represent a small fraction of the residents of Jefferson County who are in strong support of the moratorium. The signers support the moratorium to sensibly address the whole scope of planning for gun ranges in Jefferson County and specifically, they are concerned about the negative impacts of a proposed weapons training complex near Tarboo Lake. I will read the wording of the petition in a moment, but first want to state that people who signed the petition know this is not an anti -gun issue. Many have told us that they own guns. But they support the moratorium because they are concerned about one or more of the issues listed in the petition. Following are the areas of potential concern listed on the petition: • Danger to citizens on Hwy 104, Hwy 101 and Center Road traffic from stray bullets. 0 Hazard to BPA transmission lines from stray bullets. • Noise pollution. • Harm to wildlife. • Negative impact on businesses in the area. • Negative impact on domestic animals. • Increased stress for residents with PTSD and other disabilities. • Significantly reduced water availability for building, agriculture or business in Tarboo Valley. • Curtailed use of Tarboo Lake as a public recreational area. • Increased cost to the county for infrastructure needs, monitoring conditional use and lost tax revenue. • Negative impact on area property values, • Irrevocable negative impacts on the character of the Tarboo / Eaglemount / Snow Creek areas. Therefore we support the adoption of a one-year Moratorium on the development of new commercial shooting facilities in unincorporated Jefferson County, Washington, and support citizen participation in the development of rational, clear and enforceable regulations of all commercial shooting facilities. In closing I want to thank you again for establishing the moratorium. This is an important step to take for the future of our county. Th nk you for all the work that ou do. rAli( I �QL'2� usan Leopold Freeman Old Tarboo Road Quilcene (Cp, 5 d �V) PC h- ` 0 CAJ t h y� r IamJA In favor avor of the moratorium This courtroom is filled with citizens who are passionately for and against the moratorium on permitting new gun ranges...... 2018 FEB 0 5 This moratorium may suggest yet another restriction of citizens rights Will the county restrict a citizen's right to operate a business just because it sells deadly weapons ? and operates a firing range ? a business which advertises itself as a military training facility ? Will such a facility be denied even if it claims to be family friendly and a venue for weddings ? Why can't the County allow a property owner to do what is legal on her own property ? That is the question ? We all know the answer. One may exercise her legitimate rights as long as such activity does not interfere with the rights of others.. A. gun range, or military training facility impacts neighbors. The impact will depend upon the nature of the neighborhood. For example, it the neighborhood consists of steel mills, or railway switching yards, the noise from a gun range might not be noticeable...... Also, the value of property in such a location may not be impacted ( that is assuming that there is adequate protection from stray bullets) However, if a range is to be situated in a non -industrial site, deliberation is in order. What is the current ambiance of the area ? Does the site have archeological significance ( such as was the case in the proposed Port Angeles Graving yard) ? Are there activities in the area that would be incompatible with gunfire ( such as a Church, school, or musical facility). It is argued that if you move next to a pig farm, or shooting range. You know what you are getting into....... If you move to a residential neighborhood, or a pastoral setting, or a nature reserve - your expectation is for the tranquility inherent to such a setting. Sometimes, it seems that a wealthy corporation, or individual has the power to do as he wishes disregarding neighbors who do not have as much power. That is when we need government: to protect the rights of the little guy. So I urge the Commissioners to continue a moratorium to protect the rights of property owners in Jefferson County r'q From: Nerreca <nerreca@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2018 2:07 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Congratulations on your good sense Hi - you can be proud of deciding to have a moratorium. The gun range folks say they followed or are following all of the current county rules so that should be enough. You had the good sense to realize that a project of this scope and impact are way beyond what the current rules deal with. Your proposed revisions are just like the planning or building departments updating rules as new products come along, new septic system designs are invented or new set back distance are needed for eroding cliffs. It was very clear last night that this proposed large commercial/military-like facility does not belong here. The challenge will be to make new rules that are within the law. I hope you will consult that Tarboo lawyer who seemed very knowledgeable. Keep listening to those gun shots. Thank you, Nancy Erreca Julie Shannon From: David Sullivan Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2018 12:41 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: 05-1218-17 From: Judy Edwards Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2018 12:41:17 PM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Kate Dean; David Sullivan; Kathleen Kler; Kate Dean; David Sullivan Subject: 05-1218-17 To: Jefferson County Commissioners Re: TESTIMONY IN FAVOR OF RETAINING ORDINANCE NO 05-1218-17 Although I live in close proximity to the proposed shooting range (and explosives range, and helicopter range), and absolutely detest the idea of the noise pollution that this complex would bring to our rural, agricultural area, that is not my main concern, nor my main reason for not only being in favor of this ordinance, but also being against the issuing of any permits that would allow the construction of such a range on Tarboo Ridge. Tarboo Lake is one of very few lakes in East Jefferson County that has not been affected by the toxic cyanobacteria which has closed many lakes to swimming, and other recreation. If this facility is allowed to install the multiple septic systems, uphill from the lake, in the close proximity that has been proposed, the lake will no doubt be the recipient of enough leeching to feed blooms, both of benign and toxic algae. Additionally, the massive amounts of water that would be removed from the ground in order to supply the facility, would no doubt reduce the ground water in the area, therefore slowing the production of the springs that are feeding Tarboo Lake, therefore causing the water temperature to warm, adding to the number and intensity of blooms that would occur. In addition to the nutrient influx from the facility into the lake, and the probable raise in temperature due to reduced flow from springs, there also exists the very real possibility (probability?) that the lake would become contaminated from lead leeching from the area - again - because this facility is planned to be uphill from the lake, in very close proximity to the lake, there is no way to stop rainwater from contaminating not only the soil that the facility would be on, but the water of the lake itself. trust that WDFW, the EPA, and any other Shoreline Management Permit considerations, would delve into how the lake would be affected by this facility. This is not just a matter of a minimum setback, this is the preservation of the quality of the lake. Any consideration of a permit to allow this construction, should require independent, scientific soil and water studies, and not rely on the word of the applicants, even if the county itself has to pay for these studies. This should not be allowed to proceed with crossed fingers, hoping to stop any pollution as it occurs: this lake deserves to be protected. Thank you for your time, Judy Edwards 993 Old Tarboo Lake Road Quilcene, WA 98376 360-732-4503 ((-bOC( t CT, a , u - I � jeffbocc From: Rose <mysterybayrose@gmail.com>Rrr Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2018 11:31 PMS r[ To: jeffbocc tel. Subject: Tarboo private shooting rnge Please consider the past Discovery Bay ranges effect on many, many people. I have heard so many speak stressfully of the sound of a'war zone' as the paramilitary training ensued. I heard townspeople speak of the intensity of the sounds of strafing with massive amounts of heavy artillery and even car bombing and the helpless and frustrated feelings of this reverberating through their homes from miles away coupled with attitude from Mr D'Amico not having any regard for the community his facility'Fort Discovery' was affecting. All this came to my knowledge without any close ties to the areas affected. It rattled people deeply. I fully agree with the premise that this type of training belongs on a military base. Not inside communities of homes and lives. I was surprised when I read Mr. D'Amico's presentation of how this will be good for the public. From his past actions and attitude I do not believe his intent for this facility is thus. I am concerned it is simply a way have the county allow such an enterprise at Tarboo. I ask you to please be wise in your decision. Thank you for your consideration Rose Wilde Eaglemount neighbor within sound range - About z miles as the crow flies from Tarboo. Sent from my iPhone c ( --�0(( ((Aa o 4 -c � 'effbocc -1513w 11F From: Heather Harding <heatherh@olympus.net> Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2018 9:53 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Please stop Tarboo weapons training area Commissioners, I have lived in Chimacum for zo years and have upheld any movement towards conservation, habitat rehabilitation, and sustainable practices during that time. There have been many steps in this direction which inspire me, like the restoration and protection of Chimacum Creek, the rehabilitation of the chum salmon on Chimacum Creek, Jefferson Land Trust purchases at Sunfield, Chimacum Ridge and Discovery Bay. I am thus appalled by the proposal for Tarboo weapons training facility right in the middle of the crucial habitats we have worked so hard to protect. It will severely impact our watershed, the creatures that live there, and it will diminish the quality of life for the families that live around it and have enjoyed opportunities for recreation and solitude and reflection in the area that connection with nature affords is. It is a moral abomination to allow a weapons training area, with all the noise, pollution and the destruction that comes with it, the middle of our community. It is definitely a step in the wrong direction for our county and I urge you to refuse this proposal. Sincerely, Heather Harding 1555 Van Trojen Rd. Chimacum effbocc From: uptheduck@embarqmail.com Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2018 4:09 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: TARBOO LAKE and paramilitary training facility Attachments: Tarboo Lake.docx Thank you for considering our input. Tarboo Lake and proposed paramilitary training facility / gun range Tarboo lake consists of 22 acres of cold clear water up to 60 feet in depth. The lake has been on the Washington state fisheries enhancement plans since the late 1940's. The shore line properties are primarily owned by Pope Resources, consisting of a wide variety of second growth timbers, except for 40 acres of land at the north end of the lake, which is quite close to the shore line, owned by Joe D'Amico. He has it posted with "no trespassing sign" within approximately 30 feet from the lake's north shoreline. The development plans for his land are the cause of us addressing the Jefferson county board of commissioners. It is a paramilitary training facility and The blue/green algae issues found in other east Jefferson county lakes has not been an issue as it has is in Anderson lake and Lake Leland over the last several years. That makes for great fish habitat. Information via the east Jefferson county fish biologist out of Montesano, Mark Downen, Tarboo receives $8000 worth of tax payer monies spent in the form of transportation and planting of fish each year for recreation fishing. Mr. Downen has concerns for the east Jefferson lake fisheries due to loss of lake access. Pope Resources has gated roads to Horseshoe lake and Ludlow lake, walk in only. He stated these lakes may be taken off the planting program due to the loss of public access. With the loss of lakes due to dangerous reoccurring algae issues it places a strain on fishable lakes. Tarboo lake would not need a gate if the proposed paramilitary site were to be allowed for the noise created there would make Tarboo unfishable. The loss of Tarboo fisheries would put a great strain on remaining fishable lakes. I believe that would leave Sandy Shore as the only east Jefferson lake with a public usable boat launch. If his proposal is allowed those who may use it will come and go. Upon leaving the tentative site the gun fire and training noises still being created will remain impacting the environment and surrounding claimed lands and people who reside within the sound perimeter. Yet the users are able to return to their quiet lives leaving the penetrating sound waves behind that may continue until the last shot of the day goes off or darkness comes. Yet darkness may not be a factor with the use of night vision optic, paramilitary training, the noise pollution may drum into the darkness. If Mr. D'Amico gets his demands the county needs to require that a "no shooting" hours be imposed upon the site. Safety for all that may use Tarboo lake and those who reside on claimed land within a gun shot needs to be addressed. This concerns takes me back to the fire arm safety classes I took my three sons through. Class question "what is the difference between a pencil and a fire arm"? Answer "one can erase an error with a pencil". It will only take that one mistake, a shot too high, ricochet or an accidental firing and all those in the surrounding range of that bullet are in jeopardy. No erasing that mistake! Another concern is having the Sheriff on the moratorium committee as he could have a strong bias towards having an easy access to a paramilitary training facility. Tarboo lake has been still waters for a long time. A little logging and road building noise but that is short term noise. Put in your day shift and go home, stillness returns until next work shift. Sounds from Hwy 104 as a vehicle drives over the rumble strip, over head air plane or an aid car howling its urgency, all short term. The needed stillness will return shortly. Filled with the sounds of an healthy environment, life, water fowl, song birds, eagles, osprey, bugs buzzing, frogs, crickets, splashing fish and the wind in the trees. Tarboo lake has survived earthquakes and fires. It seems rather hypocritical that it's loss is due to noise pollution of a difference source. Loss of a quiet and peaceful Tarboo lake affects ma ny. Thank you for your time. Bill and Roxianne Morris 3261 Duckabush Rd Brinnon, Wa 98320 CC: -_boa February 7, 2018 ORO Dear Commissioner Sullivan, FEB 0 7 2018 Monday night (February 5th) I attended a meeting at the Court House. About Camp Freedom (freedom?) and it's plans to make a para -military base near Dabob Bay. A para -military base often referred to, at the meeting. as a `shooting range'. A shooting range, with cannons, helicopters, and ordnance explosions on a daily basis? My questions: 1) was this entire proposal passed without seeing the final drawings; plans that included incremental additions, and, will each incremental addition be subject to stringent review? 2) is there included, in the drawings, any provision for contained shooting ranges, within sound -proofed buildings, as mentioned by Sheriff Stanko? 3) why is the camp referred to as a 'shooting range'? (I'd add; I've never seen a private `shooting range' that needed helicopter pads, explosive ranges, and barracks? 4) would the explosive areas be also sound proofed? 5) why is this entire plan confined to Jefferson County Le., are we the only county available for D'Amico's private army camp? 6) why is The Yakima Firing Center (with its over 300,00 acres of land, barracks and infrastructure already in place, and with local support well in place, not in the loop? I shall look forward to the answers to these questions. incerely. &vnn i retn ey Po Box 688 (mai ing address) 116 332d Street (home address) Port Townsend, WA 98368 jeffbocc R 49. From: John <jgussman@dcproductions.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2018 10:18 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: gun range I am emailing you this to add my support to keeping the moratorium on the tarboo ridge gun range. the noise from this facility going in is not what I want to hear. thank you, John Gussman ((:�occ I ( k 0, 71 k From: Al Latham <alelatham@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2018 11:24 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Gun range moritorium support I support the Moratorium Ordinance on Commercial Shooting Facilities. Poorly sited and/or designed shooting ranges and military style training facilities can have a profound effect on the quality of life in areas surrounding such facilities. Jefferson County needs to develop better processes for reviewing proposed facilities of this nature and the moratorium will provide the time to do so. Unfortunately the development of commercial shooting ranges would do little to reduce the use of backroads, dnr or recently cleared land for target shooting. Few people would avail themselves of the use of a commercial facility if they can just go out and shoot for free somewhere else. Al Latham 470 Dharma Rd. Chimacum WA 98325 1 c(-`�cc tr� 2 7- 1 g From: Paul Janos <doktorhelper@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2018 11:49 AM To: jeffbocc Cc: Teri Hein; TODD HERREID Subject: Commercial shooting range in Tarboo Jefferson County Commissioners: The disbursed shooting of hobbyists and hunters is one thing, the commercial business of shooting another. Concentrated, ongoing high -decibel explosions are the determinative distinction. For one operation's profit, miles of surrounding communities, human and natural, will be substantially harmed. Many give that one may take. This is a pure case of preying on the commons. D'Amico represents an operation that would mint money from lead as training law enforcers and diplomats. Most public servants in those professional would be chilled to know the public safety button was pushed to manipulate the approval process, that D'Amico has urged that anyone who doesn't like it move - to Marin County of all places! The public servants I know respect the work of other public servants, like EPA ecologists and County planners who worked together to establish conservation enclaves within shot of ear- splitting triggers. Public servants recognize that the right to profit comes with the responsibility not to despoil and disparage. Recreational shooting - yes. The concentrated business of for-profit shooting belongs on battlefields or within concrete buildings adequate to mitigate sound impacts. Thanks. Paul Janos ('( - --�O (�- 1 C4 ?-,-7 � I � ' From: Helen Rector <hrector122@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2018 12:40 PM To: bocc@cojefferson.wa.us; jeffbocc Subject: Tarboo gun range All, This is the wrong place for a gun range. The noise is disruptive and the safety issue is significant. The range should be more remote. At the very least, automatic weapon fire should be prohibited. I want to suggest that the gun range near Port Townsend city limits be moved, also far away, when the lease is UP. Gun owners are determined to practice. They could drive further. Why ruin our nice environment here? No one gets to do exactly what they like with their property. And this issue is about a noisy hobby, not a community resource. Helen Rector 1218 Rose st PT WA 98368 Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android 1 CC, jaCC�ct ?-7 1 � jeffbocc pr From: kirie pedersen <kirie.pedersen@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2018 12:49 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Support for Moratorium on Weapons Range Attachments: Support Moratorium.docx 687 Pulali Point Road Brinnon, WA 98320 7 February 2018 Honorable County Commissioners: Thank you for your respectful listening at the mandatory public hearing regarding the proposed Moratorium to provide the County time to examine issues related to weapons -training facilities. I do not support DCD's proposal that noise -testing be allowed during the Moratorium. Nor do I support placement of a weapons training facility in the Tarboo region at all, under any circumstances with any mitigations. For example, a "concrete wall such as used for freeways" would render the area visually hideous, cause disruption to wildlife migration patterns, and fail to sufficiently reduce the sounds of explosions, helicopters, increased traffic, and shooting. Gunshots and explosion sound "bounce" and are transmitted for long distances. Mr. D'Amico suggests that as a fifth -generation resident, a claim I'd love to see documented, he somehow holds superior rights over newer tax payers. Others suggest that the right to bear arms or to be safely trained is equal to the rights of current property -owners and taxpayers who wish to live in freedom from lead poisoning, increased traffic, and the sounds of helicopters, gunshots, and explosions. I already live on a weapons -training range, so I can speak with authority about something called human error, as well as about noise. In 1945, my father and four other WWII veterans used their discharge pay to purchase a small piece of land on Dabob Bay. After the horrors of war, their goal was to build log cabins and raise their families in tranquility. When I was about ten, the Navy commandeered Dabob Bay as a weapons training range. For sixty-six years, I've had a front -row seat to myriad kinds of military weapons training. On more than one occasion, human error almost killed my family and me. The worst incident was due to a misfired torpedo. The torpedo barely missed my mother, five young siblings and me as we read and played on our beach. I was fifteen. The incident was written up in the Port Townsend Leader. This was only one of the misfires and near collisions to occur here on Dabob Bay. Just a few weeks ago, as I walked my dog on a path near my home at dusk, the sound of two military helicopters filled the air for over two hours as they hovered just above a ship, dropping items down and picking them up. As a retired college instructor who taught active duty military when they attended night school in Bremerton and Poulsbo, I could also share stories about weapons -related human error my students passed on to me. Those who use weapons most often are the first to admit the dangers, and the first to sign the Moratorium petitions, at least in my neighborhood. Are we, a small county without ability to enforce whatever regulations we do come up with, supposed to take Joe D'Amico's word that lead pollution will be "taken care of?" Or the word of his employee that a Range Master will be on duty at all times to enforce safety? I also challenge the suggestion that those who currently shoot their weapons on "dead end roads" or in the national forest will instead pay to shoot at Tarboo or any other authorized location. As one speaker suggested on Monday, in this part of the county we are finally supporting several organic farms, yak and other wool growers, beekeepers, cheese -makers, art galleries, and other local, family-owned businesses. Such scale has long manifested the goals supported through the Growth Management Act, articulated by members of the south county community in many public meetings we've had over the years. Those of us who have lived here our entire lives, as well as newcomers, have dedicated hundreds of hours and countless funds to supporting environmental protection and clean-up such as that created by the Northwest Watershed Institute and other groups. We deserve this level of slow and quiet growth to maintain this part of the county as a safe and healthy place for families who live here, tourists who flock here, and wildlife we can barely protect as it is. Respectfully submitted, Kirie Pedersen, M.A. Kirie Pedersen, M.A. Post Office Box 687 Brinnon, WA 98320 66 -year resident on Dabob Bay (360) 316-9066 - cellular www.kiriepedersen.com 687 Pulali Point Road Brinnon, WA 98320 7 February 2018 Honorable County Commissioners: Thank you for your respectful listening at the mandatory public hearing regarding the proposed Moratorium to provide the County time to examine issues related to weapons -training facilities. I do not support DCD's proposal that noise -testing be allowed during the Moratorium. Nor do I support placement of a weapons training facility in the Tarboo region at all, under any circumstances with any mitigations. For example, a "concrete wall such as used for freeways" would render the area visually hideous, cause disruption to wildlife migration patterns, and fail to sufficiently reduce the sounds of explosions, helicopters, increased traffic, and shooting. Gunshots and explosion sound "bounce" and are transmitted for long distances. Mr. D'Amico suggests that as a fifth -generation resident, a claim I'd love to see documented, he somehow holds superior rights over newer tax payers. Others suggest that the right to bear arms or to be safely trained is equal to the rights of current property -owners and taxpayers who wish to live in freedom from lead poisoning, increased traffic, and the sounds of helicopters, gunshots, and explosions. I already live on a weapons -training range, so I can speak with authority about something called human error, as well as about noise. In 1945, my father and four other WWII veterans used their discharge pay to purchase a small piece of land on Dabob Bay. After the horrors of war, their goal was to build log cabins and raise their families in tranquility. When I was about ten, the Navy commandeered Dabob Bay as a weapons training range. For sixty-six years, I've had a front -row seat to myriad kinds of military weapons training. On more than one occasion, human error almost killed my family and me. The worst incident was due to a misfired torpedo. The torpedo barely missed my mother, five young siblings and me as we read and played on our beach. I was fifteen. The incident was written up in the Port Townsend Leader. This was only one of the misfires and near collisions to occur here on Dabob Bay. Just a few weeks ago, as I walked my dog on a path near my home at dusk, the sound of two military helicopters filled the air for over two hours as they hovered just above a ship, dropping items down and picking them up. As a retired college instructor who taught active duty military when they attended night school in Bremerton and Poulsbo, I could also share stories about weapons -related human error my students passed on to me. Those who use weapons most often are the first to admit the dangers, and the first to sign the Moratorium petitions, at least in my neighborhood. Are we, a small county without ability to enforce whatever regulations we do come up with, supposed to take Joe D'Amico's word that lead pollution will be "taken care of?" Or the word of his employee that a Range Master will be on duty at all times to enforce safety? I also challenge the suggestion that those who currently shoot their weapons on "dead end roads" or in the national forest will instead pay to shoot at Tarboo or any other authorized location. As one speaker suggested on Monday, in this part of the county we are finally supporting several organic farms, yak and other wool growers, beekeepers, cheese -makers, art galleries, and other local, family-owned businesses. Such scale has long manifested the goals supported through the Growth Management Act, articulated by members of the south county community in many public meetings we've had over the years. Those of us who have lived here our entire lives, as well as newcomers, have dedicated hundreds of hours and countless funds to supporting environmental protection and clean-up such as that created by the Northwest Watershed Institute and other groups. We deserve this level of slow and quiet growth to maintain this part of the county as a safe and healthy place for families who live here, tourists who flock here, and wildlife we can barely protect as it is. Respectfully submitted, Kirie Pedersen, M.A. 1_�30 Q I Ot 9 11 - ( 7 3% p�rr, From: Janet and/or Willi <aloha@olympus.net> Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2018 1:13 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Ordinance 05-1218-17 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this moratorium ordinance. I am fully supportive of the intent of the ordinance as it appears that the existing development regulations do not provide adequate guidance for the permitting of shooting facilities. My concerns lie in the ways that, in its current state, the ordinance might be too limited in scope and definition. First, it extensively and exclusively uses the term "commercial" when referencing shooting facilities. While the definition in the ordinance contains a definition, it appears that there is a discrepancy between what might be typically considered a `private' facility and a commercial one. The application that is currently pending is for a `private' facility. I would suggest that the ordinance not try to thread the needle in these definitions at this point but rather provide a broad scope for the moratorium and the ensuing regulations. The regulations that can come out of the process would be the place to apply more discrete and carefully crafted definitions. Second, in a similar manner, the moratorium's definition of firearms includes only explosives that are caused by an 'explosion which propels a projectile'. It isn't farfetched to consider that `shooting facilities' of the future could include ordnance that is itself explosive (e.g.lacking `a projectile'). Likewise, the document addresses only the traditional ground based historical nature of a shooting facility. It could be argued that use of firearms or explosive devices that have an aerial origin would not fall under the limited definition of the ordinance and its subsequent regulations. Likewise, the document defines shooting in a way that does not include activities such as weapons testing. We wouldn't normally think of missile testing or activities of that nature as being included in regulations for shooting facilities, but we will be well served to include such activities, especially in light of the increasing pressure to expand military uses of non-governmental lands. Finally, the moratorium needs to require that the regulatory framework that addresses 'shooting facilities' also include guidance for those auxiliary uses to the larger concept of such a facility. Those activities might include use of helicopters, aircraft, landing facilities, night activities, spotlights, acoustic weaponry, armored personnel carriers, etc. The Kitsap County ordinance includes only one brief reference to military style training and that is to grant the decision making responsibility for governing those uses to the military rather than to the county. The moratorium needs to direct the County and its citizen review committee to address these activities. In conclusion, I believe that the residents of Jefferson County will be best served if the moratorium ordinance were amended to provide a much broader authority for establishing the regulatory framework for the shooting facilities of the future and notjust the mom and pop ranges of the past. Sincerely Janet Welch 178 Baldwin Nordland �ixqck effbocc .-a *o From: Jan Misner <jan@happytailsranchnw.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2018 3:11 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Ordinance No. 05-1218-17 Attachments: Fort Discovery Letter to County Commissioners - Jan.docx Attached is my written testimony in favor of Establishing an Ordinance on Commercial Shooting Facilities in Unincorporated Jefferson County. February 7, 2018 Kate Dean Kathleen Kler David Sullivan Board of Jefferson County Commissioners Phillip Morley County Administrator 1820 Jefferson St P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Dear Commissioners, This is my written testimony in support of establishing a Moratorium on the Commercial Shooting Facilities in Unincorporated Jefferson County. Ordinance No. 05-1218-17. I would like to share my concerns regarding the proposed Cedar Hills Recreational Facility (Fort Discovery Inc.) is planning to build, located just north of Tarboo Lake. Also known as parcels 801073 003, and 801073 004 located in Jefferson County, WA. This private facility does not fit into the environment of our area. It appears the property owner Joe D'Amico purchased this property for a gun club, security training, paramilitary facility where most of the land is currently zoned forestry. We who live close to this property live a quiet, mostly agricultural lifestyle. We moved here knowing we also share this area with managed forests harvested for lumber. Not the blasting of guns and the disruptive noises of a military training camp, including helicopters landing and taking off, loud blasts from simulated bombs etc.... We bought our property in 2002 and built our farm on existing open pastureland. We have put our lives into our farm and have followed an ecofriendly path to do what is best for the land and the environment. We are zoned agriculture and work hard to be good stewards to the land. This area is made up of the old and young, new and established folks of many different backgrounds, cultures, and lifestyles. One thing we have in common is living in this beautiful tranquil area. We help each other out when a neighbor is in need because that's what neighbors do. To build a military type facility with this kind of disruption and disregard for the environment would not only destroy our peace and the peace of our neighbors it would be a scary unsafe environment for wildlife, livestock, and pets. The blasting of guns and bombs along with helicopters flying in and out would make it impossible to continue enjoying the trails and lakes in the area or for that matter just being outdoors at home. The massive amounts of spent shells, explosive residue, and the ammunition left behind would pollute the environment and would most likely leach into Tarboo Lake. I understand part of the plan is to open this facility up for camping and fishing for the members. There is only 40 acres in this project and they are already planning on going outside the 40 acres to fish in and use Tarboo Lake, which is located to the south of the proposed property. What kind of impact will the added use have on Tarboo Lake? That brings up another concern. The public already uses Tarboo Lake. People hike and ride horses to the lake and fish and swim in the lake. What kind of safety is there to prevent stray bullets crossing outside their 40 acres? Bringing dogs or horses to the lake could be a disaster if they spook from the abrupt noise. There are some major environmental and safety concerns to be addressed. The wildlife here is amazing. The different birds and critters that currently call this home would move on to more tranquil areas away from the disruptive actions and noise. The quiet times we have listening to the birds and the wind in the trees would come to an end. They would be replaced with endless gunfire, bomb blasts, and helicopters landing and taking off. If this facility had already been built we never would have chosen to live here for these very reasons. It is clear that if this facility is allowed to be built, it would take a toll on all the property values in our area. It would also make a huge change in the wildlife corridor. It would be disruptive to each and every one of us. This is a private business proposal with no regard for the existing residents and property owners. I already see just the proposal of this 'private paramilitary club' has caused a major uproar in our community. Please take this into consideration if an application is filed to proceed with this project. Please do not allow for this project to move forward. It appears there would need to be a zoning change for this to move forward. Please don't allow that to happen. This kind of facility would be much better suited next to an existing military base where the environmental impact would be minimal. Thank you much. Sincerely, Jan Misner P.O. Box 638 Quilcene, WA 98376 Jan@happytailsranchnw.com Cc-_-�o C(- (CM- 9 - 7 -1 � From: Rob Sullivan <SullivanRob@msn.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2018 4:48 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Gun Range Dear Commissioners: r I am writing to you in support of the moratorium on the gun range and I am against locating a military -police training site near Tarboo Lake. have a PhD from UCLA in geography and I have taught geography at UCLA, Cal State University Los Angeles, Cal State University Northridge and Santa Monica College. I have had four academic books on the geography of place published. I mention all this not to boast but to certify that I have some expertise on place and what belongs in different places. The military -police training site does not belong near Tarboo Lake. Tarboo Lake is a place of wild and domestic animals, of fishing and hunting, of the Concerts in the Barn, of veterans with post- traumatic stress, and of peace and tranquility. This would all be destroyed by the military -police training site. Second, if there is to be a gun range located anywhere, the person who will run that range should have a background free of concern. Those who have such sites and have had hostile relations with neighbors, done work without permits or ignored court orders should not be allowed to again operate such a sensitive business. Thank you, Dr. Rob Sullivan 1221 DaBob Post Office Rd. Quilcene cl� 'effbocc From: Keith <kburfitt@olypen.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2018 3:06 PM To: jeffbocc Cc: Jennifer Scott Subject: Moratorium Injustice Dear commissioners, I've been listening to the ongoing discussion about the shooting range and the obstacles that have been put in the way of it moving forward. The comments from the opposition have been non sensible and petty. What I read in the paper there are also fabrications of the truth. Like Quilcene being a couple miles away in reality 16 miles minimum. Here's a company trying to do business, supporting the community, employeing a lot of people, and providing a valuable service. There's nothing out of the norm they are trying to do. They should have been given the green light from the beginning, following the procedures that are already in place. There's not a better location available in the county for what they're proposing. I'm hoping the Commissioners have the wisdom and common sense to let this shooting range progress to completion. Keith Burfitt Seni fi om my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID occ illFrom: Bernard and Laura Rosenberg <Ijrbr@hotmai eomi '� ' °� Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2018 6:41 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Shooting Moratorium Dear Commissioners, I am writing in favor of the one year moratorium on commercial shooting ranges in Jefferson County. I live in the county in the Cape George area. At my home, I often hear shooting from D'Amico's Discovery Bay location as sound travels well over the water. I also hear the shooting at the gun club. In addition to those commercial ranges, my area of the county allows shooting at private residences as long as it is done in properly devised shooting ranges. So I am fully entertained by the sounds of gunfire. At least I don't feel directly threatened by the commercial ranges as I do from my neighbor's ranges, but I do find the noise excessive. If a neighbor had a constantly barking dog or other noise nuisance I would be able to report it to the sheriff. But the noises from the commercial ranges which are quite as bothersome are somehow legal. If the neighbor who shoots had a barking dog, that noise can be legally controlled but not the sounds of shooting. It is an odd exception. I am in perfect sympathy with the people in the Tarboo area who object to having D' Amico set up there. In fact, I am more than sympathetic because I frequently ride my bike down the Coyle peninsula and would not like to fear stray bullets nor hear the noise. Please retain the moratorium. I'll write back next year asking for an extension. Thank you for your consideration. Laura Rosenberg 1044 Blue Sky Drive Port Townsend, WA 98368 From: Jean Ball <gnarleydogfarm@gmail.com> 9 Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2018 7:25 PM To: J Ball Gnarley Dog Farm; jeffbocc Subject: TRC Hello Commissioners and Staff, I had a gander at some of my favorite documents to see if I could find some guidance on this "gun range", and I found some stuff worth sharing. The obvious document is the Bill of Rights which is where the fabled Second Amendment resides. The Second Amendment says "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". What the Bill of Rights does NOT say is that "Every gun -bearing person has the right to irritate or harass their neighbors with pervasive gun fire as a commercial activity from dawn to dusk and all year 'round". It does not say "You are entitled to use of explosives to blow up cars". It does not say "You are entitled to practice with helicopters". It also does not say that you are entitled to impact the fragile environment with your business activities. The Declartaion of Independance says "When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another... requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation". That sounds to me like the birth pangs of our nation generated a deep understanding of what it means to take responsibility for manifesting our own destinies and not allowing oppressive forces to dictate our lives, especially during trying times. It goes on to say "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Does anyone think the Founding Fathers anticipated this kind of "gun range" when they drafted the Constitution? I don't. When the Constitution was drafted, they very much had in mind protections mentioned in the Declaration of Independance from oppressive or impactful forces which disallowed "the people" the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If this private enterprise is allowed to become reality at Tarboo Lake, the liberty and pursuit of happiness will be dealt a death knell, the lives of the residents will be forever damaged and their property values will plummet. It also says "That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness". It says right there that the people have the right to alter or even abolish the government which becomes destructive to the people and lay foundation upon the principles as shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Holy smokes! It sounds like they were talking to us! They knew days would come when the people would need to be the guiding light for the government and that day has arrived in Jefferson County. If a petition with 1200 signatures gathered over a few short Weeks and a courtroom full of unhappy people late into the night on a Monday is not that moment, I don't know what is. If the Founding Fathers saw fit to put it in writing that the people have the rightful authority to abolish their own government, don't you think they'd have seen fit to allow the people to decide when the activity of their neighbors was too extreme for the area and disallow such a devastating impact to the community? It says "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security". I think the term "despotism" is very apt in this situation. The excercise of absolute power, particularly in a cruel or oppressive way sounds like exactly what is coming. I don't think the owner of this "gun range" cares anything about the neighbors who will be impacted by his business, it seems like all he cares about is excercising what he thinks to be his right to use the land and firearms and that is just too bad for the residents in the area. I suspect that the people who will bear the burden of the impacts of his actions are not created equally in his mind. He is more equal because he has the fiscal ability to force his way in, no matter what residents have to say about it. He does not need to play nice, he is comfortable making waves. Let's put it to a vote. Let's see where the residents of Jefferson County stand on this issue. We voted 2:1 in favor of legalizing Cannabis in this county and still we had an uphill battle dealing with mitigating or eliminating the IMPACTS on neighbors due to the weed business land use when it came to drafting regulations. This "gun range" does not enjoy the gravitas of a vote of the people. I think if we voted, the writting would be on the wall. This "gun range" may not be suitable anywhere in Jefferson County. The correct location for this kind of business is a military base. The right to own and bear arms does not equate to a commercial, paramilitary training compound. Jean 2 jeffbocc I� From: Jean Ball <gnarleydogfarm@gmail.com> # �" Sent: Wednesday, February 07 2018 7:45 PM �= To: jeffbocc• J Ball Gnarle Do Farm J � Y 9 Subject: TRC Hello Commissioners and Staff, The acceptable location for the "gun range" (IF there is one in Jefferson County) is on a commercial or industrially zoned land. Noise, fumes, chemicals, heavy traffic, water use, and environmental impacts all make it clear to me that this land use must be located in a place which will facilitate the unique challenges presented by this complicated and high impact land use. This kind of noise is totally and completely incompatible with the rural character of Quilcene. The impacts to the nearby residents will be unparalleled by anything in the area and devastating to the rural lives of these peace -loving people. Jean cc--?,Ocr/m"� .g -i8` From: Jean Ball <gnarleydogfarm@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2018 7:51 PM To: jeffbocc; J Ball Gnarley Dog Farm Subject: TRC Hello Commissioners and Staff, We have an expectation of tranquility out in rural Jefferson County. We also have an expectation that the local government will understand, support, defend, and honor that promise. We need our government to protect the rights of little guy. We did not seek out this peaceful and harmonious life in the country by accident, we toiled laboriously to achieve it and we expect to be able to maintain it according to the promises we made when we each bought our tranquil lands in Jefferson County. Please defend that promise and do not allow this "gun range" to destroy our lives. Jean ieffbocc From: Julia Mertena Burrows <j.burrows125@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2018 8:05 PM To: jeffbocc ' Cc: membership@JeffersonCountySportsmen.org������iPlarop, � Subject: Written Comments for Ordinance No. 05-1218-17 44 e . RE: Establishing 1 -Year Moratorium for Existing & New Commercial Shooting Facilities and Creates Citizen Review Committee To Develop Regulation Dear Commissioner's I am writing this as part of the written comments period for the Moratorium. Regarding Gun ranges in Jefferson County. I am the Secretary with the Jefferson County Sportsmen Association (JCSA) and feel that you have made a good choice in stepping back from a very volatile situation and using a Citzens Review Committte to develope and assess the needs for further guidelines on shooting ranges in Jefferson County. In attending the Public Hearing on February 5th, I was amazed at the turn out of citizens and the number that were associated with the Tarboo Ridge Coalition, it felt like a very cohesive unit. Jefferson County Sportsmen Association was in attendance as well but was greatly overwhelmed by a group that was well funded and prepared, possible by an out of area "anti -gun" activist group. Also noted during the Hearing is the concerned that the Moratorium was created to stop one specific situation and may eventually cause an individual to lose their livelihood. It is clear, that the group who are in favor of the Moratorium may not understand what this process is, which I see as an attempting to create guidelines for what will happen not necessarily to stop what will be, a very needed training facility. My hopes are also that it is to enhance the already existing process that exist for JCSA and its Licensing. Since I have a vested interest in JCSA my position leans towards no Moratorium but being raised in a rural community and choosing to live in several more in my 59 years there is a realization that something needs to be done. I have seen what growth does to small cities. It is important that our municipalities review and create viable guidelines to help establish growth and still maintain some of the "locals" customs. Thus, the Moratorium is a necessary "evil" to create a future for both growth and retaining already established ideals. But I would hope this is not at the expenses of one small company. My expectation is that the Citzens Review Committte will take the time to create viable definitions that are clear and concise by clarifying not only what is "private", "commercial", and "public" ranges but what are training levels. Are these ranges for personal use, can other people shoot if its private, can a private range charge money, is a commercial range for training or can you be a member, do public ranges charge fees and if public, how does one determine they are legal to use fire arms, who monitors this process with public ranges. Other definitions are what type of shooting "sports" are allowed and what kind of training will be allowed? With use of training will there be multiple levels, how is it determined what level that will be allowed. Can this be further defined for law enforcement training? What levels will be acceptable for training law enforcement, hands on training real style environments, qualification training in target style shooting. Is para -military a training style verses stand and shoot at a target. What percentage of these activities will be allowed for training. 1 Many of the definitions will help determine how the process will continue and give the public terminology to speak about. Will this process change use of the existing License for JCSA will it be compromised by this process? Currently our range is being used for recreational shooting but over the last three months it has seen increased usage by law enforcement groups which has caused additional noise and traffic for our club. JCSA currently is Licensed to allow all "local" law enforcement to train, which includes; Port Townsend Police, Jefferson County Sheriffs, Border Patrol, State Patrol, Coast Guard, and some other military agencies. The range is closed on Mondays to facilitate these various law enforcement groups. Most of these groups until recently used another range, now they predominately use JCSA and we have found that they need to schedule other days other than Monday due to the demands, which has put a higher number of guns being fired from the range. Added to this JCSA is experiencing encroachment from new homes being built and out of area people moving to the area that are not familiar with rural living, much less a well-established Gun Range near their homes. There is a need for a second range in Jefferson County to support the training and qualification of law enforcement officers as well as those military personnel that need special training closer to their home bases. There is a cost saving that having this second range gives municipalities, state and county, as well as federal agencies. The training they need is not the type of training that requires them to stand in front of a target and shoot a small caliber hand gun. The training they need is simulated hands on experience that is monitored. JCSA is was not established to perform this kind of training and in its Licenses does not allow it. JCSA can only be used for training up to a point and then it is necessary to have the training done elsewhere. Lastly, I will address the Environmental issues that were brought up regarding ranges. I can not speak to the disruption of earth and creation of the physical grounds since I was not there when the Corp of Engineers designed JCSA in 1962. 1 do know that through the Licensing process that has been established for JCSA our environmental standards are very high and we have not been out of compliance with Lead or other contaminates, we have a program in place to monitor and maintain the standards that the county has requested of our organization. Upon the last measurement of materials onsite we were well within the EPA's standards and the guidelines of the county. Our ground water was tested and was within the EPA and county requirements. As for the "noise" that is generated from a "gun range" it is the one thing that we have no control over and should not be held accountable for, noise is part of firing a gun, it makes noise. JCSA does have shortened hours as they relate to the Licensing we open at 9 am and shut down at dark (or in the summer at 8 pm), we are courteous of the surrounding homes and do post our extra shooting when it is possible. The range is monitor closely with a fulltime caretaker and a Range -master. Simple put JCSA has a very clear and committed approach to our environmental health and our neighbors. In summary, we need a second range and we need to have it be a broader training facility than currently existed for our local law enforcement usage at JCSA, as well, it will give the county the opportunity to have a backup facility for future use when encroachment takes away the use of JCSA. There should also be training available to outside sources it will add to the local economy. We also need clear and definitive definitions to create the guidelines to which a process can be created that will not diminish the existing Gun Range. JCSA is a viable part of this community and will continue to be if the guidelines that are established do not change the fundamental and current usage of the JCSA Range. Yours truly - Julia Mertena Towne 'effbocc From: William Power <billinda87@centurylink.net> Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2018 9:52 PM To: jeffboccr r �„ a Subject: THE PROPOSED GUN RANGE Mr. Sullivan, Ms. Kler and Ms. Dean, I am writing in opposition to the proposed gun range and training facility on Tarboo Ridge, between Center Road and Dabob Road. This pristine and quiet area has recently been invaded by the sounds of rapid-fire high-caliber ammunition, and helicopters delivering clients. I have grave concerns about the incompatible land use, increased local traffic, spread of combat noise, stray bullets, potential for lead poisoning of local waterways, closeness of high-powered weaponry, and the negative impact of this facility on raptors and prey in the Tarboo area, which has been so carefully restored to provide habitat in previously protected forest lands adjacent to rural pastures and farms, and I ask that you do everything in your power to prevent this militarization of our woodlands. Thank you. Sincerely, William Power 775 Rhododendron Drive Quilcene, WA 98376 (360) 765-0196 jeffbocc From: Barbara Stahler <barbarastahler@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2018 10:20 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Opposition to Gun Range on Tarboo Ridge, Dear Jeff, This email is meant to reach Jefferson County Commissioners David Sullivan, Kathleen Kler and Kate Dean. I'd like them all to know that I am opposed to allowing outdoor membership -based gun range and trainning facility on Tarboo Ridge, between Center Road and Dabob Road. This pristine and quiet area has recently been invaded by the sounds of rapid-fire high caliber ammunition, and helicopters delivering clients. As a property owner and tax -payer in this area -part of pristine Dabob Bay -I am OPPOSED to having a gun range, the sound of shooting, possible stray bullets, and everything that goes with it -to be allowed in this area. Please make sure the 3 Commissioners know of my opposition. This type of use destroys the peacefulness and pristine quality of the area. Thank you for considering my request. Barbara A. Stahler 422 Beach Drive Quilcene, WA 206 409 3719 C (- .30(c f K4 jeffbocc From: Sent: To: Subject: To whom it may concern, Juraj Hlavac <jurajh@gmail.com> 1, Wednesday, February 07, 2018 10:37 PM rn�. jeffbocc = . Appeal against the proposed gun range on Tarboo Ridge I am a Dabob Bay resident and I'm writing to you to appeal against the proposed gun range on Tarboo Ridge. As you are no doubt aware, Tarboo Ridge and the nearby Dabob Bay are pristine and sensitive ecological areas of the Olympic Peninsula that provide not only tranquility to its peaceful residents but also necessary protective habitat to many land and marine species. To turn this unique preserve into a militarized gun range is, frankly, irresponsible; and not just to the current generations but the many generations to come in the future. Kate Dean, David Sullivan, and Kathleen Kler - I appeal to your duty as county commissioners as well as you sensibility as human beings who have the courage to stand up against profits, destruction, and violence to strongly oppose this proposed gun range madness. Surely, there are more productive projects that we, as a community, could sink our teeth into. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely yours, Juraj Hlavac C - SCC C �-�'(d jeffbocc c � From: Karen Gale <karengale.aloft@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2018 11:53 PMS q„ To: jeffbocc Subject: Opposition to the Tarboo Area Gun Range ••" . ,, Dear Mr. Sullivan, Ms. Kler and Ms. Dean, I remain opposed and appalled by the proposal, and start, of the new outdoor membership -based gun range and training facility on Tarboo Ridge. The invasion of this pristine and quiet area by the sounds of rapid-fire high caliber ammunition discharge is physically and emotionally disturbing to our local families, and a detriment to the wellbeing of local pets, livestock and wildlife. The sounds of helicopters delivering clients is widespread, as they make their approaches from all directions. Their impact would shatter the silence of Dabob Bay, Hood Canal, and environs, as we hear the approach of every helicopter for such a long time, from such a far distance, and then the retreat as they pass. The echoes between the land forms linger, reverberating, and remind you that there will be a second journey, as they leave. I further disagree with sales of assault weapons and munition sales which are part of the business plan for this facility. These types of activities are best conducted in northwestern Utah desert country, along with the other military proving grounds. There one can see the ingress and egress of the buyers and sellers, and they are not proximate to an international airport and seaport. The attempted use of the Port Angeles entry to our country for terrorism 15 years ago should be warning enough. Setting up such a range with munitions sales so close to the airport and seaport in Port Townsend, and the not so distant ports of Port Angeles, is a magnet for potential trouble, and a real soft target for those who might wish to start an insurrection. Who would be there to stop them from taking over the facility and munitions? In time? Remember, there are only THREE deputies on duty throughout the county at any one time. How hard would it be to set up a distraction in Forks and Sequim, and deploy the deputies away from Tarboo? Along with the Tarboo Ridge Coalition, I am in opposition to this militarization of our woodlands. I agree with the Coalition's motto: KEEP THE PEACE. I support the moratorium that has been temporarily imposed, and encourage that existing appropriate land use rules be applied. The use of these lands for this function is not correct, and does not fit with the underlying zoning. The moratorium should end with a denial of this use of our forest lands. How recently we all paid to conserve the Dabob Road corridor/valley, and restore the habitat. Our county's youth and adults invested time and energy to plant the Tarboo area with native plants, installed trunks of trees for raptors to perch in, and put the waterways back to their original configurations. Just this year we are finally seeing that area teeming with the life that was envisioned, in the environment that the kids helped to create. It is unseemly for our county to now accept a completely contradictory and incompatible land use for the flight and feeding and breeding zone of those same raptors and prey! Factor in the imposition of the noise of helicopters and gunfire upon the wellbeing of the domestic animals, and nervous systems of the residents, and it is unconscionable. Have you ever lived next to a neighbor with a barking dog? Multiply that exponentially and you still won't imagine enough harm to the serenity we live here to experience. There is no relaxation in a war zone, whether pretend or real, as this gun range would become. The intent is not to attract local hunters to plink at targets once in a while. This is an escalation of the previous facility's activities which caused grievous harm to so many. The membership dues of this gun range are not "inclusive" for most local residents. This facility is aiming to serve "outsiders" who could just as well afford a ticket paid in advance to Utah, as a helicopter fare to our little piece of paradise, into which we have invested all that our hands, hearts and savings could create. There are much more appropriate ways to boost our county's economy, that do not so tremendously detract from the quality of life of our neighborhoods ... be they ever so distant from one another. We are here for the expanses of quiet, and to be kind to our neighbors, not to embrace men with guns to-ing and fro-ing on our country roads and through our skies. I have watched the proponent's activities for many years. He does not operate within the boundaries of the rules. He has little respect for his community's needs or concerns. I fear that he will overstep again, and what will next be lost will be impossible to return ... some life, or even our liberty, should his clients, who could be anybody from anywhere, use this facility improperly. I ask you to vote with the heart of your community and ours. Jefferson County is already inundated with men with guns ... police, sheriff & deputies, Border Patrol, Coast Guard, Navy, Fish & Wildlife, armored cars for the banks and stores, private security guards, and all. We do not need more armed presence in our community. It sets up a siege mentality, which is not a healthy state of mind. Enough is enough. Please choose the path to peace on earth, and good will towards all humankind. We are a county with other far mote important battles to face, like affordable housing and infrastructural needs. Please do not get tangled up in this game of intrigue and the devastation of a rural community. Sincerely and respectfully, Karen Gale From: Suzy Titcomb <stitcomb2@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2018 5:27 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Peace NOT violence Dear Jefferson County Commissioners - It baffles me that I need to write my gov. representatives to request that we not allow an outdoor gun range and training facility In our beautiful, tranquil Dabob area. Do we not have enough violence in the world without needing to create more? I have found dozens of websites with factual information regarding gun -related violence but I will simply provide one reliable source. Please use your common sense to keep the peace and not allow such an absurd facility to even be considered. The Gun Violence Archive is an online archive of gun violence incidents collected from over 2,500 media, law enforcement, government and commercial sources daily in an effort to provide near -real time data about the results of gun violence. GVA in an independent data collection and research group with no affiliation with any advocacy organization. Mission Statement Gun Violence Archive (GVA) is a not for profit corporation formed in 2013 to provide online public access to accurate information about gun -related violence in the United States. GVA will collect and check for accuracy, comprehensive information about gun -related violence in the U.S. and then post and disseminate it online, primarily if not exclusively on this website and summary ledgers at www.facebook.com/gunviolencearchive. Gun Violence Archive (GVA) is a not for profit corporation formed in 2013 to provide free online public access to accurate information about gun -related violence in the United States. GVA will collect and check for accuracy, comprehensive information about gun -related violence in the U.S. and then post and disseminate it online. GUN VIOLENCE 2018 1 Total Number of Incidents 5.686 Number of Deaths1 Number of Injuries1 2,758 Number of Children (age 0-11) Killed or Injured1 62 Number of Teens (age 12-17) Killed or Intured1 287 Mass Shooting2 26 Officer Involved Incident Officer Shot or Killed2 31 Officer Involved Incident Subject -Suspect Shot or Killed2 252 Home Invasion2 230 Defensive Use2 159 Unintentional Shootina2 194 Gun violence and crime incidents are collected/validated from 2,500 sources daily - incidents and their source data are found at the website. 1: Actual number of deaths and injuries 2: Number of INCIDENTS reported and verified 22,000 Annual Suicides not included on Daily Summary Numbers on this table reflect a subset of all information collected and will not add to 100% of incidents. Data Validated: February 08, 2018 t FA PI� X Lynn W. Norden 2841 Leland Valley Road W FEB p 8 2018 Quilcene, WA 98376 February 8, 2018 Jefferson County Board of Commissioners: Subiect: Economic Impact of Present and Proposed Shooting Ranges Summary_: The economic impact of the current shooting range operated by the Jefferson County Sportsmen's Association (JCSA) may be hidden day-to-day, but is huge and positive for both the county and the City of Port Townsend. The future impact of the proposed private range at Tarboo Lake will be even larger for communities like Quilcene and Port Hadlock and immensely positive for local businesses. JCSA Shooting Range: The JCSA range is an important economic asset to Port Townsend and surrounding communities because it draws visitors who are members of the JCSA year-round, six days a week from three local counties, particularly since Kitsap County is regulating shooting ranges out of existence. These members of JCSA from other counties on weekdays come to Port Townsend multiple times each month. On most weekends of the year the JCSA hosts competitions that draw participants from all over Western Washington. It is unlikely that these regular visitors to the range from nearby counties would be visiting Port Townsend otherwise, and often they bring their families who spend time (and money) in downtown Port Townsend. Many of the weekend competitors bring their families as well and stay in Port Townsend overnight. The day-to-day impact of all these visits to Port Townsend may be barely visible, but because it is year-round, the impact adds up to a huge amount. This impact is vastly larger than all of the weekend summertime small cruise ship visits combined. At one time, marine recreational fisheries were key to bringing visitors to our area on a repeat basis, but with the elimination of marine recreational fisheries, the JCSA shooting range is an asset that must be kept undisturbed, and the economic impact enhanced with seemingly small things such as posting restaurant menus on bulletin boards at the range. Proposed Tarboo Lake Range: The proposed private range on 40 acres at the north end of Tarboo Lake will have an even more significant, positive economic impact on the local rural economy. This range will specialize in training military, law enforcement, and civilians on the use of multiple firearms. It may also allow the public (by membership) to use its spectacular facility unique to the Pacific Northwest. This Tarboo facility will be similar to a private facility in Pahrump, Nevada, that hosts thousands of visitors every year, and the Humboldt County, Nevada facility in Winnemucca, Nevada. Both of these Nevada facilities have been huge economic assets to their communities and counties drawing visitors not only from surrounding states, but multiple countries for week-long visits. The construction of the Tarboo Lake facility will result in hundreds (if not thousands) of additional meals being served at each of the nearby restaurants such as the Twana Road House, the Timberhouse, the Chimacum Cafe, Halibut & Scampi's Restaurant, etc. Since the training conducted will be multiple -day, not all the trainees will choose to camp or sleep in bunkhouses, but will stay in Port Townsend with their families. Banquet facilities will also be needed locally. I attend and officiate at an event each year at the the Humboldt County Range in Winnemucca, Nevada, which requires a 1,500 mile round trip and five nights in town. Local motels compete with rates for our event business and restaurants "roll out the red carpet" as well. Our event has attendees from seven states. Humboldt County Commissioners attend our events to welcome us and even occasionally compete to affirm our value to the local economy. Concerns about noise levels are unfounded. The nearest structure of any kind to the Tarboo Lake facility in any direction is 1.39 miles away on Center Road (according to Google satellite photos), and the sound has to cross two ridges and two drainages. It not physically possible for significant gunfire noise to cross that terrain. The nearest Eaglemount structure to the north is 2.5 miles away (not 1.5 miles as one person said at the February 5 hearing!), including one ridge plus one drainage away. With that distance and the type of terrain plus vegetation, the safety "rumble strips" on Highway 104 are already far noisier to Eaglemount residents than any gunfire noise, if there is any at all carrying that distance. Suggestion for Tarboo facility: Any realistic noise tests with decibel meters should be held at least 1.3 miles away from the proposed facility. Sincerely, Lynn W. (Ward) Norden C( o'effbocc t From: Jean Ball <gnarleydogfarm@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2018 2:49 PM To: jeffbocc; J Ball Gnarley Dog Farm; Philip Morly E IN RFC, Sub'ect. Fwd. TRC ORD 1 Hello Mr Morley, I sent this email and it bounced. Maybe I have overloaded your email with frequent comments? Haha! Kind regards, Jean Forwarded message: Hello Commissioners and Staff, I am very concerned about my property value should Jefferson County allow this "gun range" to be built near my home. I spent the last several years building my business at home so I can work at home which means that both my home and my employment depend upon this location. Nobody can say that property values near nusiance noise wont be guaranteed to plummet. In fact, it is a well know fact that this is a foregone conclusion. If this "gun range" is allowed to be located near homes, the business owner should be made to buy the property of everyone in the area who wants to leave. I think 300% of fair market value is not unreasonable for the burden. Otherwise, I think the county is on the hook for the loss of property value if they allow this disruptive land use. Jean X -d fit HEariG From: Jean Ball <gnarleydogfarm@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2018 2:20 PM To: J Ball Gnarley Dog Farm; jeffbocc Subject: TRC Hello Commissioners and Staff, I am very concerned about my property value should Jefferson County allow this "gun range" to be built near my home. I spent the last several years building my business at home so I can work at home which means that both my home and my employment depend upon this location. Nobody can say that property values near nusiance noise wont be guaranteed to plummet. In fact, it is a well know fact that this is a foregone conclusion. If this "gun range" is allowed to be located near homes, the business owner should be made to buy the property of everyone in the area who wants to leave. I think 300% of fair market value is not unreasonable for the burden. Otherwise, I think the county is on the hook for the loss of property value if they allow this disruptive land use. Jean cc.-- a�u ,.j417 From: Dianne <dcabler@embargmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2018 4:00 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Letters in opposition to the proposed high-intensity gun range on Tarboo Ridge To the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners: My name is Dianne Cabler and I live at 997 Old Tarboo Rd. I am a member of the Tarboo Ridge Coalition who oppose the gun range proposed for the area near Tarboo Lake. My husband and I live less than 2 miles (as the crow flies) from this location. We have owned our farm for over 25 years. We have invested not only money, but time and lots of work in establishing a home for ourselves and our animals. We live here because it is beautiful, quiet, pristine and inspiring as well as just good for the soul. The proposed gun range will not only disrupt this life we have, but do it on a scale that makes it impossible to continue describing it as I have. We have many neighbors who also live here for the very same reasons. Many have their own home businesses, based upon and dependent upon this lifestyle. Many are veterans and need the peace and quiet that our area provides for their well being. You have heard many of them speak passionately over the past months. We were here first and moved here for the way it is now, not the way it will be if this gun range becomes a reality. There are lots of gun ranges and training facilities available in Washington for those looking for a place to shoot. A gun range would be extremely disruptive and a constant reminder that we as residents of the area are subjected to outside elements that are in total disharmony to the life of the people, domestic animals and wildlife. I'm sure not one of those people who want this gun range would want it in their backyards or anywhere near where they live. They will come and shoot all day and then go home to their quiet solitudes for however long. We, on the other hand, will be exposed to it day after day, week after week, year after year and cannot escape. We are home. But it will no longer be recognizable as the place we once knew. Thank you for your attention and diligence in addressing this very important issue. Sincerely, Dianne Cabler To the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners: My wife Dianne Cabler stated our concerns well above; please also consider my comments below as a complement to hers: There are many peer reviewed scientific papers describing the ill-effects of non -auditory noise on cardiovascular disease, physiological effects, high blood pressure, stress and other factors. Most people will eventually become accustomed to constant noise such as traffic. Academic studies have shown that even this type of noise has ill-effects on everyone from children to older adults. The random impact noise of the proposed high-intensity gun range would be far worse. You never know when the impact is coming, only that you will never be rid of its unrelenting randomness. Given that a gentle nudge is soft compared to high-intensity impact noise, I will try to put this in perspective. Imagine you are reading a good book or watching your favorite video. There is a person close to you who randomly nudges you just enough to disturb your enjoyment. The person never leaves your personal space so you can sense they are always there and you have no way of knowing when you will be disturbed again. How would this affect your life's enjoyment, your mental and physical health? In Britain they feel noise is important enough to have passed a "Noise Act" which gives local authorities the power to confiscate noisy equipment and fine people. I implore you to please use all regulatory tools at your disposal to protect our community from the proposed high-intensity gun range with helicopter pads. Sincerely, Ed Cabler From: Jean Ball <gnarleydogfarm@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2018 3:15 PM To: J Ball Gnarley Dog Farm;jeffbocc Subject: TRC Hello Commissioners and Staff, This proposed "gun range" is a terrible idea whose time must not come to pass as it is currently intended. The effects of the impacts generated by this business proposal would certainly destroy a thriving community for the commercial gain of a single business owner. This business threatens to destroy our way of life with commercial grade noise, environmental pollutions, heavy traffic, plummeting property values, devastation of wildlife habitat for miles around, destruction of recreational and therapeutic values of Tarboo Lake, utter disregard of habitat conservation efforts downstream, etc. Jean jeffbocc ►may From: Rick Titcomb <rt92050@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2018 2:38 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: opposition to gun range To: Jefferson County Commissioners (David Sullivan, Kathleen Kler and Kate Dean) I am writing to express my support for the current moratorium on the gun range and training facility. I would also encourage you not to approve an operating permit for the facility. I believe it is an incompatible use of the land, a danger to the surrounding community, unnecessary due to the myriad other possible shooting venues available, a source for noise pollution, a negative impact on nearby wildlife, and directly opposite to the peace and serenity I sought and found when I purchased my property on Dabob Bay in 1991. Thank you for your consideration. Rick Titcomb 1 t &Y a &( � HEARING REC •From: Nerreca <nerreca@aol.com> Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2018 1:11 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: The only solution to gun faciity is a closed facility. When the rules and laws were written no one imagined a big military/commercial range firing semi- and automatic weapons by multiple shooters. These guns are bigger and larger and anyone thought civilians would be using. The laws are outdated. There is a big difference saying it is ok to fire guns when you are thinking it will be occasional target practice with a 22 or sighting a rifle in for hunting compared to saying it is ok to fire these big loud weapons ALL DAY. Not to mention car explosions and danger of fires. You job is indeed hard but please find a way to not allow this facility unless it is enclosed. Thank you, Nancy Erreca C 0 'effbocc From: Jean Ball <gnarleydogfarm@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2018 2:10 PM To: J Ball Gnarley Dog Farm; jeffbocc Subject: TRC Hello Commissioners and Staff, Don't we have the ability in Jefferson County to safeguard the peoples' expectation of rural life drafted within the County Code? Doesn't it say somewhere that land use not specifically allowed shall be disallowed? It should say such things, if it does not. How else can we protect ourselves? This is not an innocuous land use issue question, this is a catastrophic and highly impactful land use issue. What will be next? Net pens? Uranium mines? Fracking? Are those specific land uses clearly prohibited in Jefferson County? Shouldn't they be? Do you know that commercial hog farmers get about 4,000 hogs on a single acre? Do you think that would be welcomed in JeffCo? It doesn't say we can't do that here. 20,000 hogs on 5 acres in the hot sun, mmmmmm. Commercial chicken farms house 150,000 hens in single building. 50 hens produce 2.5 tons of manure per year so 150,000 produce 7500 tons per year and several of those buildings can fit on a parcel. No aroma is more offensive to the nose than a chicken turd! Just a whiff of a single chicken turd will drive you mad. Can you imagine the environmental damages from a beef feed lot here? There are many potentially incompatible land uses in JeffCo. Not every request for land use will be acceptable here. I think this "gun range" is one of those times. Jean C( -:-:30c( f r�} a -g I � e � a From: dwvidmar@aol.com Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2018 12:37 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Gun range To Whom It May Concern: I am opposed to the proposed gun range for reasons of noise and lead pollution. The United States Forest Service, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie Forest has had experience with lead pollution where the gun range owners just walked away and now it's everybody's expense to deal with it. Sincerely, Dennis Vidmar 104 Turnagain Lane Jefferson Co. P L tra / V Orr N w 9jar.¢" effbocc �' .h f From: Cheryl Halverson <tarboochi@msn.com> Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2018 12:27 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: moratorium input February 8, 2018 I support the moratorium for the reasons expressed at Monday's meeting. Additional thoughts: Did Mr. D'Amico believe that he could proceed with a project of this magnitude without the input of the people most affected? Did he not consider the opposition he would face before spending the time and money he claims to have spent? Would a "good neighbor" spring a monstrosity on a community as a fait accompli? D'Amico's assertion that property values were not affected by Fort Discovery is not credible. All property values have increased in the last thirty years. Waterfront property will always have value regardless of neighboring businesses. Tarboo valley cannot be compared to Discovery Bay. We sought property in Port Townsend twenty-three years ago. I found the perfect house... until I heard gunfire from the nearby gun club. That was a deal breaker. A current resident of that area claims his property has lost half of its value since gunfire at the gun club has increased in intensity. We chose Tarboo Valley because it is quiet and unspoiled. D'Amico's investment should not be considered in this issue. It is nothing compared to investments, public and private, made to protect Tarboo and Snow Lakes, the creeks and bays and Hood Canal. As for D'Amico's promises, please allow the history of litigation over Fort Discovery to be considered in decisions regarding this project. I don't buy the assertion that this facility would stop people from "shooting up the woods." They will have no reason to pay required fees and submit to a background check, when there is a vast area to use at no cost to them. Poachers may well be emboldened and aided by the noise from the facility. Lastly, D'Amico may have been in Jefferson County first, but at Tarboo, we were here first! Sincerely, Cheryl Halverson 8081 Center Rd. Quilcene Cc:&u1Cta�S�l� jeffbocc 4._. d .e -_ . ; ._z b . From: 1oAnna Klein <joannansk@outlook.com> Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2018 12:18 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Tarboo Ridge gun facility Dear Commissioners David Sullivan, Kathleen Kler, and Kate Dean, I read with alarm that a gun facility is being planned for Tarboo Ridge. We live on Dabob Bay and travel Dabob Road to get to Chimacum and Hadlock for shopping. We have watched dedicated volunteers spend thousands of hours planting trees and clearing brush to free Tarboo Creek for salmon. I strongly urge you to stop this facility from being built in this pristine area. Thank you-- JoAnna Klein 360-301-4386 1 cc -- 130 (( rcc4 - g-►( a 'v From: Greg home <gregelkl@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2018 11:42 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Proposed gun range: Opposed We are located on the Coyle peninsula and we are opposed to this proposal which runs in stark contrast to the peaceful conservation and wildlife nature of this area. Thank you, Greg Elkerton From: Sheila Hull <sheilahull66@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2018 11:40 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Taboo Ridge Gun Range Members of the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners: I would like to voice my opposition to the proposed Cedar Hills Recreational Area at Tarboo Ridge. According to an article in the November 29, 2017 issue of the Port Townsend Leader, this facility includes two helipads, bunkhouses, restrooms with showers, wells and a septic system, plus hook-ups for 10 RV's. Clearly this facility is not intended as a place for residents of East Jefferson County to shoot, but rather intended to attract gun enthusiasts from counties with stricter restrictions on outdoor shooting, especially from King County. How will this facility benefit residents of Jefferson County? There is already a outdoor gun range outside of Port Townsend where my husband and son shoot. An annual membership is only $50. How much will the owner of the Cedar Hills facility charge for daily use? How many in Jefferson County will use it? As a resident of the Toandos Peninsula for more than a decade, I must drive on Dabob and Center Roads to reach Quilcene, Hadlock and Port Townsend. I pass by the land being restored by the Nature Conservancy along Tarboo Creek. I have enjoyed watching the changes from farmland to nature preserve. Not only is the Nature Conservancy restoring the creek itself to make it more attractive to wild salmon, but they have also made a special effort to attract large raptors. Almost every time I drive on Dabob Rd, I see hawks or eagles overhead. What will happen to these threatened birds with helicopters flying in the air and landing only a few miles away? I urge you to permanently deny the permit for the Cedar Hills facility. Thank you. Sheila Hull 551 Donald Road Quilcene rC- ,/-, Ise. 11-�'-I From: SK Potter <sk-potter@comcast.net> Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2018 11:16 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Moratorium d'Amico gun range and para -military training center Dear Commissioners, As a property owner of 1410 Toandos Road I am writing in support of a 1 -year Moratorium on the pre - application document Mr. D'Amico has filed for his 40A property adjacent to Tarboo Lake. I am strongly opposed to the proposed use of this site. It is not compatible with the surrounding environmental, agricultural, forestry, and residential values of the area because of the damage it would cause to the environment from lead poisoning; risk to public safety from stray bullets and the negative impact that dawn to dusk noise from semi automatic weapons firing, explosions and helicopter landings would have on public health, businesses, property values and residential quality of life. Approving a 1 -year moratorium will allow Jefferson County time to evaluate and develop a gun range policy that reflects the best interest of all the citizens of Jefferson County. Sincerely, Sarah Potter 1410 Toandos Rd Quilcene, WA s ('C�-�O(( r N R 4r d jeffbocc From: Jacqueline Gardner <jacquelinegardner50@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2018 10:37 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Tarboo Ridge Shooting Range Commissioners, please do not allow this facility to be propagated on this pristine rural area. Jefferson County has a shooting range on Gun Club Rd. Let that suffice for target practice. Most of the nearby Toandos Peninsula is designation No Shooting area precisely to avoid the noise, pollution and danger posed by firearm discharges. Too much effort has gone into preserving the Tarboo Creek watersheds to have it all destroyed by this ill-advised enterprise. Please keep us rural and clean. Jackie Gardner 136 Gereaux Lane Quilcene Cl jeffbocc am _ From: Jean Ball <gnarleydogfarm@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2018 10:32 AM To: J Ball Gnarley Dog Farm; jeffbocc Subject: TRC Hello Commissioners and Staff, 40 acres is nowhere near a realistic parcel size for this activity. This is a delusional proposal. No, seriously, this must be a bad joke. 40 acres is a tiny parcel for this activity. I live about 10,000 feet away from this 40 acres and a tiny, low powered .22 bullet could get to my farm from that 40 acres. How many .22 bullets do you think those people will be blasting off? My guess would be very close to none. I think the real attraction will be high powered firearms and automatic weapons. Bullets from those high powered guns can not only reach my farm, but they can continue on for 4 more miles. Is 40 acres anywhere near large enough? If this land was in a geographical bowl (like Black Point Kettles), then ok, but it is not. I think an indoor firing range is a terrific idea and should be built in an industrially zoned location. I don't care if that location is in Jefferson County or not. We have enough access to gun ranges in this area already but we could use the economic development an indoor range would bring. Jean P � � c( C 7 1 From: Leslie Hoge <leslie@hogedesign.biz> Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2018 10:23 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Proposed gun range on Tarboo Ridge Hello, We have a house on the Toandos peninsula and have strong objections to this proposed gun range. This range is wrong for so many reasons. First, this use violates our zoning and land use codes. Second, there are few pristine areas of relative quiet and those of us in the community work hard to preserve that. Having gunfire throughout the day is disruptive and counter to all the efforts of residents (and agencies like the DNR) to preserve this area. Sounds travel far around here. Third, consider the jeopardy to the animals and their carefully restored habitat, potential lead pollution, stray bullets, increased commercial -type traffic in a rural community. How is any of that good, appropriate, compliant with zoning, or wanted by the majority for the area? Please don't violate the rights and quality of life for thousands of residents to support a profit -based business that will support only a few people. Thank you, Leslie Hoge cc':�Occ A g'� 'I � From: Roger Sorensen <4rogersorensen@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2018 10:21 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Shooting Range Moritorium Good Morning, W. f r Thank you for the opportunity to express my perspective on shooting ranges. I am a gun owner and use them strictly for pursuing a passion for hunting. I have attempted to use the range in PT with limited success due primarily to the business model employed by owners. I believe that there is a definite need for legitimate shooting ranges as is evidenced by the proliferation of shooting activities and associated trash that I have encountered in local managed state and federal lands. I live in Quilcene and a neighbor opened a home business gun shop. Associated with this activity is the operation of a shooting range feature on lands zoned residential. I have discussed this County Development staff and have been told that they lack a compliance officer and that I should talk with the neighbor. This business also places advertisement signs on public roads. These are examples of a public need for public access for shooting features. I encourage you to make a data based decision thus avoiding emotionalism associated with legitimate discharge of fire arms. There are numerous examples of world class shooting ranges operating within the city limits of metropolitan areas. The best example would be the Ben Avery shooting Range in Phoenix. Abatement processes are in place addressing all perceived dangers associated with weapon discharge. Roger Sorensen 2170 E Quilcene Road 541-460-3430 (r.- -30ccfc f� a S i� jeffbocc From: Jean Ball <gnarleydogfarm@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2018 10:21 AM To: 1 Ball Gnarley Dog Farm; jeffbocc Subject: TRC Good Day Commissioners and Staff, The Washington State Noise Control Act has some relevant things to say about our issue in Quil. RCW 70.107 addresses both noise as a whole and recreational shooting exemptions. 70.107.010 Purpose. The legislature finds that inadequately controlled noise adversely affects the health, safety and welfare of the people, the value of property, and the quality of the environment. Antinoise measures of the past have not adequately protected against the invasion of these interests by noise. There is a need, therefore, for an expansion of efforts statewide directed toward the abatement and control of noise, considering the social and economic impact upon the community and the state. couln't agree more. There is great wisdom to be found in the tomes of our state's laws. A government by, for and of the people, right? This RCW is precisely the sort of law that citizens appreciate and support. This law is a protection of the people against the tyranny of the minority. It is the protections against the IMPACTS imposed upon the people which will become the legacies of our public servants. The First Amendment in the Bill of Rights grants free speech but it does not shield usurpers who abuse the protections. Our Noise Control Act specifies an exemptions OR limited regulations for "recreational shooting" and the authority given to local government in consideration of policies. 70.107.080 Exemptions. The department shall, in the exercise of rule-making power under this chapter, provide exemptions or specially limited regulations relating to recreational shooting and emergency or law enforcement equipment where appropriate in the interests of public safety. The department in the development of rules under this chapter, shall consult and take into consideration the land use policies and programs of local government. That says "recreational shooting" may be subjected to exemptions OR limited regulations in the interest of public safety. It also says local government has some weight to determine what that means. The citizens of Jefferson County need our elected representatives to stand firm against the adverse effects of noise on the health, safety and welfare of the people, the property values and environmental quality. Jean cc - 3K( ( A a- Y - ieffbocc From: DOUGLAS FRECHIN <douglasfrechin@comcast.r�e Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2018 9:47 AM To: jeffbocc "" �—�ofat ak , w Cc: Friends and Family; Karen Frechin Subject: Gun range As a long time property owners on the Peninsula in the Dabob Cove Community since 1991, 1 want to add my voice to the opposition of the proposed gun range near Tarboo Ridge. I just heard about the public comment period today, February 8, 2018. My main residence is in Edmonds but I currently plan on building in the Dabob Cove Community, but I would have to think twice if this gun range is allowed to progress. Thank you, Douglas and Karen Frechin 7515 181 Place S.W. Edmonds, WA 98026-5545 425-775-2874 C( (C4d--K'-d jeffbocc From: Dawn Powers <dawnpowers7@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2018 9:43 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Tarboo ridge Shooting Range Hello, We own property at approximately Mile 11.5 Coyle Road. zv r� 71 We are not in favor of the shooting range under consideration because of the noise, environmental and congestion issues. We believe it would be better to locate the facility further away from residential development, perhaps on State or County Land. Sincerely, Dawn and Larry Powers c(:�cc (cf� jeffbocc From: Sent: To: Subject: Hello Commissioners, Jan Henry <janishenry2@comcast.net> Thursday, February 08, 2018 9:27 AM jeffbocc Shooting range moratorium P Wrn �1 i w I have loosely followed the proposal to build a military like training facility near Tarboo Lake. Personally I find the idea of such an offensive activity in Jefferson County appalling. But more important than my opinion is the irreversible impact such an activity has in one of the most bucolic and environmentally important areas in our county. Activity within The Tarboo Creek Watershed, in which this area sits, impacts water quality in Dabob Bay where shellfish and returning salmon depend upon continued clean water for survival. Machinery oil and lead based ammunition are only the beginning of a potentially devastating impact on our waters. I board and ride my horse in the Quilcene area and know of numerous young people who are Pony Club and 4-H members. The Quilcene and Chimacum communities are one of the few remaining rural areas with numerous equestrian trails safe for children to explore on their ponies. I shudder to imagine the inevitable and potentially even fatal accidents that can follow a pony's almost certain "spooking" following a blast or loud noise of any kind. To my mind and what appears to be overwhelmingly the mind of others who live and play in the Quilcene and Chimacum communities, such a military style facility must not be permitted. It is definitely a major NUISANCE, in both the legal and commonly used sense. Please impose the moratorium and better yet deny such a facility beyond any moratorium. Janis Henry 2o6-605-1329 Sent from my iPad CC=:,orc(C 3 -�t -( jeffbocc From: Chuck <charles.s eidel@ mail.com> r r Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2018 7:29 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Tarboo gun range Hi, I wanted to state that I am against the proposed gun range for the Tarboo Lake area. I live just off Eaglemount Rd. and hear enough gun activity in our area. I know this facility plans to have more than just guns shooting and thus will be much more disturbing. I am also concerned with the waste generated by the spent bullets and their lead. Again I would suggest activities like this happen on military training grounds. It's also scary to think of the "tourists" this would bring to the area, all with guns and ammo. To me, it's all getting out of control. Hope I didn't take too much of your time. Thank you, Charles Speidel ( (�- f Mt,-? -�f - ( � jeffbocc From: Damian Wright <damianewright@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2018 6:05 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Gun moratorium ar a ,aim To whom it may concern, I am a Port Townsend resident and I am strongly in favor of the new gun range. I believe without safe places to shoot, People will just go off into the woods and shoot in any old direction. This not only is a safety issue, But the lead you are trying to contain will spread all over our forests. Please lift the moratorium and allow this new gun range to be built. Thank you for your time. Damian E. Wright 360.531.2598 occ N,11r. I � ..._.Z .tr "10 E o From: Kimberly Kinser <kekinser@mac.com> Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2018 5:37 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Gun Range on the Toandos Peninsula To the County Commissioners of Jefferson County, I object to the opening of a gun club on Tarboo Ridge. Kimberly Kinser 81 Wolf Road Quilcene, WA 98376 Typed on this itty bitty screen jeffbocc (C-foq-/C� a f rY From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Commissioners Jim Smith <tarboo@gmail.com> Thursday, February 08, 2018 5:37 PM jeffbocc I Support the Moratorium HEARING RECORD I know you have already heard enough about this subject but one argument that I personally have not heard is this: in my opinion, Joe D'Amico made a bad business decision, one that was ill conceived and, apparently, had no effective due diligence. As someone who has started a number of businesses over the years the one thing that seems blatantly obvious to me is that you have to do your research before you pull the trigger on a location. I have had lease options to buy in the past on the contingency that I can make it work. If I can't make it work I move on and find a place that will work. It appears that Joe had one of these lease options with Jim Worthington but then got evicted from Discovery Bay. It is not hard to imagine that in a panic to find someplace to move all his stuff off the property or for whatever reason, he made a hasty decision and sealed the deal on the Tarboo Property. The fact that this property is at the headwaters for one of the most respected and visible Environmental reclamation projects on the West Coast is indicative to me of how little he understands about this area. My guess is he has had no idea he would run into the resistance he has and the resistance will continue to grow because this is just a terrible idea. It is not the responsibility of Jefferson County to make this work for Joe D'Amico. You win some. You lose some. The outcome for a successful business in based on thorough research and good planning. This proposal has neither. Thanks for paying attention to your constituents, Jim Smith 781 Old Tarboo Rod Quilcene Wa. 98376 jeffbocc From: Jodi Lehman <jodi@olympus.net> Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2018 6:22 PM HEARING To:J effbocc RECORD Subject: moratorium on shooting ranges I support the one-year moratorium on permits for commercial shooting ranges, Ordinance 05-2018-17. There are significant concerns about Mr. D'Amico's proposed range, and they should probably be taken into consideration when looking at a permit application for any proposed commercial range. A partial list of these concerns is disruption due to noise, environmental impacts, safety, tribal rights, and the impact on existing recreational use of the surrounding area. Kitsap County Code Chapter 10.25 appears to me to be an excellent model on which to base Jefferson County regulations. Whether it is part of shooting range regulations or some other part of the permitting process, I also urge you to ensure that any aerial activities also conform to code. Two helicopter pads are part of the plans for the proposed Cedar Hills facility, as far as I know. Aerial activities like commercial balloon rides appear to to prohibited in land zoned Inholding Forest, which I believe is the zoning for the proposed project. I don't know whether helicopter overflights, landings, and take -offs are likewise prohibited, but I ask that you thoroughly check the whatever laws, regulations, and court rulings are applicable and add appropriate county regulations if necessary. I also support the proposal to amend the moratorium to allow for noise testing at proposed gun ranges. I live about 4 miles from Tarboo Lake, and I'd be very interested in getting actual data on, and possibly hearing for myself, the noise that might be generated by the range. Thank you. Jodi Lehman Horse Tales Books C(_ jeffbocc From: Cindy Lesh <cindyinquilcene@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2018 6:40 PM HEARING�EC0RD To: jeffbocc Subject: Gun Range on Tarboosh Ridge Dear Commissioners, My name is Joseph Lesh. My wife and I live on the Coyle Road. We moved here zz years ago to find peace and quiet after living in Kingston, where my wife was born and we lived together many years. We left Kingston because of it's rapid growth, ferry traffic and noise, including gun fire. I am a Vietnam Nam Veteran with a 5o% disability from PTSD. Gunshots and helicopters are i of my triggers. That is why we bought these so acres of remote property but even so we have to put up with people occasionally shooting rifles. But high powered automatic weapons? WHY??? In this day and age of school shootings and the Las Vegas massacre why do we as a nation or us as a county want to encourage high powered weapons? Can the financial benefit of this project be great enough for this county to outweigh the negative impact on the land, neighboring properties or the residents including us veterans? I ask each of you, would you want to be startled by sounds of gun shots near your home? I know that each time it happens to me it takes me back to the most terrifying time in my life. I am most strongly against this proposal of a gun range on Tarboo Ridge. Sincerely, Joseph T. Lesh Cynthia L. Lesh Cindy «:�(�fct�Yie From: maryezz@sonic.net Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2018 8:31 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Please support the moratorium That area is a bottleneck in highway access for people who live in Coyle and along the south portion ofThorndyke Road. More traffic there is not a good thing. Sound travels a long distance over water and between hills. A large pristine area would be degraded by the noise and air pollution. If Jefferson County needs such an industry, put it over by Forks and let the vampires deal with it. ;-) Mary Ezzell 13 Mile Marker, Coyle Road ieffbocc (M—) From: Penney <penneymike@olympus.net> ' Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2018 9:16 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Letter in support of moratorium on shooting ranges + February 8, 2os8 Dear Board of Commissioners RECORD This letter is to express our support of the moratorium on shooting ranges in Jefferson County. We feel the moratorium is needed due to the shooting ranges and recreational facility proposed by Joe D'Amico. There are no guidelines or criteria for such a facility and rather than approve something that has consequences on the quality of life of other residents, as well as the environment, the county needs to take this opportunity to set a precedent which is in the interest of most county residents and land use priorities. Our concerns about this particular proposed facility are: • Tarboo Lake (which D'Amico states on his Jefferson County Facebook page he now owns part of) is a traditional recreational site for county residents, open to the public for the purpose of swimming, fishing, and picnicking by families and individuals. The proposed facility seems incompatible with such usage. It has always been our understanding the lake site is maintained by Washington State Fish and Wildlife for use by all state residents. There are noise, safety and pollution concerns to having a gun range next to a family recreation site. • As Jefferson county has grown in population, there is less habitat for wildlife in the county, the Tarboo Lake area is a large area that can support diverse wildlife, from large animals such as bear and cougar, to birds and smaller animals. A gun range is not compatible with maintaining wildlife areas, or corridors. • There are noise pollution considerations which have been addressed in detail by others for nearby property owners, of which there are many. We live 2-3 miles from the site and are very concerned. We now hear gun fire from people shooting hunting rifles regularly on logging roads several miles from us. This shooting punctuates every weekend and evening and causes stress for us, other family members, and pets. The sound from the proposed shooting ranges would be many times this and more distressful. We are also concerned about the history of non-compliance by Joe D'Amico to county regulations asked of him at the site of his previous facility. Reading comments he posts on his Facebook page indicates he can be a person who can either bully or charm, saying what the situation calls for to get what he wants. We are concerned the Board of Commissioners will attempt to negotiate with D'Amico, fearful he will bring a law suit if he does not get what he wants. This is why a moratorium, taking time to establish clear land use guidelines compatible with the values and concerns expressed by others and with county long range planning goals, is critical. These guidelines should, and would, apply to any proposed shooting range. Sincerely, Penney Ewing Hubbard Michael Ewing C-( *q ff �2' qY jeffbocc From: Jodi Lehman <jodi@olympus.net> Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2018 9:17 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: re: moratorium on shooting ranges I forgot to include my address on the previous email. It's as follows: 3671 W Valley Rd Chimacum Jodi Lehman Horse Tales Books H&VING RECORD i3o(( 0- 2- y' (f From: Jean Ball <gnarleydogfarm@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2018 9:28 PM To: J Ball Gnarley Dog Farm; jeffbocc Subject: TRC Hello Commissioners and Staff, In legal terms, we have something called "coming to the nuisance". A nuisance occurs when one land owner engages in conduct which significantly affects, interferes or otherwise negatively impacts another's ability to use and enjoy their own property or which may affect health, safety and welfare. A defense to a nuisance claim by the offending party is that it engaged in the offending activity (the nuisance) before the complaining party arrived and became affected by the activity. For example, defendant has owned and operated a well known music studio for many years. In spite of knowing this, the plaintif f'purchased the property next door knowing that sound would regularly travel and be heard on the adjoining property. (* This paragraph was lifted from the internet, the rest poured outta my head -JB) That is NOT what we have in this situation. We have precisely the opposite to sort out now. We have a nuisance trying to move to us. This is both a public and a private nusiance and it will interfere with several hundred nearby residents as well as inflict harm upon public use of the area, threaten critical areas which have been diligently restored, destroy property values, etc. All the things residents of Jefferson County have fought so hard to protect. This is not an abatable nusiance, one that is temporary or will not cause permanent harm. This nuisance is a "nocumentum damnosum", a nuisance occasioning loss or damage, an injurious nuisance. This business thinks it is perfectly acceptable to impose this nocumentum damnosum upon the local landowners and the environment, I disagree. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. This proposed location is woefully inadequate and the hornet's nest is stirred. Easier paths forward can be found when you are not swimming against the stream. 1 hope swift streams carry this proposal some place where it will fit in better than an ugly duckling, unless it somehow evolves into an indoor firing range. Jean (-` .3oa ( CA- a 7 I � ieffbocc From: john brockhaus <jhbiii@hotmail.com> HEARING Sent: Friday, February 09, 2018 4:50 AMTo: jeffbocc RECORD Subject: proposed gun range Commissioners: Please go no farther with the gun range. As you know, the State of Washington Department of Natural Resources has chosen upper Dabob Bay as a critical area for habitat preservation. The gun activity would be absolutely incompatible with the conservation designation. Choose wisely, please! John Brockhaus, Dabob Bay property owner at Camp Discovery 1 From: christine Llewellyn <info@serendipityfarm.org> Sent: Friday, February 09, 2018 6:53 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Letter on Proposed Gun Range for Submission to all of the commissioners Attachments: Gun Range Letter BOCC.pdf Attached is my letter to the commissioners or any other appropriate people for circulation. Thank you for your assistance on this issue. Let me know if there are any other things I can assist on. Chris Llewellyn 206-708-5621 Jefferson County board Of Commissioners Feb. 8, 2018 Dear Commissioners: i As a neighbor of the Proposed Tarboo Gun Range and as a citizen of Jefferson County I would like to weigh in on this totally unnecessary and unwanted proposal. We in Jefferson County are surrounded on all sides by Military installations. When we hike in the moun- tains or along the coast we hear the roar of military growlers encroaching on our wilderness areas. These areas are sacred trust for not only the pleasure of the American People, but to help provide clean air, clean water as well as sanctuaries for wild animals. When we fish or sail in Hood Canal, another protect- ed waterway we are often told not to pass the military sites and are chased away by fast moving patrol boats. Last year when we sailed along the coast from Port Angeles with mountains and orcas we paral- leled the path of the nuclear sub and its very expensive and ominous entourage. In Quilcene where my organic farm is located we are exposed to a constant barrage of semi and automatic gun fire in the hills behind the farm which pales in comparison to a large complex training center. Our family has worked hard to create something good for our community. Our farm and others like it are protecting clean water, clean air, green spaces, places for people to recreate in clean muscle powered activities. WE are also mak- ing a considerable contribution to county food production and the local rural economy. Historically this is an area of quiet rural businesses. There are ample shooting ranges for people to learn shooting safety and to practice target shooting for hunting in our area. Gun owners and non gun owners live peacefully side by side and respect each others choices to hunt or not to hunt. Farming and restora- tion of streams and waterways is making a substantial gain in our area, is good for local economy, good for the health of our area and essential for the prevention of greenhouse gasses in the world. It is a fact that organic, biodynamic farming coupled with healthy forests and waterways can do more to prevent greenhouse gasses than any other solution. Jefferson County has the opportunity to be a national and world leader in this effort. Serendipity Farm, PO Box 97, 141 Cemetery Road, Quilcene, WA. 98376 206-7078-5621, email: serendipityfarm@bigplanet.com, www.serendipityfarm.org A paramilitary operation the size of the one proposed by Joe D'Amico is contrary to everything good that is happening in this county. Here are some of the problems I see: 1. An operation of this magnitude belongs on a military base or should be at least 2000 acres to protect sur rounding areas. It does not belong at the base of a National Forest, a large timber area or at the headwaters Of a recently protected waterway. 2. There is more population in this area than MR. D'Amico admits. There are established farms, houses Citizens who are enjoying a quiet, clean rural lifestyle. It is one thing when people knowingly build a home next to a gun range, it is totally a different situation when a paramilitary operation inserts itself into an established rural community. In fact I have some friends in that area who just received a building permit for their small farm and will not build until they are sure that the gun range will not happen. They are devastated. 3. The increased noise will be heard for miles around and the amount of lead and other contaminants that will Be put into the ground near a lake and a park is unacceptable. Both high noise and other contaminants are un acceptable for a small and growing rural economy that is based on our natural resources, organic food and wild Places. 4. National Parks and National Forests belong to the people of the United States, and deserve to have quiet rural activities around them like a buffer that support rural businesses. I can guarantee that with the growing Regional population these wild places and farms will be farm more of an economic draw that a Paramilitary Training site. Jefferson County needs to stand its ground on further proliferation of military and paramilitary installations To Protect our quiet, scenic rural economy, to keep our forests for hiking and hunting, mountain biking, timber Lands, waterways for fishing, boating, crabbing etc. 5.We can not be bullied into letting this happen. If we need increased legal help because we are a small county We must reach out to other counties, citizen contributors and legal council to help protect our wild spaces This is not just a Jefferson County Problem. Everyone in the nation has a stake in protecting this wild and Wonderfully unique part of the United States. Jefferson County is a National Treasure and warrants national protection as an endangered species. Thank You for your consideration of this serious National and Local Problem. Sincerely, Christine Llewellyn Owner, Serendipity Farm 206-708-5621 �,r-rrrIrA- 5?_,q-I rrvm: Jean oaii -,ynancyuvyiatni�,Wynian.wni,- Sent: Friday, February 09, 2018 8:16 AM To: J Ball Gnarley Dog Farm; jeffbocc Subject: Drill baby, drill! Hello Commissioners and Staff, This morning on the news I heard about the US Forest Service has agreed to allow an Canadian company to do exploratory drilling in the foothills of Mt St Helens to look for copper, gold and silver. The BLM still needs to decide if they will approve those plans. Maria Cantwell says "Opening the door to drilling at the edge of Mount St Helens is a short-sighted decision that undervalues the important benefits these public spaces offer." This leads me to again ask if we have specifically determined that certain activities or land uses are not compatible in our beloved Jefferson County? I have been watching gold mining shows on TV which are filmed in other parts of the world. NONE of them look like acceptable activities in Jefferson County because the environmental damages are profound and no restoration efforts are made. "Short-sighted" is a term I would apply to an other issue in JeffCo these days.... You know what I am referring to. Jean (C _�W I CAtj - T -f K From: Donald Mazzola <dmazz1952@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, February 09, 2018 9:02 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Cedar Hill Gun Range comments Hello Jefferson County Commissioners, NEARING RFC We are opposed to the proposed Cedar Hill Gun Range. We ask you to deny this permit. The property rights of many homeowners should take precedence over the property rights of a single business. We also ask you to view the current issue as an opportunity to examine the same noise concerns regarding the Jefferson County Sportsmen's Association gun range. We live near Fort Worden on Q Street and can clearly hear the gunfire form our home. In the future, any proposed gun ranges, public or private, (including those which are currently being proposed) should be required to be indoor facilities that have no significant impact on the surrounding environment and guarantee the natural quiet (or, at least, a non -increase in noise levels) in the area. We understand and support the need for our local and state (not military) law enforcement personnel to have access to gun ranges. Requiring environmentally sensitive shooting facilities will in no way significantly affect satisfying this need. The Cedar Hill proposal elevates the overall the issue of gun control, which should really be labeled as the issue of "guns -out -of -control." The time is way past due for a shift in the nation's attitude overall regarding the possession and use of firearms. Sadly, this may never take place. Quitude has long been disappearing. In many places in the country, in the world, natural quiet no longer exists. Quietude is just as much a natural resource as clean water and clean air. The loss of quiet can be caused by a constantly occurring specific loud activity (such as paper mill or Growler flights) or simply cumulative (such as passing garbage truck, leaf blower, barking dog, gun range, power tool and radio). You, as Jefferson County Commissioners, cannot solve the countries addiction to guns and violence. You cannot fix the overall problem of loss of quietude. But you can take steps to protect the citizens of Jefferson County from the escalation of these intrusions into our lives. If you're counting comments, please count these as "2 against." Thank you. Donald Mazzola and Lu Goodrum 543 Q Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 360.344.2946 ieffbocc From: Teresa Sesma Meyers <sonadora57@icloud.com> Sent: Friday, February 09, 2018 9:21 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Gun range proposal Dear Commissioners of Jefferson County: I vehemently oppose the development of a gun range proposed near Center and Dabob Road! Locating the site in a pristine area such as this area is both offensive and in contradiction to policies which protect a fragile eco -environment. A public forum should be provided for all residents who are impacted by the development. I respectfully submit my opposition. Thank You for Your Attention to this matter. Teresa Sesma Meyers Sent from my Phone rn-�oCCf��a'CI'(� From: Michael becinarz <mmeanarzl�WyInan.wlll� Sent: Friday, February 09, 2018 9:24 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Cedar Hill's "Recreational" Shooting facility Moratorium. I am writing today as a concerned and directly affected neighbor of the proposed facility. I AM OPPOSED to the SHOOTING RANGE, and SUPPORT your MORATORIUM. I reside year round at Snow Creek Ranch Community since 1997 my home is at 33 Meadow Ct., Quilcene, WA 98376 about 1.5-1.8 miles WNW of the proposed range by Ft. Discovery. As an avid Sportsman, Hunter, NRA member for most of my life, and avid 2nd Amendment defender one might think I would be a supporter, this is not the case. This operation would continue their demonstrated combative, and failing history of bad -faith in a failing record of complying with the terms of County ordinances and the SCOPE of their operations in that regard. It would merely serve to transfer prior concerns about NOISE, SAFETY, etc. to a different zip code, and I dare say... based upon his proposal, INCREASE the SCOPE and SCALE of his operation and the accompanying noise, and related concerns that go with an operation training para -military, police, and similar operators. Joe D'Amico says the property is zoned Commercial Forest property.. a Gun Range, is not Forest and tree -farm harvesting. You cannot just site a business there without considering impacts to neighboring property owners, Noise, wildlife, environmental, and safety concerns, who were there first, and who purchased their properties based upon the bucolic use of Tree farming and Forest. The fact that he made a purchase, prior to seeking County guidance and blessing using the tactic of "begging forgiveness, instead of asking permission" is on him; not his neighbors, or the county. That he may never be able to use the property for his intended purpose is on him for not making his Land purchase contingent upon obtaining prior county land use approval for his intended use. The fact that he was not forthcoming, relegates him property ownership to income producing forest and tree -farming, just as zoned. My wife and I both support your Moratorium, we oppose ANY allowance of the proposed gun range at this location in the future. There are much better area's in the West end of the County or even Clallam County where this operation would not have the concerns from nearby residences, particularly considering the future growth we can expect at the proposed location vs. the West end prospects. West end locations would likely even welcome this project with open arms. The coming Foot Ferry in Kingston running to Seattle will increase people looking for housing in our area. The growth and lack of affordable housing in the East Sound area will increase those moving West, just as I did 21 years ago. From my home, a foot ferry commute to Downtown Seattle would be only 60 minutes time; half driving to Kingston, half on the foot ferry. It is the same commuting time from my home to Edmonds via ferry, at 60 min as well. IF this Gun range is sited here, there would be endless and increasing concerns for noise, safety, and environmental issues as the Population and growth in the area increase. Sincerely, Michael R. Bednarz Marti E. McKeown 33 Meadow Ct. Quilcene, WA 98376 mrbednarzl@gmail.com Sent from Mail for Windows 10 Cr--�X(O a --q4 From: Andy Rees <andyrees8@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, February 09, 2018 9:32 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Appeal against the proposed gun range on Tarboo Ridge To whom it may concern, w3z I am a Dabob Bay resident and I'm writing to you to appeal against the proposed gun range on Tarboo Ridge. As you are no doubt aware, Tarboo Ridge and the nearby Dabob Bay are pristine and sensitive ecological areas of the Olympic Peninsula that provide not only tranquility to its peaceful residents but also necessary protective habitat to many land and marine species. To turn this unique preserve into a militarized gun range is, irresponsible and will sweepingly pollute this tranquil area with noise, waste and potential harm from this time and forever. Sure fun ranges can come and go but their blight on this area will last for generations. Kate Dean, David Sullivan, and Kathleen Kier - I appeal to your duty as county commissioners as well as you sensibility as human beings who have the courage to stand up against profits, destruction, and violence to strongly oppose this proposed gun range madness. Surely, there are more productive projects that we, as a community, could support. Why not projects that bring peoples and children together instead of glorifying violence and potential accidents? Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Andrew Rees FSentFrom: doug humes <lonesomeslim@yahoo.com> HEARING . Frida Februar 09 2018 9:45 AM '. ORD To: jeffbocc Subject: Ordinance No. 05-1218-17 I support Ordinance No. 05-1218-17 Establishing 1 -Year Moratorium For Existing & New Commercial Shooting Facilities And Creates Citizen Review Committee To Develop Regulations. Doug Humes 340 Eaglemount Rd PT 98368 cc-. *cc [ct q -t From: Roger Sorensen <4rogersorensen@gmail.com>ARS Fr Sent: Friday, February 09 2018 10:02 AM OR) To: jeffbocc Subject: Shooting Range Moritorium It appears to me that County Government declared a short term moratorium in response to application for use permit on land that is within current land use practices for current zoning. If the county moves forward with land use changes , it appears that the county could be liable for "Takings" because of an after the fact restriction. This is maleficence as it causes direct harm.The result is misfeasance as a legal act, improperly applied and plaintive may pursue compensation for loss. Please do not expose this county to unnecessary expense. jeffbocc (q From: Madomost <madomost@gmail.com> Sent: Friday. February09, 2018 10:07 AM HEARING RFr To: jeffbocc Subject: Tarboo Valley Weapons Facility Dear Commissioners: I am in favor of a moratorium on new weapons facilities in Jefferson County. I am also opposed to one specifically next to Tarboo Lake. Tarboo Valley is the jewel of Jefferson County. With its pristine streams and bay enabling crucial salmon habitats to thrive and growing some of the best oysters in the country; to its farms, some of the best in the county. There is much wild and domesticated animal life. Let's not forget too that it is a place of great natural beauty where people hike, fish and boat. To allow a privately operated weapons facility to operate in this area next to a lake where people fish, swim and boat is wrong. There will be noise and lead pollution which could affect the water, animals and plants that make this area so special. Lastly, to allow someone who ignores court orders, builds unpermitted structures and flouts the rules to do so is not advisable. Sincerely, Mado Most 1221 Dabob Post Office Road Quilcene Sent from my iPad C (.30 (rlot a cl--.i( ieffbocc From: Maude Richards <maude.richards@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, February 09, 2018 10:24 AM HEARING RFrop To: jeffbocc .0 Subject: support of shooting range moratorium Dear Commissioners, I wasn't able to attend the meeting about the moratorium on shooting ranges, but I would like to submit this email as signifying my support of the moratorium. My husband and 3 month old live on Eaglemount Rd, and if a large-scale shooting range were to be build in the Tarboo area I believe we would hear the gunshots and would definitely hear any explosions and helicopters associated with the range. The disruptiveness of that sort of noise would drive us out of the area. There are hundreds of people within earshot of the proposed range; I believe the residents of this area should take priority over the potential profits of one business. The proposed project is a poor fit for this area, but beyond that I believe the moratorium would be a useful time to fully consider whether shooting ranges are a good option for Jefferson County, and if so, what scope and scale are appropriate. Thank you for your time, I hope you allow the moratorium to continue as there are obviously heated opinions on all sides that need time and space to be heard. Best, Maude Richards (,:T;� f (�_ e�_ jeffbocc From: Robyn Johnson <johnsrobyn@gmail.com> Sent. Friday, February 09, 2018 10:54 AM 4EARING PFrop t"o To. jeffbocc Subject: Re: Ordinance 05-1218-17 public comment Attachments: Moratorium public comment.docx February 7, 2018 To: Jefferson County Board of Commissioners The Honorable David Sullivan, Chair From: Robyn Johnson, resident of Tarboo Bay, Quilcene Re: Ordinance No. 05-1218-17: An Ordinance Establishing a Moratorium on Commercial Shooting Facilities in Unincorporated Areas of Jefferson County Dear Commissioners: Thank you for the civil, thorough public hearing Monday night. It was reassuring to experience democracy in action. Upon reflection, I have questions regarding assumptions about shooting ranges in Jefferson County. I offer my questions here in the hope that they will be addressed by the Moratorium Committee. e How will the County determine the need for additional shooting ranges in Jefferson County? Must a private individual's want be accommodated? What is the difference between a want and a right? e Why does the discussion about shooting ranges seem to be about where they could be located, vs. whether shooting ranges should be built in Jefferson County at all? e Is it possible to update the existing public shooting range to turn it into an indoor, sound -proof facility? e What should be the classifications of shooting range facilities, given the spectrum from simple target shooting to paramilitary compounds with helicopters, multiple ranges, and more? Is it appropriate to mix military and law enforcement weapons training with recreational gun training? e How many shooting ranges are "enough" for Jefferson County? e Are shooting ranges the best and most optimal use of land vs. agriculture, eco -tourism, scientific uses and other uses of our natural resources that benefit the public? e How could the noise problem be abated by local government under "good neighbor" provisions while not violating state law? e How can conditional use regulations once passed, be enforced? Is it possible to hold the operator responsible for violations by requiring the posting of a bond? Thank you for the opportunity to pose my questions. Robyn Johnson February 7, 2018 To: Jefferson County Board of Commissioners The Honorable David Sullivan, Chair From: Robyn Johnson, resident of Tarboo Bay, Quilcene Re: Ordinance No. 05-1218-17: An Ordinance Establishing a Moratorium on Commercial Shooting Facilities in Unincorporated Areas of Jefferson County Dear Commissioners: Thank you for the civil, thorough public hearing Monday night. It was reassuring to experience democracy in action. Upon reflection, I have questions regarding assumptions about shooting ranges in Jefferson County. I offer my questions here in the hope that they will be addressed by the Moratorium Committee. • How will the County determine the need for additional shooting ranges in Jefferson County? Must a private individual's want be accommodated? What is the difference between a want and a right? • Why does the discussion about shooting ranges seem to be about where they could be located, vs. whether shooting ranges should be built in Jefferson County at all? • Is it possible to update the existing public shooting range to turn it into an indoor, sound- proof facility? • What should be the classifications of shooting range facilities, given the spectrum from simple target shooting to paramilitary compounds with helicopters, multiple ranges, and more? Is it appropriate to mix military and law enforcement weapons training with recreational gun training? • How many shooting ranges are "enough" for Jefferson County? • Are shooting ranges the best and most optimal use of land vs. agriculture, eco -tourism, scientific uses and other uses of our natural resources that benefit the public? • How could the noise problem be abated by local government under "good neighbor" provisions while not violating state law? • How can conditional use regulations once passed, be enforced? Is it possible to hold the operator responsible for violations by requiring the posting of a bond? Thank you for the opportunity to pose my questions. Robyn Johnson effbocc From: Christopher Lenzi <christopher.Ienzi@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, February 09, 2018 11:54 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Opposition to Proposed PMC site on Tarboo Tidge Dear Commissioners, My name is Christopher Lenzi and I am writing this letter to voice my strong opposition to, and deep concerns with, the proposed militarization of Dabob Bay and the surrounding area. I recently purchased a home in a community overlooking Dabob Bay, across the water from the proposed outdoor gun range and private military training camp on Tarboo Ridge. Upon retiring from the United States Navy, I relocated to the Seattle area to work for Amazon and raise my young daughter. After living in downtown Seattle for nearly two years, I decided to permanently settle in the greater Seattle area. Seeking peace and tranquility to provide balance with my fast - paced career, I spent months finding the perfect location to purchase a home for myself and my family. My home overlooking Dabob Bay provides just that, a peaceful and serene place to live and work, and a safe, natural woodland environment to raise my daughter and grow my family. As you can imagine, learning that you are considering allowing D'Amico and his private military corporation (PMC), Fort Discovery, to move forward and establish operations in my backyard is extremely alarming. After serving my country and working tirelessly for decades to be able to afford my home and a safe environment to raise my daughter and provide for my family, I find my family's future is in jeopardy, resting on the decisions you are about to make. Already, I have woken up to the sounds of full-scale assaults and automatic weaponry firing from across the water. Additionally, the helicopters that ferry passengers to the member -only location cross directly over my property. What was a peaceful sanctuary when I decided to purchase my home, has turned into a war -zone. The PMC's operations have made living here unbearable for myself and fellow citizens in the local community. Additionally, I would like to highlight that with the site located directly across the water and on top of Tarboo Ridge, the sounds of high-caliber automatic gunfire travel great distances (if you have ever gone fishing, you know have far a voice can travel — now replace that voice with multiple high-caliber, fully automatic rifles and consider the noise pollution and impact on local citizens). The facility's proximity to the head of the bay amplifies the effect, making it impossible to sit outside with friends and family in my own home, or conduct my own business working from home. Furthermore, with the facility conducting operations seven days a week, there is no relief or pause from the assault for citizens in the local community. Allowing Mr. D'Amico and his PMC to invade our local community is completely unacceptable. It is an improper use of the forestlands, endangering local wildlife, food and water sources, is a threat to public safety, and imposes undue hardship on the citizens and voters who call this area home. While researching Mr. D'Amico and his private military organization, I uncovered a disturbing pattern of disregard for local health and safety, and the negative impact he and his company have on local communities. With articles dating back to 2007, he and his company have a history of disrupting and destroying local communities, and I refuse to allow this to happen to my home. I have already contacted the Seattle Times regarding this matter, and will be reaching out to additional media and political leaders, to support our cause and shine light on this impending attack on our community. I sincerely hope that you, our community leaders, can appreciate the gravity of this situation and I have faith that you will do everything in your power to protect your fellow citizens. Lastly, if you would please let me know how I may schedule a meeting with you, I would appreciate the opportunity to speak with you further regarding this matter and seek to understand the detailed steps you are taking to protect and preserve our community. I may be reached via email at christopher lenzinyahoo.com and via phone at (415) 410-3385. Thank you for your time and consideration, and I look forward to speaking with you. Sincerely, Christopher Lenzi CC3,-Occ t q I � jeffbocc From: cooper bo <bozario@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, February 09, 2018 12:19 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Fwd: Tarboo plan/Uamico HEARING RECORD Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: cooper bo <bozario(2yahoo.com> Date: February 9, 2018 at 12:13:12 PM PST To: jeffboccnco.jefferson.wa Subject: Tarboo plan/D'amico Dear commissioner's,I have remained silent for some years now in opposing Joe D'amico's invasion to the quietude of so many other's,and disruption to the natural settings and wildlife,..I have experience this first hand directly across Discovery Bay from his most recent location for some years.At the height of the "action" on that property (Gundstone's)-many Beautiful tranquil weekend mornings were disrupted by major explosions,semi-automatic gunfire,and a few times Full automatic ---(please don't tell me it was multiple shooters!) I Feel for the residents at the new "tarboo lake" facility which D'amico is attempting for his new facility. It IS Not just the gunfre.What compounds the issue is that what he's running is more of a private military fort! Army helicopters i have seeen many times come in and land there in low light conditions,etc.--music blaring over the sound system in the Sunday morning hours,and late.The price of it all is heavy,especially to folks who paid dearly for waterfront properties,not to mention the wildlife. My plea is for you to consider to stop all this from going thru and ruining such a rare tranquil setting as the Tarboo Lake area.,sincerely Dennis Cooper (cape George road) Sent from my iPad C(.i�'u(Ct -I 1 I ( jeffbocc From: nora Shapiro <nora.weaves@gmail.com> HEARING RF �./�� Sent: Friday, February 09, 2018 12:58 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: moratorium I am very opposed to adding gun ranges in Jefferson County and strongly support a moratorium so the environmental impact, including wildlife, can be determined. Please maintain the one-year moratorium. Thanks ou. Nora Shapiro Port Townsend C/� jeffbocc From: c burke <scoopy@rainierconnect.com> Sent: Friday, February 09, 2018 1:00 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Gun Range Jeff Bocc, HMPING AracoRo Say'NO' to the new outdoor membership -based gun range and training facility on Tarboo Ridge. Let's continue to keep the area quiet. The noise, stray bullets, have a very negative impact on people and animals. Keep Jefferson County free of a gun range. This gun range is disruptive to our environment, to our safety and is a negative impact to our county. Cynthia Burke cc:- �Ccr C-�. 'effbocc From: Jean Holtz <jholtz3444@gmail.com> Sent: Friday,February Februa 09 2018 1:04 PM BRING To: J'effbocc ORD Subject: Moratorium On Gun Range! I support the Moratorium on the Gun Range proposed for the Tarboo Lake area. I work with animals in that area. Loud gun noises and increased traffic will "spook" and stress out the domestic and wildlife animals in that and surrounding areas. Not to mention the stress it would cause people who sought out the "quiet" country life on purpose. Jean Holtz A Regular Voter HEAP!P1G RTORD February 9, 2018 Jefferson County Board of Commissioners Jefferson County Courthouse PO Box 1220 Port Townsend, Washington 98368 Dear Commissioners, George Esveldt PO Box 206 Port Townsend, Washington 98368 My parents were members of a gun club in Pacific County, Washington in the 1950s. They practiced marksmanship with 22 caliber pistols on a shooting range located out of hearing distance of the nearest town. Gun club members routinely socialized with each other after target practice and gave each other trophies for shooting precision at annual banquets. I have no quarrel with such entertainment. I have a serious quarrel with Joe D'Amico's plan to build in Jefferson County, not a well - sited shooting range like the one my parents used, but what is essentially a military and police training base in the woods around Tarboo Creek, within hearing distance of numerous local residents. I know exactly what those Tarboo folks are in for. I live within hearing distance of the Jefferson County Sportsmen's Association shooting range. What fills my ears many days a week is what sounds like machine gun fire; I assume it's automatic or semi-automatic weaponry. I never hear it without experiencing fear. I'm certain other residents of Port Townsend feel as I do. Why do gun owners with high-powered weapons have the right to disturb the lives and well- being of so many others? For years Mr. D'Amico routinely deceived and abused his neighbors on Discovery Bay. That's historical fact. I ask you to consider, as well, that Mr. D'Amico's recent plan for Tarboo Creek represents another addition to the creeping militarization of civilian life in America, and in our own town. We are already assailed in Port Townsend, not only by the frequent sound of gunfire, but also by weekly Growler training exercises, nighttime use of public parks for Navy training missions, the storage of increasing quantities of military munitions on Indian Island, and ICE's continuing hunt -by -SW for "alien" (read: enemy) immigrants. Trump's demand for a military parade that is "bigger and better" than France's Bastille Day parade perfectly signifies the growing disposition to arm our communities and country. What I see in my mind when bombarded by the sound of gunfire from the Sportsmen's Association shooting range is, not the protection of innocents by well-trained and well -intended men with guns, but the actual weekly slaughter of American civilians in schools and public places by men with guns acting out their private fantasies of power with lethal automatic weaponry. This is the terrible reality of civilian life in our country. George Esveldt PO Box 206 Port Townsend, Washington 98368 The question is: Do the residents of Jefferson County, as represented by their County Commissioners, now want to abet the construction in a local forest of a commercial shooting range and munitions manufacturing facility? I implore you: Don't let Joe D'Amico have his way in Jefferson County. The delay of one year is a start; now shut down his plans permanently. Yours truly, George D. Esveldt -%� dam' �Z� cc: Port Townsend Leader Port Townsend City Council members 0,02< �xc,<R -�vi,8 HEARING RFCOqo i4a Written Comment Associated with Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners Ordinance No. 05-1218-17 Submitted By: Neil T. Morgan 07 February, 2018 To: Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners Jefferson County Courthouse 1820 Jefferson Street Port Townsend, Wa 98368 From: Neil T. Morgan 45 West Eugene Street Port Hadlock, Wa 98339 Subject: Written comments concerning Ordinance # 05-1218-18 This is my written response to Ordinance Number 05-1218-17 establishing a moratorium on Commercial Shooting facilities in Unincorporated Areas of Jefferson County hereafter referred to as "'the moratorium". This moratorium was adopted by Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners 18 December 2017. This response contains question and concerns including general comments cornering this moratorium. The five page document provided is divided in two distinct parts, pages 1 & 2 contain the "WHEREAS" statements and pages 3 -5 is perceived as the actual ordnance. Comments will be limited to contents of pages 1 and 2 followed by Questions and Summary. Page 1 Paragraph 8 This "whereas" statement is totally inappropriate to be included in this document. It is obvious an attempt to discredit Jefferson County Sportsmen's Association (JCSA). In reality' is disrespectful by Jefferson County Board of Commissioners to JCSA . This paragraph, as written, is without doubt an attempt to discredit and put in question JCSA's work to provide a safe facility. JCSA safety record for over fifty years should be recognized and applauded. This paragraph seems to imply that JCSA facility is an unsafe facility. What information is being used to support this premise? I believe this is a belief based on personal beliefs and opinions yet is undocumented and unsupported. Why should JCSA even be mentioned as the incident referred to doesn't pertain to JCSA at all. Since this statement toward JCSA was included in the moratorium, a legal and public document and is clearly inappropriate, Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners should publicly apologize in writing to the general public and to JCSA. This paragraph is a prime example for disbelief and distrust many citizens in Jefferson County have toward their elected officials! Page 2 Paragraph 1 This paragraph is as written, is misleading. First, what lack of safety issues are being submitted by the public? Are these safety issues in fact safety issues or what the individuals self interrupts as safety issues? What lack of safety issues have been investigated and determined to be lacking? Were the complaints validated by the investigation as being accurate? As to the best of my knowledge, two commercial shooting facilities exist in Jefferson County, It's very difficult to believe the number of public complaints associated with these two facilities constitute a significant burden on JCSO nor the indicated emergency management system. If Jefferson County Sheriff Office (JCSO) personnel are responding to public concerns, the associated response should be fairly similar to any other response of concern by citizens of Jefferson County and prioritized the same. Time taken to respond by the JCSO is identical to time taken to respond to any response by JCSO. Documentation for hours spent in these responses should be made available by JCSO. This paragraph seems to indicate a high number of complaints associated with existing shooting facilities are being investigated by county agencies including JCSO. What is the actual number of responses over the past year involving JCSO and other county offices involving existing shooting facilities? These numbers should be available from county records and I suspect the actual number to be comparative very low. I suspect a number of complaints associated with firearm discharge noise from existing facilities are in reality associated with unregulated, unsupported and unofficial areas used by citizens to discharge firearms and not associated with existing shooting facilities. I do however acknowledge noise concerns do exist but let's make sure we are getting our facts correct as to their source. Second, what public complaints associated with land use compatibility issues are routed to JCSO or emergency management system? This type of complaint should be addressed by other county offices which do not constitute any effect of diminishing the availability of resources for emergency services. As to the best of my knowledge the existing facilities operate under a operation plan submitted to Jefferson County. If they are not operating according to this plan, action should be taken but I do not believe that action should be by neither JCSO nor the emergency management system. The intent of this paragraph is unclear. It is obvious that the wording is an attempt to draw special attention to the highlighted words "safety and land use compatibility issues" but the wording in the remainder of paragraph is misleading. Safety and land use compatibility issues are two distinct subjects and should have been addressed separately. 2 Paragraph 2 The accurately and intent of this paragraph is in question. Jefferson County Board of Commissioners indicate "there is rural areas where commercial shooting facilities may be appropriate". If this is a valid and true statement, identify one area in Jefferson County where this possibility exists! Explain the intended meaning of the highlighted words "adopting a commercial shooting ordinance would promote public safety and preserve precious emergency services". Again this is an attempt to draw attention to specific highlighted words using totally unrelated information in the remainder of the paragraph for support. Paragraph 6 This paragraph is acceptable as written but I believe site regulations, environmental regulations, operating rules and regulations, safety rules and regulations and safety programs presently exist therefore. This is a prime example supporting my conclusion that the moratorium to regulate commercial shooting facilities in Jefferson County is not necessary. Enforce the existing rules and regulations, not create new regulations requiring additional implementation and enforcement. Further comment concerning this paragraph will be covered in summary of these comments. General Questions The establishment of a 9 member review Committee is indicated in document. At the end of the moratorium, does this committee dissolve? General Statement In general, I do not support the moratorium as written. It is obviously written from misleading and inaccurate information without supporting documentation, therefore cannot be considered a solution to the problem. It is obvious Jefferson County Board of Commissioners were unable to deal with the many issues associated with planning and permitting shooting facilities therefore took the easiest possible action by creating this moratorium in an effort to appease specific citizens. Methods and procedures presently exist to handle the permitting process therefore any planning process should be allowed to proceed. I believe and support the need of official shooting facilities in Jefferson County and support their continued use but they must be safe, environmental friendly and educational. These facilities provide citizens of Jefferson County a safe location where one can become familiar with new firearms and practice the use of different types of weapons. Their site location and construction design must meet existing legal rules and regulations and any additional regulations imposed and included in the permitting process. 3 Several documents including but not limited to site plan, construction plan, operational plan, and environmental plan must be submitted to county agencies to insure compliance with rules and regulations then combined in one master plan presented to Jefferson County Board of Commissioners (BoCC) for consideration. I fully accept and understand these facilities produce both positive and negative impacts including but not limited to firearms and hunter education, self defense education, noise and environmental issues. These impacts have their individual benefits and consequences although they need to be identified and addressed individually. I will concentrate further comments on the noise impact. I suspect noise is the negative impact of greatest concern. Whenever and wherever a firearm is discharged, sound is created. When that sound level is at a certain documented decibel it can become a noise. The real issue here is the degree and frequency of discharge and we have to agree, the frequency of firearm discharge in Jefferson County has increased over time. This is true at official facilities and unofficial shooting sites as well. I believe the big question is what is sound and what noise is. 1 suspect but not positive, noise decibel studies have been conducted at the existing shooting facilities in Jefferson County. Such studies will indicate the sound level and if found to exceed the acceptable standards, recommend methods to mediate the issue. I understand and accept the premise that noise is of much concern by many. I have not seen any documentation associated with any nose study supporting that concern.. If these studies have not been accomplished recommend a sound study be conducted. Only after a noise study has been conducted can this concern be validated or noise found to be within acceptable decibel levels. The noise concern must be adequately and fairly addressed and the present finger pointing and treating opinions as facts must stop.. Of primary importance and concern of me personally is the lack of acknowledgement by state and local government including Jefferson County Board of Commissioners of problems associated with unofficial shooting areas. These areas are usually located adjacent to secondary roads throughout the county and usually associated with private timberland owners, state land and at times, county lands. Over the years I have made contact with a number of users at these sites and I find these sites are used by those who do not belong to or agree to pay for the use of official shooting ranges and have no desire to adhere to rules and regulation associated with these ranges. These users are totally unaware of the consequences of their actions or have any idea what it takes to keep official areas open for use. As targets, these users prefer to use whatever material they want for targets, i.e.; propane bottles, bottles, cans and television sets yet seldom use paper targets. 1, in conjunction with organized group have cleaned up targets and other garbage at unofficial shooting sites throughout this state. In particular, one site located on state land near Teal Lake in Jefferson County being used for garbage dumping and shooting. Our 15 member group provided manpower, equipment, trailers and other necessary equipment to completely remove all shooting targets and other 4 household trash. This tow day event netted over forty tons of material for disposal at Jefferson County Landfill. If one were to examine one of these sites it would be instantly clear how unsafe they are for the shooters and for the general public in the vicinity. One or two sites I am aware of are located in close proximity of state highway and shooting paths are directly in line with these highways. Most sites are within very short walking distance from roads and at times shooters vehicles are parked on the road shoulders. When shooting occurs at these sites, rules dealing with shooter or spectator safety are not taken into consideration. I have witnessed targets being placed while others continue firing their weapons. Often old appliances i.e.; old stoves, refrigerators are used for targets and do cause bullets to bounce off. Backstops rarely exist although dirt piles and gravel banks are at times used. Case in point is those sites found alongside grave road leading from county highway to Tarboo Lake. Tarboo Lake is a Lake Access Site administrated by Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). I visited this lake for a fishing day and was amazed of the number of shooting sites found along that road and I was in disbelief of the damage that had been occurred at the lake itself. Restrooms had been shot and burnt, fences had been cut, trees had been completely shot through and signs had been destroyed. Concerned with loss of designation as Lake Access I therefore contacted WDFW and discussed situation. I was informed little could be done to repair facilities at lake as resources were unavailable. I was also informed 1CSO was aware of problem and all landowners involved were scheduled to meet and discuss issues. Washington State Office of Recreation and Conservation (RCO) acts in part as the clearing house for administration of available grants for recreation and conservation in Washington State. One of the programs within the RCO is the Firearms and Archery Range Recreation Program (FARR). This program provides funding for projects that acquire, develop, and renovate firearm range and archery training and practice facilities. This program also deals with the positive and negative impacts associated with such ranges and I question if the RCO FARR program was considered as and contacted as a source of information available to Jefferson County. Grants from this program are available to county governmental agencies and specific non-profit organizations. I recently contacted the RCO to inquire status of FARR program and was informed that for this cycle, approximately 800K of grant funds are available. I was also informed a small percentage of this amount had been redirected from last cycle due to non use. I question if Jefferson County has ever submitted for FARR grants. I do know that 1CSA has applied for and received one of the available grants for the relocation and construction of the shotgun range. This program is a viable resource for Jefferson County. I am aware Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) acknowledges unofficial shooting sites and are fully aware of negative impacts created. Presently DNR has taken the inactive to discuss 5 with the public the potential for official area locations. Again, I question if Jefferson County has contacted DNR for information. I cannot support a moratorium on official sites when unofficial sites, clearly unsafe to all and to the environment are not being acknowledged as part of the problem and not being addressed. I do not understand the apparent lack of concern requarding these unofficial shooting sites by our county representatives and officials. Furthermore I suspect many complaints and concerns from the public concerning noise, environmental damage and safety is associated with these unofficial sites yet are used to support the moratorium issued by Jefferson County Board of Commissioners directed solely to official shooting facilities. Furthermore, I consider the moratorium is an irresponsible waste of public funds, an inability of our elected officials to use existing rules and regulations to address a proposal. Neil T. Morgan 6 3za (Ot :9 - February 9, 2017 Dear Commissioners, HEA.R.- ING RTO M FEB 0.9 2818 At the Port of Port Townsend, all the buildings have double filtration systems on the gutter downspouts to prevent zinc contaminated rainwater from the galvanized roofing from leaching into the stormwater system. It is extremely important from a public and environmental health standpoint that mitigation of the heavy metal pollution from new gun ranges be adequate. From a county taxpayer standpoint it is extremely important that the cost of eventual remediation be adequately covered by the business and not by county government. Perhaps some type of surety bond could be obtained by the business to insure that the taxpayers are not stuck with what could be a significant remediation bill. Part of the value of the moratorium is time to calculate what it will cost to do remediation of 40 acres of lead contaminated ground. Mr D'Amico dismisses this concern, saying that the county already owns 40 acres of lead, called the Jefferson County Sportsmen's Club. That decision was made many decades ago. This does not prevent the current commissioners from taking the time necessary to carefully considering future potential pollution. There is no reason to rush into doubling the county's liabilities. It has been suggested that the new facility would reduce illegal shooting on county forest land. The county already has one gun club. Does it honestly seem likely that irresponsible shooters that refuse to spend $50 for an annual membership at the gun club are going to flock to pay to shoot at the new facility? That problem must be addressed by education and enforcement. Please use the time created by the moratorium to craft regulations necessary to protect taxpayers and the environment. Respectfully, Chris Sanok 3654 Eaglemount Rd., Chirr Quilcene, WA 98376 February 8, 2018 Dear Commissioner SUBJECT: Gun Range on Tarboo Ridge HEARING REr.ORO FEB 0 9 2018 My name is Joseph Lesh. My wife and I live on the Coyle Road. We moved here 21 years ago to find peace and quiet after living in Kingston, where my wife was born and we lived together many years. We left Kingston because of it's rapid growth, ferry traffic and noise, including gun fire. I am a Viet Nam Veteran with a 50% disability from PTSD. Gunshots and helicopters are 2 of my triggers. That is why we bought these 10 acres- of remote property but even so we have to put up with people occasionally shooting rifles. But high powered automatic weapons? WHYM In this day and age of school shootings and the Las Vegas massacre why do we as a nation or us as a county want to encourage high powered weapons? Can the financial benefit of this project be great enough for this county to outweigh the negative impact on the land, neighboring properties or the residents including us veterans? I ask each of you, would you want to be startled by the sounds of gun shots near your home? I know that each time it happens to me it takes me back to the most terrifying time in my life. I am most strongly against this proposal of a gun range on Tarboo Ridge. Sincerely, Joseph T. Lesh I ?� -7, rL.-k Cynthia L. Lesh cc ��cr �Cfi a-(� lid To: Jefferson County Commissioners Re: Proposed Moritorium 2/9/18 I grew up in a community that considered guns an essential tool for hp ?tection, and recreation. I began hunting with my father at the age of nine. I believe the Second Amendment is important for our democracy. I have on one occasion used the Jeff Co Sportsman Association gun range. I have a friendly disposition to the responsible use of firearms and shooting in general. None the less, I find that the frequency of gunfire emanating from the Sportsman Assoc range has grown, over the last two and a half decades I have lived in Port Townsend, to a point that is degrading my quality of life. I live, according to Google Maps, 1.7 miles from the range. The amount of gunfire in years past seemed intermittent enough to tolerate. There was a noticeable increase on some weekends (probably due to an event) and in the fall, as hunting season approached. Now the gunfire is a significant presence almost every weekend. It is impossible to be outside in the garden or orchard without being subjected to repeated gunfire. It seems that more semi automatic guns are being discharged. A few weeks ago I was surprised to hear gunfire in my kitchen, despite having double pane windows and 18 inch thick masonry walls. I do not want to suggest that the gunfire is of a decibel level that it is painful or uncomfortable to one's ears. I have taken to wearing headphones outside when working in the garden simply because the gunfire is oppressive to my mental health. Of course, this makes it impossible to hear the sounds I do want to hear, like the birds or just the ambient sounds of my neighborhood. I live on the edge of a city and expect some noise pollution. But this POP POP POP POP POP POP POP POP POP POP, repeated over and over through the course of many afternoons begins to wear on a person. It feels constant now and has greatly diminished my joy in being outside on the weekends. I do not believe it is fair to subject the many residents of Jefferson County who live within earshot of the range to noise pollution of this type and frequency. There are simply too many rounds being fired now. Yet we do need a place where shooting can occur. One reasonable solution would be to require gun ranges to be enclosed within a facility to mitigate the noise and any environmental consequences. Subjecting the residents of Tarboo to this type of noise pollution is a terrible idea. Continuing to subject those that live within earshot of the existing range is an equally terrible idea. I support the creation of a moratorium while we find a solution that is tenable for us all. Thank you, Bly Windstorm 3345 Laural St. Port Townsend Dear Honorable County Council Members REARING, picrnl;�a2018 FEB 0.9 201$ I would like to point out that unlike many tourist towns we have yet to give up industry. We make paper, we build boats, we grow weed among other things, and we have a shooting range. Sometimes it's noisy, sometimes it stinks, that is the price of living in a town where so many things are happening. It's not perfect, but at least for now, people of all backgrounds can come here and find a welcoming place, and that's the way I would like it to stay. I am a recent member of the Jefferson County Sportsman's Association, so I can't speak for everyone and I do not represent the club in anyway, but I think I can say we are a friendly bunch. We are not the other, we are not faceless, uncaring, fringe dwellers doing who knows what out there on the edge of town. We are your neighbors, we are your friends, we are heavily invested in this community donating hard earned time and money to many causes. What the Jefferson County Sportsmen Association has done is build, maintain, and improve a first rate shooting range at no cost to the county. Just about everything is done by volunteers. It is truly a grass roots effort that provides a safe and friendly place accessible to anyone and it works. The shooting range is not a moving target. For most of us it has always been there, just outside of town, in the stink zone of the mill, next door to the dump, and just south of where the fire department tears cars apart and burns things during training operations. Location, location, location is all I can say. It's good that it has always been there, and should always be there. Easy to plan around a facility that doesn't move. Everyone knows it is there and everyone should understand that gunfire will be heard in the vicinity of a shooting range. What happens at the range? Veterans gather to find the camaraderie they experienced in service to our country. Families gather to learn marksmanship and Revolutionary War history. Our youth gather there to practice archery and precision air rifle, pursuits that can lead to Olympic Medals. These are just a few examples that I have personally experienced. What the range provides is not only a place to shoot safely, but a place to gather with others, learn from skilled instructors, and compete together to better ourselves. I urge the County Council to look at the range as the asset it is, to see the value of this facility, and to support this place that costs the county nothing, and adds so much to the community. I listened to the two and a half hours of testimony just as you did. I don't agree that a moratorium is necessary because of the many requirements the county already has in place for obtaining building permits. Regardless, I understand the need to take a pause when so many citizens are concerned about how a new facility will change their neighborhood. If anything, I would urge you to remove the Jefferson County Sportsmans Association, JCSA, range from the moratorium, I don't see how these two facilities in two different locations, serving two different groups of people, one for profit, one non-profit and local, are related in anyway other than there are firearms involved. In regards to the testimony, I heard several themes; First, the Kitsap County Ordinance works and has passed constitutional muster. The Kitsap Ordinance, (Chapter 10.25 Kitsap County Code) whose purpose includes "promoting the continued availability of shooting ranges for firearm education, practice in the safe use of firearms, and recreational sports" does no such thing. Since the ordinance passed in 2014 the Kitsap Rifle and Revolver Club has been in and out court in a good faith attempt to file an operating permit with Kitsap County and, for the last two years, their range has been shut down for the lack of said permit. In addition they have filed two motions for discretionary review of rules of judicial conduct with the State Supreme Court, one of which I have been told will be reviewed in the coming months. I don't believe this equates with passing constitutional muster. Kitsap Rifle and Revolver Club would have their permit by now if the Kitsap County truly wanted to "promote the continued availability of shooting ranges". I strongly urge you to abandon any use of the Kitsap Ordinance if the council truly wishes to protect the continued viability of JCSA Range in Jefferson County. I would recommend instead, Pierce County Ordinance 2013-35, enacted in September of 2013, which has passed legal muster and has allowed the existing gun ranges to operate in a cooperative manner with the county. I include a copy of this ordinance for your reference. There was much concern about lead contamination. I would hazard to guess that there could be as many as one hundred active shooting ranges across Eastern Jefferson County in backyards, on dead end dirt roads and in abandoned gravel pits. Only one has any kind of lead abatement plan overseen by the county. The JCSA range is engineered to eliminate lead contamination by managing surface water and PH in the soil, growing grass to keep dust down, and mining the berms to remove and recycle lead on a regular basis. If lead contamination is truly a concern in this county this could be remedied by providing locations for additional gun ranges with the same protocols in the Brinnon, Quilcene, and Chimicum areas. The same goes for stray bullets as a threat to public safety. Out in the county, no guarantee. At the JCSA facility there have always been stringent safety rules backed up by high berms to eliminate this exact concern, and to my knowledge there is no historic evidence of stray bullets ever leaving the range. A few people urged all ranges to be indoors. This is unrealistic and unnecessary in our rural county. Clay pigeon shooting does not fit indoors, 100, 200, 300 yard ranges for hunting rifles do not fit indoors, most, if not all of the rifle and pistol matches would not be possible indoors. And finally, if the current and proposed locations for shooting ranges are deemed unsuitable then the council needs to provide suitable locations and move quickly to allow these facilities to be built. Firearm purchases over the last eight years have broken all records. I myself have seen an increase in reckless use of firearms on our public lands. Clearly your constituents need easily accessible and affordable places to learn to handle firearms in a safe and responsible manner, such as the Jefferson County Sportsmans Association Range. For your reference and to help with crafting a solution I have included copies of Washington State RCW 9.41.290 and 9.41.300 which delineate Washington State Law as it applies to firearms regulation within the boundary of the state and defines what cities, towns and counties can do, yet specifically states that "Such laws shall not abridge the right of the individual guaranteed by Article I, section 24 of the Washington State Constitution to bear arms in the defense of self and others." There is much to wade through in these document, I have tried to highlight the applicable sections. Feel free to read through the complete text if you wish. I also include a copy of Ezell vs. The City of Chicago, No. 10-3525, decided, July 10, 2011, in which the United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, affirms the plaintiffs contention that, "The Second Amendment protects the right to maintain proficiency in firearms use - including the right to practice marksmanship at a range - and the city's total ban on firing ranges is unconstitutional." I also include a copy of the aforementioned Pierce County Ordinance 2013-35 and page five of the Chapter 10-25 Kitsap County Code showing the purpose of the ordinance also referenced previously, so you can read it for yourself. I appreciate all the time you have given to this issue and am happy to answer any questions or help inform the County Council in any way I can. Respectfully Brett M. Nunn RCW 9.Q1.290: State preemption. WA HIM' RE RCW 9.41.290 State preemption. 2/8/18, 4:02 PM The state of Washington hereby fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state, including the registration, licensing, possession, purchase, sale, acquisition, transfer, discharge, and transportation of firearms, or any other element relating to firearms or parts thereof, including ammunition and reloader components. Cities, towns, and counties or other municipalities may enact only those laws and ordinances relating to firearms that are specifically authorized by state law, as in RCW 9.41.300, and are consistent with this chapter. Such local ordinances shall have the same penalty as provided for by state law. Local laws and ordinances that are inconsistent with, more restrictive than, or exceed the requirements of state law shall not be enacted and are preempted and repealed, regardless of the nature of the code, charter, or home rule status of such city, town, county, or municipality. NOTES: Finding—Intent—Severability-1994 sp.s. c 7: See notes following RCW 4170.540. Effective date -1994 sp.s. c 7 §§ 401-410, 413-416, 418-437, and 439-460: See note following RCW 9.41.010. Severability -1985 c 428: "If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [ 1985 c 428 § 6.] Application -1983 c 232 § 12: "Section 12 of this act shall not apply to any offense committed prior to July 24, 1983." [ 1983 c 232 § 13.] Severability -1983 c 232: See note following RCW 9.41.010. https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.290 Page 1 of 1 RCW 9.41.300: Weapons prohibited in certain places—Local laws and ordinances—Exceptions—Penalty. 2/8/18, 4:04 PM RCW 9.41.300 Weapons prohibited in certain places—Local laws and ordinances—Exceptions— Penalty. (1) It is unlawful for any person to enter the following places when he or she knowingly possesses or knowingly has under his or her control a weapon: (a) The restricted access areas of a jail, or of a law enforcement facility, or any place used for the confinement of a person (i) arrested for, charged with, or convicted of an offense, (ii) held for extradition or as a material witness, or (iii) otherwise confined pursuant to an order of a court, except an order under chapter 13.32A or 13.34 RCW. Restricted access areas do not include common areas of egress or ingress open to the general public; (b) Those areas in any building which are used in connection with court proceedings, including courtrooms, jury rooms, judge's chambers, offices and areas used to conduct court business, waiting areas, and corridors adjacent to areas used in connection with court proceedings. The restricted areas do not include common areas of ingress and egress to the building that is used in connection with court proceedings, when it is possible to protect court areas without restricting ingress and egress to the building. The restricted areas shall be the minimum necessary to fulfill the objective of this subsection (1)(b). For purposes of this subsection (1)(b), "weapon" means any firearm, explosive as defined in RCW 70.74.010, or any weapon of the kind usually known as slung shot, sand club, or metal knuckles, or any knife, dagger, dirk, or other similar weapon that is capable of causing death or bodily injury and is commonly used with the intent to cause death or bodily injury. In addition, the local legislative authority shall provide either a stationary locked box sufficient in size for pistols and key to a weapon owner for weapon storage, or shall designate an official to receive weapons for safekeeping, during the owner's visit to restricted areas of the building. The locked box or designated official shall be located within the same building used in connection with court proceedings. The local legislative authority shall be liable for any negligence causing damage to or loss of a weapon either placed in a locked box or left with an official during the owner's visit to restricted areas of the building. The local judicial authority shall designate and clearly mark those areas where weapons are prohibited, and shall post notices at each entrance to the building of the prohibition against weapons in the restricted areas; (c) The restricted access areas of a public mental health facility certified by the department of social and health services for inpatient hospital care and state institutions for the care of the mentally ill, excluding those facilities solely for evaluation and treatment. Restricted access areas do not include common areas of egress and ingress open to the general public; (d) That portion of an establishment classified by the *state liquor control board as off-limits to persons under twenty-one years of age; or (e) The restricted access areas of a commercial service airport designated in the airport security plan approved by the federal transportation security administration, including passenger screening checkpoints at or beyond the point at which a passenger initiates the screening process. These areas do not include airport drives, general parking areas and walkways, and shops and https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.300 Page 1 of 3 RCW 9.41.300: Weapons prohibited in certain places—Local laws and ordinances—Exceptions—Penalty. 2/8/18, 4:04 PM areas of the terminal that are outside the screening checkpoints and that are normally open to unscreened passengers or visitors to the airport. Any restricted access area shall be clearly indicated by prominent signs indicating that firearms and other weapons are prohibited in the area. (2) Cities, towns, counties, and other municipalities may enact laws and ordinances: (a) Restricting the discharge of firearms in any portion of their respective jurisdictions where there is a reasonable likelihood that humans, domestic animals, or property will be jeopardized. Such laws and ordinances shall not abridge the right of the individual guaranteed by Article I, section 24 of the state Constitution to bear arms in defense of self or others., and (b) Restricting the possession of firearms in any stadium or convention center, operated by a city, town, county, or other municipality, except that such restrictions shall not apply to: (i) Any pistol in the possession of a person licensed under RCW 9.41.070 or exempt from the licensing requirement by RCW ,41.060; or (ii) Any showing, demonstration, or lecture involving the exhibition of firearms. (3)(a) Cities, towns, and counties may enact ordinances restricting the areas in their respective jurisdictions in which firearms may be sold, but, except as provided in (b) of this subsection, a business selling firearms may not be treated more restrictively than other businesses located within the same zone. An ordinance requiring the cessation of business within a zone shall not have a shorter grandfather period for businesses selling firearms than for any other businesses within the zone. (b) Cities, towns, and counties may restrict the location of a business selling firearms to not less than five hundred feet from primary or secondary school grounds, if the business has a storefront, has hours during which it is open for business, and posts advertisements or signs observable to passersby that firearms are available for sale. A business selling firearms that exists as of the date a restriction is enacted under this subsection (3)(b) shall be grandfathered according to existing law. (4) Violations of local ordinances adopted under subsection (2) of this section must have the same penalty as provided for by state law. (5) The perimeter of the premises of any specific location covered by subsection (1) of this section shall be posted at reasonable intervals to alert the public as to the existence of any law restricting the possession of firearms on the premises. (6) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to: (a) A person engaged in military activities sponsored by the federal or state governments, while engaged in official duties; (b) Law enforcement personnel, except that subsection (1)(b) of this section does apply to a law enforcement officer who is present at a courthouse building as a party to an action under chapter 10. 14, 10.99, or 26.50 RCW, or an action under Title 26 RCW where any party has alleged the existence of domestic violence as defined in RCW 26.50.010; or (c) Security personnel while engaged in official duties. (7) Subsection (1)(a), (b), (c), and (e) of this section does not apply to correctional personnel or community corrections officers, as long as they are employed as such, who have completed government-sponsored law enforcement firearms training, except that subsection (1)(b) of this section does apply to a correctional employee or community corrections officer who is present at a courthouse building as a party to an action under chapter 10.14, 10.99, or 26.50 RCW, or an action under Title 26 RCW where any party has alleged the existence of domestic violence as defined in RCW 26.50.010. https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.300 Page 2 of 3 RCW 9.41.300: Weapons prohibited in certain places—Local laws and ordinances—Exceptions—Penalty. 2/8/18, 4:04 PM (8) Subsection (1)(a) of this section does not apply to a person licensed pursuant to RCW 9.41.070 who, upon entering the place or facility, directly and promptly proceeds to the administrator of the facility or the administrator's designee and obtains written permission to possess the firearm while on the premises or checks his or her firearm. The person may reclaim the firearms upon leaving but must immediately and directly depart from the place or facility. (9) Subsection (1)(c) of this section does not apply to any administrator or employee of the facility or to any person who, upon entering the place or facility, directly and promptly proceeds to the administrator of the facility or the administrator's designee and obtains written permission to possess the firearm while on the premises. (10) Subsection (1)(d) of this section does not apply to the proprietor of the premises or his or her employees while engaged in their employment. (11) Government-sponsored law enforcement firearms training must be training that correctional personnel and community corrections officers receive as part of their job requirement and reference to such training does not constitute a mandate that it be provided by the correctional facility. (12) Any person violating subsection (1) of this section is guilty of a gross misdemeanor. (13) "Weapon" as used in this section means any firearm, explosive as defined in RCW 70.74.010, or instrument or weapon listed in RCW 9.41.250. NOTES: *Reviser's note: The "state liquor control board" was renamed the "state liquor and cannabis board" by 2015 c 70 § 3. Finding—Intent—Severability-1994 sp.s. c 7: See notes following RCW 43.70.540. Effective date -1994 sp.s. c 7 §§ 401-410, 413-416, 418-437, and 439-460: See note following RCW 9.41.010. Severability -1985 c 428: See note following RCW 9.41.290. https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.300 Page 3 of 3 EZELL*,. CITY OF CHICAGO I FindLaw 2/8/18, 4:14 PM Nw a i..'a 31 Proles"'k nal? Visit our coilsumt r Siam CASES & CODES PRACTICE MANAGEMENT JOBS & CAREERS NEWSLETTERS SLOGS LAW TECHNOLOGY Forms Lawyer Marketing Corporate Counsel Law Students JusticeMail Reference FindLaw Caselaw United States US 7th Cir. EZELL v. CITY OF CHICAGO EZELL v. CITY OF CHICAGO No. 10-3525• Decided: July o6, 2011 Before KANNE, ROVNER, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.Alan Gura, Gura & Possessky, Alexandria, VA, David G. Sigale, Glen Ellyn, IL, for Plaintiffs—Appellants. James A. Feldman, Washington, DC, Mara S. Georges, Office of the Corporation Counsel, Suzanne M. Loose, Chicago, IL, for Defendant—Appellee. For nearly three decades, the City of Chicago had several ordinances in place "effectively banning handgun possession by almost all private citizens." McDonald v. City of Chicago, --- U.S----------- 130 S.Ct. 3020, 3026, 177 L.Ed.2d 894 (2010). In 2008 the Supreme Court struck down a similar District of Columbia law on an original meaning interpretation of the Second Amendment.) District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 635-36,128 S.Ct. 2783,171 L.Ed.2d 637 (20o8). Heller held that the Amendment secures an individual right to keep and bear arms, the core component of which is the right to possess operable firearms—handguns included—for self-defense, most notably in the home. Id. at 592-95, 599, 628-29. Soon after the Court's decision in Heller, Chicago's handgun ban was challenged. McDonald,130 S.Ct. at 3027. The foundational question in that litigation was whether the Second Amendment applies to the States and subsidiary local governments. Id. at 3026. The Supreme Court gave an affirmative answer: The Second Amendment applies to the States through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 3050. In the wake of McDonald, the Chicago City Council lifted the City's laws banning handgun possession and adopted the Responsible Gun Owners Ordinance in their place. The plaintiffs here challenge the City Council's treatment of firing ranges. The Ordinance mandates one hour of range training as a prerequisite to lawful gun ownership, see CHI. MUN. CODE § 8-20-120, yet at the same time prohibits all firing ranges in the city, see id. § 8-20—o80. The plaintiffs contend that the Second Amendment protects the right to maintain proficiency in firearm use—including the right to practice marksmanship at a range—and the City's total ban on firing ranges is unconstitutional. They add that the Ordinance severely burdens the core Second Amendment right to possess firearms for self-defense because it conditions possession on range training but simultaneously forbids range training everywhere in the city. Finally, they mount a First Amendment challenge to the Ordinance on the theory that range training is protected expression. The plaintiffs asked for a preliminary injunction, but the district court denied this request. We reverse. The court's decision turned on several legal errors. To be fair, the standards for evaluating Second Amendment claims are just emerging, and this type of litigation is quite new. Still, the judge's decision reflects misunderstandings about the nature of the plaintiffs' harm, the structure of this kind of constitutional claim, and the proper decision method for evaluating alleged infringements of Second Amendment rights. On the present record, the plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary injunction against the firing -range ban. The harm to their Second Amendment rights cannot be remedied by damages, their challenge has a strong likelihood of success on the merits, and the City's claimed harm to the public interest is based entirely on speculation. I. Background A. Chicago's Responsible Gun Owners Ordinance The day after the Supreme Court decided McDonald, the Chicago City Council's Committee on Police and Fire held a hearing to explore possible legislative responses to the decision. A Chicago alderman asked the City's FindLaw Career Center Select a Job Title Attorney Corporate Counsel Academic 'Judicial Clerk Summer Associate Intern Law Librarian search Jobs '.. Post a Job I View More Jobs View More http://caselaw.findIaw.com/us-7th-circuit/l573261.htmI Page 1 of 14 EZELL v. CITY OF CHICAGO I FindLaw legal counsel what could be done about firearms possession and other gun -related activity in the city, including shooting ranges. The City's Corporation Counsel replied that the Council could "limit what we allow to operate in our city however is reasonable as decided by the City Council." The Committee quickly convened hearings and took testimony about the problem of gun violence in Chicago. Witnesses included academic experts on the issue of gun violence in general; community organizers and guncontrol advocates; and law-enforcement officers, including Jody Weis, then the Superintendent of the Chicago Police Department. Based on these hearings, the Committee made recommendations to the City Council about how it should regulate firearm possession and other firearm -related activity. The Council immediately took up the Committee's recommendations and, just four days after McDonald was decided, repealed the City's laws banning handgun possession and unanimously adopted the Responsible Gun Owners Ordinance. See Nat? Rifle Assn of Am., Inc. v. City of Chicago, Ill., Nos. 10-3957,10-3965 & 11—io16, 2011 WL 2150785, at *t (7th Cir. June 2, 2011). The new Ordinance—a sweeping array of firearm restrictions— took effect on July 12, 2010. To give a sense of its scope: The Ordinance prohibits handgun possession outside the home, Chi. Mun.CodeE § 8-20-020, and the possession of long guns outside the home or the owner's fixed place of business, id. § 8-20-030. It forbids the sale or other transfer of firearms except through inheritance or between peace officers. Id. § 8-20-100. A person may have "no more than one firearm in his home assembled and operable." Id. § 8-20-040. The Ordinance bans certain kinds of firearms, including assault weapons and "unsafe handgun[s]," as well as certain firearm accessories and types of ammunition. Id. §§ 8-20-060,8-20-085,8-20-170. The Ordinance also contains an elaborate permitting regime. It prohibits the possession of any firearm without a Chicago Firearm Permit. Chi. Mun.Code § 8-20—tto(a). (Certain public -safety and private -security professionals are exempt.) In addition, all firearms must have a registration certificate, and to register a firearm, the owner must have a valid Permit.: Id. at § 8-20-140(a), (b). To apply for a Permit, a person must have an Illinois Firearm Owner's Identification Card. Id. § 8-20-11o(b)(2). Only those 21 years of age or older may apply for a Permit, except that a person between the ages of 18 and 20 may apply with the written consent of a parent or legal guardian if the parent or guardian is not prohibited from having a Permit or a Firearm Owner's Identification Card. Id. § 8-20-1to(b)(1). Persons convicted of certain crimes may not obtain a Permit. Id. § 8-2o—t1o(b)(3) (disqualifying persons convicted of any violent crime, a second or subsequent drunk -driving offense, or an offense relating to the unlawful use of a firearm). Other lawsuits challenging these and other provisions of the Ordinance are currently pending in the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. See, e.g., Second Amendment Arms v. City of Chicago, No. 10 C 4257 (N.D. Ill. filed July 9, 2010); Benson v. City of Chicago, No. Io C 4184 (N.D. Ill. filed July 6, 2010). As relevant here, permits are conditioned upon completion of a certified firearm -safety course. Applicants must submit an affidavit signed by a state -certified firearm instructor attesting that the applicant has completed a certified firearm -safety and training course that provides at least four hours of classroom instruction and one hour of range training -3 Chi. Mun.CodeE § 8-20-12o(a)(7). At the same time, however, the Ordinance prohibits all "[s]hooting galleries, firearm ranges, or any other place where firearms are discharged." Id. § 8-20-280. The Ordinance also prohibits the "discharge [of] any firearm within the city," making no exception for controlled shooting at a firing range—because, of course, firing ranges are banned throughout the city.4 Id. § 8-24-010. Violations are punishable by a fine of $1,000 to $5,00o and incarceration for a term of "not less than 20 days nor more than 90 days," and "[e]ach day that such violation exists shall constitute a separate and distinct offense." Chi. Mun.Code § 8-20-3oo(a), (b). The penalties go up for subsequent convictions. Id. § 8-20- 3oo(b) (For "[a]ny subsequent conviction," the penalty is a fine of $5,000 to $10,00o and incarceration for a term of "not less than 3o days, nor more than six months"). The firing -range ban does not apply to governmental agencies. Id. § 8-20-280. The federal government operates four indoor firing ranges in Chicago, and the Chicago Police Department operates five. Apparently, the City also exempts private security companies; there are two indoor firing ranges operated by private security companies in Chicago.;; B. The Litigation The plaintiffs are three Chicago residents, Rhonda Ezell, William Hespen, and Joseph Brown; and three organizations, Action Target, Inc.; the Second Amendment Foundation, Inc.; and the Illinois State Rifle Association. Action Target designs, builds, and furnishes firing ranges throughout the United States and would like to do so in Chicago. The Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois Rifle Association are nonprofit associations whose members are firearms enthusiasts; among other activities, these organizations advocate for Second Amendment rights and have made arrangements to try to bring a mobile firing range to Chicago. The plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order ("TRO"), a preliminary injunction, and a permanent injunction against the City's ban on firing ranges, and corresponding declaratory relief invalidating the ban. The district court twice denied a TRO, finding that the plaintiffs were not irreparably harmed. The parties conducted expedited discovery, and the court held a two-day hearing on the preliminary -injunction motion. The plaintiffs presented the testimony of representatives of Action Target, the Second Amendment 2/8/18, 4:14 PM http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1573261.htmi Page 2 of 14 EZELL u. CITY OF CHICAGO I FindLaw Foundation, and the Illinois Rifle Association. Declarations from the three individual plaintiffs were already in the record, so they did not testify. The City called two witnesses: Sergeant Daniel Bartoli, a former rangemaster for the Chicago Police Department, and Patricia Scudiero, Chicago's Zoning Commissioner. Bartoli testified that firing ranges can carry a risk of injury from unintentional discharge and raised concerns about criminals seeking to steal firearms from range users. He also explained the possible problem of contamination from lead residue left on range users' hands after shooting. He identified various measures that a firing range should take to reduce these risks. To prevent theft, he said a range should have a secure parking lot and only one entrance into its facilities. To avoid injury from unintentional discharge, a range should provide a separate location for the loading and unloading of firearms and should erect a permanent, opaque fence to deter bystanders from congregating around the facility. He also said a range should have running water onsite so users can wash lead residue from their hands after shooting. Scudiero testified that Chicago's zoning code prohibits all property uses not expressly permitted and contains no provision for gun ranges.6 If firing ranges were added as a permitted use, she said they should be classified as an "intensive use" under the Code. An "intensive use," she explained, is a use "that could pose a threat to the health, safety and welfare" of city residents and therefore may be located only in a manufacturing district; even then, intensive uses are allowed only by special -use permit, not presumptively. On cross-examination Scudiero admitted she has never been to a firing range. She acknowledged as well that the governmental firing ranges within the city are not limited to manufacturing districts; they are located near churches, schools, university buildings, residential housing, a county courthouse, retail stores, and parks. She has not received any complaints from the public about these ranges. The City introduced evidence that there are 14 firing ranges open to the public and located within 5o miles of its borders. Of these, seven are located within 25 miles of the city, and five are located within 5 miles of the city. Because the legal issues in the case had been fully briefed, the plaintiffs asked the court to consider the preliminaryinjunction hearing as a trial on the merits. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(a)(2) (permitting the court to "advance the trial on the merits and consolidate it with the [preliminary -injunction] hearing"). The court declined to do so and took the matter under advisement. C. The Decision Below Soon after the hearing, the district court issued a decision denying preliminary injunctive relief because the plaintiffs were neither irreparably harmed nor likely to succeed on the merits. The court's decision is a bit hard to follow; standing and merits inquiries are mixed in with the court's evaluation of irreparable harm. As we will explain, the court made several critical legal errors. To see how the decision got off-track requires that we identify its key holdings. The judge began by "declin[ing] to adopt the intermediate scrutiny standard" of review, but held in the alternative that "even if" intermediate scrutiny applied, the "[p]laintiffs still fail to meet their burden of demonstrating irreparable harm." The judge said the organizational plaintiffs "do not have the necessary standing to demonstrate their irreparable harm" because "Heller and McDonald addressed an individual's right to possess a firearm" but "did not address an organization's right." Again, the court purported to enter an alternative holding: "Even if' the organizations had standing to assert a claim under Heller and McDonald, they "failed to present sufficient evidence . that their constituency has been unable to comply with the statute." The court held that none of the plaintiffs were suffering irreparable harm because the injury in question was limited to the minor cost and inconvenience of having to travel outside the city to obtain the range training necessary to qualify for a Permit and money damages would be sufficient to compensate the plaintiffs for this travel -related injury if they ultimately prevailed. On the plaintiffs' likelihood of success on the merits, the judge was skeptical that the firing -range ban violated anyone's Second Amendment rights: "Suggesting that firing a weapon at a firing range is tantamount to possessing a weapon within one's residence for self-defense would be establishing law that has not yet been expanded to that breadth." If the Second Amendment was implicated at all, the judge characterized the claim as a minor dispute about an inconvenient permit requirement: "[T]he [c]ity's boundaries are merely artificial borders allegedly preventing an individual from obtaining a [firearm] permit." The court concluded that the City's evidence about "stray bullets," potential theft, and lead contamination was sufficient to show that "the safety of its citizens is at risk when compared to the minimal inconvenience of traveling outside of the [c]ity for a one-hour course." Finally, the judge concluded that the balance of harms favored the City because the "potential harmful effects of firing ranges" outweighed any inconvenience the plaintiffs might experience from having to travel to ranges outside of Chicago. The court summarily rejected the plaintiffs' First Amendment claim, finding it underdeveloped. Alternatively, the court held that the range ban did not appear to implicate any expressive message. The plaintiffs appealed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(i) (authorizing immediate appeal of a decision granting or denying injunctive relief). 2/8/18, 4:14 PM http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1573261.html Page 3 of 14 EZELL v. CITY OF CHICAGO I Find Law II. Analysis To win a preliminary injunction, a party must show that it has (i) no adequate remedy at law and will suffer irreparable harm if a preliminary injunction is denied and (2) some likelihood of success on the merits. See Christian Legal Soc'y v. Walker, 453 F•3d 853, 859 (7th Cir.2oo6); Joelner v. Vill. of Wash. Park, 378 F.3d 613, 619 (7th Cir.2004); Abbott Labs. v. Mead Johnson & Co., 971 F.2d 6,11-12 (7th Cir.1992). If the moving party meets these threshold requirements, the district court weighs the factors against one another, assessing whether the balance of harms favors the moving parry or whether the harm to the nonmoving parry or the public is sufficiently weighty that the injunction should be denied. Christian Legal Soc'y, 453 F.3d at 859. We review the court's legal conclusions de novo, its findings of fact for clear error, and its balancing of the injunction factors for an abuse of discretion. Id. The district court got off on the wrong foot by accepting the City's argument that its ban on firing ranges causes only minimal harm to the plaintiffs—nothing more than the minor expense and inconvenience of traveling to one of 14 firing ranges located within 50 miles of the city limits—and this harm can be adequately compensated by money damages. This characterization of the plaintiffs' injury fundamentally misunderstands the form of this claim and rests on the mistaken premise that range training does not implicate the Second Amendment at all, or at most only minimally. The City's confused approach to this case led the district court to make legal errors on several fronts: (1) the organizational plaintiffs' standing; (2) the nature of the plaintiffs' harm; (3) the scope of the Second Amendment right as recognized in Heller and applied to the States in McDonald; and (4) the structure and standards for judicial review of laws alleged to infringe Second Amendment rights. A. Standing We start with the organizational plaintiffs' standing. Article III restricts the judicial power to actual "Cases" and " Controversies," a limitation understood to confine the federal judiciary to "the traditional role of AngloAmerican courts, which is to redress or prevent actual or imminently threatened injury to persons caused by private or official violation of the law." Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 129 S.Ct. 1142, 1148, 173 L.Ed.2d 1(2009); see also Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555,559-60 (1992); U.S. Const. art. III, § 1. The doctrine of standing enforces this limitation. Summers, 129 S.Ct. at 1149; Lujan, 504 U.S. at 559-60. "Standing exists when the plaintiff suffers an actual or impending injury, no matter how small; the injury is caused by the defendant's acts; and a judicial decision in the plaintiffs favor would redress the injury." Bauer v. Shepard, 62o F.3d 704,7o8 (7th Cir.2010) (citing Summers, 555 U.S. 488,129 S.Ct. 1142,173 L.Ed.2d 1, and Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env t, 523 U.S. 83,118 S.Ct. 1003, 14o L.Ed.2d 210 (1998)). We note first that the district court did not address the individual plaintiffs' standing, probably because it is not in serious doubt. Ezell, Hespen, and Brown are Chicago residents who own firearms and want to maintain proficiency in their use via target practice at a firing range. Ezell is the victim of three attempted burglaries and applied for a Chicago Firearm Permit to keep a handgun in her home for protection. Hespen is a retired Chicago police detective who maintains a collection of handguns, shotguns, and rifles. Brown is a U.S. Army veteran who was honorably discharged after service in World War II; he is currently chairman of the Marksmanship Committee of the Illinois unit of the American Legion and teaches a junior firearms course at an American Legion post outside the city. Ezell and Hespen left the city to complete the range training necessary to apply for a Permit to legalize their firearm possession in the city. Brown owns a firearm that he keeps outside the city's limits because he does not have a Permit. The plaintiffs—all of them—frame their Second Amendment claim in two ways. First, they contend that the Amendment protects the right of law-abiding people to maintain proficiency in firearm use via marksmanship practice and the City's absolute ban on firing ranges violates this right. Second, they contend that the range ban impermissibly burdens the core Second Amendment right to possess firearms in the home for self-defense because it prohibits, everywhere in the city, the means of satisfying a condition the City imposes for lawful firearm possession. They seek a declaration that the range ban is invalid and an injunction blocking its enforcement. Ezell and Hespen took affirmative steps to comply with the Ordinance's permitting process by completing the range -training requirement outside the city. Brown did not, so he must keep his firearm outside the city to avoid violating the Ordinance. For all three the City's ban on firing ranges inflicts continuous harm to their claimed right to engage in range training and interferes with their right to possess firearms for self-defense. These injuries easily support Article III standing. Moreover, this is a pre -enforcement challenge to the Ordinance. The plaintiffs contend that the City's ban on firing ranges is wholly incompatible with the Second Amendment. It is well-established that "pre -enforcement challenges . are within Article III." Brandt v. Vill. of Winnetka, Ill., 612 F.3d 647,649 (7th Cir.2010). The plaintiffs need not violate the Ordinance and risk prosecution in order to challenge it. Schirmer v. Nagode, 621 F.3d 581, 586 (7th Cir.2010) ("A person need not risk arrest before bringing a preenforcement challenge."). The very "existence of a statute implies a threat to prosecute, so pre -enforcement challenges are proper, because a probability of future injury counts as `injury for the purpose of standing." Bauer, 62o F.3d at 7o8. The City did not question the individual plaintiffs' standing; their injury is clear. Regarding the organizational plaintiffs, however, the City's argument led the district court astray. The City 2/8/18, 4:14 PM http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1573261.html Page 4 of 14 EZELL,v. CITY OF CHICAGO I FindLaw emphasized that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, not an organizational one, and this point led the court to conclude that "the organizations do not have the necessary standing to demonstrate their irreparable harm."7 This was error. Action Target, as a supplier of firing -range facilities, is harmed by the firingrange ban and is also permitted to "act[ ] as [an] advocate[ ] of the rights of third parties who seek access to" its services. See Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 195, 97 S.Ct. 451, 50 L.Ed.2d 397 (1976) (allowing beer vendor to challenge alcohol regulation based on its patrons' equal -protection rights); see also Pierce v. Soc'y of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 536, 45 S.Ct. 571, 69 L.Ed.1070 (1925) (allowing private schools to assert parents' rights to direct the education of their children and citing "other cases where injunctions have issued to protect business enterprises against interference with the freedom of patrons or customers"); Mainstreet Org. of Realtors v. Calumet City, 505 F•3d 742, 746-47 (7th Cir.2007). The Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois Rifle Association have many members who reside in Chicago and easily meet the requirements for associational standing: (1) their members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right; (2) the interests the associations seek to protect are germane to their organizational purposes; and (3) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual association members in the lawsuit. See United Food & Commercial Workers Union Local 751 v. Brown Group, 517 U.S. 544,553, 116 S.Ct. 1529, 134 L.Ed.2d 758 (1996); Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Adver. Comm'n, 432 U.S. 333, 343, 97 S.Ct. 2434,53 L.Ed.2d 383 (1977); Disability Rights Wis. v. Walworth Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 522 F.3d 796, 801-02 (7th Cir.20o8). The district court held in the alternative that the organizational plaintiffs "failed to present sufficient evidence to support their position that their constituency has been unable to comply with the statute." More specifically, the court held that the plaintiffs failed to produce "evidence of any one resident [of Chicago] who has been unable to travel to . a range [or] has been unable to obtain [the] range training" required for a Permit. It's not clear whether these observations were directed at standing or the merits of the motion for a preliminary injunction; this discussion appears in the court's evaluation of irreparable harm. Either way, the point is irrelevant. Nothing depends on this kind of evidence. The availability of range training outside the city neither defeats the organizational plaintiffs' standing nor has anything to do with merits of the claim. The question is not whether or how easily Chicago residents can comply with the range -training requirement by traveling outside the city; the plaintiffs are not seeking an injunction against the range -training requirement. The pertinent question is whether the Second Amendment prevents the City Council from banning firing ranges everywhere in the city; that ranges are present in neighboring jurisdictions has no bearing on this question. B. Irreparable Harm and Adequacy of Remedy at law The City's misplaced focus on the availability of firing ranges outside the city also infected the district court's evaluation of irreparable harm. The judge's primary reason for rejecting the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction was that they had "failed to establish the irreparable harm they have suffered by requiring them to travel outside of the [c]ity's borders to obtain their firing[ -]range permits." The judge thus framed the relevant harm as strictly limited to incidental travel burdens associated with satisfying the Ordinance's range -training requirement. The judge noted that for at least some—perhaps many—Chicago residents, complying with the range -training requirement did not appear to pose much of a hardship at all. She observed that it might actually be easier for some Chicagoans to travel to a firing range in the suburbs than to one located, say, at the opposite end of the city if ranges were permitted to locate within city limits. The judge thought it significant that none of the individual plaintiffs had "testif[ied] that s/he was unable to travel outside of the [c]ity's borders to obtain the one-hour range training and all three have shown that they are capable of doing so and have done so in the past." The court held that although the Ordinance may force the plaintiffs to travel longer distances to use a firing range, this was a "quantifiable expense that can be easily calculated as damages." This reasoning assumes that the harm to a constitutional right is measured by the extent to which it can be exercised in another jurisdiction. That's a profoundly mistaken assumption. In the First Amendment context, the Supreme Court long ago made it clear that "'one is not to have the exercise of his liberty of expression in appropriate places abridged on the plea that it may be exercised in some other place.' " Schad v. Borough of Mt. Ephraim, 452 U.S. 61, 76-77,101 S.Ct. 2176, 68 L.Ed.2d 671(1981) (quoting Schneider v. State of New Jersey, 3o8 U.S. 147, 163, 6o S.Ct. 146, 84 L.Ed. 155 (1939))• The same principle applies here. It's hard to imagine anyone suggesting that Chicago may prohibit the exercise of a freespeech or religious -liberty right within its borders on the rationale that those rights may be freely enjoyed in the suburbs. That sort of argument should be no less unimaginable in the Second Amendment context. Focusing on individual travel harms was mistaken for another equally fundamental reason. The plaintiffs have challenged the firing -range ban on its face, not merely as applied in their particular circumstances. In a facial constitutional challenge, individual application facts do not matter. Once standing is established, the plaintiffs personal situation becomes irrelevant. It is enough that "[w]e have only the [statute] itself' and the "statement of basis and purpose that accompanied its promulgation." Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 300-01,113 S.Ct. 1439,123 L.Ed.2d 1(1993); see also Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, The Subjects of the Constitution, 62 Stan. L.Rev.. 1209,1238 (2010) ("[F]acial challenges are to constitutional law what res ipsa loquitur is to facts—in a facial challenge, lex ipsa loquitur: the law speaks for itself."); David L. Franklin, Facial Challenges, Legislative Purpose, and the Commerce Clause, 92 Iowa L.Rev. 41, 58 (2oo6) ("A valid -rule facial challenge asserts that a statute is invalid on its face as written and authoritatively construed, when measured against the applicable substantive constitutional doctrine, without reference to the facts or circumstances of particular applications."); Mark E. Isserles, Overcoming Overbreadth: Facial Challenges and the Valid Rule Requirement, 2/8/18, 4:14 PM http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1573261.htmi Page 5 of 14 EZELL.v. CITY OF CHICAGO I Find Law 48 Am. U.L.Rev. 359,387 (1998) ("[A] valid rule facial challenge directs judicial scrutiny to the terms of the statute itself, and demonstrates that those terms, measured against the relevant constitutional doctrine, and independent of the constitutionality of particular applications, contains a constitutional infirmity that invalidates the statute in its entirety."). Though she did not specifically mention it, the judge might have had the Salerno principle in mind when she limited her focus to individual travel harms. Under Salerno a law is not facially unconstitutional unless it "is unconstitutional in all of its applications." Wash. State Grange v. Wash. State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442,449 (2008) (citing United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745, 107 S.Ct. 2095, 95 L.Ed.2d 697 (1987)). Stated differently, "[a] person to whom a statute properly applies can't obtain relief based on arguments that a differently situated person might present.",9 United States v. Skoien, 614 F.3d 638, 645 (7th Cir.2010) (en bane) (citing Salerno, 481 U.S. at 745)• Here, the judge zeroed in on the occasional expense and inconvenience of having to travel to a firing range in the suburbs, but that's not the relevant constitutional harm. The plaintiffs contend that the Second Amendment protects the right to maintain proficiency in firearm use—including the right to train at a range— and the City's complete ban on range training violates this right. They also claim that the range ban impermissibly burdens the core Second Amendment right to possess firearms at home for protection because the Ordinance conditions lawful possession on range training but makes it impossible to satisfy this condition anywhere in the city. If they're right, then the range ban was unconstitutional when enacted and violates their Second Amendment rights every day it remains on the books. These are not application-specific harms calling for individual remedies. In a facial challenge like this one, the claimed constitutional violation inheres in the terms of the statute, not its application. See Rosenkranz, The Subjects of the Constitution, 62 Stan. L.Rev.. at 1229-38. The remedy is necessarily directed at the statute itself and must be injunctive and declaratory; a successful facial attack means the statute is wholly invalid and cannot be applied to anyone. Chicago's law, if unconstitutional, is unconstitutional without regard to its application—or in all its applications, as Salerno requires. That is, the City Council violated the Second Amendment when it made this law; its very existence stands as a fixed harm to every Chicagoan's Second Amendment right to maintain proficiency in firearm use by training at a range. This kind of constitutional harm is not measured by whether a particular person's gasoline or mass -transit bill is higher because he must travel to a firing range in the suburbs rather than one in the city, as the district court seemed to think. Whatever else the Salerno principle might mean for this case, it neither requires nor supports the district court's approach to irreparable harm.9 Beyond this crucial point about the form of the claim, for some kinds of constitutional violations, irreparable harm is presumed. See 11A Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice & Procedure § 2948.1(2d ed. 1995) ("When an alleged deprivation of a constitutional right is involved, most courts hold that no further showing of irreparable injury is necessary."). This is particularly true in First Amendment claims. See, e.g., Christian Legal Soc'y, 453 F.3d at 867 ("[V]iolations of First Amendment rights are presumed to constitute irreparable injuries ." (citing Elrod v. Bums, 427 U.S. 347, 373, 96 S.Ct. 2673, 49 L.Ed.2d 547 (1976))). The loss of a First Amendment right is frequently presumed to cause irreparable harm based on "the intangible nature of the benefits flowing from the exercise of those rights; and the fear that, if those rights are not jealously safeguarded, persons will be deterred, even if imperceptibly, from exercising those rights in the future." Miles Christi Religious Order v. Twp. of Northville, 629 F.3d 533, 548 (6th Cir.2010) (internal alteration and quotation marks omitted); see also KH Outdoor, LLC v. City of Trussville, 458 F.3d 1261,1272 (nth Cir.20o6). The Second Amendment protects similarly intangible and unquantifiable interests. Heller held that the Amendment's central component is the right to possess firearms for protection. 554 U.S. at 592-95• Infringements of this right cannot be compensated by damages.io In short, for reasons related to the form of the claim and the substance of the Second Amendment right, the plaintiffs' harm is properly regarded as irreparable and having no adequate remedy at law. C. Likelihood of Success on the Merits Having rejected the plaintiffs' claim of irreparable harm, the district court only summarily addressed whether they were likely to succeed on the merits. Early on in her decision, the judge said she would not apply intermediate scrutiny to evaluate the constitutionality of the range ban—and by implication, rejected any form of heightened review. When she later returned to the merits, the judge suggested that banning range training might not implicate anyone's Second Amendment rights at all. She observed that although Chicago requires range training as a prerequisite to firearm possession, "the City does not have the ability to create a Constitutional right to that training." Instead, the judge thought the key question was "whether the individual's right to possess firearms within his residence expands to the right to train with that same firearm in a firing range located within the [c]ity's borders." This statement of the question ends the court's discussion of the merits. There are several problems with this analysis. First, it is incomplete. The judge identified but did not evaluate the Second Amendment merits question. More importantly, the court framed the inquiry the wrong way. Finally, it was a mistake to reject heightened scrutiny. The judge was evidently concerned about the novelty of Second Amendment litigation and proceeded from a default position in favor of the City. The concern is 2/8/18, 4:14 PM http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1573261.htmi Page 6 of 14 EZELLv. CITY OF CHICAGO I Findi-aw understandable, but the default position cannot be reconciled with Heller. 1. Heller, McDonald, and a framework for Second Amendment litigation It's true that Second Amendment litigation is new, and Chicago's ordinance is unlike any firearms law that has received appellate review since Heller. But that doesn't mean we are without a framework for how to proceed. The Supreme Court's approach to deciding Heller points in a general direction. Although the critical question in Heller—whether the Amendment secures an individual or collective right—was interpretive rather than doctrinal, the Court's decision method is instructive. With little precedent to synthesize, Heller focused almost exclusively on the original public meaning of the Second Amendment, consulting the text and relevant historical materials to determine how the Amendment was understood at the time of ratification. This inquiry led the Court to conclude that the Second Amendment secures a pre-existing natural right to keep and bear arms; that the right is personal and not limited to militia service; and that the "central component of the right" is the right of armed self-defense, most notably in the home. Heller, 554 U.S. at 595, 599-600; see also McDonald, 130 S.Ct. at 3036-37,3044. On this understanding the Court invalidated the District of Columbia's ban on handgun possession, as well as its requirement that all firearms in the home be kept inoperable. Heller, 554 U.S. at 629-35. The Court said these laws were unconstitutional "[u]nder any. standard [ ] of scrutiny" because "the inherent right of selfdefense has been central to the Second Amendment right" and the District's restrictions "extend[ ] . to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute." Id. at 628-29. That was enough to decide the case. The Court resolved the Second Amendment challenge in Heller without specifying any doctrinal "test" for resolving future claims. For our purposes, however, we know that Heller's reference to "any standard of scrutiny" means any heightened standard of scrutiny; the Court specifically excluded rational -basis review. Id. at 628-29 & n. 27 ("If all that was required to overcome the right to keep and bear arms was a rational basis, the Second Amendment would be redundant with the separate constitutional prohibitions on irrational laws, and would have no effect."); see also Skoien, 614 F.3d at 641 ("If a rational basis were enough [to justify a firearms law], the Second Amendment would not do anything. because a rational basis is essential for legislation in general."). Beyond that, the Court was not explicit about how Second Amendment challenges should be adjudicated now that the historic debate about the Amendment's status as an individual -rights guarantee has been settled. Heller, 554 U.S. at 635 ("[S]ince this case represents this Court's first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment, one should not expect it to clarify the entire field."). Instead, the Court concluded that "whatever else [the Second Amendment] leaves to future evaluation, it surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home." Id. And in a much -noted passage, the Court carved out some exceptions: [N]othing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Id. at 626-27. The Court added that this list of "presumptively lawful regulatory measures" was illustrative, not exhaustive. Id. at 627 n. 26; see also McDonald, 130 S.Ct. at 3047 (repeating Heller's "assurances" about exceptions). These now -familiar passages from Heller hold several key insights about judicial review of laws alleged to infringe Second Amendment rights. First, the threshold inquiry in some Second Amendment cases will be a "scope" question: Is the restricted activity protected by the Second Amendment in the first place? See Eugene Volokh, Implementing the Right to Keep and Bear Arms for Self—Defense: An Analytical Framework and a Research Agenda, 56 UCLA L.Rev. 1443,1449. The answer requires a textual and historical inquiry into original meaning. Heller, 554 U.S. at 634-35 ("Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad."); McDonald, 130 S.Ct. at 3047 ("[T]he scope of the Second Amendment right" is determined by textual and historical inquiry, not interest -balancing.). McDonald confirms that when state- or local -government action is challenged, the focus of the original - meaning inquiry is carried forward in time; the Second Amendment's scope as a limitation on the States depends on how the right was understood when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. See McDonald, 130 S.Ct. at 3038-42. Setting aside the ongoing debate about which part of the Fourteenth Amendment does the work of incorporation, and how, see id. at 3030-31 (plurality opinion of Alito, J.); id. at 3058-80 (Thomas, J., concurring); id. at 3089-99 (Stevens, J., dissenting); id. at 3120-21 (Breyer, J., dissenting), this wider historical lens is required if we are to follow the Court's lead in resolving questions about the scope of the Second Amendment by consulting its original public meaning as both a starting point and an important constraint on the analysis. See Heller, 554 U.S. at 610-19; McDonald, 130 S.Ct. at 3038-42.11 The Supreme Court's free -speech jurisprudence contains a parallel for this kind of threshold "scope" inquiry. The Court has long recognized that certain "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech"—e.g., obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement—are categorically "outside the reach" of the First Amendment. 2/8/18, 4:14 PM http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1573261.htmi Page 7 of 14 EZELL'v. CITY OF CHICAGO I Find Law United States v. Stevens, --- U.S. ----, ---- — ----, 130 S.Ct.1577, 1584-85,176 L.Ed.2d 435 (2010); see also Brown v. Entm't Merchants Ass'n, No. 08-1448,2011 WL 2518809, at *3-4 (June 27, 2011). When the Court has "identified categories of speech as fully outside the protection of the First Amendment, it has not been on the basis of a simple cost -benefit analysis." Stevens, 130 S.Ct. at 1586. Instead, some categories of speech are unprotected as a matter of history and legal tradition. Id. So too with the Second Amendment. Heller suggests that some federal gun laws will survive Second Amendment challenge because they regulate activity falling outside the terms of the right as publicly understood when the Bill of Rights was ratified; McDonald confirms that if the claim concerns a state or local law, the "scope" question asks how the right was publicly understood when the Fourteenth Amendment was proposed and ratified. Heller, 554 U.S. at 625-28; McDonald, 130 S.Ct. at 3038-47. Accordingly, if the government can establish that a challenged firearms law regulates activity falling outside the scope of the Second Amendment right as it was understood at the relevant historical moment -1791 or 1868—then the analysis can stop there; the regulated activity is categorically unprotected, and the law is not subject to further Second Amendment review. If the government cannot establish this—if the historical evidence is inconclusive or suggests that the regulated activity is not categorically unprotected—then there must be a second inquiry into the strength of the government's justification for restricting or regulating the exercise of Second Amendment rights. Heller's reference to "any . standard [ ] of scrutiny" suggests as much. 554 U.S. at 628-29. McDonald emphasized that the Second Amendment "limits[,] but by no means eliminates," governmental discretion to regulate activity falling within the scope of the right. 130 S.Ct. at 3046 (emphasis and parentheses omitted). Deciding whether the government has transgressed the limits imposed by the Second Amendment—that is, whether it has "infringed" the right to keep and bear arms—requires the court to evaluate the regulatory means the government has chosen and the public -benefits end it seeks to achieve. Borrowing from the Court's First Amendment doctrine, the rigor of this judicial review will depend on how close the law comes to the core of the Second Amendment right and the severity of the law's burden on the right. See generally, Volokh, Implementing the Right to Keep and Bear Armsfor Self—Defense, 56 UCLA L. Rev. at 1454-72 (explaining the scope, burden, and danger -reduction justifications for firearm regulations post -Heller ); Nelson Lund, The Second Amendment, Heller, and Originalist Jurisprudence, 56 UCLA L. Rev. 1343.1372-75 (2009); Adam Winkler, Heller's Catch-22, 56 UCLA L.Rev.1551,1571-73 (2009); Lawrence B. Solum, District of Columbia v. Heller and Originalism,103 Nw. U.L.Rev. 923, 979-80 (2009); Glenn H. Reynolds & Brannon P. Denning, Heller's Future in the Lower Courts,102 Nw. U.L.Rev. 2035, 2042-44 (2008). Both Heller and McDonald suggest that broadly prohibitory laws restricting the core Second Amendment right —like the handgun bans at issue in those cases, which prohibited handgun possession even in the home—are categorically unconstitutional. Heller, 554 U.S. at 628-35 ("We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding'interest-balancing' approach."); McDonald, 130 S.Ct. at 3047-48. For all other cases, however, we are left to choose an appropriate standard of review from among the heightened standards of scrutiny the Court applies to governmental actions alleged to infringe enumerated constitutional rights; the answer to the Second Amendment "infringement" question depends on the government's ability to satisfy whatever standard of means -end scrutiny is held to apply. The approach outlined here does not undermine Skoien, 614 F.3d at 639-43, or United States v. Williams, 616 F.3d 685, 691-93 (7th Cir.201o), both of which touched on the historical "scope" question before applying a form of intermediate scrutiny. And this general framework has been followed by the Third, Fourth, and Tenth Circuits in other Second Amendment cases.w See United States v. Malzzarella, 614 F.3d 85, 89 (3d Cir.2010) ("As we read Heller, it suggests a two-pronged approach to Second Amendment challenges. First, we ask whether the challenged law imposes a burden on conduct falling within the scope of the Second Amendment's guarantee. If it does not, our inquiry is complete. If it does, we evaluate the law under some form of means -end scrutiny."); United States v. Chester, 628 F.3d 673, 680 (4th Cir.2010) (A "two-part approach to Second Amendment claims seems appropriate under Heller, as explained by. the now -vacated Skoien panel opinion."); United States v. Reese, 627 F.3d 792, 800—o1(1oth Cir.2010) (same). Each of these cases involved a Second Amendment challenge asserted as a defense to a federal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 922, but we think the same principles apply here. McDonald reiterated that the Court has long since "abandoned 'the notion that the Fourteenth Amendment applies to the States only a watered-down, subjective version of the individual guarantees of the Bill of Rights.' " 130 S.Ct. at 3035 (quoting Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1,10-11, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 12 L.Ed.2d 653 (1964))• 2. Applying the framework to Chicago's firingrange ban The plaintiffs challenge only the City s ban on firing ranges, so our first question is whether range training is categorically unprotected by the Second Amendment. Heller and McDonald suggest to the contrary. The Court emphasized in both cases that the "central component" of the Second Amendment is the right to keep and bear arms for defense of self, family, and home. Heller, 554 U.S. at 599; McDonald, 130 S.Ct. at 3048. The right to possess firearms for protection implies a corresponding right to acquire and maintain proficiency in their use; the core right wouldn't mean much without the training and practice that make it effective. Several passages in Heller support this understanding. Examining post -Civil War legal commentaries to confirm the founding -era "individual right" understanding of the Second Amendment, the Court quoted at length from the "massively popular 1868 Treatise on Constitutional Limitations" by judge and professor Thomas Cooley: "[T]o bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them .; it implies the 2/8/18, 4:14 PM http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1573261.html Page 8 of 14 EZELL-v. CITY OF CHICAGO I FindLaw right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order." 554 U.S. at 616, 617-18 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also id. at 619 ("'No doubt, a citizen who keeps a gun or pistol under judicious precautions, practices in safe places the use of it, and in due time teaches his sons to do the same, exercises his individual right."' (quoting Benjamin Vaughan Abbott, Judge and Jury: A Popular Explanation of the Leading Topics in the Law of the Land 333 (1880))). Indeed, the City considers live firing -range training so critical to responsible firearm ownership that it mandates this training as a condition of lawful firearm possession. At the same time, however, the City insists in this litigation that range training is categorically outside the scope of the Second Amendment and may be completely prohibited. There is an obvious contradiction here, but we will set it aside for the moment and consider the City's support for its categorical position. The City points to a number of founding -era, antebellum, and Reconstruction state and local laws that limited the discharge of firearms in urban environments. As we have noted, the most relevant historical period for questions about the scope of the Second Amendment as applied to the States is the period leading up to and surrounding the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. That point aside, most of the statutes cited by the City are not specific to controlled target practice and, in any event, contained significant carveouts and exemptions. For example, the City cites a 1790 Ohio statute that prohibited the discharge of a firearm before sunrise, after sunset, or within one-quarter of a mile from the nearest building. Act of Aug. 4,1790, Ch. XIII, § 4, in 1 The Statutes of Ohio and of the Northwestern Territory 104 (Chase ed. 1833). Ibis statute is not directly related to controlled target practice. A similar 1746 statute limiting the discharge of firearms in Boston provided an exception for target practice: City residents could "fir[e] at a Mark or Target for the Exercise of their Skill and Judgment . at the lower End of the Common" if they obtained permission from the "Field Officers of the Regiment in Boston"; they could also "fir[e] at a Mark from the Several Batteries in" Boston with permission from the "Captain General." Act of May 28,1746, Ch. X, in Acts and Laws of the Massachusetts Bay 208 (Kneeland ed. 1746). The City cites other eighteenth- and nineteenth-century statutes regulating the discharge of firearms in cities, but most of these allowed citizens to obtain a permit or license to engage in firearms practice from the governor or city council.i3 That was the case under the Philadelphia Act of August 26,1721, § 4, one of the very statutes the Supreme Court considered in Heller and deemed "a licensing regime." 554 U.S. at 633. In short, these laws were merely regulatory measures, distinguishable from the City's absolute prohibition on firing ranges. See id. at 632,574 (founding -era statute that "restricted the firing of guns within the city limits to at least some degree" did not support the District of Columbia's "general [ ] prohibit[ion] on the possession of handguns"). These "time, place, and manner" regulations do not support the City's position that target practice is categorically unprotected. To be sure, a few of the eighteenth- and nineteenthcentury statutes cited by the City might accurately be described as general prohibitions on discharging firearms within cities. Three of these, however, had clear fire - suppression purposes and do not support the proposition that target practice at a safely sited and properly equipped firing range enjoys no Second Amendment protection whatsoevera4 Only two—a Baltimore statute from 1826 and an Ohio statute from 1831—flatly prohibited the discharge of firearms based on concerns unrelated to fire suppression, in contrast to the other regulatory laws we have mentioned. 1.5 Cf.Heller, 554 U .S. at 632 ("[ W]e would not stake our interpretation of the Second Amendment upon a single law . that contradicts the overwhelming weight of other evidence."). This falls far short of establishing that target practice is wholly outside the Second Amendment as it was understood when incorporated as a limitation on the States. We proceed, then, to the second inquiry, which asks whether the City's restriction on range training survives Second Amendment scrutiny. As we have explained, this requires us to select an appropriate standard of review. Although the Supreme Court did not do so in either Heller or McDonald, the Court did make it clear that the deferential rational -basis standard is out, and with it the presumption of constitutionality. Heller, 554 U.S. at 628 n. 27 (citing United States v. Carolene Prods., 304 U.S.144,152 n. 4, 58 S.Ct. 778, 82 L.Ed.1234 (1938)). This necessarily means that the City bears the burden of justifying its action under some heightened standard of judicial review. The district court specifically decided against an intermediate standard of scrutiny but did not settle on any other, then sided with the City "even if' intermediate scrutiny applied. A choice must be made. The City urges us to import the "undue burden" test from the Court's abortion cases, see, e.g., Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 876-79,112 S.Ct. 2791, 12o L.Ed.2d 674 (1992), but we decline the invitation. Both Heller and McDonald suggest that First Amendment analogues are more appropriate, see Heller, 554 U.S. at 582, 595, 635; McDonald, 130 S.Ct. at 3045, and on the strength of that suggestion, we and other circuits have already begun to adapt First Amendment doctrine to the Second Amendment context, see Skoien, 614 F.3d at 641; id. at 649 (Sykes, J., dissenting); Chester, 628 F.3d at 682; Marczarella, 614 F.3d at 89 n. 4; see also Volokh, Implementing the Right to Keep and Bear Arms for Self -Defense, 56 UCLA L.Rev. at 1449,1452, 1454-55; Lund, The Second Amendment, Heller, and Originalist Jurisprudence, 56 UCLA L.Rev. at 1376; Winkler, Heller's Catch -22,56 UCLA L.Rev, at 1572. In free -speech cases, the applicable standard of judicial review depends on the nature and degree of the governmental burden on the First Amendment right and sometimes also on the specific iteration of the right. 2/8/18, 4:14 PM http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1573261.htmi Page 9 of 14 EZELL.v. CITY OF CHICAGO I Find Law For example, "[c]ontent-based regulations are presumptively invalid," R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 382,112 S.Ct. 2538,12o L.Ed.2d 305 (1992), and thus get strict scrutiny, which means that the law must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest, id. at 395; see also Ariz. Free Enter. Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett, Nos. 10-238,10-239,2011 WL 2518813, at *9 (June 27, 2011). Likewise, "[1]aws that burden political speech are subject to strict scrutiny." Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm'n, --- U.S. ----, ----,130 S.Ct. 876, 898,175 L.Ed.2d 753 (2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). On the other hand, "time, place, and manner" regulations on speech need only be "reasonable" and "justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech." Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791, log S.Ct. 2746,1o5 L.Ed.2d 661(1989). The Supreme Court also uses a tiered standard of review in its speech -forum doctrine; regulations in a traditional public or designated public forum get strict scrutiny, while regulations in a nonpublic forum "must not discriminate on the basis of viewpoint and'must be reasonable in light of the forum's purpose.'" Choose Life Ill., Inc. v. White, 547 F.3d 853, 864 (7th Cir.2oo8) (quoting Good News Club v. Milford Cent. Sch., 533 U.S. 98,1o6-07 (2001)). In election -law cases, regulations affecting the expressive association rights of voters, candidates, and parties are subject to a fluctuating standard of review that varies with the severity of the burden on the right; laws imposing severe burdens get strict scrutiny, while more modest regulatory measures need only be reasonable, politically neutral, and justified by an important governmental interest. See Crawford v. Marion Cnty. Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181,190-91 (2008); Wash. State Grange, 552 U.S. at 451-52; Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 434, 112 S.Ct. 2059,119 L.Ed.2d 245 (1992); Lee v. Keith, 463 F•3d 763, 768 (7th Cir.2oo6). "First Amendment challenges to disclosure requirements in the electoral context"—for example, laws compelling the disclosure of the names of petition signers—are reviewed "under what has been termed'exacting scrutiny.' " Doe v. Reed, --- U.S ----------- 130 S.Ct. 2811, 2818,177 L.Ed.2d 493 (2010). This standard of review requires "a substantial relation between the disclosure requirement and a sufficiently important governmental interest," and "the strength of the governmental interest must reflect the seriousness of the actual burden on First Amendment rights." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Similarly, restrictions imposed on adult bookstores are reviewed under an intermediate standard of scrutiny that requires the municipality to present "evidence that the restrictions actually have public benefits great enough to justify any curtailment of speech." Annex Books, Inc. v. City of Indianapolis, 581 F.3d 460,462 (7th Cir.2009) (citing Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc., 535 U.S. 425,122 S.Ct. 1728,152 L.Ed.2d 67o (2002), and Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S. 41,1o6 S.Ct. 925,89 L.Ed.2d 29 (1986)). And in commercial - speech cases, the Court applies an intermediate standard of review that accounts for the "subordinate position" that commercial speech occupies "in the scale of First Amendment values." Bd. of Trs. of State Univ. of N.Y. v. Fox, 492 U.S. 469, 477,109 S.Ct. 3028,1o6 L.Ed.2d 388 (1989). In this context intermediate scrutiny requires "a fit between the legislature's ends and the means chosen to accomplish those ends, . a fit that is not necessarily perfect, but reasonable; that represents not necessarily the single best disposition but one whose scope is in proportion to the interest served." Id. at 48o (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., No. 10-779, 2011 WL 2472796, at *13 (June 23, 2011) (To justify commercial - speech restrictions, "the State must show at least that the statute directly advances a substantial governmental interest and that the measure is drawn to achieve that interest."). Labels aside, we can distill this First Amendment doctrine and extrapolate a few general principles to the Second Amendment context. First, a severe burden on the core Second Amendment right of armed self-defense will require an extremely strong public -interest justification and a close fit between the government's means and its end. Second, laws restricting activity lying closer to the margins of the Second Amendment right, laws that merely regulate rather than restrict, and modest burdens on the right maybe more easily justified. How much more easily depends on the relative severity of the burden and its proximity to the core of the right. In Skoien we required a "form of strong showing"—a/k/a "intermediate scrutiny"—in a Second Amendment challenge to a prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9), which prohibits the possession of firearms by persons convicted of a domestic -violence misdemeanor. 614 F.3d at 641. We held that "logic and data" established a "substantial relation" between dispossessing domestic -violence misdemeanants and the important governmental goal of "preventing armed mayhem." Id. at 642. Intermediate scrutiny was appropriate in Skoien because the claim was not made by a "law-abiding, responsible citizen" as in Heller, 554 U.S. at 635; nor did the case involve the central self-defense component of the right, Skoien, 614 F.3d at 645. Here, in contrast, the plaintiffs are the "law-abiding, responsible citizens" whose Second Amendment rights are entitled to full solicitude under Heller, and their claim comes much closer to implicating the core of the Second Amendment right. The City's firing -range ban is not merely regulatory; it prohibits the "law-abiding, responsible citizens" of Chicago from engaging in target practice in the controlled environment of a firing range. This is a serious encroachment on the right to maintain proficiency in firearm use, an important corollary to the meaningful exercise of the core right to possess firearms for self-defense. That the City conditions gun possession on range training is an additional reason to closely scrutinize the range ban. All this suggests that a more rigorous showing than that applied in Skoien should be required, if not quite "strict scrutiny." To be appropriately respectful of the individual rights at issue in this case, the City bears the burden of establishing a strong public -interest justification for its ban on range training: The City must establish a close fit between the range ban and the actual public interests it serves, and also that the public's interests are strong enough to justify so substantial an encumbrance on individual Second Amendment rights. Stated 2/8/18, 4:14 PM http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1573261.html Page 10 of 14 EZELL•v. CITY OF CHICAGO I Find Law differently, the City must demonstrate that civilian target practice at a firing range creates such genuine and serious risks to public safety that prohibiting range training throughout the city is justified. At this stage of the proceedings, the City has not come close to satisfying this standard. In the district court, the City presented no data or expert opinion to support the range ban, so we have no way to evaluate the seriousness of its claimed public -safety concerns. Indeed, on this record those concerns are entirely speculative and, in any event, can be addressed through sensible zoning and other appropriately tailored regulations. That much is apparent from the testimony of the City's own witnesses, particularly Sergeant Bartoli, who testified to several common-sense range safety measures that could be adopted short of a complete ban. The City maintains that firing ranges create the risk of accidental death or injury and attract thieves wanting to steal firearms. But it produced no evidence to establish that these are realistic concerns, much less that they warrant a total prohibition on firing ranges. In the First Amendment context, the government must supply actual, reliable evidence to justify restricting protected expression based on secondary public -safety effects. See Alameda Books, Inc., 535 U.S. at 438 (A municipality defending zoning restrictions on adult bookstores cannot "get away with shoddy data or reasoning. The municipality's evidence must fairly support the municipality's rationale for its ordinance."); see also Annex Books, Inc. v. City of Indianapolis, 624 F.3d 368, 369 (7th Cir.2010) (affirming preliminary injunction where a city's "empirical support for [an] ordinance [limiting the hours of operation of an adult bookstore] was too weak"); New Albany DVD, LLC v. City of New Albany, 581 F.3d 556, 56o-61(7th Cir.2009) (affirming preliminary injunction where municipality offered only "anecdotal justifications" for adult zoning regulation and emphasizing the necessity of assessing the seriousness of the municipality's concerns about litter and theft). By analogy here, the City produced no empirical evidence whatsoever and rested its entire defense of the range ban on speculation about accidents and theft. Much of the focus in the district court was on the possible hazards of mobile firing ranges. The City hypothesized that one cause of range -related injury could be stray bullets, but this seems highly implausible insofar as a properly equipped indoor firing range is concerned. The district court credited the plaintiffs' evidence that "mobile ranges are next to Sam's Clubs and residences and shopping malls and in parking lots, and there's not been any difficulties with them in those places." Commissioner Scudiero acknowledged that the law-enforcement and private -security firing ranges in Chicago are located near schools, churches, parks, and stores, and they operate safely in those locations. And Sergeant Bartoli testified about the availability of straightforward range -design measures that can effectively guard against accidental injury. He mentioned, for example, that ranges should be fenced and should designate appropriate locations for the loading and unloading of firearms. Other precautionary measures might include limiting the concentration of people and firearms in a range's facilities, the times when firearms can be loaded, and the types of ammunition allowed. See also, e.g., NRA Range Source Book (providing "basic and advanced guidance to assist in the planning, design, construction and maintenance of shooting range facilities"), http:// www.nrahq.org/shootingrange/ sourcebook asp (last visited June 2, 2011); Fla. Stat. § 823.16(6) (2011) (referencing the safety standards of the NRA Range Source Book); Kan. Admin. Regs. § 115-22-1(b) (2011) (same); Minn.Stat. § 87A.02 (2010) (same); Neb.Rev.Stat. § 37-1302(4) (2010) (same); Ohio Admin. Code 1501: 31-29-03(D) (2011) (same). At the preliminary -injunction hearing, the City highlighted an additional public -safety concern also limited to mobile ranges: the risk of contamination from lead residue left on range users' hands after firing a gun. Sergeant Bartoli was asked a series of questions about the importance of hand -washing after shooting; he said that "lucrative amounts of [cold running] water and soap" were required to ensure that lead contaminants were removed. The City argued below that mobile firing ranges might not be sufficiently equipped for this purpose, suggesting that mobile ranges would have inadequate restroom facilities and might have to rely on "port -a - potties ." This sparked a discussion about the adequacy of the water supply available at a standard "port -a - potty." The City continued on this topic until the judge cut it short by acknowledging her own familiarity with "port -a -potties." On appeal the City raised but did not dwell on its concern about lead contamination. For good reason: It cannot be taken seriously as a justification for banishing all firing ranges from the city. To raise it at all suggests pretext. Perhaps the City can muster sufficient evidence to justify banning firing ranges everywhere in the city, though that seems quite unlikely. As the record comes to us at this stage of the proceedings, the firing -range ban is wholly out of proportion to the public interests the City claims it serves. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' Second Amendment claim has a strong likelihood of success on the merits. D. Balance of Harms The remaining consideration for preliminary injunctive relief is the balance of harms. It should be clear from the foregoing discussion that the harms invoked by the City are entirely speculative and in any event may be addressed by more closely tailored regulatory measures. Properly regulated firing ranges open to the public should not pose significant threats to public health and safety. On the other side of the scale, the plaintiffs have established a strong likelihood that they are suffering violations of their Second Amendment rights every day the range ban is in effect. The balance of harms favors the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs asked the district court to enjoin the enforcement of Chicago Municipal Code § 8-20-28o—the prohibition on "[s]hooting galleries, firearm ranges, or any other place where firearms are discharged." They 2/8/18, 4:14 PM http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1573261.html Page 11 of 14 EZELI v. CITY OF CHICAGO I Find Law are entitled to a preliminary injunction to that effect. To be effective, however, the injunction must also prevent the City from enforcing other provisions of the Ordinance that operate indirectly to prohibit range training. The plaintiffs have identified several provisions of the Ordinance that implicate activities integral to range training: Chi. Mun.CodeE §§ 8-20-020 (prohibiting the possession of handguns outside the home), 8-20- 030 (prohibiting the possession of long guns outside the home or business), 8-20-080 (prohibiting the possession of ammunition without a corresponding permit and registration certificate), 8-20-100 (prohibiting the transfer of firearms and ammunition except through inheritance), 8-24-010 (prohibiting the discharge of firearms except for self-defense, defense of another, or hunting). To the extent that these provisions prohibit law-abiding, responsible citizens from using a firing range in the city, the preliminary injunction should include them as well. Similarly, the injunction should prohibit the City from using its zoning code to exclude firing ranges from locating anywhere in the city. Finally, because range training is required for the issuance of a Chicago Firearm Permit, a registration certificate, and ultimately, for lawful possession of any firearm, see Chi. Mun.CodeE §§ 8-20-11o(a), 8-20- 14o(a)—(b), the firing -range ban implicates not only the right to train at a range but also the core Second Amendment right to possess firearms for self-defense. Accordingly, the preliminary injunction should include sections 8-20-11o(a) and 8-20-140(a) to the extent that those provisions operate to prohibit otherwise eligible persons from "carry[ing] or possess[ing] a firearm" at a range without a Permit or registration certificate while they are trying to complete the range -training prerequisite for lawful firearm possession. Those are the bounds of the proposed preliminary injunction, which should be entered upon remand. The City worries that entering an order enjoining the range ban would allow "anyone [to] park a mobile range anywhere, anytime"; shoddy ranges operated by unlicensed instructors and lacking adequate hand -washing facilities could crop up in Chicago's most dangerous neighborhoods. To the contrary, a preliminary injunction against the range ban does not open the door to a parade of firing -range horribles. Cf.McDonald,130 S.Ct. at 3047 ("Despite municipal respondents' doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms."). The City may promulgate zoning and safety regulations governing the operation of ranges not inconsistent with the Second Amendment rights of its citizens; the plaintiffs may challenge those regulations, but not based on the terms of this injunction. As for the City's concern about a "regulatory vacuum" between the issuance of the preliminary injunction and the promulgation of firing -range zoning and safety regulations, we note that it faced a similar dilemma after the Supreme Court decided McDonald. The sky did not fall. The City Council moved with dispatch and enacted the Ordinance just four days later. The plaintiffs have established their entitlement to a preliminary injunction based on their Second Amendment claim, so we need not address the alternative argument that range training is protected expression under the First Amendment. Given the strong likelihood of success on the former claim, the latter claim seems like surplusage. For the foregoing reasons, we REVERSE the district court's order denying the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and REMAND with instructions to enter a preliminary injunction consistent with this opinion. Stung by the result of McDonald v. City of Chicago, --- U.S------ 130 S.Ct. 3020, 177 L.Ed.2d 894 (2010), the City quickly enacted an ordinance that was too clever by half Recognizing that a complete gun ban would no longer survive Supreme Court review, the City required all gun owners to obtain training that included one hour of live -range instruction, and then banned all live ranges within City limits. i This was not so much a nod to the importance of live -range training as it was a thumbing of the municipal nose at the Supreme Court. The effect of the ordinance is another complete ban on gun ownership within City limits. That residents may travel outside the jurisdiction to fulfill the training requirement is irrelevant to the validity of the ordinance inside the City. In this I agree with the majority: given the framework of Dist. of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 128 S.Ct. 2783,171 L.Ed.2d 637 (2008), and McDonald, the City may not condition gun ownership for self-defense in the home on a prerequisite that the City renders impossible to fulfill within the City limits. The plaintiffs have a strong likelihood of success on the merits of that claim and the district court should have granted an injunction against the operation of the ordinance to the extent that it imposed an impossible pre -condition on gun ownership for self-defense in the home. There are two obvious ways for the City to remedy this problem: it may either drop the requirement for one hour of live range training or it may permit live -range training within the City limits. Even if the City were to drop the live -range requirement, though, the plaintiffs claim an independent Second Amendment right to maintain proficiency in firearm use by practicing live -range shooting. The majority goes much farther than is required or justified, however, in finding that the plaintiffs' claim for liverange training is so closely allied to "core" Second Amendment rights that a standard akin to strict scrutiny should be applied. Granted, the right to use a firearm in the home for self-defense would be seriously impaired if gun owners were prevented from obtaining the training necessary to use their weapons safely for that purpose. We do not yet know how a complete ban on any firearms training would be received by the Supreme Court, but Heller and McDonald strongly suggest that a comprehensive training ban would not pass constitutional muster. But the City has not banned all firearms training; it has banned only one type of training. There is no ban on classroom training. There is no ban on training with a simulator and several realistic simulators are commercially available, complete with guns that mimic the recoil of firearms discharging live ammunition. See e.g. http:// www.virtrasystems.com/law-enforcementtraining/virtra-range-le (last visited July 6, 2011); 2/8/18, 4:14 PM http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1573261.html Page 12 of 14 EZELL v. CITY OF CHICAGO I FindLaw http://www.meggitttrainingsystems.com/main.php?id=25 & name=LE—Virtual—Bluefire—Weapons (last visited June 24, 2011); http:// www.ontargetfirearimtraining.com/ simulator.php (last visited July 6, 2011). It is possible that, with simulated training, technology will obviate the need for live -range training. In any case, the limited record to date suggests that even the City considers liverange training necessary to the safe operation of guns in the home for self-defense. A complete ban on live ranges in the City, therefore, is unlikely to withstand scrutiny under any standard of review. The plaintiffs have a strong likelihood of succeeding on the merits of this claim. Public safety interests apply on both sides of the balance: there are obvious safety risks associated with operating live shooting ranges (more on that later), but there are perhaps equally compelling safety interests in ensuring that gun owners possess the skills necessary to handle their weapons safely. On the record as it currently stands, the district court should have enjoined that part of the ordinance banning all live ranges within City limits. For that reason, I concur in the judgment. I write separately because the majority adopts a standard of review on the range ban that is more stringent than is justified by the text or the history of the Second Amendment. Although the majority characterizes this aspect of the ordinance as a complete ban on an activity "implicating the core of the Second Amendment right," a more accurate characterization would be a regulation in training, an area ancillary to a core right. Ante, at 45• A right to maintain proficiency in firearms handling is not the same as the right to practice at a live gun range. As such, I cannot agree that "a more rigorous showing than that applied in Skoien, should be required, if not quite 'strict scrutiny.' " Ante, at 46. Skoien required the government to demonstrate that the statute at issue served an "important government objective," and that there was a "substantial relationship" between the challenged legislation and that objective. United States v. Skoien, 614 F.3d 638, 642 (7th Cir.2010), cert. denied, --- U.S------ 131 S.Ct. 1674,179 L.Ed.2d 645 (2011). The majority's analysis of laws in effect during the time period surrounding the adoption of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments helps to prove the point that no scrutiny beyond that described in Skoien is necessary. The majority concedes that the City has presented us with "a number of founding -era, antebellum, and Reconstruction state and local laws that limited the discharge of firearms in urban environments." Ante, at 37. Some jurisdictions enacted outright bans on discharging firearms in city limits. Some laws limited the time, place and manner of firearms discharges. Some laws required permission from a government authority before discharging firearms in urban areas. The majority finds these laws irrelevant to the Second Amendment analysis here because they are "not specific to controlled target practice and, in any event, contained significant carveouts and exemptions." Ante, at 37-38. The majority also distinguishes them as regulatory measures rather than outright bans on firing ranges. Finally, the majority dismisses some of the laws because they were clearly aimed at fire suppression, which the majority believes would not be a concern at a safely sited and properly equipped firing range. But these observations contravene rather than support the majority's ensuing analysis. First of all, none of the 18th and 19th century jurisdictions cited by the City and dismissed by the majority were apparently concerned that banning or limiting the discharge of firearms within city limits would seriously impinge the rights of gun owners or limit their ability to learn how to safely use their weapons. Citizens living in densely populated areas had few legitimate reasons to discharge their firearms near their homes, and likely used them mostly when out in the country. Opportunities to hunt and practice outside of city limits were likely adequate for training purposes. Given the majority's nod to the relevance of historical regulation, curt dismissal of actual regulations of firearms discharges in urban areas is inappropriate. Second, as I noted above, many of these jurisdictions regulated the time, place and manner of gun discharges. For example, as the majority itself points out, one statute prohibited the discharge of firearms before sunrise, after sunset, or within one quarter mile of the nearest building. Others prohibited firearms discharge without specific permissions and only then at specific locations. The "time, place and manner" framework of the First Amendment seems well-suited to the regulation of live -range training within a densely populated urban area. A complete ban on live -range training in Chicago, of course, likely would not survive under the intermediate scrutiny applied to restrictions on time, place and manner, especially because the City itself concedes the importance of this training to the safe operation of firearms for self-defense in the home. Indeed, the City allows ranges to operate in some of the most densely populated parts of the City, albeit strictly for the use of law enforcement and trained security personnel. The majority purports to distinguish time, place and manner restrictions and other regulations on the grounds that the City's ordinance is a complete ban, but the ban on live ranges affects only one aspect of firearms training. The intermediate scrutiny applied to time, place and manner restrictions is both adequate and appropriate in these circumstances. Finally, that some of those early laws were concerned with fire suppression does not mean that they are irrelevant to our analysis today. On the contrary, these laws inform us that public safety was a paramount value to our ancestors, a value that, in some circumstances, trumped the Second Amendment right to discharge a firearm in a particular place. Analogizing to the First Amendment context, a categorical limit is sometimes appropriate, as in the case of bans on obscenity, defamation, and incitement to crime. See Skoien, 614 F.3d at 641. In the same way that a person may not with impunity cry out "Fire!" in a crowded theater, a person in 18th century New York, and 19th century Chicago and New Orleans could not fire a gun in the tinder boxes that these cities had become. See Footnote 14 above. If we are to acknowledge the historical context and the values of the period when the Second and Fourteenth Amendments were adopted, then we must accept and apply the full understanding of the citizenry at that time. In the instance of firearms ordinances which concerned 2/8/18, 4:14 PM http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1573261.html Page 13 of 14 EZELL! v. CITY OF CHICAGO I FindLaw k themselves with fire safety, we must acknowledge that public safety was seen to supercede gun rights at times. Although fire is no longer the primary public safety concern when firearms are discharged within City limits, historical context tells us that cities may take public safety into account in setting reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on the discharge of firearms within City limits. The majority's summary dismissal of the City's concern for public safety related to live gun ranges is to my mind naive. One need only perform a simple internet search on "gun range accidents" to see the myriad ways that gun owners manage to shoot themselves and others while practicing in these supposedly safe environments. From dropping a loaded gun in a parking lot to losing control of a strong weapon on recoil, gun owners have caused considerable damage to themselves and others at live gun ranges. To say that the City's concerns for safety are "entirely speculative" is unfounded. Ante, at 46. The plaintiffs themselves "do not doubt that gun ranges may be regulated in the interest of public safety." Reply Brief at 22. See also Reply Brief at 26- 27 (conceding that the City may except certain parts of the City, set range distances from other uses, require a license or permission for target practice, and regulate the operation and location of gun ranges). The plaintiffs' concessions regarding gun range regulations are by no means a complete list of restrictions the City may impose on gun ranges. At this stage of the litigation, the City has not yet had an opportunity to develop a full record on the safety issues raised by placing live gun ranges in an urban environment. Common sense tells us that guns are inherently dangerous; responsible gun owners treat them with great care. Unfortunately, not all gun owners are responsible. The City has a right to impose reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on the operation of live ranges in the interest of public safety and other legitimate governmental concerns. As for the remaining parts of the ordinance challenged by the plaintiffs, I agree that, to the extent that these provisions entirely prohibit gun owners from practicing at live ranges, they must be enjoined for the time being. As far as I can tell, though, the plaintiffs have not presented any evidence demonstrating, for example, that prohibiting gun owners from possessing guns outside the home will impinge on their ability to practice at a range. As the plaintiffs' own witnesses testified, some ranges lend patrons guns with which to practice. But if the ordinance both prohibits gun owners from transporting their own weapons and prevents ranges from lending weapons for practice, then those aspects of the ordinance must be enjoined. The ordinance admittedly was designed to make gun ownership as difficult as possible. The City has legitimate, indeed overwhelming, concerns about the prevalence of gun violence within City limits. But the Supreme Court has now spoken in Heller and McDonald on the Second Amendment right to possess a gun in the home for selfdefense and the City must come to terms with that reality. Any regulation on firearms ownership must respect that right. For that reason, I respectfully concur in the judgment. SYKES, Circuit Judge. RESEARCH THE LAW Cases & Codes / Opinion Summaries / Sample Business Contracts / Research An Attorney or Law Firm MANAGE YOUR PRACTICE Law Technology / Law Practice Management / Law Firm Marketing Services / Corporate Counsel Center MANAGE YOUR CAREER Legal Career Job Search 1 Online CLE / Law Student Resources NEWS AND COMMENTARY Law Commentary / Featured Documents t Newsletters 1 Blogs / RSS Feeds GET LEGAL FORMS Legal Forms for Your Practice ABOUT US Company History / Media Relations / Contact Us 1 Privacy (Updated) / Advertising / Jobs FIND US ON Copyright ® 2018. Thomson Reuters, All rights reserved 2/8/18, 4:14 PM http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1573261.htmi Page 14 of 14 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 321 33 � 341 35 36 37. i Sponsored by: Councilmembers Dan Roach, Jim McCune, Douglas G. Richardson, and Rick Talbert Requested by: Council ORDINANCE NO. 2013-35 An Ordinance of the Pierce County Council Adopting a New Chapter 8.78 of the Pierce County Code, "Shooting Ranges." Whereas, sport shooting ranges offer valuable hunter and firearm safety training and the provide the opportunity for many law enforcement agencies to maintain necessary firearms skills efficiently and at little or no cost; and Whereas, sport shooting ranges offer legitimate and important forms of recreation to the public; and i Whereas, the continued existence and viability of sport shooting ranges is impacted by burdensome retroactive regulation and lawsuits, thereby potentially threatening the availability of low-cost firearms training to some local law enforcement agencies, as well as hunter and firearms safety training and recreation to the general public; Now Therefore, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of Pierce County: Section 1. A new Chapter 8,78 of the Pierce County Code, "Shooting Ranges," is hereby adopted as shown in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, Ordinance No, 2013-35 Page 1 of 2 Pierce County Council 930 Tacoma Ave S, Rm 10d6 Tacoma, W) 98402 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 251 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Section 2, This Ordinance shall be transmitted to the Department of Ecology (DOE) for review and shall become effective on the date of DOE's approval. A? I A' , " 11 PASSED this day of451, 12013. 1ATTEST: PIERCE COUNTY COUNCIL Pierce County, Washington c,"At C ise D: ohnin oy McDonald Clerk of the Council Council Chair C, Pat McCarthy Pierce County, xecutive Approved County d 7 this 7 day of 2013. 2013. V Date of Publication of Notice of Public Hearing: �LAA ........... .... U----- 0 Effective Date of Ordinance: September 29, 2013 Clerk's Note: The DOE determined that this Ordinance is exempt from the state Noise Control Act. The DOE's approval is not required. The effective date for this Ordinance shall be pursuant to Section 2.45 of the Pierce County Charter. Ordinance No. 2013-35 Pierce County Council Page 2 of 2 930 Tawma Ave S, Rm '.. Tawma, WA 98402 4 5 6 7 10 11' 12i 13 14 151 161 17 18i 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 2013-35 "New Chapter" Chapter 8.78 SHOOTING RANGES Sections; 8.78.010 Definitions. 8.78.020 Protection from Noise and Nuisance Actions. 8.78.030 Acceptance of Certain Risks. 8.78.040 Exception. f 8.78.010 Definitions. "Shooting Range" means an area designed and operated for the use of rifles, shotguns, pistols, silhouettes, skeet, trap, black powder, flash bangs, or any other similar shooting or training activities. 8.78.020 Protection from Noise and Nuisance Actions. A. 1. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person who operates or uses a shooting range in unincorporated Pierce County 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 any noise control law or ordinance that applied to the range and its operation at the date of construction or initial operation of the range and is in compliance with Chapter 8.72 and 8.76 PCC. 2. A person who operates or uses a shooting range is not subject to an action for nuisance, and shall not be enjoined from using or operating a shooting range on the basis of noise or noise pollution, if the range is in compliance with any noise control law or ordinance that applied to the range and its operation at the date of construction or initial operation of the range and is in compliance with Chapters 8..72 and 8.76 PCC. B. A person who acquires title to or who owns real property adversely affected by the use of property with a permanently located and improved shooting range shall not maintain a nuisance action against the person who owns the range to restrain, enjoin or impede the use of the range where there has not been;a substantial change in the nature of the use of the range. This subsection does not prohibit actions for negligence or recklessness in the operation. of the range or by a person using the range. C. A shooting range that is operated and is not in violation of existing law at the time of the enactment of an ordinance must be permitted to continue in operation even if the operation of the shooting range at a later date does not conform to the new ordinance or an amendment to an existing ordinance. Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 2013-35 Pierce County Council Page 1 of 2 s3oTacoma oma Tacoma, ' i% 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 8.78-030 Acceptance of Certain Risks. A person who participates in shooting at a shooting range accepts the risks associated with the sport to the extent the risks are obvious and inherent. Those risks include, but are not limited to, injuries that may result from the noise, discharge of a projectile or shot, malfunction of shooting equipment not owned by the shooting range, natural variations in terrain, surface or subsurface snow or ice conditions, bare spots, rocks, trees, and other forms of natural growth or debris. 8.78.040 Exception. Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, this Chapter does not affect the authority of the County to regulate the location and construction of shooting ranges after the effective date of this Chapter. Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 2013-35 Pierce County Council Page 2 of 2 930 Towma Avo 6, Rm 1046 Tamna, WA 98402 Chapter 10.25 FIREARMS DISCHARGE PACF 5 AL16-w- [Here insert proposed area boundary description] Each of us says: (1) 1 am a legally registered voter of the State of Washington in the precinct written after my name below. (2) The portion of such precinct within which I reside is included within the proposed "No Shooting" area. (3) My residence address is correctly stated below. (4) 1 have personally signed this petition. Petition Name and Signature precinct Name Residence Address Number and Street City or PO Box No. Zip Code Failure of a petition to comply with any of the above format shall not automatically invalidate such petition but shall be a matter for consideration by the Kitsap County board of commissioners as to whether the intent and standards of this section have been met. (3) Upon the receipt of such a petition, the board of commissioners shall forward the petition to the Kitsap County auditor for verification of the signature requirements of this section. Upon the return of area verification from the auditor, the board shall set the matter for consideration at the next regularly scheduled public hearing or as soon thereafter as it may appropriately be heard. (4) At any time after one year from the effective date of the establishment of a "no -shooting" area pursuant to this section, the residents of such area may seek abrogation of such by the same procedure provided in this section for the establishment of a "no -shooting" area; provided, however, that in the event of such abrogation, Section 10.25.020 shall remain in full force and effect as to that area. (Ord. 515 (2014) § 2 (part), 2014) Article 2 — Shooting Ranges 10.25.060 Purpose. The purpose of this article is to provide for and promote the safety of the general public by establishing a permitting procedure and rules for the development and operation of shooting range facilities. The shooting range standards adopted herein are intended to protect and safeguard participants, spectators, neighboring properties and the public, while promoting the continued availability of shooting ranges for firearm education, practice in the safe use of firearms, and recreational firearm sports. (Ord. 515 (2014) § 2 (part), 2014) http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/KitsapCounty/html/Kitsap10/Kitsap1025.html Page 5 of 15 cc - EOCCICR 'effbocc From: Diane Johnson <drdianejohnson@gmail.co REr Sent: Friday, February 09, 2018 1:07 PM OR9 Y rY To: jeffbocc Subject: Letter in support of the moratorium, Ord. # 05-1218-17 Attachments: February 9 hearing addendum plus FAQ sheet.docx; FAC Sheet.docx Dear Commisioners, Please include the attached letter and FAQ sheets together in your submissions from citizens regarding the Moratorium on Commercial Shooting Facilities in Unincorporated Areas of Jefferson County. Sincerely, Diane Johnson Tarboo Valley CC'. �UCC.JCf} �I�f/I� jeffbocc From: Peter Newland <pnewland@whidbey.net> Sent: Friday, February 09, 2018 1:38 PM� To: jeffbocc FARING D ORD Subject. RE: Ordinance No.05-1218-17 Shooting Moratori ,.,s ,./ Please add the following statement to the Hearing Record: PROTECTING COUNTY TAXPAYERS Monday's hearing made clear the sheer magnitude of the moratorium committee's task. Chief among the issues it needs to examine are the costs that large shooting ranges are likely to impose on Jefferson County taxpayers. Costs for environmental review, permits and enforcement can be exacerbated by litigious, uncooperative gun range applicants and/or operators. The moratorium committee's work must include recommending ways to protect Jefferson County taxpayers. The moratorium committee should recommend rules that insure that gun ranges degrade neither the environment nor the County's coffers. One condition of a gun range operating permit could be a "payment and performance bond" that guarantees funds are available for both cleanup and enforcement of all operating conditions. Another way to fund environmental and enforcement issues would be an environmental fee, collected by the range operator and remitted monthly to a County held trust fund, as a portion of each individual gun range admission fee. This would be similar to the environmental fee we pay when we have our car serviced. Gun range owners should also be required to annually provide the County with "proof of insurance" in an amount not less than five million dollars and naming Jefferson County as an "additional insured". The insurance limit should be periodically updated for inflation and other rating factors. If the insurance is allowed to lapse, the operating permit must be immediately revoked. We understand that a case can be made that the County is required to provide zoning to accommodate recreational shooting ranges as a conditional use. There is no precedent that requires County Taxpayers to assume the liability for construction, compliance or operation of these inherently dangerous facilities. Performance bonds and liability insurance are good public/private solutions to protect the county and surrounding property owners and to encourage operators to run safe businesses in a fully compliant manner. It is in everyone's best interest to minimize costs. Sincerely, Peter Newland ieffbocc From: Connie Gallant <cg@conniegallant.com> Sent: Friday, February 09, 2018 1:44 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Comments: Gun range in South County Dear Commissioners: G RECORD By now you have received many eloquent comments and letters outlining why gun ranges in our county are not a good proposition, so I will be brief. The stress levels to humans, birds, wildlife and domesticated animals/pets; the loss of hearing; damage to our soil and water; loss of quality of life, and the loss of property values will not only be detrimental to us all, but it will also generate a potential increase of lawsuits to the county due to reasons stated. Our county has been selected by hundreds of current residents for its beauty and serene environment. Let us keep it that way. Please listen to the people and reject any proposals for the legal establishment of any gun ranges - now and in the future. Thank you, Connie & JD Gallant PO Box 490 Quilcene ce. Boa_ Ic f -) f q /C � ieffbocc From: Mari Brockhaus <mbbrockhaus@comcast.net> 17WINRErSent: Friday, February 09, 2018 1:55 PM ORD To: jeffbocc Subject: Security Services NorthWest weapons compound moratorium Dear Jefferson County Commissioners, I am writing to express my support for a moratorium on the Security Services Northwest weapons training compound affecting the Tarboo Lake region. It is my hope that the commission will ultimately determine that this gun range should not be permitted to operate. No matter what the commission decides, I certainly appreciate the care and deliberation that is going into this determination. My concerns are many: In light of the success of the Dabob Natural Area, a weapons range is an incompatible neighbor. The resulting noise from the weapons range will have an awful impact on both the residential community and on the wildlife. As you may be aware, Dabob and Tarboo Bays are now being frequented by up to ioo+ Bald Eagles during the late spring and summer. The noise will certainly affect their return to our area. As one whose family has owned a home on Dabob Bay for 5o years, I remember how rare it used to be to see Bald Eagles there. Please do not allow businesses to operate that will undermine their return. The noise generated by this facility will negatively affect the quality of life for those who are year-round residents and vacationers, as there is no way to escape the noise. The ammunition poses a significant threat to the ground water and ultimately Dabob Bay. Why would we jeopardize the thriving local aquaculture enterprises with lead contaminated ground water? Dabob Bay never used to have red tide. We now periodically contend with that. Why would we add contaminants to a bay that is beginning to struggle? We should be working to improve the health of the bay, not destroy it. I attended the public hearing on February 5, 2018 and was struck by the testimony regarding the number of veterans who live in the area who suffer from PTSD. A gun range again seems entirely incompatible with the needs of the community. Additionally, I was surprised to hear that there already are plenty of gun ranges in Jefferson County near this location. It appears that the need for law enforcement and others public servants to maintain their skills can be served by these gun ranges. Thank you so much for your time and thoughtful consideration of these concerns. I trust the commissioners will thoroughly investigate my concerns as well as those raised by others. Sincerely, Mari Brockhaus cc jeffbocc From: Linda Saunders, CFE, CPA/CFF <LSaunders@ForensicCPA.org> Sent: Friday, February 09, 2018 2:37 PM To: jeffbocc ARID RF Subject: Comments: Gun range in South County ���,,, Dear Commissioners --Our county has been selected by hundreds of current residents, such as ourselves who live on 22 acres of timberland, with a pristine, well -thought out forestry plan that invites wildlife, birds, and other rural inhabitants, including ourselves. Our property fits in with the beauty and serene environment of our Quilcene environment. Our property is within four miles of Mr. Joe D'Amico's 40 acres that he wants to clear-cut for military -like operations to fuel his political ideologies. Please listen to the people and reject any proposals for any new gun range, such as Mr. D'Amico is proposing. We have the Sportsman Club, which, for our rural county, satisfies our need for gun safety ranges. The proposed gun ranges near an environmentally sensitive area of Tarboo Lake are for a preposterous commercial facility. Mr. D'Amico stated during the Commissioners' hearing this week that the two helicopter pads are simply for EMS. That is not true. The paramilitary facility that he envisions is not what our rural, pristine community needs. We've used the field in Quilcene proper for an emergency helicopter evacuation for a health emergency, and it was quite adequate for our rural use. Having a GPS -targeted facility for para -military operations is NOT what the Jefferson County population needs or wants. This is one man's fantasy for shooting, blowing up things, and gathering his like-minded, gung-ho military operations fans. It isn't about gun safety. It's about feeding an ego for military -like activities. Please pay attention to the 1,200 petitioners who have very valid reasons for halting this military pipe -dream. The stress levels Mr. D'Amico's commercial facility will cause to humans, birds, wildlife and domesticated animals & pets; the loss of hearing; damage to our soil and water; loss of quality of life, and the loss of property values will not only be detrimental to Jefferson County, but it will also generate a potential increase of lawsuits to the county due to reasons stated by so many Jefferson County residents at the hearing this week. I believe you have just cause to not approve a huge, commercial weapons facility in a hugely environmentally sensitive area near Tarboo Lake. Respectfully submitted, Z Z, S"adeu Retired Coast Guard Officer, CFE, CPA/CFF Certified in Financial Forensics by AICPA Forensic Accounting Consulting Retired Coast Guard Officer, Licensed Massage Therapist & Cranio -Sacral Practitioner P O Box 854 143 Wildcat Way Quilcene WA 98376-0854 Office: 360-765-3665 Linda's Cell: 206-948-5841 Tom's Cell: 360-301-1663 C c. BD!�Oc DO It 9 Julie Shannon From: Kathleen Kler Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2018 5:50 AM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Gun range on the Toandos? From: Kimberly Kinser Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2o18 5:49:49 AM (UTC-o8:oo) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Kathleen Kler Subject: Gun range on the Toandos? Dear Kathleen, I hope you are well and enjoying 2o18. I just heard about a proposed gun club at Tarboo Ridge. I am not in favor of the noise, the traffic, the idea of more guns in my "neighborhood." I support the Tarboo Lake community in wanting to keep their environment a quiet forest, not a legal gun zone. I disagree that a "pay -to -play" gun club will decrease illegal gun use. Thank you for your service. Kimberly Kinser 81 Wolf Road Quilcene WA Typed on this itty bitty screen 1 cc". 60�c_ica act 11 r Julie Shannon From: Kate Dean Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2018 10:35 AM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Firing Range hEARING RFr- op From: Glenn and Linda Gately Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2018 10:35:12 AM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Kate Dean; David Sullivan; Kathleen Kier Subject: Firing Range Moratorium Dear Commissioners Kate, Kathleen, and David, I want to add my voice in support of the moratorium on firing ranges. Outdoor firing ranges will definitely result in noise pollution to those people living in their vicinity (see article below). A firing range will be especially deleterious to those veterans suffering with PTSD . It is one thing to build a house where noise already occurs, like near our airport. It is another thing to bring the noise in after the houses and people are already there - to people who have built in the country to enjoy the peacefulness of country living! The lead bullets will most likely result in an increase in lead in the groundwater, which could contaminate wells and affect human health. Only time and monitoring will determine to what degree. Our Jefferson County and its environment has great value, which one cannot adequately measure in terms of dollars. Let's be wise in managing our county and do the very best that we can. Sincerely, Glenn Gately By Dr. Mercola Noise pollution is an often -overlooked source of environmental stress that can raise your risk of serious health conditions, including heart disease. In the US it's estimated that 100 million people are exposed to unhealthy levels of noise, typically from automobile and aircraft traffic (although everything from leaf blowers and lawnmowers to loud music can also contribute)., In the 1970s, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) set a recommended noise exposure limit of 55 decibels in a 24-hour period, with nighttime noise weighted more heavily because it can interfere with sleep. For comparison, a quiet suburb has a decibel level of about 50, while freeway traffic is closer to 70 and a chain saw is 120 decibels. These exposure levels haven't been assessed since 1981, however, as noise issues were deemed best handled at the state and local government level .2 Just how much noise a person can reasonably handle without health consequences is still relatively unknown... but what is clear is that excess noise is a serious risk factor for your health. Quieting Noise Pollution Could Save $3.9 Billion a Year Noise pollution may increase your risk of hearing loss, stress, sleep disturbances, and heart disease. A new analysis conducted an environmental assessment of US noise pollution as a cardiovascular health hazard, and revealed small decreases in noise could add up to major economic savings. The analyses suggested that a 5 -decibel noise reduction would reduce the prevalence of high blood pressure by 1.4 percent and coronary heart disease by 1.8 percent. The annual economic benefit was estimated at $3.9 billion.] The researchers assumed that noise exposure levels in 2013 were the same as those assessed in 1981. However, as urbanization has increased it's likely these are underestimates and reductions in noise may impact even more people than the study suggested., Senior author Richard L. Neitzel of the University of Michigan School of Public Health in Ann Arbor told Reuters: "Most of Western Europe is far ahead of the U.S. in understanding people's noise exposure." In the U.S. the most recent noise exposure data we have is almost 40 years old, `whereas in Europe they have requirements to map out and understand who's exposed to noise and have requirements to do something about it. In the U.S. we just view it as a necessary byproduct of the technology we use."' How Does Noise Pollution Harm Your Heart? According to research published in Environmental Health Perspectives, long-term exposure to traffic noise may account for approximately 3 percent of coronary heart disease deaths (or about 210,000 deaths) in Europe each year.v But, how, exactly, does noise harm your heart? One of the key ways is by elevating stress hormones such as cortisol, adrenaline, and noradrenaline, which, over time, can lead to high blood pressure, stroke and heart failure. One review of research showed that "arousal associated with nighttime noise exposure increased blood and saliva concentrations of these hormones even during sleep. Deepak Prasher, a professor of audiology at University College in London and a member of the WHO Noise Environmental Burden on Disease working group, states:, "Many people become habituated to noise over time... The biological effects are imperceptible, so that even as you become accustomed to the noise, adverse physiological changes are nevertheless taking place, with potentially serious consequences to human health. ...Taken together, recent epidemiologic data show us that noise is a major stressor that can influence health through the endocrine, immune, and cardiovascular systems." The impact can be significant. Among women who judge themselves to be sensitive to noise, chronic noise exposure increased the risk of cardiovascular mortality by 80 percent!, Chronic noise exposure also leads to health risks beyond your heart, such as hearing loss, diminished productivity, sleep disruption, impaired learning, and more. Noise Pollution and Air Pollution Often Go Hand -in -Hand Those who live near busy roadways, airports, and industrial areas are those most likely to be exposed to both noise pollution and air pollution. Interestingly, both fine particle matter air pollution and noise pollution are believed to increase your cardiovascular disease risk through similar biologic pathways, including by causing an imbalance in your autonomic nervous system (ANS). Your ANS is intricately involved in regulating biological functions such as blood pressure, blood sugar levels, clotting, and viscosity. In a German study of more than 4,200 people, researchers used a measure of arterial hardening known as "thoracic aortic calcification" (TAC) to estimate heart risks. Exposure to fine particle air pollution increased TAC scores by nearly 20 percent while exposure to noise pollution increased TAC by about 8 percent.- This was after controlling for other variables that may influence heart health, such as age, gender, smoking, physical activity, alcohol use, and more. What this means is that people living in high-risk areas need to account for both types of pollution to protect their heart health. As researchers noted:1, "...both exposures seem to be important and both must be considered on a population level, rather than focusing on just one hazard. " Noise Pollution Can Lead to Noise -Induced Hearing Loss Noise -induced hearing loss (NIHL), which can occur from one very loud noise exposure (such as an explosion) or continuous exposure to loud noise over time (such as working in a factory), affects about 15 percent of Americans. According to the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD):,? "Recreational activities that can put you at risk for NIHL include target shooting and hunting, snowmobile riding, listening to MP3 players at high volume through earbuds or headphones, playing in a band, and attending loud concerts. Harmful noises at home may come from sources including lawnmowers, leaf blowers, and woodworking tools. Sound is measured in units called decibels. Sounds of less than 75 decibels, even after long exposure, are unlikely to cause hearing loss. However, long or repeated exposure to sounds at or above 85 decibels can cause hearing loss. The louder the sound, the shorter the amount of time it takes for NIHL to happen. Here are the average decibel ratings of some familiar sounds: • The humming of a refrigerator.' 45 decibels • Normal conversation: 60 decibels • Noise from heavy city traffic: 85 decibels • Motorcycles: 95 decibels • An MP3 player at maximum volume: 105 decibels • Sirens: 120 decibels • Firecrackers and firearms: 150 decibels Your distance from the source of the sound and the length of time you are exposed to the sound are also important factors in protecting your hearing. A good rule of thumb is to avoid noises that are too loud, too close, or last too long." The best way to prevent NIHL is to reduce the noise if possible, and if not wear earplugs or other protective devices to protect your hearing. If you can't do either of these, move away from the noise. Beyond Your Heart: How Noise Pollution Harms Your Health Noise pollution can harm your health in many ways, aside from harming your heart health and leading to hearing loss. Many of these are just beginning to be explored. For instance, a study on pregnant women found exposure to noise pollution may lead to lower birth weight.1, Research also suggests long-term exposure to noise pollution may have an effect on cognitive development in children and cognitive and psychological functions in adults, although more research is needed in this area.14 One study of traffic wardens in Pakistan, who are exposed to noise levels between 85-106 decibels, found significant physio -psychological effects due to traffic noise pollution, including:, Aggravated depression: 58% Stress: 65% Public conflict:' Irritation and annoyance: 54% Behavioral affects: 59% Speech interferenc( Hypertension: 87% Muscle tension: 64% Exhaustion: 4f Low performance levels: 55% Concentration loss: 93% Hearing impairmer Headache: 74% Cardiovascular issue: 71 There is also the issue of sleep disturbances, which is why nighttime noise pollution is thought to be worse than daytime exposures. If you can't sleep because of noise, it can cause a cascade of negative health repercussions. Research has even shown that chronic noise exposure of about 100 decibels leads to a significant reduction in testosterone levels in male rodents. According to the researchers: ­ 4 "Chronic psychological distress can cause suppression of the hypothalamic -pituitary -testicular axis and thus lead to male hypogonadism [a condition in which the body doesn't produce enough testosterone], which is associated with psycho -social dysfunction, chronic diseases, and as a result, considerable economic costs. Conversely, noise is a prototypal environmental stressor of growing importance, already linked to birth outcomes and diabetes. However, its effects on male testosterone levels have been paid little attention ... Research on humans is highly warranted, especially given the steady trend in Western societies for increasing the burden of both male hypogonadism and noise pollution." How to Minimize the Risks of Noise Pollution What can you do about noise pollution in your home to protect your heart and overall health? If you live in a very noisy area, such as near a highway or airport, you may want to consider moving. If that is not an option, consider adding acoustical the to your ceiling and walls to buffer the noise. Double -paneled windows and insulation can also help. At the very least, you can sound -treat your home by adding heavy curtains to your windows, rugs to your floors and sealing air leaks. If noise is only an issue occasionally, sound -blocking headphones can eliminate such disturbances. If noise is an issue during the night, you may want to consider adding pink noise to your bedroom. Pink noise is steady with a consistent frequency, like the sound of wind or constant rain. Research shows that steady pink noise can help slow down and regulate your brainwaves for more stable sleep and improved sleep quality. !7While pink noise CDs are available, you can also simply turn on a fan in your bedroom to block out noise disturbances and instead take advantage of this beneficial type of pink noise. If you work in a noisy environment, be sure you are wearing ear protection at all times, and leave the site as often as possible, such as during breaks and lunch. Also be cognizant of noise exposures during your leisure time, such as that from motorcycles, lawnmowers, leaf blowers, and even loud music and television. Try to make less noise when you can, not only for your own sake but for the sake of those around you. CC . C_ ICI '-�q 11gr ieffbocc From: Annie Chandler <grannyannie.c@gmail.doW 11%111 NJ 11-, Sent: Friday, February 09, 2018 3:06 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Shooting range Please know that I am opposed to the proposed shooting club. Thank you. Anne Chandler cc. �Occjoq �9113 ieffbocc From: Mabs Sanok <mabscsanok89@gmai1.com> Sent: Friday, February 09, 2018 3:16 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Moratorium Rebuttal Statement Dear Board of County Commissioners: I have already submitted a written statement in support of continuing the moratorium, but I would like to take this opportunity to submit a rebuttal to some of the claims made by Mr. D'amico, his representatives, and his supporters. First, I would like to reiterate that the proposed gun range is in no way harmonious with the surrounding land uses as was stated by Mr. D'amico's employee. Tarboo Lake has been managed as a public recreation site, the Northwest Watershed Institute has been actively restoring the health of the watershed, local farms rely on a rural setting and relative tranquility for the health and well-being of their animals, the Land Trust has purchased surrounding land to preserve it in perpetuity, and rural residences have been established near the proposed site at considerable cost to the homeowners. All of these established uses of surrounding land are threatened by the possibility of noise and heavy metal pollution. The moratorium is absolutely necessary to assess potential impacts of a project of this size and scope. Furthermore, Mr. D'amico claims that he is vested. I do not see how a man who bought conditionally zoned property and has not received a permit can be vested. To have started his development in the absence of a permit and definitive zoning simply means he has taken a calculated risk. Third, Mr. D'amico has stated that he has plans to reduce the noise impact of his gun range with the use of concrete barriers such as are used on highways. However, concrete does not absorb sound but merely redirects it. Given the long history of noise complaints surrounding his Fort Discovery range and his propensity to shoot until IOpm (rather than reduce his hours of operation in consideration of his neighbors), I find myself skeptical that he will manage sound in a way that will allow his proposed facility to remain harmonious with surrounding land uses. He has furthermore stated (on a FB page entitled Jefferson County Washington) that he does not intend to restrict the types of helicopters he plans to accommodate at his landing pads. Fourth, Mr. D'amico says that he follows established best management practices at his gun ranges. And yet siting his proposed range on the shores of a lake in an area with a very shallow water table, high precipitation, and acidic soils runs contrary to EPA best management practices for gun ranges. Fifth, Mr. D'amico's lawyer asserts that the moratorium is infringing on Second Ammendment rights. And yet, when there is already an available gun range in Jefferson County in Port Townsend and 22 gun ranges within a 50 mile radius, this assertion is nonsensical. Sixth, Mr. D'amico states that the argument about the County potentially having to deal with 40 acres of lead contaminated soil is invalid because the County already has 40 acres of such land in the form of the PT gun range makes absolutely no sense. Two contaminated sites are no worse than one? Finally, Mr. D'amico responded to a landowner's claim that the many farms and families living in close proximity were in the area first meant nothing because he is a 4th generation Jefferson County landowner. How long a person has lived in an area compared to another has absolutely no bearing on this matter. The fact is that he bought conditionally zoned land surrounded by established farms and homes. The onus is upon him to prove compatibility; it is not a matter of somehow commanding more legitimacy for one's project based on family history. I encourage the County Commissioners to continue the moratorium. The impacts of gun ranges, especially large ones with multiple shooting sites and helicopter traffic, are too potentially damaging environmentally and socially to not bear thorough scrutiny. Sincerely, Mabs Sanok 3654 Eaglemount Rd P.O. Box 63 Chimacum 360-316-9398 effbocc ccl From: Bill Derrington <creativeinseattlel@gmail.cit EARIN Sent: Friday, February 09, 2018 3:20 PM PTORD To: jeffbocc Subject: Shooting Range Moratorium Jefferson County Commissioners — I am appalled to learn that Jefferson County would even consider allowing an outdoor shooting range at Tarboo Ridge, between Center Road and Dabob Road. I live in Washington because of its beauty and connection with nature and cherish the peace and quiet of my rural surroundings. Do not let these intruders destroy what I have worked so hard for to have and enjoy. You have an obligation to protect our environment and the people and animals living here. Not only do you need to you need to extend the current moratorium, you need to have them permanently take their noise and bullets someplace else. If you can't safeguard us then who will? Bill Derrington 975 Rhododendron Dr. Quilcene, WA 98376 Virus -free. www.avast.com 1 ieffbocc From: Sheila H <kumquatxtreme@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, February 09, 2018 3:30 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Support for moratorium on shooting facilities I'd like to express my strong support for a one-year moratorium on modifying or establishing shooting facilities. Such a moratorium is needed to allow proper time to formulate (and gather public comment on) an official policy. To open up Tarboo to commercial shooting, without proper investigation and planning, would be to compromise a beautiful area and the lives of those who live there. Please implement the moratorium. Thank you, Sheila Husting 1294 Lemonds Dr. Quilcene, WA effbocc �1 From: Latent Image <timber@drizzle.com> Sent: Friday, February 09 HEARING -7 2018 3:40 PM REC%D To: jeffbocc Subject: Public Comment — Ordinance #05-1218-17 RE: Ordinance #05-1218-17 Establishing a Moratorium on Commercial Shooting Facilities in Unincorporated Areas of Jefferson County We are in favor of the establishment of a one-year moratorium and are grateful for the opportunity to comment. Counties in Washington State are entrusted to exercise regulation which will promote the safety, health and welfare of everyone. If the Cedar Hills Recreational Facility is given a green light, it seems that the welfare (as defined by the dictionary as "health, happiness and fortune") of the business' owner and a select few will take precedence over the welfare of thousands of other residents of Jefferson County. 1200 signatures, representing 5% of the county's registered voters, were gathered in a short period of time in support of this one-year moratorium. Given more time, the numbers could easily be far greater. Citizens of this county believe that the establishment of a commercial operation housing 7 firing ranges and 2 helipads to be inconsistent with, and detrimental to, the quality of life they enjoy residing in Jefferson County. The rights of a few should not be allowed to supersede the rights of so many. You, as elected officials representing your constituents, have an extremely important decision to make and it must be an informed one. There is a lot at stake for a great many people and time should be taken to get it right. That is why we support the moratorium. Thank you for your consideration. Beth Bronson Gerry Grady 1000 Toandos Road NEARING My name is Pascale Sanok. I am fourteen year old girl who supports the moratorium. I am writing this in addition to the oral testimony I gave at the public hearing. Many issues have already been discussed so I will attempt not to echo them. After hearing people voice concern about illegal shooting and proposing that the gun range will limit it. I don't believe this to be true. The people who shoot out in the woods do so because they do not wish to pay the 40 dollar annual membership fee at Jefferson County Sportsmen's Association. Do you think if they weren't willing to pay 40 dollars annually they are going to pay a substantial amount more to attend D'Amico's range? I don't. Safe shooting is an important issue. However it is not an issue that this gun range will fix. Thank you for taking time out of your day to hear my opinion and the opinion of others. I hope that you will continue the moratorium. You did the right thing in imposing it and I hope you see that. Cc evccico Qlqlq From: zerk McJerk <offthepigs@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, February 09, 2018 3:48 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Joe d I live near Beckett point, and for a long time I would regularly hear gunfire and explosions from fort discovery. All day. It wasn't as bad as the helicopters though. That was ridiculous. Shooting ranges are fine, but paramilitary training camps are another thing entirely. Keep that stuff on military bases. He wants to build a shrine for his gun fetishizing, and it's ridiculous. And remember, when he says it's important for the people who protect your freedom, that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel Zak h Sent from my pocket «:�30« tq a s d REAPING RECD From: Nerreca <nerreca@aol.com> -- Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2018 1:11 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: The only solution to gun faciity is a closed facility. When the rules and laws were written no one imagined a big military/commercial range firing semi- and automatic weapons by multiple shooters. These guns are bigger and larger and anyone thought civilians would be using. The laws are outdated. There is a big difference saying it is ok to fire guns when you are thinking it will be occasional target practice with a 22 or sighting a rifle in for hunting compared to saying it is ok to fire these big loud weapons ALL DAY. Not to mention car explosions and danger of fires. You job is indeed hard but please find a way to not allow this facility unless it is enclosed. Thank you, Nancy Erreca Cc_� �j� ieffbocc From: Michael Halverson <tarboocreek@msn.com>I r`IKIM(),,Q► J Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2018 11:49 AM ",,•� To: jeffbocc Subject: IMG_2988.J PG Attachments: IMG 2988.JPG February 8, 2018 To: Jefferson County Commissioners From: Michael Halverson 8081 Center Quilcene, WA 98376 I am writing as a follow-up to my remarks last Monday in support of the moratorium on establishment of any new gun ranges in Jefferson County. My wife Cheryl and I live 1.5 miles east of the proposed military style gun range at Tarboo Lake and would clearly hear every gun shot and explosion set off in the area. We are now threatened with a perpetual disturbance of our peace and quiet. Thankfully, only a few shots a week is what's normal now. Tarboo Lake itself would be ruined for recreation if gunplay on such a scale as proposed is allowed. It is DNR owned and belongs to all of us. WDFW stocked over 1600 trout there in 2017 that we all paid for. Lake Leland, two miles south of Tarboo Lake, would also be severely affected by the planned heavy and automatic gunfire noise. Children learn to fish there on the provided dock. A Jefferson County campground is located there and over 9,500 trout were stocked in 2017 by the WDFW. The value of family fishing and camping in peace and quiet is incalculable! Lake Leland was awarded $325,000 in Wildlife Recreation Grants for improvements to docks and access in the Washington State capital budget passed last month. Neither lake is affected by the algae blooms that close other local lakes. They are county treasures and sources of local income that must be preserved. About Us: We bought 9 acres along Tarboo Creek in 1995 and moved here upon retirement in 2001. With the guidance of Peter Bahls and NWI we donated the 5.5 acres straddling the creek to Jefferson Land Trust. NWI planted spruce seedlings and erected snags. Some of the spruce are now 20 feet tall! Please see attached photo with granddaughters taken March, 2012. We continue to pay taxes on the donated land. Sincerely, Michael Halverson Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Brian Lopez <Iopezprivate@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, February 09, 2018 3:59 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Yes on Moritorium I support the shooting moritorium. I think it's appropriate to spend a year carefully considering what we want our future to be and then writing unambiguous rules that protect / create that future. What does Jefferson County look like in 50 years? 75 years? How (and where) do these land uses fit into that world? There is far too much next -year thinking about this issue. Be stewards for the long run: take input from all sides, deliberate, draft, get comments on drafts, decide, enact, enforce. -brian Julie Shannon ( M_ 7IV From: David Sullivan Sent: Friday, February 09, 2018 4:01 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: More thoughts on Critical Areas Ordinance From: Roxanne Hudson Sent: Friday, February 9, 2018 4:01:20 PM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: #dcd; Kate Dean; Donna Frostholm; %20PIanComm@co.jefferson.wa.us; David Sullivan; John Bellow Subject: Fwd: More thoughts on Critical Areas Ordinance This email is to follow up on the public meeting held with farmers and also the conversation we had with Donna at the DCD office. Please consider it public comment on the critical areas update. I have 6 areas for you to consider. 1. I strongly think that you should make changes to the draft critical areas chapter we have been reviewing and you are getting feedback on. It is disingenuous to get feedback from the agricultural community and then not incorporate it into the document. There are serious problems with the current draft and I will be deeply disappointed if it is approved in its current state. Given its deficiencies, I think a revised chapter should receive a second round of public comment and feedback before it is approved. 2. It will also be important for you to consider the prohibitively expensive nature of wetland delineation. It has cost us more than $4,000 so far with more to come. If you require each farmer to delineate wetlands before she can engage in "new agriculture", I think you may very well reach a point where no one is in compliance because that is way too burdensome for small farms. No farm in Jefferson County could be considered a large or corporate farm where such expenditures would be an expected part of the budget. Perhaps a cost -matching program or other sort of subsidy could be set in place to assist farms with this important work and remove some of the burden. Regulatory burden is a very important consideration to maintaining the health of an economic sector. Simply using the County maps is insufficient since many of them are incorrect. 3. In my opinion, the crux of the matter depends entirely on the definition of "new agriculture." Defined one way, it would be very comfortable for farmers and still maintain soil and water quality. Defined another, it would become extremely burdensome on farmers, DCD, and strangle agriculture in our county. We all want to be in compliance with the County code and protect water and soil quality and human safety, but we also need a balanced approach. I think the correct definition of existing and ongoing agriculture is any land that has been converted from its natural state to agricultural production for longer than the sunset period. And of course would include agricultural zoning as mentioned in the draft chapter. I think the correct definition of "new agriculture" should be defined as agriculture that occurs where agriculture did not previously take place or has not occured for more than the sunset period and reverted to its natural state or has been converted to another use. An overly narrow definition is one that considers "new agriculture" to include agricultural practices, management, technologies or anything that is different from what is currently being done. For example, I do NOT think the following activities would constitute new agriculture: (1) extending an existing drainage ditch 3 feet or deepening it 1 inch as part of routine repair and maintenance, (2) covering existing vegetable land with an unheated greenhouse, (3) changing fence from 3 strand barbed wire to no climb fence or vice versa, (4) putting row covers, landscape fabric, or tarps on existing cropland to suppress weeds, or (5) moving animals and animal housing as part of rotational grazing and husbandry (e.g., moving chicken houses or a cow shed). These examples are part of on-going agricultural practices that farmers engage in as a matter of course as they carry out their day-to-day activities and are not new agriculture. At most they could be considered tweaking or adjusting to changing conditions. In the case of landscape fabric or rotational grazing, they are considered state of the art, best practices for sustainable agricultural production that is in direct contrast to concentrated feed lot production or the use of herbicides. We want farmers to use those practices. So in my opinion, the definition of new agriculture is key to making this ordinance workable for all stakeholders and maintain the soil and water quality we all care about. This is an area of great importance that will have grave consequences for agricultural vitality in our county. Careful attention is needed and the draft chapter must be changed to address this issue before it is adopted. 4. The buffers are also going to need to be considered carefully since for many farms there is nowhere on their land outside of a 75 foot buffer from a critical area. As well, giving farmers "credit" for the work they are already doing to protect the wetlands they steward will be needed. This is important to help them see that their efforts to protect critical areas is recognized by the county and will help them with buffers. The worst thing that could happen is for farmers to fence off critical areas, replant them with native species, and then receive no leniency or credit for their expense in time, land, and money. What incentive would farmers have to engage in those activities if it doesn't help them with the income -generating activities they need to survive? 5. I also think you will need to carefully consider what the procedures are for farmers to engage with DCD around these issues. You will need to provide clear guidance to farmers about what the process is since none of the activities I can think of will require a permit and thus will not trigger a farmer to engage with the County. What forms will they need to fill out? What procedures will they need to follow? What mechanism will there be for the county to give or withhold approval since there is no permit involved? For example, what would a farmer do if she wanted to engage in new agriculture in an area 150 feet from any critical area. Why would she engage with the county? How would she do so? Another concern is how will the county pay for all the planner time and process? It will be excessively burdensome to charge farmers fees for such activities and I strongly disagree with that approach for funding. 6. One final thought I had was that it would be helpful for you to convene a technical advisory board of farmers to provide you with some assistance as you figure out these nuances. I wonder if perhaps some of the disagreements that arise between farmers and county folks comes simply from a lack of understanding of what farmers do, what are common, everyday farming practices, and what is reasonable to expect farmers to do given the tiny profit margins that allow them to survive at all. We are currently in a very difficult time for many small businesses, with farms being especially vulnerable to economic and regulatory pressures. It would be a shame to drive small, local, sustainable farms out of business and then have to get food from large unsustainable farms located far away. Thank you for considering my feedback on the critical areas work you are doing right now. Best, Roxanne Hudson Co-owner, SpringRain Farm & Orchard cc�Occ jeffbocc HEARING RECORD From: Robert Heinith <bobheinith@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, February 09, 2018 4:06 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: [BULK] Support of Shooting Range Moratorium Attachments: gunMorator_JCBOC_021918.docx Please find attached comments on the above issue. I appreciate the ability to comment on this important issue. C(-'13-0(((rte:?- 1,f)� From: Marciana Heemstra <heemstrafamily@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, February 09, 2018 4:08 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Support for moratorium I, Marciana Heemstra, am writing in support of the moratorium on the shooting range. My concerns echo those already voiced by Chimacum and Quilcene residents. I ask that the leadership in our county take a very close look at the issues and proceed slowly and thoughtfully. Thank you for your service in our beautiful county. Respectfully, Marciana Hermstra Chimacum resident 10 "1 MI Ii From: timr2green <timr2green@comcast.net> Sent: Friday, February 09, 2018 4:11 PM To: Subject: Dear Commissioners, jeffbocc Tarboo Lake Shooting Range My Wife & I have made our home in this community, doing our level best to support local business & agriculture. We are on Eaglemount Road near Brothers Road. Rifle fire near Tarboo Lake rings our home like a bell. We knew there would be noise sometimes in a Rural Residential/ Agricultural/ Managed forest area such as this. We have managed forest which needs work, timber companies harvest -sometimes people shoot. That said, we believe the consistent noise necessarily generated by the proposed new range will be horrible. No quiet afternoons, no calm mornings. The siting of the proposed installation with shooting toward Highway 104 to the east and the shape of the valley will positively preclude meaningful abatement short of completely indoor ranges. We ask you to consider carefully the genuine needs of this community as you decide on changes which will irretrievably destroy this peaceful area. We have nearly everything in this home and nowhere else to go. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Tim & Suzanne Green timgreen3744@yahoo.com .moocc cr�t�rrt a '1 �� HEAR!PII� RK From: Karen 0. Gale <karengale.aloft@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, February 09, 2018 4:20 PM To: Kate Dean; Kathleen Kler; David Sullivan; jeffbocc Subject: Homeland Insecurity Commissioners all, I failed to include my neighborhood in my earlier response, and wish to add an elaboration, if I may. I live in Coyle, so travel the Dabob Road corridor frequently, as well as Center Road. Tarboo Ridge is in my region. The introduction of helicopters and outdoor shooting is not an improvement to the rural ambiance, or supportive of these friends' and neighbors' business plans. Please understand ... I am aware of how paranoid my concerns may sound, but we are in strange times. I'd rather be ridiculed than fail to state a concern. And no ... I don't read or watch spy stories. I am not one to fall for conspiracy theories. I just recognize what appears to have potential to become a huge liability. I continue to feel that such a gated facility in such a remote location could be overtaken, or transformed, to become an armed compound for US or anti -US insurrectionists, providing easy access to (Brown's Point beach head) Bangor and viewpoints to Indian Island, via helicopters and drones. Having experienced the terrifying and extraordinary appearance and then disappearance of Navy SEALS doing camouflaged maneuvers on Brown's Point, across from Bangor, prior to 9- 11-01,1 have a clear sense of how larger groups than seen could assemble, undetected, in our forests surrounding the shooting range, especially in the summer. Now they would even have a modern armored headquarters ready to overtake and operate from. Complete with helipad(s?), full utilities,and communications. Having looked at this region from an Emergency Preparedness viewpoint, it is obvious that between Jefferson and Clallum counties, transportation by land can be instantly snarled by a few well placed impacts to Highways 101, 19, 20, 104, Center Road, Hood Canal Bridge, etc., preventing an immediate counter -response by law enforcement. The plethora of public marinas, and private docks abound, making an assembly of reinforcements of shoreline or marine -based combatants possible, also without evoking much notice or response. If this weren't a concern, we would not already have Navy personnel training and preparing on our local docks and beaches, day and night. We are a very permeable border. Yes, those "vulnerabilities" have long existed, but there was not an appropriate facility and gathering space for terrorists/revolutionaries to work effectively from. I have a feeling that if we build it, they could come. Our civil and global political cultures are becoming more tense, daily. Just knowing that my neighbors, who already have assault weapons, can go so locally and procure more weapons as members, chills my blood. So many aspects of this facility's business plan leave me with massive insecurity regarding my homeland's peace (and quiet). I ask that you vote to protect our homeland. We are exposed to enough insecurities from weather and seismologic events! Karen Gale Coyle Toandos Peninsula Jefferson County r�r i�a 1,/w a-_q_f From: Sonia Story <sonia@moveplaythrive.com> Sent: Friday, February 09, 2018 4:29 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: for public record to County Commissioners Peace It is one of those precious qualities, like fresh air and clean water, that we tend to take for granted until it is gone. The peace, the fresh air, the clean water and the beauty of the Tarboo lake region are all free, open to the public, and are all threatened mightily by the proposed private, for-profit, membership -only, exclusive weapons training compound. I do not want to live in a place where peace, pristine water and clean air are taken for granted. I do not want to live in a place that throws away its beautiful watershed. It should not even be considered. This is a WATERSHED we are talking about. A clean, pure watershed that supports salmon, agriculture, forest and families. In the interest of being fair, In the interest of preserving what is sacred, In the interest of saving what cannot be replaced, In the spirit of peace that is reflected in the Tarboo region itself, Let us work together for the good of everyone to come up with a solution. I propose a buy out. What if we create a community partnership to purchase the 4o acre parcel of land above Tarboo lake so that Joe D'Amico and his Fort Discovery business can relinquish the land and recoup their investment of $600,000. The partnership could consist of the following groups among others: Individual private donations Pope Resources Northwest Watershed Institute North Olympic Salmon Coalition Jefferson Land Trust Jefferson County Washington State Sierra Club, Washington State First Nations groups We could all save a great deal of time and money with a buy out. I urge you to consider this option in your mediation with Joe D'Amico. I want to live in a place where the peace, pristine water and clean air of the Tarboo region is protected and held as sacred. I am not alone. As evidenced by the Tarboo Ridge Coalition (TRC) petitions and by the public testimony thus far, keeping Tarboo clean and peaceful is the overwhelming consensus of those who live in this county, notjust the neighbors near Tarboo. In regards to the TRC petitions, I personally spoke with hundreds of county residents far and wide that I had not met previously. When I showed them the map, the location of the watershed and the location of the proposed weapons training site, they quickly signed the petition and said things like: "Are you kidding me?" "This is insane." "Thank you for doing this." "I hope to God you win." "I used to fish there." "Our class camped there every year when I was in school." "I have been to Discovery Bay when they were shooting. It sounded like a war zone." "Don't let them win." "Our county representatives should do what the people want." Yes. Do what the people want. Do what is dictated by sanity and what is in alignment with the already existing Comprehensive Plan for the region. www.co.jefferson.wa.us/DocumentCenter/Home/View/664 At the very least please make sure as you go forward that part of the moratorium is strengthened to include restrictions on siting and location. Thank you for your service to our community. Sonia Story PO Box 676 Chimacum, WA 98325