HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020 01 27 BoCC Presentation - PRESENTEDStaff’s Analysis of Planning Commission’s Recommended Commercial Shooting Facility Ordinances
January 27, 2020Presentation to the Commissioners
Stuart Whitford, EPH Director
Michelle Farfan, Associate Planner
Philip C. Hunsucker, Chief Civil DPA
1/27/2020 1
Agenda
CSFO Presentation to County Commissioners 1/27/2020 2
Background
Planning Commission’s
Recommended Ordinances
Staff Analysis of PC’s
Recommended Ordinances
Next Steps
Background
3
Background
CSFO Presentation to County Commissioners 1/27/2020 4
Timeline
Ordinance No. 12-1102-18 (Title 8 -Health and Safety Code)—November 2, 2018
Ordinance No. 15-1214-18 (Title 18 –Land Use
Code)—December 14, 2018
Litigation: (1) FDC DJ & (2) TRC GMHB
Staff’s October 2019 Draft Ordinances
Planning Commission’s December 2019 Recommendations
Timeline
5
54
3
2
1
December 2018
BoCC Adopts
Title 18 Ordinance
November 2018
BoCC Adopts
Title 8 Ordinance
August 2018
Review Committee
Produces Title 8 Ordinance
Timeline
6
1/27/2020 CSFO Presentation to County Commissioners 6
December 2017
BoCC Adopts CSF Moratorium:
Develop Uniform CSF Standards
April 2018
Review Committee
Established
May-August 2018
Review Committee Meets
for over 40 Hours in Public
Ordinance No. 12-1102-18 (Title 8 -Health and Safety Code)
1.Created uniform CSF regulations for Jefferson County.
2.Required generally accepted environmental best management practices (BMPs).
3.Required minimum standards.
4.Required liability insurance.
5.Required a facilities design plan.
6.Required a safety plan.
7.Required an operations plan.
8.Required an environmental plan.
9.Required a noise abatement plan.
10.Required an initial inspection.
11.Required annual inspections.
12.Required professional review.
13.Required a compliance certification under oath.
14.Specified consequences for non-compliance.
CSFO Presentation to County Commissioners 7
Ordinance No. 15-1214-18 (Title 18 –Land Use Code)
CSFO Presentation to County Commissioners 8
Kept all the Conditional Use Approval Criteria
in JCC 18.40.530.
Added Missing Definitions and Fixed Existing
Definitions in Ch. 18.10 JCC.
Fixed Unnamed Uses Loophole in JCC 18.15.045.
Fixed Home Business and Cottage Industry Loopholes in Ch. 18.20 JCC.
1110
98
7
September 2019
GMHB Invalidates
Title 8 & Title 18 Ordinances
Requires Compliance by March 2, 2020
February 2019
Clallam County Superior Court
Upholds Title 8 Ordinance Against
Constitutional Challenge
Timeline
12
September 2019
BoCC Refers
Title 8 & Title 18 Ordinances
to Planning Commission
1/27/2020 CSFO Presentation to County Commissioners 9
October 2019
Staff Recommends to
Planning Commission
Changes to
Title 8 & Title 18 Ordinances
December 2019
Planning Commission
Recommends to BoCC
Changes to
Title 8 & Title 18 Ordinances
January 2020
SEPA Determination
of Nonsignificance for
Title 8 & Title 18 Ordinances
Litigation
10
Fort Discovery Corp. v. Jefferson County
1.Declaratory relief case filed in Clallam County Superior Court on November 21, 2018.
2.Summary Judgment for the County granted on February 5, 2019.
3.FDC appealed on February 20, 2019.
4.Hearing in February or March 2020.
(Date not set.)
Tarboo Ridge Coalition (TRC) v. Jefferson County
1.Petition for Review on Title 8 Ordinance filed with the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board December 26, 2018.
2.Petition for Review on Title 18 Ordinance filed with the Growth Board on January 16, 2019.
(Cases were consolidated for hearing.)
3.Final Decision and Order issued on September 16, 2019.
4.On appeal to the Thurston County Superior Court.
A.Trial Setting Date is March 13, 2020.
B.John C. Skinder is the assigned judge.
Recap of Growth Management Hearings Board Final Decision and Order (FDO)
CSFO Presentation to County Commissioners
1.Title 8 Ordinance held to be a development regulation.
a."First, the County expanded the size, scope and types of land uses allowed for shooting facilities in Title 8." FDO, 8.
b."Second, Title 8’s purpose statement at JCC 8.50.210 illustrates the County’s intention to regulate commercial shooting facilities under Title 8 ..." FDO, 8.
c."Third, Title 8 requires a new shooting facility applicant to obtain an operating permit and a conditional use permit under Title 18. … Once an applicant has both permits, then a hearing examiner reviews both permits required in Title 8 and Title 18." FDO, 9.
d."Fourth, Title 8 cross-references the administrative remedy for appeals to the hearing examiner process in Title 18 JCC 18.05.080 and .085 …" FDO, 10.
2.Title 8 Ordinance held to be invalid because it did not undergo SEPA review or public participation required for a development regulation. FDO, 12-13.
1/27/2020 13
Recap of Growth Management Hearings Board FDO
CSFO Presentation to County Commissioners
3."Issue No. 5
Do the two Ordinances allow a land use that is inconsistent with and fails to implement the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan goals and policies in violation of GMA?37
In light of the Board’s findings and conclusions in this Final Decision and Order in which the Board has determined it has jurisdiction over Title 8’s development regulations and the failure of the County to comply with the requirements of chapter 43.21C RCW in adopting the Title 8 Ordinance as addressed above, combined with remand to the County, the Board will not address Issue 5." (Emphasis added.)
"37 Issue No. 5 in its entirety:
Do the two Ordinances (Title 8 Ord. at 8.20.220; 8.50.310) (Title 18 Ord. at 18.10.090; 18.10.150; 18.10.190; Table 3-1; 18.20.170(4); 18.20.350(8)) allow a land use that is inconsistent with and fails to implement the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan goals and policies NRG 1.0, NRP 1.1, NRP 3.2, NRP 3.4, NRG 5.0, NRP 5.1, and/or NRP 5.3, in violation of RCW 36.70A.120; RCW 36.70A.130(1)(d); RCW 36.70A.040 and WAC 365-196-500(3)? Petitioners claim the Ordinances violate these provisions because: They allow multiple gun ranges per parcel, whereas previously only one gun range per parcel was allowed. They allow police and military training at commercial shooting facilities, whereas previously only recreational and tourist use was allowed at gun ranges. They abandon the requirement that commercial shooting facilities confine themselves only to small-scale uses, whereas previously gun ranges were required to be small-scale."
1/27/2020 14
Recap of Growth Management Hearings Board FDO
CSFO Presentation to County Commissioners
4."In this matter, the County conducted no SEPA analysis of the Title 8 Ordinance and issued a Declaration of Non-Significance for the Title 18 Ordinance, notwithstanding the fact that the two Ordinances working together authorized the permitting of shooting facilities of significantly greater scale and intensity than what was previously allowed throughout the County’s Forest-Commercial, Rural and Inholding Resource Lands." FDO, 15.
5."The Board finds that the County’s amendments of Titles 8 and 18 are inextricably intertwined. The end result of the County’s actions in adopting amendments to both titles will allow larger shooting facilities with more uses in natural resource lands than previously allowed in its development regulations. " FDO, 16.
6."The Board finds and concludes that the continued validity of the SEPA-noncompliant Ordinances, Titles 8 and 18, will substantially interfere with the fulfillment of Goal 10 of the GMA and imposes invalidity." FDO, 16 (emphasis in original).
7.Ordinance remanded with compliance due March 2, 2020. FDO, 19.
1/27/2020 15
Staff’s October 2019 Draft Ordinances
16
Overview of Staff’s October 2019 Draft Title 8 Ordinance (Health and Safety Code) in Response to Growth Board’s FDO
1.Revised with the Intention the Title 8 Ordinance would not be a development regulation.
2.Focuses only on Operations of a CSF and Requires an Operating Permit with an Operational Environmental Health and Safety Plan with components for operations, safety, environmental operational BMPs, and sound suppression.
3.Permit application must be reviewed by a qualified shooting range evaluator.
4.Moved everything that could be construed as a Development Regulation to the Title 18 Ordinance.
5.Changed the Administration of the Title 8 Ordinance to the Environmental Public Health Department, which is better equipped to enforce operating permits.
6.EPH Director’s decision can be appealed to the Jefferson County Hearing Examiner under the new Hearing Examiner Code in Chapter 2.30 JCC.
CSFO Presentation to County Commissioners 17
Overview of Staff’s October 2019 Draft Title 18 Ordinance(Land Use Code) in Response to Growth Board’s FDO
1.CUP Required for All CSFs—all 13 CU Criteria Must be Met.
2.To Protect Forest Resource Lands all Outdoor CSFs must be Small Scale Recreation or Tourist Uses.
3.Outdoor CSF allowed with a CUP in CF, RF and IF, but prohibited everywhere else.
4.Indoor CSF allowed in commercial, industrial, manufacturing zones with a CUP, but prohibited everywhere else.
5.Closes unnamed use loophole.
6.Closes Cottage Industry and Home Based Business loopholes.
7.CSF design requirements moved to the Title 18 Ordinance from the Title 8 Ordinance.
8.Limits how much land designated as Forest Resource Land can be used for OSFs.
9.Provides for Appeals of CUPs to the Jefferson County Hearing Examiner under the new Hearing Examiner Code in Chapter 2.30 JCC.
CSFO Presentation to County Commissioners 18
Planning Commission’s December 2019 Recommendations
19
1/27/2020 CSFO Presentation to County Commissioners 20
Planning Commission’s Recommended Ordinances
21
Planning Commission’s Recommended Ordinances
“The Planning Commission recommends amending Ordinance No. 12-1102-18 (Title 8 Ordinance) and Ordinance No. 15-1214-18 (Title 18 Ordinance), as reflected in Appendix 2 (Title 8 Ordinance) and Appendix 3 (Title 18 Ordinance).”
CSFO Presentation to County Commissioners1/27/2020 22
Planning Commission Recommendations, 2.
Planning Commission Recommendations
1/27/2020 CSFO Presentation to County Commissioners 23
The significant change in Appendix 2 (Title 8 Ordinance)is in adding a new definition of "Firearms
allowed at commercial shooting facilities":
(26)"Firearms allowed at commercial shooting facilities"means weapons that can be legally,
owned,carried and discharged in accordance with the laws of Washington under Chapter
9.41 RCW ("Firearms and Dangerous Weapons")and not additional weaponry in use by
military forces which require specialized authorization,training and training grounds.
Machine guns,destructive devices,and certain other firearms are prohibited on commercial
shooting facilities.The definition of these items may be found in Title 26 U.S.C.,Chapter 53,
section 5845,also known as the National Firearms Act.Examples are:any select fire
firearm (aka full-auto),mortar,rocket launcher,grenade,Molotov cocktail.
The intent of this proposed change is to preclude any military type weapons from being used at
commercial shooting facilities.
Planning Commission Recommendations, 2.
Planning Commission’s Recommended Ordinances
The significant change in Appendix 3 (Title 18Ordinance)is to:(1)Limit new commercial shootingfacilitiestoallowindoorshootingrangesasadiscretionaryuseinallcommercialandindustrialzoningdistricts(except resource based industrialzoningdistrict),subject to review under the StateEnvironmentalPolicyAct;and,(2)State thatoutdoorshootingranges,except those that qualifyasalegalnonconforminguseunderJCC18.20.260,shall not be allowed in Jefferson Countyinordertoprotecttherurallifestyle,peace,healthandsafetyofJeffersonCountyresidentsaswellandtoavoidimpactstobothwildanddomesticanimals.
CSFO Presentation to County Commissioners1/27/2020 24
Planning Commission Recommendations, 3.
Planning Commission’s Recommended Ordinances
1/27/2020 CSFO Presentation to County Commissioners 25
Planning Commission’s Recommended Ordinances
1/27/2020 CSFO Presentation to County Commissioners 26
Staff Analysis of Planning Commission Recommendations
27
Balancing Risk
CSFO Presentation to County Commissioners 28
Legal Compliance—Revising these Ordinances Requires Passing Muster On a Number of Legal Grounds:
1.The County’s public participation process for development regulations.
2.Washington’s State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
3.Washington’s Growth Management Act (GMA).
4.Limits on the right to bear arms guaranteed by the Washington and United States Constitutions.
5.Limits on Police Powers granted to the County by the Washington Constitution and the Revised Code of Washington.
6.Due Process Requirements in the Washington and United States Constitutions, namely whether:
a.the regulation is aimed at achieving a legitimate public purpose; and,
b.the regulation uses means that are reasonably necessary to achieve that purpose.
7.This means the ordinances must be for a legitimate public purpose, the regulation must be reasonably related to that purpose and it cannot be arbitrary and capricious.
CSFO Presentation to County Commissioners 29
On November 14, 2019, Washington Law Improved In Favor of the County on Regulatory Takings Claims
CSFO Presentation to County Commissioners 1/27/2020 30
There are only two categories of per se regulatory takings: (1) where government requires an owner to suffer a permanent physical invasion of her property; and, (2) regulations that completely deprive an owner of 'all economically beneficial use of her property. If an alleged regulatory taking does not fit into either category, it must be considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the Penn Central factors. Chong Yim v. City of Seattle, ___ Wn.2d ___, 451 P.3d 675, 690 (Wash. 2019).
Penn Central Factors: (1) The extent to which the regulation has interfered with distinct investment-backed expectations; and, (2) The "character of the governmental action"—whether it amounts to a physical invasion or instead merely affects property interests through some public program adjusting the benefits and burdens of economic life to promote the common good. Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 544 U.S. 528, 539, 125 S. Ct. 2074, 2082, 161 L. Ed. 2d 876 (2005).
On November 14, 2019, Washington Law Improved In Favor of the County on Due Process Claims:
Unduly Oppressive Test is Dead
CSFO Presentation to County Commissioners 1/27/2020 31
11/14/19: The Washington Supreme Court disavows over 60 prior cases that use "the unduly oppressive test" for land use due process claims. Yim v. City of Seattle, , ___ Wn.2d ___, 451 P.3d 694, 704–06 (2019).
“[A] law that regulates the use of property violates substantive due process only if it ‘fails to serve any legitimate governmental objective, making it arbitrary or irrational.’" Yim v. City of Seattle, ___ Wn.2d ___, 451 P.3d 694, 700 (2019).
"Property owners do not have a fundamental right to do what they wish on their property without being troubled by reasonable regulation." Olympic Stewardship Found. v. State Envtl. & Land Use Hearings Office through W. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 199 Wn. App. 668, 720, 399 P.3d 562, 586 (2017).
The Right to Bear Arms and Shooting Ranges
1/27/2020 CSFO Presentation to County Commissioners 32
2
3
1 U.S. Supreme Court –Core Individual Right of Self-Defense:The Second Amendment “core right” protects the
“right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.” Heller v. United States, 554 U.S.
570, 635, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 2821-22, 272 L.Ed.2d 637 (2008). The Second Amendment codified a pre-existing “individual
right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” Id.at 592.
7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals –Corollary Right to Train on a Shooting Range:“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.” Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 684, 704 (7th Cir.
2011) (Ezell 2011). “In Ezell [2011]we held that Chicago’s ban on firing ranges could not be reconciled with the Second
Amendment and ordered the district court to preliminarily enjoin its enforcement.”651 F.3d at 710–11. Ezell v. City of
Chicago, 846 F.3d 888, 890 (7th Cir. 2017) (Ezell 2017).
9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and Washington Court of Appeals, Division 2 –Balancing Act:Even if legislation
does not implicate the Second Amendment “core right,” if it places a substantial burden on that right, government has
the burden of proving “(1) the government's stated objective to be significant, substantial, or important; and (2) a
reasonable fit between the challenged regulation and the asserted objective.” United States v. Chovan, 735 F.3d 1127,
1139 (9th Cir. 2013) and Kitsap Cty. v. Kitsap Rifle & Revolver Club, 405 P.3d 1026, 1037 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017),review
denied,190 Wn.2d 1015, 415 P.3d 1198 (2018).
The Supremacy Principle
1.Article VI of the United States Constitution states,“This Constitution,and the laws
of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof;and all treaties
made,or which shall be made,under the authority of the United States,shall be
the supreme law of the land;and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby,
anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”
2.Article I,Section 2 of the Washington State Constitution states,“The Constitution
of the United States is the supreme law of the land.”
3.Under the Supremacy Principle,state statutes and regulations cannot conflict with
the United States Constitution,the Washington Constitution,and federal laws;and,
local ordinances and regulations cannot conflict with the United States
Constitution,federal laws,the Washington Constitution,or state laws.
4.There is a fundamental principle of Washington law sometimes called “the
preemption doctrine,”that derives from Article VI of the United States Constitution,
Article I,Section 2 of the Washington State Constitution,Article XI,Section 11 of
the Washington State Constitution,and RCW 36.32.120(7)that the Washington
Administrative Code (WAC)calls the “Supremacy Principle,”which holds that a
higher authority of law will displace the law of a lower authority of law when the
two authorities come into conflict.
WAC 365-196-725 (GMA) Requires Consideration of the Supremacy Principle
WAC 365-196-725
Constitutional provisions.
(1)Comprehensive plans and development regulationsadoptedundertheactaresubjecttothesupremacyprincipleofArticleVI,United States Constitution and of Article XI,Section11,Washington state Constitution.(2)Counties and cities planning under the act are required touseaprocessestablishedbythestateattorneygeneraltoassurethatproposedregulatoryoradministrativeactionsdonotunconstitutionallyinfringeuponprivatepropertyrights.AssetforthinRCW36.70A.370,the state attorney general hasdevelopedapublicationentitled"Advisory Memorandum:Avoiding Unconstitutional Takings of Private Property,"which isupdatedfrequentlytomaintainconsistencywithchangesincaselaw.Counties and cities should contact the department orstateattorneygeneralforthelatesteditionofthisadvisorymemorandum.
Jefferson County’s Comprehensive Plan Follows the Supremacy Principle
“►Policy LU-P-1.2 Acknowledge and protect the rights of private property owners in preparing land use, development, and environmental regulations, prohibit arbitrary and discriminatory actions, and preserve reasonable uses for regulated properties.” 2018 Comprehensive Plan, 1-36.
“The three Ezell vs.City of Chicago decisions
specify that local restrictions on the siting of gun
ranges are constitutional,but need to have a ‘close
fit’to the goals of protecting health,safety,general
welfare and the natural environment.”
Planning Commission Written Comments
1/27/2020 CSFO Presentation to County Commissioners 36
TRC Comments:
(Scott Freeman, 2.)
Balancing Risks:
What Ezell Says
CSFO Presentation to County Commissioners 1/27/2020 37
"Range training is not categorically outside the Second Amendment. To the contrary, it lies close to the core of the individual right of armed defense." Ezell v. City of Chicago, 846 F.3d 888, 893 (7th Cir. 2017) (Ezell 2017).
"[We applied a strong form of intermediate scrutiny and required the City to demonstrate '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." Ezell 2017, 893.
"This requires an evaluation of ‘the regulatory means the government has chosen and the public-benefits end it seeks to achieve.’The rigor of this means-end review depends 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.”Ezell 2017, 892.
Balancing Risks:
What Ezell Says
CSFO Presentation to County Commissioners 1/27/2020 38
"Severe burdens on the core right of armed defense require a very strong public-interest justification and a close means-end fit; lesser burdens, and burdens on activity lying closer to the margins of the right, are more easily justified."Ezell 2017, 892.
"In all cases the government bears the burden of justifying its law under a heightened standard of scrutiny; rational-basis review does not apply." Ezell 2017, 892.
"We explained in Ezell I that the City cannot defend its regulatory scheme with shoddy data or reasoning. The municipality's evidence must fairly support the municipality's rationale for its ordinance." Ezell 2017, 896.
Balancing Risks:
What Ezell Says
CSFO Presentation to County Commissioners 1/27/2020 39
"T]he two zoning restrictions—the manufacturing-district classification and the distancing requirement—are a single regulatory package for purposes of Second Amendment scrutiny. We can't evaluate the degree to which these zoning regulations, standing alone, encumber Second Amendment rights and are responsible for the absence of commercial shooting ranges in the city. They must be evaluated as a package." Ezell 2017, 894.
.
"[The City] simply asserts, without evidence, that shooting ranges generate increased crime, cause airborne lead contamination in the adjacent neighborhood, and carry a greater risk of fire than other uses." Ezell 2017, 895.
"The City has provided no evidentiary support for these claims, nor has it established that limiting shooting ranges to manufacturing districts and distancing them from the multiple and various uses listed in the buffer-zone rule has any connection to reducing these risks. We certainly accept the general proposition that preventing crime, protecting the environment, and preventing fire are important public concerns. But the City continues to assume, as it did in Ezell I, that it can invoke these interests as a general matter and call it a day." Ezell 2017, 895.
Balancing Risks:
What Ezell Says
CSFO Presentation to County Commissioners 1/27/2020 40
"The record reflects that the zoning regulations at issue here severely limit where shooting ranges may locate."Ezell 2017, 893–94.
"The combined effect of the manufacturing-district classification and the distancing restriction leaves only about 2.2%of the city's total acreage even theoretically available to site a shooting range (10.6% of the total acreage currently zoned for business, commercial, and manufacturing use)." Ezell 2017, 893–94.
"It’s unclear how many of these parcels are commercially suitable for siting a shooting range catering to the general public." Ezell 2017, 893–94.
Balancing Risks:
What Ezell Says
CSFO Presentation to County Commissioners 1/27/2020 41
"Chicago has promulgated a host of regulations to guard against environmental and fire hazards and otherwise ensure that shooting ranges will be properly constructed, maintained, and operated. These regulations were for the most part upheld, Ezell 2017, 70 F.Supp.3d at 884–93, and the judge's rulings are unchallenged on appeal." Ezell 2017, 895–96.
Jefferson County Comp Plan Map Comparisons (JC Zoned Only)
1/27/2020 CSFO Presentation to County Commissioners 42(2018 Comp Plan, 2-20.)(2018 Comp Plan, 1-83.)(2018 Comp Plan, 1-123.)
Jefferson County Land Percentages (JC Zoned Only)
1/27/2020 CSFO Presentation to County Commissioners 43
(2018 Comp Plan, 1-17.)
Jefferson County Land Percentages (JC Zoned Only)
1/27/2020 CSFO Presentation to County Commissioners 44
(2018 Comp Plan, 1-17.)
Jefferson County Land Percentages (JC Zoned Only)
▶Commercial Forest Lands (CF-80):Thepurposeofthecommercialforestdistrictistoensurelargetractsofforestlandsoflong-termsignificanceareprotectedfromincompatibleusestherebysustainingtheabilityofforestresourceextractionactivitiestobemaintainedasaviablecommercialactivity.
▶Rural Forest Lands (RF-40):The purposeoftheruralforestdistrictistoensureforestlandsoflong-term significance are protected fromincompatibleusestherebysustainingtheabilityofforestresourceextractionactivitiestobemaintainedasaviablecommercialactivity,whileallowingfordiversityinthesizeofforesttracts.
▶Inholding Forest Lands (IF):This districtencompassesparcelsatleast20acresinsizethatareentirelysurroundedbydesignatedforestresourcelands.While important for thepreservationofforestrylands,lands in the IFzonearenotnecessarilyforestlandsoflong-term significance due to their smaller parcelsizes(20 acres).
1/27/2020 CSFO Presentation to County Commissioners 45
(2018 Comp Plan, 2-12.)
(2018 Comp Plan, 2-11.)
Jefferson County Land Percentages (JC Zoned Only)
▶Commercial Forest Lands (CF-80):Thepurposeofthecommercialforestdistrictistoensurelargetractsofforestlandsoflong-termsignificanceareprotectedfromincompatibleusestherebysustainingtheabilityofforestresourceextractionactivitiestobemaintainedasaviablecommercialactivity.
▶Rural Forest Lands (RF-40):The purposeoftheruralforestdistrictistoensureforestlandsoflong-term significance are protected fromincompatibleusestherebysustainingtheabilityofforestresourceextractionactivitiestobemaintainedasaviablecommercialactivity,whileallowingfordiversityinthesizeofforesttracts.
▶Inholding Forest Lands (IF):This districtencompassesparcelsatleast20acresinsizethatareentirelysurroundedbydesignatedforestresourcelands.While important for thepreservationofforestrylands,lands in the IFzonearenotnecessarilyforestlandsoflong-term significance due to their smaller parcelsizes(20 acres).
1/27/2020 CSFO Presentation to County Commissioners 46
(2018 Comp Plan, 2-11.)
Zoned Land in Jefferson
County
Acres Percentage
of Total
Percentage of Forest
Resource Lands
Reference
Total Zoned Land 430,110 100.00%-2018 Comp
Plan, 1-17
Forest Resource Lands
(IF-20, RF-40, CF-80)328,785 76.44%100.00%2018 Comp
Plan, 1-17
Forest Resource Lands
IF-20 Only 7,250 1.69%100.00%2018 Comp
Plan, 2-12
Forest Resource Lands
CF-80 Only 309,493 71.96%100.00%2018 Comp
Plan, 2-12
Forest Resource Lands
RF-40 Only 12,204 2.84%100.00%2018 Comp
Plan, 2-12
Proposed Cap in Outdoor
Commercial Shooting
Facilities in Forest
Resource Lands in JCC
18.20.135(5)
150 0.03%0.05%-
Balancing GMA Protection of Forest Lands with the Supremacy Principle
1/27/2020 CSFO Presentation to County Commissioners 47
"TRC argues that the Title 18 Ordinance
violates GMA and Comprehensive Plan
provisions protecting forest land.But the
land zoned for forest use in CF,IF and RF
zones is over 76%of the total land in
unincorporated Jefferson County.2018-034,
173.Prohibiting commercial shooting
facilities on forest lands would make
permitting them anywhere all but impossible,
especially considering TRC’s admission that
they are difficult to site."County’s GMHB
Response Brief,39 (emphasis added).
GMA Protections for
Forest Lands
The
Supremacy
Principle
“The draft ordinances [Appendices A &B]propose
an effective bright line by mandating that the total of
150 acres of Forest Resource Lands can be
developed as commercial shooting facilities.”
Planning Commission Written Comments
1/27/2020 CSFO Presentation to County Commissioners 48
TRC Comments:
(Scott Freeman, 2.)
Balancing Risks:
4 Alternatives (in addition to 2018 Ordinances and “no action”) Analyzed in the SEPA Checklist
Allow outdoor CSFs in Forest Resource Lands but limited bySSRT, Quota, and CUP approval criteria and withoutadditional BLRs, projects subject to review under the State Environmental Policy Act.
Allow outdoor CSFs in Forest Resource Lands but limited by SSRT, Quota, and CUP approval criteria and with additional BLRs, projects subject to review under SEPA.
Prohibit outdoor CSFs as PC Recommended. Indoor CSFs only as a discretionary use (without additional BLRs) in all commercial zoning, projects subject to review under SEPA.
Prohibit outdoor CSFs. Indoor CSFs only, projects subject to review under SEPA (without additional BLRs):
(1) In all commercial zoning as a discretionary use; and,
(2) In Forest Resource Lands limited by SSRT and a Quota.
Alternative
Balancing Risks: SEPA Checklist –No Action Alternative
Under the no-action alternative, the Jefferson County Code in existence before November 2018 will remain in effect.
1.No uniform, comprehensive regulatory scheme for CSFs.
2."Outdoor shooting ranges" could be permitted with a conditional use permit (CUP) in forest resource lands as "Small-Scale Recreation or Tourist Uses" in JCC 18.20.350.
3.Difficult, if not impossible to enforce JCC 18.20.350 because of missing terms related to the definitions of "small scale" and "small-scale recreation or tourist uses."
4.JCC 18.20.350(8)contained the only regulations related to "outdoor shooting ranges." But it would have been difficult, if not impossible, to enforce JCC 18.20.350(8)related to shooting facilities because of missing terms or vague terms.
5.JCC 18.20.350(8)(a)required that shooting ranges be "located, designed, constructed and operated to prevent the likelihood of discharge of ammunition beyond the boundaries of the parcel where they occur." (Emphasis added). But "ammunition" was nowhere defined. See JCC 18.10.010. And, firearms shoot bullets or projectiles, not ammunition.
1/27/2020 CSFO Presentation to County Commissioners 50
Balancing Risks: SEPA Checklist –No Action Alternative
6.There was reliance on existing laws that:
a.Require compliance with critical area, shoreline and wetlands buffers;
b.Limit nuisance noise;
c.Limit reckless shooting of firearms (RCW 9.36.050 and RCW 9.41.230);
d.Limit the discharge of a machine gun as that term is defined in 26 U.S.C. Section 5845(b)or RCW 9.41.010(17);
e.Limit the discharge of a short-barreled rifle or a short-barreled shotgun as those terms are defined in RCW 9.41.010; and,
f.Prohibit discharge of a destructive device as that term is defined in 25 U.S.C. Section 5845(f)and any explosive as that term is defined in RCW 70.74.010(5).
1/27/2020 CSFO Presentation to County Commissioners 51
Balancing Risks: SEPA Checklist –No Action Alternative
7.Compliance with all 12 conditional use approval criteria was required, including:
a.Must be harmonious and appropriate in design, character, and appearance with the existing or intended character and quality of development in the vicinity of the subject property and with the physical characteristics of the subject property;
c.Must not be materially detrimental to uses or property in the vicinity of the subject parcel;
d.Must not introduce noise, smoke, dust, fumes, vibrations, odors, or other conditions or which unreasonably impact existing uses in the vicinity of the subject parcel;
e.The location, size, and height of buildings, structures, walls and fences, and screening vegetation for the conditional use will not unreasonably interfere with allowable development or use of neighboring properties;
1/27/2020 CSFO Presentation to County Commissioners 52
Balancing Risks: SEPA Checklist –No Action Alternative
7.Compliance with all 12 conditional use approval criteria was required, including:
g.The conditional use complies with all other applicable criteria and standards of this title and any other applicable provisions of the Jefferson County Code or state law; and more specifically, conforms to the standards contained in Chapters 18.20 and 18.30 JCC;
i.The conditional use will not cause significant adverse impacts on the human or natural environments that cannot be mitigated through conditions of approval;
j.The conditional use has merit and value for the community as a whole;
k.The conditional use is consistent with all relevant goals and policies of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan; and,
l.The public interest suffers no substantial detrimental effect.
1/27/2020 CSFO Presentation to County Commissioners 53
Balancing Risks: SEPA Checklist –No Action Alternative
8.If a shooting facility was larger than the vaguely defined Small-Scale Recreation or Tourist Uses, it could have been classified as an "unnamed use," which have been allowed in any zone compliance with the discretionary use criteria.
9.Shooting ranges could have been permitted as part of a cottage industry in all zones, except resource-based industrial, heavy industrial, and parks, preserves and recreation zones, pursuant to JCC 18.20.170.
10.Shooting ranges could have been permitted as part of a home business in all zones, except resource-based industrial, heavy industrial, and parks, preserves and recreation zones, pursuant to 18.20.200.
1/27/2020 CSFO Presentation to County Commissioners 54
Balancing Risks: SEPA Checklist –No Action Alternative
11.Shooting ranges could have been permitted on Forest Resource Lands, provided there was compliance with the forest resource districts protections in JCC 18.15.150.
12.No generally accepted environmental best management practices (BMPs) for operation of shooting ranges were required.
13.No generally accepted environmental best management practices (BMPs) for siting and development of shooting ranges were required.
14.No express minimum standards for operation of a CSF were required.
15.No express minimum standards for siting and design of a CSF were required.
1/27/2020 CSFO Presentation to County Commissioners 55
Balancing Risks: SEPA Checklist –No Action Alternative
16.No liability insurance requirements.
17.No facilities design plan.
18.No safety plan.
19.No operations plan.
20.No environmental plan.
21.No noise abatement plan.
22.No initial inspection.
23.No annual inspection.
24.No professional review of a permit application.
25.No compliance certification under oath.
26.No specified consequences for non-compliance, including no authority to suspend or cancel a permit.
1/27/2020 CSFO Presentation to County Commissioners 56
Balancing Risks: SEPA Checklist –Alternative 1 Evaluated
1.Allows outdoor CSFs in forest resource lands only with a CUP, subject to the 12 CUP approval criteria in JCC 18.40.530 and the forest resource district protections in JCC 18.15.150 and Table 3-1.
2.Allows indoor CSFs with a CUP only in rural/urban growth area (UGA) commercial and industrial zoning (excluding resource-based industrial zoning), subject to the 12 CUP approval criteria in JCC 18.40.530.
3.Continues to rely on existing laws that: (a) Require compliance with critical area, shoreline and wetlands buffers; (b) Limit nuisance noise; (c) Limit dangerous shooting of firearms; (d) Limit the types of weapons that can be used; and, (e) Prohibit the use of any explosive devices.
4.Fixes the ambiguities identified in the no-action alternative items (2) to (5).
5.Fixes the loopholes identified in the no-action alternative items (8) to (10).
6.Adds the protections noted as missing in the no-action alternative items (11) to (23), including the standards and Best Management Practices.
1/27/2020 CSFO Presentation to County Commissioners 57
Alternative 1 is legislation passed by the Board of County Commissioners in 2018, namely Ordinance 12-
1102-18 adopted on November 2, 2018 (Title 8 Health and Safety Ordinance) and Ordinance No. 15-1214-
18 (Title 18 Land Use Ordinance) adopted on December 14, 2018.
Balancing Risks: SEPA Checklist –Alternative Evaluated
1.Allows outdoor CSFs in forest resource lands only with a CUP, subject to the 12 CUP approval criteria in JCC 18.40.530 and the forest resource district protections in JCC 18.15.150 and Table 3-1.
2.Limits outdoor CSFs to only forest resource lands for projects that qualify as Small-Scale Recreation or Tourist Uses. Small-Scale Recreation or Tourist Uses are limited by JCC 18.20.350(3).
3.Limits outdoor CSFs in forest resource lands with a quota (approximately 150 acres total in the 328,785 acres of forest resource lands throughout the county).
4.Allows indoor CSFs with a CUP in rural/urban growth area (UGA) commercial and industrial zoning (excluding resource-based industrial zoning), subject to the 12 CUP approval criteria in JCC 18.40.530.
5.Continues to rely on existing laws that: (a) Require compliance with critical area, shoreline and wetlands buffers; (b) Limit nuisance noise; (c) Limit dangerous shooting of firearms; (d) Limit the types of weapons that can be used; and, (e) Prohibit the use of any explosive devices.
6.Fixes the ambiguities identified in the no-action alternative items (2) to (5).
7.Fixes the loopholes identified in the no-action alternative items (8) to (10).
8.Adds the protections noted as missing in the no-action alternative items (11) to (23), including the standards and Best Management Practices.
1/27/2020 CSFO Presentation to County Commissioners 58
Alternative 2 is legislation recommended to the Jefferson County Planning Commission by Jefferson
County Staff on October 16, 2019.
Balancing Risks: SEPA Checklist –Alternative Evaluated
1.Allows outdoor CSFs in forest resource lands only with a CUP, subject to the 12 CUP approval criteria in JCC 18.40.530 and the forest resource district protections in JCC 18.15.150 and Table 3-1.
2.Limits outdoor CSFs to only forest resource lands for projects that qualify as Small-Scale Recreation or Tourist Uses. Small-Scale Recreation or Tourist Uses are limited by JCC 18.20.350(3).
3.Requires bright-line rules including (a) a limit of one conditional use per parcel; (b) Prohibiting use of CSFs by military, paramilitary, National Guard, Homeland Security or non-local law enforcement; (c) Maximum of 5 firing points per parcel; (d) No shooting from aircraft; (e) No drone or helicopter flights within the parcel; (f) No machine guns, mortars, rocket launchers, etc.; (g) Noise standard at property boundaries of a maximum of 40db; or, (h) 500-yard setback from shorelines (streams and lakes) and additional wetlands/wetland-buffers.
1/27/2020 CSFO Presentation to County Commissioners 59
Alternative 3 was proposed by TRC during the public participation process with the Jefferson County Planning
Commission. Jefferson County Staff does not recommend this alternative because it may not comply with
constitutional requirements, including under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Balancing Risks: SEPA Checklist –Alternative Evaluated
4.Does not use a quota to limit outdoor CSFs in forest resource lands.
5.Allows indoor CSFs with a CUP in rural/ UGA commercial and industrial zoning (excluding resource-based industrial zoning).
6.Fixes the ambiguities identified in the no-action alternative items (2) to (5).
7.Fixes the loopholes identified in the no-action alternative items (8) to (10).
8.Adds the protections noted as missing in the no-action alternative items (9) to (23), including the standards and Best Management Practices.
1/27/2020 CSFO Presentation to County Commissioners 60
Balancing Risks: SEPA Checklist –Alternative Evaluated
1.Prohibits outdoor CSFs in all zoning districts.
2.Indoor CSFs allowed only as a discretionary use (without additional bright-line rules) in all rural/UGA commercial and industrial zoning (excluding resource-based industrial zoning).
3.Defines "Indoor shooting facility" to include "lawful incidental sales of firearms, ammunition, component parts, and accessories."
4.Fixes the ambiguities identified in the no-action alternative items (2) to (5).
5.Fixes the loopholes identified in the no-action alternative items (8) to (10).
6.Adds the protections noted as missing in the no-action alternative items (11) to (23), including the standards and Best Management Practices.
1/27/2020 CSFO Presentation to County Commissioners 61
Alternative 4 is the December 3, 2019 recommendation of the Jefferson County Planning Commission
to the Board of County Commissioners, made after conducting a public hearing as part of the public
participation process.
Balancing Risks: SEPA Checklist –Alternative 5 Evaluated
1.Prohibits outdoor CSFs.
2.Allows indoor CSFs allowed as a discretionary use in all rural/UGA commercial and industrial zoning (excluding resource-based industrial zoning).
3.Allows indoor CSFs in forest resource lands only with a CUP, subject to the 12 CUP approval criteria in JCC 18.40.530 and the forest resource district protections in JCC 18.15.150 and Table 3-1.
4.Limits indoor CSFs in forest resource lands for projects that qualify as Small-Scale Recreation or Tourist Uses. Small-Scale Recreation or Tourist Uses are limited by JCC 18.20.350(3).
5.Limits indoor CSFs in forest resource lands with a quota (approximately 150 acres total in the 328,785 acres of forest resource lands throughout the county).
1/27/2020 CSFO Presentation to County Commissioners 62
Alternative 5 was proposed as potentially necessary to ensure compliance with constitutional
requirements, including under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Balancing Risks: SEPA Checklist –Alternative 5 Evaluated
6.Defines "Indoor shooting facility" to include "lawful incidental sales of firearms, ammunition, component parts, and accessories."
7.Fixes the ambiguities identified in the no-action alternative items (2) to (5).
8.Fixes the loopholes identified in the no-action alternative items (8) to (10).
9.Adds the protections noted as missing in the no-action alternative items (11) to (23), including the standards and Best Management Practices.
1/27/2020 CSFO Presentation to County Commissioners 63
Balancing Risks
1/27/2020 CSFO Presentation to County Commissioners 64
Protecting Forest
Lands of Long-
Term Significance
Growth
Board FDO
The
Supremacy
Principle
Balancing Risks:
4 Alternatives (in addition to 2018 Ordinances and “no action”) Analyzed in the SEPA Checklist
Risk Assignment: A-D (Lowest to Highest Risk)
Allow outdoor CSFs in Forest Resource Lands but limited bySSRT, Quota, and CUP approval criteria and withoutadditional BLRs, projects subject to review under the State Environmental Policy Act.
Allow outdoor CSFs in Forest Resource Lands but limited by SSRT, Quota, and CUP approval criteria and with additional BLRs, projects subject to review under SEPA.
Prohibit outdoor CSFs as PC Recommended. Indoor CSFs only as a discretionary use (without additional BLRs) in all commercial zoning, projects subject to review under SEPA.
Prohibit outdoor CSFs. Indoor CSFs only, projects subject to review under SEPA (without additional BLRs):
(1) In all commercial zoning as a discretionary use; and,
(2) In Forest Resource Lands limited by SSRT and a Quota.
Risk Level:A
Risk Level:D
Risk Level:B
Risk
Level:C
Alternative
Next Steps
66
Next Steps
CSFO Presentation to County Commissioners 1/27/2020 67
Finalize Staff Report
Finalize SEPA Review
BoCC Hearing on CSFO Ordinances
Compliance Report to GMHB
TRC Appeal: Comply with Litigation Deadlines
FDC Appeal: Hearing at Court of Appeals
Next Steps: Current Schedule
1/27/2020 CSFO Presentation to County Commissioners 68
1/27/2020 CSFO Presentation to County Commissioners 69
"If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."—Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 414 (1989) (the U.S. Supreme Court's flag-burning decision).
"Commitment to the rule of law provides a basic assurance that people can know what to expect whether what they do is popular or unpopular at the time."—Sandra Day O'Connor
"I firmly believe in the rule of law as the foundation for all of our basic rights."—Sonia Sotomayor
"Two things form the bedrock of any open society -freedom of expression and rule of law. If you don't have those things, you don't have a free country."—Salman Rushdie
Support the Rule of Law