HomeMy WebLinkAboutM021020S - to incude Hearing Comment re: Shooting Facility Ordninance �¢gOr Co
G2
�y'SFIINc O
MINUTES
Jefferson County Board of Commissioners
Special Meeting — Monday, February 10, 2020, 1:30 p.m.
The Commons, Fort Worden
200 Battery Way, Port Townsend, WA
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Greg Brotherton called the meeting to order in the presence
of Commissioner David Sullivan and Commissioner Kate Dean. The following County staff were also
present: County Administrator Philip Morley, Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney (DPA) Philip
Hunsucker, and Department of Community Development Associate Planner Michelle Farfan.
HEARING re: Proposed Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 14-1209-19
Establishing a Moratorium on Commercial Shooting Facilities in Unincorporated Areas of
Jefferson County: Chair Brotherton reviewed the procedure for the public hearing. County
Administrator Morley explained the reason for the hearing and the Growth Management Hearing's
Board decision.
Chair Brotherton opened the hearing for public testimony. The following individuals provided
testimony: John Austin, Deborah Pederson, George Yount, Peter Newland, David Whipple, John Ebner,
Tim Green and Flora Mace.
Hearing no further testimony, Chair Brotherton closed the oral portion of the hearing.
The special meeting was recessed at 1:52 p.m. and reconvened at 2:00 p.m. with all three
Commissioners present.
HEARING re: Two (2) Proposed Ordinances: 1)Amending Ordinance No. 12-1102-18 for
Commercial Shooting Facilities under Title 8 JCC Health and Safety, as recommended by the
Jefferson County Planning Commission in their December 3,2019 Recommendations, as well as
on a range of options discussed in the County's SEPA Checklist in the County's response to
Question A.11; and 2) Repealing and Replacing Ordinance 15-1214-18 and Amending Title 18
Jefferson County Code Ordinance, as recommended by the Jefferson County Planning
Commission in their December 3,2019 Recommendations, as well as on a range of options
discussed in the County's SEPA Checklist, in the County's response to Question A.11: Chair
Brotherton reviewed the procedure for the public hearing.
Commissioner Dean moved to accept written testimony through 4:30 p.m. on Tuesday, February 11,
2020. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
Chief Civil DPA Hunsucker gave a PowerPoint presentation on Staff's Analysis of Planning
Commission's Recommended Commercial Shooting Facility Ordinances.
Commissioners Special Meeting Minutes of February 10, 2020
Chair Brotherton opened the hearing for public testimony. The following individuals provided
testimony: John Austin, Steve Cherry, Jean Ball, Pamela Roberts, Teri Hein, William Thorness,
Kathleen Waldron, John Quinn, Steve Ranka, Peter Newland, Alex Sidles, Janet Welch, Mark Jochems,
Riley Parker, John Ebner, Carl Youngman, Scott Freeman, Susan Freeman, Phil Vogelzang, George
Yount, Diane Johnson, Patricia Jones, Amanda Kingsley, Aaron Dorr, Rowan Sharp, Sonia Saxon,
Judith Alexander, Tami Pokorny, Tim Green, Jason Victor Serinus, Sharon Saint Don, Cynthia Koan,
Marjorie Bell, Carol Gallup, Lorna Smith, Eric Pratt, John Minor, CJ Rankin, Charlotte Wells, and
Donald Mazzola.
Hearing no further testimony, Chair Brotherton closed the oral portion of the hearing. He stated again
that the written testimony will be accepted through Tuesday, February 11, 2020 at 4:30 p.m.
NOTICE OF ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Dean moved to adjourn the meeting at
4:03 p.m. until the next regular meeting or special meeting as properly noticed. Commissioner Sullivan
seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
, . ., ' 1R
4 CO ` .�,:. JEFFERSON COUNTY
" BOA r'.l OF COMMISSIONERS
SFA " ' I I b di ..
jreg Brvh rton, Ch."r
i 2/i.,
ATTEST: v Davi Su an,, t em.er
62(iyz ,.,___ 6,--i.16---e.ra:?___ \, ----'
Carol Gallaway, CMCk2
Kate Dean, Member
Deputy Clerk of the Board
2
JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA REQUEST
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Michelle Farfan, Associate Planner
Philip Hunsucker, Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
DATE: January 27, 2020
RE: HEARING NOTICE for: Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 14-1209-19, An
Ordinance Establishing a Moratorium on Commercial Shooting Facilities in
Unincorporated Areas of Jefferson County; Hearing on February 10, 2020 at 1:30 p.m.
in The Commons at Fort Worden State Park, 200 Battery Way, Port Townsend, WA
STATEMENT OF ISSUE: The Board of County Commissioners are requested to approve the
attached HEARING NOTICE for Ordinance No. 14-1209-19, An Ordinance Establishing a
Moratorium on Commercial Shooting Facilities in Unincorporated Areas of Jefferson County;
Hearing on February 10, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in The Commons at Fort Worden State Park, 200
Battery Way, Port Townsend, WA.
ANALYSIS:
On September 16, 2019, the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (Growth
Board) issued its Final Decision and Order in Case No. 19-02-0003-c (FDO), which invalidated
Jefferson County Ordinance No. 12-1102-18 (Title 8 - Health and Safety Code) and Ordinance
No. 15-1214-18 (Title 18 — Land Use Code) under the Growth Management Act (GMA, Chapter
36.70A RCW) and remanded them to Jefferson County to achieve compliance as addressed in
the FDO with compliance due on March 2, 2020. In the FDO, the Growth Board set a schedule
of reporting by the County, objections by the Petitioner, and a response to the objections, with a
telephonic compliance hearing set for April 14, 2020 at 10:00 a.m.
However, the moratorium in Ordinance No. 14-1209-19 will expire on March 23, 2020, which is
before the Growth Board's hearing. Therefore an extension of the moratorium is needed to
preserve the status quo until final compliance with the Growth Board's FDO is achieved.
A hearing is required to extend the moratorium for a maximum of six months. A suitable
location for a hearing on extending the moratorium already has been secured for the Board of
County Commissioners hearing(s) on ordinances recommended by the Planning Commission to
the FDO.
Staff recommends that a hearing extending the moratorium be held to approve an extension of
the moratorium for six months or until compliance with the FDO is achieved, whichever is
earlier.
1 of 2
FISCAL IMPACT: The County is already scheduled to hold two other public hearings at The
Commons at Fort Worden State Park on February 10, 2020. The cost of adding a third hearing at
the same date and location is negligible.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the attached Hearing Notice.
REVIEWED BY:
Philip Morley, C unty `Administrator
2 of 2
Date
Please publish twice: January 29, 2020 and February 5, 2020
Bill: Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners
P.O. Box 1220
Port Townsend WA 98368
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC COMMENT
ON REVISED PROPOSED COMMERCIAL SHOOTING FACILITY ORDINANCES
Notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing will be held on Monday, February 10, 2020 at
1:30 p.m. in The Commons at Fort Worden State Park, 200 Battery Way, Port Townsend,
WA, for the purpose of taking written/oral testimony regarding: Ordinance Amending Ordinance
No. 14-1209-19, An Ordinance Establishing a Moratorium on Commercial Shooting Facilities in
Unincorporated Areas of Jefferson County to extend the end of the moratorium from March 23,
2020 to September 23, 2020 or until compliance with the Washington State Growth Management
Hearings Board's Final Decision and Order in Case No. 19-2-0003c is achieved, whichever is
earlier.
Public comment shall begin on January 29, 2020 and shall end on February 10, 2020 at 4:30
p.m., unless extended by the Board of County Commissioners. Written public comments may be
submitted in person, by mail or by email sent to jeffbocckco..jefferson.wa.us, and must be
received by the Board of County Commissioners by the end of the public comment period.
The public can view the complete text of the proposed ordinances on-line at
www.co.jefferson.wa.us.
Signed this 27th day of January 2020
/S/Greg Brotherton, Chairman
Jefferson County Board of Commissioners
1 of 2
JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA REQUEST
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Michelle Farfan, Associate Planner
Philip Hunsucker, Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
DATE: January 27, 2020
RE: 2 HEARING NOTICES for: (1) Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 12-1102-18 for
Commercial Shooting Facilities under Title 8 JCC; and, (2) Ordinance Repealing and
Replacing Ordinance 15-1214-18 and Amending Title 18 Jefferson County Code related
to Commercial Shooting Facilities; Hearing on February 10, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. (Title 8),
and 3:00 pm (Title 18), both in The Commons at Fort Worden State Park, 200 Battery
Way, Port Townsend, WA
STATEMENT OF ISSUE: The Board of County Commissioners are requested to approve the
two attached HEARING NOTICES for (1) Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 12-1102-18 for
Commercial Shooting Facilities under Title 8 JCC Health and Safety; and, (2) Ordinance
Repealing and Replacing Ordinance 15-1214-18 and Amending Title 18 Jefferson County Code
related to development regulations on Commercial Shooting Facilities. Both Public Hearings
will take place on February 10, 2020 in The Commons at Fort Worden State Park, 200 Battery
Way, Port Townsend, WA.
The Public Hearing on the proposed Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 12-1102-18 for
Commercial Shooting Facilities under Title 8 JCC Health and Safety will take place at 2:00 p.m.
A separate Public Hearing on the proposed Ordinance Repealing and Replacing Ordinance 15-
1214-18 and Amending Title 18 Jefferson County Code related to development regulations on
Commercial Shooting Facilities will take place at 3:00 p.m.
ANALYSIS:
On September 16, 2019, the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (Growth
Board) issued its Final Decision and Order in Case No. 19-02-0003-c, which invalidated
Jefferson County Ordinance No. 12-1102-18 (Title 8 - Health and Safety Code) and Ordinance
No. 15-1214-18 (Title 18 — Land Use Code) under the Growth Management Act (GMA, Chapter
36.70A RCW) and remanded them to Jefferson County to achieve compliance as addressed in
the Final Decision and Order with compliance due on March 2, 2020. On September 23, 2019,
the County Commissioners asked the Planning Commission to begin work immediately, in
coordination with County Staff, on legislation to revise the two ordinances to address the Growth
Board's Final Decision and Order. In the referral to the Planning Commission, the County
Commissioners asked that the Planning Commission's recommendations fully comply with the
Growth Management Act, including the Supremacy Principle in WAC 365-196-725(1), and
Washington Constitution, Article I, Section 24, RCW 9.41.290, and the Second Amendment of
the U.S. Constitution.
1 of 2
On October 16, 2019, Staff provided the Planning Commission a staff report with proposed
revised Ordinance No. 12-1102-18 (Title 8 - Health and Safety Code) and Ordinance No. 15-
1214-18 (Title 18 — Land Use Code) (collectively Staff's revised proposed ordinances). In the
Staff Report, Staff stated they believe the Staff's revised proposed ordinances fully comply with
the Growth Management Act, including the Supremacy Principle in WAC 365-196-725(1), and
Washington Constitution, Article I, Section 24, RCW 9.41.290, and the Second Amendment of
the U.S. Constitution.
Staff briefed the Planning Commission on October 16 and October 25, 2019 on the staff report,
including the Staff's revised proposed ordinances. The Planning Commission discussed the
Staff's revised proposed ordinances on October 28, 2019. A notice of hearing was published for
a Planning Commission hearing on November 5, 2019.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing, accepting verbal and written testimony, on the
Staff's revised proposed ordinances on November 5, 2019. The Planning Commission accepted
written comments from October 23, 2019 until November 8, 2019 regarding Staff's revised
proposed ordinances. The Planning Commission deliberated on Staff's revised proposed
ordinances on November 13, 20, and 25, 2019.
On December 3, 2019, the Planning Commission issued its recommendations on December 3,
2019 and presented them to the County Commissioners on December 9, 2019. The Planning
Commission's December 3, 2019 Recommendations include the October 16, 2019 Staff Report
(Appendix 1) and the proposed revised Title 8 and Title 18 ordinances attached as Appendix A
and Appendix B, respectively. Based upon the November 5, 2019 hearing and comments and
formal deliberations concerning the Staff's proposed revised ordinances, the Planning
Commission recommended for consideration by the Board of County Commissioners the revised
proposed ordinances attached to their December 3, 2019 Recommendations as Appendix 2 (Title
8) and Appendix 3 (Title 18). The December 3, 2019 Planning Commission Recommendations
are on the Department of Community Development's web page at
http://test. co. i efferson.wa.us/WeblinkExtemal/0/edoc/2276499/2019%2012%2003 %20PC%20R
ecommendations%20-%20SIGNED.pdf.
In holding separate public hearings on each of the Planning Commission's two recommended
ordinances, the Board of County Commissioners expects to also consider a range of options
discussed in the County's SEPA Checklist in response to Question A.I I in the Checklist,
attached to this Agenda Request. Public testimony is invited on the ordinances and those
options.
FISCAL IMPACT: Holding the two public hearings at The Commons at Fort Worden State
Park on February 10, 2020, will cost the County approximately $2,5000.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the two attached Hearing Notices.
RE + WED BY:
ilip Morle , C my a or
2 of 2
Date
Please publish twice: January 29 and February 5, 2020
Bill: Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners
P.O. Box 1220
Port Townsend WA 98368
Account: 15830
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC TESTIMONY
ON PROPOSED REVISIONS TO
HEALTH AND SAFETY REGULATIONS
CHAPTER 8.50 JCC COMMERCIAL SHOOTING FACILITIES
Notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing will be held on Monday, February 10, 2020 at
2:00 p.m. in The Commons at Fort Worden State Park, 200 Battery Way, Port Townsend,
WA, for the purpose of taking written/oral testimony regarding an Ordinance Amending
Ordinance No. 12-1102-18 for Commercial Shooting Facilities under Title 8 of the Jefferson
County Code, Health and Safety, as recommended by the Jefferson County Planning
Commission in their December 3, 2019 Recommendations, as well as on a range of options
discussed in the County's SEPA Checklist in the County's response to Question A.11.
(A separate hearing on a development regulation ordinance will be held at 3:00 p.m. at the same
date and location.)
At the 2:00 p.m. February 10, 2020 Public Hearing the public is encouraged to provide oral and
written testimony on the proposed ordinance and on the range of options under consideration. In
addition, written testimony is also invited beginning on January 29, 2020 and ending on February
10, 2020 at 4:30 p.m., unless extended by the Board of County Commissioners. Written public
testimony may be submitted by Email to: jeffbocckjefferson.wa.us; by Mail to: Jefferson
County Commissioners' Office; PO Box 1220, Port Townsend, WA 98368; or In Person to:
Jefferson County Commissioners' Office, Jefferson County Courthouse, 1820 Jefferson Street,
Port Townsend, WA 98368. Testimony must be received by the Board of County Commissioners
by the end of the public comment period.
The Proposed Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 12-1102-18, plus the December 3, 2019
Planning Commission Recommendations, and the SEPA Checklist describing the range of
options that may be considered can all be found by clicking on the links on the County's website
at www.co.iefferson.wa.us under "Latest News."
The proposed Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 12-1102-18 for Commercial Shooting
Facilities under Title 8 JCC contains the following sections:
8.50.210 Purpose.
8.20.220 Definitions.
8.50.230 Operating Permit Required.
8.50.240 Application for a Commercial Shooting Facility Operating Permit.
8.50.250 Minimum Standards.
8.50.260 Administrative Remedy for Decisions Made by the Director.
8.50.270 Judicial Appeals.
8.50.280 Safe Harbor for Owners and Operators.
8.50.290 Reports of Violations of this Article.
8.50.300 Review Committee.
8.50.3 10 Limitations on the Applicability of this Article.
8.50.320 Warning and Disclaimer of Liability.
A separate public hearing on an Ordinance Repealing and Replacing Ordinance 15-1214-18 and
Amending Title 18 County Code related to development regulations for Commercial Shooting
Facilities will also be held at the same location, immediately following this hearing.
Signed this 27th day of January 2020
/S/Greg Brotherton, Chairman
Jefferson County Board of Commissioners
Please publish twice: January 29 and February 5, 2020
Bill: Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners
P.O. Box 1220
Port Townsend WA 98368
Account: 15830
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC TESTIMONY
ON PROPOSED REVISIONS TO
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
TITLE 18 JCC ON COMMERCIAL SHOOTING FACILITIES
Notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing will be held on Monday, February 10, 2020 at
3:00 p.m. in The Commons at Fort Worden State Park, 200 Battery Way, Port Townsend,
WA, for the purpose of taking written/oral testimony regarding an Ordinance Repealing and
Replacing Ordinance 15-1214-18 and Amending Title 18 Jefferson County Code related to
Commercial Shooting Facilities development regulations, as recommended by the Jefferson
County Planning Commission in their December 3, 2019 Recommendations, as well as on a
range of options discussed in the County's SEPA Checklist in the County's response to Question
A.11.
(A separate hearing on a health and safety ordinance will be held at 2:00 p.m. at the same date
and location.)
At the 3:00 p.m. February 10, 2020 Public Hearing the public is encouraged to provide oral and
written testimony on the proposed ordinance and on the range of options under consideration. In
addition, written testimony is also invited beginning on January 29, 2020 and ending on February
10, 2020 at 4:30 p.m., unless extended by the Board of County Commissioners. Written public
testimony may be submitted by Email to: jeffboccAco.jefferson.wa.us; by Mail to: Jefferson
County Commissioners' Office; PO Box 1220, Port Townsend, WA 98368; or In Person to:
Jefferson County Commissioners' Office, Jefferson County Courthouse, 1820 Jefferson Street,
Port Townsend, WA 98368. Testimony must be received by the Board of County Commissioners
by the end of the public comment period.
The Proposed Ordinance Repealing and Replacing Ordinance 15-1214-18 and Amending Title
18, plus the December 3, 2019 Planning Commission Recommendations, and the SEPA
Checklist describing the range of options that may be considered, can all be found by clicking on
the links on the County's website at www.co.jefferson.wa.us under "Latest News."
The proposed Ordinance Repealing and Replacing Ordinance 15-1214-18 and Amending Title
18 JCC contains the following sections:
8.50.210 Purpose.
8.20.220 Definitions.
8.50.230 Operating Permit Required.
8.50.240 Application for a Commercial Shooting Facility Operating Permit.
8.50.250 Minimum Standards.
8.50.260 Administrative Remedy for Decisions Made by the Director.
8.50.270 Judicial Appeals.
8.50.280 Safe Harbor for Owners and Operators.
8.50.290 Reports of Violations of this Article.
8.50.300 Review Committee.
8.50.310 Limitations on the Applicability of this Article.
8.50.320 Warning and Disclaimer of Liability.
The proposed Ordinance Repealing and Replacing Ordinance 15-1214-18 and Amending Title
18 Jefferson County Code related to Commercial Shooting Facilities modifies or adds the
following sections of Title 18 JCC:
18.10.020 B definitions.
18.10.030 C definitions.
18.10.060 F definitions.
18.10.080 H definitions.
18.10.090 I definitions.
18.10.130 M definitions.
18.10.140 N definitions.
18.10.150 O definitions.
18.10.160 P definitions.
18.10.170 Q definitions.
18.10.180 R definitions.
18.10.190 S definitions.
18.10.200 T definitions.
18.10.210 U definitions.
18.15.040 Categories of land use.
Table 3-1
Table 3A-1
18.15.045 Unnamed uses.
JCC 18.20.170 Cottage Industry.
JCC 18.20.135 Commercial Shooting Facilities.
JCC 18.20.200 on Permitted Home Businesses.
JCC 18.20.350 Small-scale recreation and tourist uses.
A separate public hearing on an Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 12-1102-18 for
Commercial Shooting Facilities under Title 8 of the Jefferson County Code related to health and
safety regulations for Commercial Shooting Facilities will also be held at the same location,
immediately preceding this hearing.
Signed this 27th day of January 2020
/S/Greg Brotherton, Chairman
Jefferson County Board of Commissioners
11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size
of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to
describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on
this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information
on project description.) hel
RESPONSE:
a. Not a Project Proposal: There is no "project' or "site" for this proposal.
b. Description of Legislation: The legislation is a comprehensive set of health and safety regulations
(Title 8 Ordinance) and development regulations (Title 18 Ordinance) that are designed to uniformly
regulate indoor and outdoor commercial shooting facilities (CSFs) within unincorporated Jefferson
County. The Title 8 Ordinance requires an operating permit for existing and new CSFs. The Title 18
Ordinance contains development regulations relating to zoning, siting, compatibility, shoreline, and
critical area impacts for CSFs that do not qualify as a legal nonconforming use under JCC 18.20.260.
Overview of Title 8 Ordinance:
i. Not a development regulation under Chapter 36.70A RCW (Growth Management Act);
ii. Regulates the operation, but not siting or development, of existing and future CSFs;
iii. Requires an operating permit with an operational environmental health and safety plan with
components for operations and safety for all existing and new CSFs;
iv. Requires compliance with environmental Best Management Practices (BMPs) for operation
of CSFs;
V. Requires consistency with the 2012 National Rifle Association Range Source Book (NRA
Range Source Book) for minimizing noise, increasing safety, and increasing environmental
protection during operations of a CSF;
vi. Operating permit to be reviewed by a qualified shooting range evaluator and approved by
the Jefferson County Environmental Health Division of the Department of Public Health; and,
vii. Provides for administrative review of permit decisions under Jefferson County's Hearing
Examiner Code and Rules of Procedure.
Overview of the Title 18 Ordinance
i. Development regulation under Chapter 36.70A RCW (Growth Management Act);
ii. Regulates siting and development of CSFs that do not qualify for a legal, non -conforming
use under the JCC 18.20.260.
iii. Fixes use loopholes in cottage industry and home business sections clarifying that CSFs
cannot be a cottage industry or home business;
iv. Closes definitional loopholes for Small -Scale Recreation or Tourist Uses standards;
V. Closes an unnamed use loophole by indicating that the text of Table 3-1 and 3A-1 control
and naming shooting facilities as a named use;
vi. Requires for forest resource lands:
A. A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) consistent with Jefferson County's 12 conditional use
approval criteria;
B. Review by a qualified shooting range evaluator; and,
C. Approval of the CUP by the Jefferson County Department of Community Development;
vii. Adds performance and use standards for the siting and development of CSFs:
A. Requires a facility plan;
B. Requires consistency with the NRA Range Source Book for minimizing noise, increasing
safety, and increasing environmental protection;
C. Requires compliance with environmental operational Best Management Practices
(BMPs); and,
Jefferson County's Responses to SEPA January 6, 2020 Page 3 of 95
Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960)
D. Establishes minimum standards for required security, containment, professional
evaluation, and protection of critical areas and shorelines.
viii. Provides for administrative review of permit decisions under Jefferson County's Hearing
Examiner Code and Rules of Procedure; and,
ix. Five legislation alternatives are under consideration or Title 18 in this proposal. The five
legislation alternatives are compared to a "no action" alternative below:
A. No action alternative: Under the no -action alternative, the Jefferson County Code in
existence before November 2018 will remain in effect. The pre -November 2018 Jefferson
County Code will be much less protective of human health, safety and the environment
than any of the five legislation alternatives because:
(1) There was 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," previously
defined as "'Small-scale recreation or tourist uses' meaning those isolated uses
which are leisure or recreational in nature; are reliant upon a rural setting or
location; do not include any new residential development beyond that allowed
in the underlying land use district, and otherwise meet the performance
standards in JCC 18.20.350. See RCW (5)(d)(ii)." JCC 18.20.350
(emphasis added). "Small-scale" was defined as "of a size or intensity which has
minimal impacts on the surrounding area and which makes minimal demands on
the existing infrastructure." JCC 18.20.350 (emphasis added).
(3) It would have been difficult, if not impossible, to enforce JCC 18.20.350(8) related
to shooting facilities because of missing terms related to the definitions of "small
scale" and "small-scale recreation or tourist uses:"
(a) "Small-scale" used the terms "isolated uses," "leisure," and "recreational,"
none of which was defined. See respectively JCC Sections 18.10.090,
18.10.120, and 18.10.180.
(b) Small-scale recreation or tourist uses" used the terms "minimal impacts" and
"minimal demands," neither of which was defined. See JCC Section
18.10.130.
(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:
(a) "Outdoor shooting ranges" was defined to mean "shooting ranges." JCC
Section 18.10.150. "Shooting range" was defined as "a facility specifically
designed and used for safe shooting practice with firearms and/or for
archery practice, with individual or group firing positions for specific
weaponry." See JCC 18.10.190 (emphasis added).
(b) There was no definition of "firearms" (See JCC 18.10.060), even though that
term is used in the definition of "shooting range" in JCC 18.10.190.
(c) There was no definition of "safe shooting practice" (See JCC 18.10.060),
even though that term is used in the definition of "shooting range" in JCC
18.10.190.
(d) There was no definition of "group firing positions" (See JCC 18.10.070), even
though that term is used in the definition of "shooting range" in JCC
18.10.190.
(e) There was no definition of "specific weaponry" (See JCC 18.10.190), even
though that term is used in the definition of "shooting range" in JCC
18.10.190.
(5) JCC 18.20.350(8)(x) 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
Jefferson County's Responses to SEPA January 6, 2020 Page 4 of 95
Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960)
"ammunition" was nowhere defined. See JCC 18.10.010. And, firearms shoos
bullets or projectiles, not ammunition.
(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).
(7) Compliance with all 12 conditional use approval criteria listed below:
(1)The county may approve or approve with modifications an application for a
conditional use permit (i.e., uses listed in Table 3-1 in JCC 18.15.040 as "C(a)," "C(d)"
or "C") if all of the following criteria are satisfied:
(a) The conditional use is 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;
(b) The conditional use will be served by adequate infrastructure
including roads, fire protection, water, wastewater disposal, and
stormwater control;
(c) The conditional use will not be materially detrimental to uses or
property in the vicinity of the subject parcel;
(d) The conditional use will 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;
(f) The pedestrian and vehicular traffic associated with the conditional
use will not be hazardous to existing and anticipated traffic in the
vicinity of the subject parcel;
(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;
(h) The proposed conditional use will not result in the siting of an
incompatible use adjacent to an airport or airfield;
(i) The conditional use will not cause significant adverse impacts on
the human or natural environments that cannot be mitigated through
conditions of approval;
0) 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
(1) The public interest suffers no substantial detrimental effect.
Consideration shall be given to the cumulative effect of similar actions
in the area.
In instances where all of the above findings cannot be made, the
Jefferson County's Responses to SEPA January 6, 2020 Page 5 of 95
Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11.960)
application shall be denied.
JCC 18.40.530 Exhibit 1 (emphasis added).
(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 listed
below:
(2) Discretionary Uses. Discretionary uses are certain named and all
unnamed uses which may be allowed subject to the applicable
development and performance standards
(Chapters 18.20 and 18.30 JCC) and an administrative review of
potential impacts are designated by a "D" (for "discretionary"). On the
basis of the administrative review, the administrator may classify the
proposed "D" use as either an allowed use, a prohibited use, or a
conditional use in the particular land use district affected.
Discretionary, "D," uses are subject to a Type II administrative review
as specified in Chapter 18.40 JCC. Decisions classifying "D" uses
made under this section may be appealed to the hearing examiner
(see Chapter 18.40 JCC). The administrator may classify the
discretionary use as an allowed "Yes" use in the particular district
affected, only if the proposed development:
(a) Complies with the applicable development standards of
Chapter 18.30 JCC;
(b) Complies with the performance and use -specific standards unique
to the proposed use specified in Chapter 18.20 JCC;
(c) Is appropriate in design, character, and appearance with the goals
and policies for the land use designation and district in which the
proposed use is located;
(d) Is consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive
Plan and the applicable regulations of the Shoreline Master Program
if the application involves property located within the jurisdiction of the
state Shoreline Management Act, but does not require a shoreline
permit;
(e) Will be served by adequate facilities including access, fire
protection, water, and sewer facilities (municipal, community, or on-
site systems),-
(f)
ystems);(f) Does not include any use or activity that would result in the siting
of an incompatible use adjacent to an airport or airfield
(Chapter 36.70 RCW);
(g) Shall not adversely impact the public health, safety and general
welfare of the residents of the county;
(h) Shares characteristics common with but not of significantly greater
intensity, density or that generates more environmental impact than
those uses allowed in the district in which it is to be located; and
(i) Will not result in impacts on the human or natural environments
determined by the administrator to require review as a conditional
use.
If the preceding conditions are not met to the satisfaction of the
administrator, the administrator may either prohibit the use or require
a conditional use permit.
Jefferson County's Responses to SEPA January 6, 2020 Page 6 Of 95
Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960)
JCC 18.15.045 Exhibit 2).
(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 Exhibit 3) and Table 3-1
Exhibit 4 .
(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 and Table 3-1 Exhibit 4).
(11) Shooting ranges could have been permitted on Forest Resource Lands',
provided there was compliance with the forest resource districts protections, as
follows:
(1) Residential Density. There shall be no subdivision of land
designated commercial forest or rural forest for residential purposes.
However, nothing in this code shall be construed to prevent the owner
of designated commercial or rural forest land from living on his/her
land; provided, that applicable building requirements are met.
(2) Subdivisions and Use Limitations. Subdivision of commercial and
rural forest lands for construction or installation of nonresidential
purposes, as allowed in Table 3-1 in JCC 18.15.040, shall be at least
80 acres in size within the commercial forest designation and 40 acres
in size within the rural forest designation and must meet the following
criteria:
(a) The facility cannot otherwise be suitably located on undesignated
land;
(b) The installation cannot otherwise be accomplished without
subdivision;
(c) The facility is to be located on the lowest feasible grade of forest
land; and
(d) The facility removes as little land as possible from timber
production.
(3) Setback Requirements for Adjacent Development. New structures
proposed to be located on parcels adjacent to designated forest lands
shall:
' Per Jefferson County Code 18.15.020, "Forest Resource Lands (FOR)" are
"(a) Commercial Forest (CF -80). The purpose of the commercial forest district is to ensure large tracts of forest lands
of long-term significance are protected from incompatible uses thereby sustaining the ability of forest resource
extraction activities to be maintained as a viable commercial activity.
(b) Rural Forest (RF -40). The purpose of the rural forest district is to ensure forest lands of long-term significance are
protected from incompatible uses thereby sustaining the ability of forest resource extraction activities to be maintained
as a viable commercial activity, while allowing for diversity in the size of forest tracts.
(c) Inholding Forest (IF). This district encompasses parcels at least 20 acres in size that are entirely surrounded by
designated forest resource lands and that are not vested for development under Washington State law."
aeuerson wun[y s mesponses [o bw-A January 6, 2020 Page 7 of 95
Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960)
(a) Establish and maintain a minimum 250 -foot building setback
adjacent to commercial forest lands and 100 feet adjacent to the rural
forest lands designation, which shall serve as a resource protection
area, as measured from the property boundaries of adjacent forest
lands except as follows:
(i) If the size, shape, and/or physical site constraints of an existing
legal lot do not allow a setback of 250 feet adjacent to commercial
forest lands and 100 feet adjacent to the rural forest lands
designation, then the new structure shall maintain the maximum
setback possible; or
(ii) If the owner of the land on which the new structure is proposed
and the owner of the adjacent forest land each sign and file for record,
in the manner required by law for covenants running with the land, a
document which establishes an alternative setback for one or both of
the properties, a setback of less than 250 feet adjacent to commercial
forest lands and 100 feet adjacent to rural forest lands may be
maintained;
(b) Provide adequate access for fire vehicles; and
(c) If the proposed structure is located within 250 feet of the boundary
of commercial forest lands or within 100 feet of rural forest lands, in
the area where the setback is to be applied, the property owner shall
survey the property boundaries that abut forest land in the area where
the setback is to be applied, locate the property boundaries on the
ground, and submit a record of survey, or other means deemed
acceptable to the administrator, with a building permit application.
(4) Setback Requirements on Designated Forest Lands. Builders of
new structures proposed to be located on parcels designated
commercial, rural, or inholding forest shall:
(a) Establish and maintain a minimum 250 -foot setback, which shall
be a resource protection area, from the property boundaries of
adjacent commercial and rural forest lands except as follows:
(i) If the size, shape, and/or physical site constraints of an existing
legal lot do not allow a setback of 250 feet, the new structure shall
maintain the maximum setback possible.
(5) Establishment of Resource Protection Areas. Subdivisions, short
subdivisions and rural cluster subdivisions of parcels adjacent to
forest land shall establish a resource protection area of a minimum
250 -foot width along commercial forest land boundaries and 100 -foot
width along rural forest and inholding forest land boundaries.
JCC 18.15.150 Exhibit 3).
(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.
Jefferson County's Responses to SEPA January 6, 2020 Page 8 of 95
Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960)
(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.
(16) No liability insurance requirements for operation of a CSF were required.
(17) No facilities design plan was required.
(18) No safety plan was required.
(19) No operations plan was required.
(20) No environmental plan was required.
(21) No noise abatement plan was required.
(22) No initial inspection was required.
(23) No annual inspection was required.
(24) No professional review of a permit application by a qualified shooting range
evaluator was required.
(25) No compliance certification under oath by the owner or operator was required.
(26) There were no specified consequences for non-compliance with an issued
permit, including no authority to suspend or cancel a permit.
Alternative 1:
(1) Allows outdoor CSFs in forest resource lands only with a CUP, subject to the 12
CUP approval criteria in JCC 18.40.530 Exhibit 1) and the forest resource district
protections in JCC 18.15.150 Exhibit 3) and Table 3-1 Exhibit 4).
(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),
discussed above.
(5) Fixes the loopholes identified in the no -action alternative items (8) to (10),
discussed above.
(6) Adds the protections noted as missing in the no -action alternative items (11) to
(23), including the standards and Best Management Practices described below.
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) Exhibit 5) and Ordinance No. 15-1214-18 (Title 18
Land Use Ordinance) adopted on December 14, 2018 (Exhibit 6). A SEPA
categorical exemption was relied upon for the Title 8 Ordinance. A Determination
of Non -Significance (DNS) Exhibit 7) for the Title 18 Ordinance was reviewed by
the Department of Commerce in 2018 and was not challenged. The Growth
Management Hearings Board determined that the Title 8 Ordinance was a
development regulation, requiring compliance with public participation and SEPA
requirements for a development regulation and that the Title 18 Ordinance was
closely related to the Title 8 Ordinance that both were invalid under Chapter
36.70A RCW (the Growth Management Act). Jefferson County has appealed the
Growth Management Board's decision on the Title 18 Ordinance under Chapter
34.05 RCW (the Administrative Procedure Act).
Alternative 2:
Jefferson County's Responses to SEPA January 6, 2020 Page 9 of 95
Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960)
(1) Allows outdoor CSFs in forest resource lands only with a CUP, subject to the 12
CUP approval criteria in JCC 18.40.530 Exhibit 1) and the forest resource district
protections in JCC 18.15.150 Exhibit 3) and Table 3-1 Exhibit 4).
(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) Exhibit 8) as follows:
(1) Small -Scale Recreation and Tourist Uses. Small-scale recreational and tourist
uses rely on a rural location and setting and provide opportunities to diversify the
economy of rural Jefferson County by utilizing the county's abundant recreational
opportunities and scenic and natural amenities in an environmentally sensitive
manner consistent with the rural character of the county. Upon approval pursuant
to this code, these types of uses may be conducted in the land use districts
specified in Table 3-1 in JCC 18.15.040 and as provided for in small-scale
recreation and tourist (SRT) overlay districts under JCC 18.15.470 and
18.15.572. Agritourism on designated agricultural lands is regulated in JCC
18.20.030, agricultural activities and accessory uses. The following list of uses is
not intended to be exhaustive, but rather is intended to be illustrative of the types
of small-scale recreation or tourist uses:
(a) Small-scale recreation or tourist uses may include limited and
commensurately scaled commercial facilities intended to serve those small-scale
recreational or tourist uses (e.g., a gift shop, delicatessen, convenience store, or
associated retail sales and services); provided, that the applicant can
demonstrate the following to the satisfaction of the approving authority that:
(i) The principal demand for the commercial facilities is derived from the principal
recreational or tourist use and not the existing and projected rural population;
(ii) The associated commercial activities shall be clearly accessory to and
dependent upon the primary recreational or tourist uses;
(iii) 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;
(iv) The use and associated structure is clearly appropriate and compatible in
scale, size, design, and function with surrounding uses and environment;
(v) The use will not constitute new urban development in a rural area;
(vi) The public facilities and services provided are limited to those necessary to
serve the associated commercial activities and the principal small-scale
recreational or tourist use in a manner that does not permit low-density sprawl;
and
(vii) All other applicable requirements and standards in this UDC are met.
(b) Unless a larger parcel size is specified, minimum lot size shall be five acres,
except that no minimum lot size is required for parcels that include a historic site,
structure or landmark.
(c) Only one small-scale recreational or tourist use shall be allowed per legal lot
of record, with the exception of rural restaurants.
Jefferson County's Responses to SEPA January 6, 2020 Page 10 Of 95
Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960)
(d) Only those buildings or areas specifically approved by the county may be used
in the conduct of the business.
(e) Parking shall be contained on-site and provided in conformance with this
code, including JCC 18.30.100 and 18.30.130.
(f) All activities shall, at a minimum, be screened from the view of adjacent
residential uses subject to the landscaping and screening requirements of JCC
18.30.130 and set back a sufficient distance from all rear and side property lines
to protect the character of adjacent and surrounding properties and uses. The
approving authority may authorize variations to the setbacks established in Table
6-1 in JCC 18.30.050 to ensure that any small-scale recreation or tourist use or
structure, when proposed in or adjacent to a rural residential (RR) district, shall
be compatible with and not disruptive to the character of existing and anticipated
future uses in the district.
(g) All small-scale recreation or tourist uses shall utilize local access or minor
collector roads for primary access whenever practicable. Access off state routes,
arterials, or major collector roads may be allowed if access improvements or a
traffic analysis assure mobility is not degraded.
(h) Structures shall comply with the landscape, lighting, site coverage, and design
standards set forth in Chapter 18.30 JCC.
(i) Any small-scale recreational or tourist use development allowed under this
section that proposes to include permanent occupancy on-site residential
development may only be permitted subject to:
i. The underlying rural residential density;
ii. A master planned resort (MPR) district designation subject to a legislative
action to amend the Comprehensive Plan; or
iii. That necessary for on-site management (e.g., a caretaker's residence).
(j) For any small-scale recreation or tourist use, the county shall impose such
reasonable conditions (e.g., location and size restrictions, design standards,
landscape buffers, setbacks, etc.) as are found necessary by the approving
authority to ensure that the activity or use, due to proximity, location or intensity:
i. Is compatible with the rural character of adjacent lands and shorelines,
including forestry, agriculture, and mineral lands of long-term commercial
significance;
ii. Does not disrupt the character of any surrounding permitted uses;
iii. Is adequately served by public facilities and services (including roadway
level of service and minimum fire flow requirements) without the need to
extend those services in a manner that promotes low density sprawl;
iv. Adequately protects critical areas including surface and groundwater
resources; and
Jefferson County's Responses to SEPA January 6, 2020 Page 11 of 95
Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960)
v. Would not cumulatively, in combination with the effects of existing
development (or given the probable development of subsequent projects
with similar effects) in the vicinity (i.e., within one mile) of the proposed use,
create a development pattern that constitutes low density sprawl; require
the extension of public facilities or expansion of public services in a manner
that promotes low density sprawl, or be otherwise incompatible with or
injurious to the rural character of the area;
vi. For designated agricultural lands, converts as little land with prime
agricultural soils as practicable into nonagricultural use.
(k) If the preceding conditions (in subsection (3)(j) of this section) cannot be met
to the satisfaction of the approving authority, the use shall be denied.
(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.
(7) 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.
(8) Fixes the ambiguities identified in the no -action alternative items (2) to (5),
discussed above.
(9) Fixes the loopholes identified in the no -action alternative items (8) to (10),
discussed above.
(10) Adds the protections noted as missing in the no -action alternative items (11) to
(23), including the standards and Best Management Practices described below.
Alternative 2 is legislation recommended to the Jefferson County Planning
Commission by Jefferson County Staff on October 16, 2019.
Alternative 3:
(1) Allows outdoor CSFs in forest resource lands only with a CUP, subject to the 12
CUP approval criteria in JCC 18.40.530 Exhibit 1) and the forest resource district
protections in JCC 18.15.150 Exhibit 3) and Table 3-1 Exhibit 4).
(2) Limits outdoor 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) Exhibit 8).
(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/wetiand-buffers.
(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),
discussed above.
Jefferson County's Responses to SEPA January 6, 2020 Page 12 Of 95
Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-9601
(7) Fixes the loopholes identified in the no -action alternative items (8) to (10),
discussed above.
(8) Adds the protections noted as missing in the no -action alternative items (9) to
(23), including the standards and Best Management Practices described below.
Alternative 3 was proposed by members of the public 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.
Alternative 4:
(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),
discussed above.
(5) Fixes the loopholes identified in the no -action alternative items (8) to (10),
discussed above.
(6) Adds the protections noted as missing in the no -action alternative items (11) to
(23), including the standards and Best Management Practices described below.
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.
Alternative 5:
(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 Exhibit 1) and the forest resource district
protections in JCC 18.15.150 Exhibit 3) and Table 3-1 Exhibit 4).
(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) Exhibit 8)
(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).
(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),
discussed above.
(8) Fixes the loopholes identified in the no -action alternative items (8) to (10),
discussed above.
(9) Adds the protections noted as missing in the no -action alternative items (11) to
(23), including the standards and Best Management Practices described below.
Jefferson County's Responses to SEPA January 6, 2020 Page 13 of 95
Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960)
Alternative 5 is proposed as potentially necessary to ensure compliance with
constitutional requirements, including under the Second Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.
Environmental, Health, Noise and Safety Standards or Best Management
Practices Added:
(1) Operations—Title 8 Ordinance for Alternatives 1 through 5:
(a) Requires a safety and environmental health plan for operations at a CSF;
(b) Requires operations BMPs for the collection and disposal of bullets,
cartridges, and shotgun wadding;
(c) Requires operations BMPs for lead at outdoor CSFs as recommended by
USEPA Region 2 in its 2005 publication entitled Best Management Practices
for Outdoor Shooting Ranges, as it exists now or later is amended;
(d) Requires operations BMPs for lead at indoor CSFs as recommended by the
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) in its 2009
publication entitled NIOSH Alert – Preventing Exposures to Lead and Noise
at Indoor Firing Ranges, as it exists now or later is amended;
(e) Requires an operations plan for compliance with requirements under existing
law for the handling and closure of facilities for storage or use of the
hazardous substance or hazardous waste other than lead;
(f) Requires an operations plan for financial assurance consistent with existing
law for addressing any remediation of hazardous substances or hazardous
waste, other than lead resulting from operations at a CSF;
(g) Requires BMPs to maximize sound suppression for operations consistent
with the NRA Range Source Book and Chapter 8.70 JCC (noise control);
(h) Requires that operations not create a public nuisance;
(i) Contains enforcement procedures;
(j) Requires that the owner or operator maintain comprehensive general liability
insurance coverage, with a minimum coverage amount of one million dollars
for each occurrence and combined single limit and two million in the
aggregate during operation of the CSF;
(k) Requires an annual report with a current statement of general liability
insurance and any monitoring data required by an operating permit; and,
(1) Requires pre-operation, annual, and compliance inspections.
(2) Siting and Development—Title 18 Ordinance --All Alternatives:
(a) Limits the zones where a CSF can be located by, among other things,
prohibiting CSFs as part of a home business use, as part of a cottage industry
use, or as an unnamed use.
(b) Requires that all CSFs be designed to be consistent with the NRA Range
Source Book standards for shooting range design;
(c) Requires that all CSFs be designed so that when firearms are operating in
accordance with the new definition of rules and regulations ("with reference
to a CSF means requirements used for the safe operation of a CSF"), all
projectiles are kept from leaving any shooting range or the CSF;
(d) Requires a facilities plan that describes the locations of all hazardous material
storage and use, per a hazardous substance or hazardous waste
management plan, if needed;
(e) Requires that all CSFs comply with every applicable provision of the JCC
related to protection of critical areas and shorelines (and buffers for all such
areas, including but not limited to the buffers required in Chapter 18.22 JCC
(Critical Areas) and Chapter 18.25 JCC (Shoreline Master Program).
(3) Siting and Development—Title 18 Ordinance—Alternatives 1 2 3 and 5 (in
addition to those in Item (2)):
Jefferson County's Responses to SEPA January 6, 2020 Page 14 of 95
Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960)
(a) Allows CSFs in forest resource lands with a CUP, subject to the 12 CUP
approval criteria in JCC 18.40.530.
(b) Limits CSFs in forest resource lands to projects that qualify as Small -Scale
Recreation or Tourist Uses.
(4) Siting and Development—Title 18 Ordinance—Alternatives 1, 2, and 5 (in
addition to those in Items (2) and (3):
(a) Limits CSFs in forest resource lands with a quota (approximately 150 acres
total in the 328,785 acres of forest resource lands throughout the county).
(5) Siting and Development—Title 18 Ordinance—Alternatives 4 and 5 only:
(a) Prohibits outdoor CSFs, except for those with that qualify for as a legal
nonconforming use under JCC 18.20.260.
This SEPA Environmental Checklist discusses all of the alternatives listed above. All alternatives or a
combination of them are actively being considered under this proposal. However, Alternative 2 and
Alternative 4 are the drafted versions of the proposal. Alternative 2 is the initial staff recommendation to the
Jefferson County Planning Commission and Alternative 4 is the Jefferson County Planning Commission
recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. For the purposes of this Environmental Checklist,
all alternatives are considered part of the proposal.
12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise
location of your proposed project, including a street address if any, and section, township,
and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or
boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and
topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by
the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any
permit applications related to this checklist.hf elpl
RESPONSE:
A. Not a Project Proposal: There is no "project" or "site" for this proposal. This proposal is a non -
project proposal for legislation that amends the Jefferson County Code.
B. Area of Proposal: The Jefferson County Code applies in all unincorporated areas of Jefferson
County. The only incorporated area in Jefferson County is the City of Port Townsend.
C. SEPA Review and Regulatory Protection Required at the Project Level: Under each of the
alternatives listed in the Brief & Complete Discussion in response to Question A.11, above,
including the no -action alternative, each new CSF project proposal must comply with all
applicable laws and regulations, including SEPA and its implementing regulations, and Chapter
18.40, Article X JCC (SEPA Implementation). Specifically, either Chapter 18.25 JCC (Shoreline
Master Program) or Chapter 18.22 JCC (Critical Areas Ordinance) will provide substantive
development standards that control siting and mitigate impacts. Chapters 18.15, 18.20 and 18.30
JCC for development and performance standards. For all future projects JCC 18.40.530 with the
12 CUP approval criteria Exhibit 1 or JCC 18.15.045 with the discretionary use criteria Exhibit
2) will apply.
D. Additional Protections for CSF Proiects in Alternatives 1 through 5: Additional protections for
human health and the environment for Alternatives 1 through 5, compared to the no -action
alternative, in the form of BMPs or standards specific to future CSF projects are described in
detail in the Brief & Complete Discussion in response to Question A.11, above.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTSh[ elpl
1. Earth h
a. General description of the site: Ltgjo
Jefferson County's Responses to SEPA January 6, 2D20 Page 15 of 95
Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960
JEFFERSON COUNTY
TESTIMONY SIGN -IN
Proposed Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 14-1209-19 Establishing a Moratorium
on Commercial Shooting Facilities in Unincorporated Areas of Jefferson County
TITLE: Public Hearin re: Commercial Shooting Facility Proposed Ordinance
DATE and TIME: Monday, February 10, 2020 at 1:30 p.m.
PLACE: Jefferson County Courthouse, Superior Court Courtroom
NAME (Please Pgint)
STREET ADDRESS
CITY
Pei n1� p .. � r-�-�
� �� a
tit c -e ii
v
A4i
..
-'k Ilk(
.Jri3
C'e , Ortel_
-
7► 7P.T.rz
��
6w `
-
\Am-
TIT
Z 30
JEFFERSON COUNTY
TESTIMONY SIGN -IN
Two Proposed Ordinances: 1) Amending Ordinance 12-1102-18 re: Title 8 and
2 Repealing and Replacing Ordinance 15-1214-18 re: Title 18
TITLE: Public Hearin re: Two Proposed Ordinances. See Clerk for more information
DATE and TIME: Monday, February 10, 2020 at 2:00 p.m.
PLACE: Jefferson County Courthouse, Superior Court Courtroom
NAME (Please Print)
STREET ADDRESS
y—h
CI, -y—
1 4� Pot��
hi
-'
�_
vz�T
Lti7✓r
T:� 41'% fit\\
a[ATC�
iIC
c* 6 -r
b�' 1 'r,
. �`�` �'` l"- 'y
Ff
�.LIU
��� ���e�26�
n
I ✓l4.' t�
ey,
gz
s p
im—
30
JEFFERSON COUNTY
TESTIMONY SIGN -IN
Two Proposed Ordinances: 1) Amending Ordinance 12-1102-18 re: Title 8 and
2 Repealing and Replacing Ordinance 15-1214-18 re: Title 18
TITLE: Public Hearin re: Two Proposed Ordinances. See Clerk for more information
DATE and TIME: Monday, February 10, 2020 at 2:00 p.m.
PLACE: Jefferson County Courthouse, Superior Court Courtroom
NAME (Please Print)
STREET ADDRESS
CITY
`{C4 C-. r
��
CL
/,30
JEFFERSON COUNTY
TESTIMONY SIGN -IN
Proposed Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 14-1209-19 Establishing a Moratori
on Commercial ShootingFacilities in Unincorporated Areas of Jefferson Co
TITLE: Public Hearin re: Commercial Shooting Facility Proposed Ordinance
DATE and TIME: Monday, February 10, 2020 atm
PLACE: Jefferson County Courthouse, Superior Court Courtroom
NAME (Please Print)
STREET ADDRESS
CITY
ham-
3 \� -e(�
�c
r`�/
f7 11
JEFFERSON COUNTY
TESTIMONY SIGN—IN
Propo`s`ed Ordinance- Amending Ordinance.No. 14-I2049.Estab1ishing a Morato
on Commercial Shooting Facilities in Unincorporated Areas of Jefferson County
TITLE: Public Hearin re: Commercial Shooting Facility Proposed Ordinance
DATE and TIME: Monday, February 10, 2020 a
PLACE: Jefferson County Courthouse, Superior Court Courtroom
NAME (Please Print)
STREET ADDRESS
CITY
ZA *A, J-6ne, s
7/ :�e4 I 'A 5;v4?1-
A"
AIVh41-z
6�re�6L
Rpvjan4-tC)o
"qfi^
l�cNt 1 o c ,
\
'D,6,k,,
u i, x
oL/Vz..-0Otf a4
P,4 f.
OCC
4! 1, FA P I N G
From: Jean Ball <gnarleydogfarm@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2020 6:34 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Support the PC proposal on gun ranges in Jefferson County
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Hello Commissioners Dean, Sullivan, and Brotherton,
I would like to strongly urge you to support the Planning Commission's proposal on all NEW INDOOR ONLY
gun ranges which must be located in either commercial or industrial zones. Allowances given, of course, to the
existing non -conforming JCSA.
This proposal will stand up to legal scrutiny and GMA compliance. It will protect our critical areas and our
forests. It will protect our residents and the peaceful enjoyment of our rural lands. It will afford gun range
owners the ability to provide training opportunities for gun owners. Jefferson County has sufficient area in
commercial and industrial lands to reasonably accommodate this activity.
This is a reasonable solution to a very difficult situation. This solution bolsters our ability to leave a legacy we
can be proud of when we are long gone. It is consistent with the aspirations we hold dear as stewards of this
special place. We can be proud of adopting this as our standard.
With gratitude, Jean Ball
occ
��4pIFJ
From: Jean Ball <gnarleydogfarm@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2020 10:24 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Why not allow commercial shooting facilities on forest lands?
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Hello Commissioner Dean, Sullivan and Brotherton,
It strikes me as inconsistent to consider allowing commercial shooting facilities on forest lands in Jefferson
County. I understand the seduction of this rationalization, but this chemistry must be accompanied by a warning
placard. If we allow shooting facilities to build on forest lands, why should we not allow a scrap yard out there,
too? How about a manufacturing plant? Or a prison? Maybe a hospital should be located out in the sticks?
Where does it end? What do you say to the next industry that wants to plow under the trees and pave the forest?
We already have plentiful land area in the appropriate zones without expanding into forest lands.
The rightful place for an indoor commercial shooting facility is alongside other developments of the same
kind ... in an industrial park. Located near to the resources said business will need to establish and operate. Near
to public sewer and water. Near to electricity and services. Near to the population base which will patronize the
services of the facility, not out in the forest.
This strikes me as a toddler's game of matching the shaped blocks to the corresponding holes. We learned as
babies that the object of the game is to match up the like things. You put the round dowels in the round holes
and you put the square blocks in the square holes. If you match the wrong shape to a hole, things just don't fit.
We did not know it then, but that was training for land use issues when we would become responsible adults
attempting to preserve and protect our county.
Don't be seduced by the lure of providing greater swaths of land for this use at the expense of forest resource
lands. It is wholly unnecessary. Claims that we have insufficient commercial or industrial land is intellectually
dishonest. Heck, even little ole Quilcene has an industrial park. Hadlock has copious swaths which would be
appropriate locations for siting such a business (and they are soon to have new sewer infrastructure). Port
Townsend has several well-suited sites. How much opportunity do we need to provide? What is the ratio of
commercial shooting facilities to residents anticipated to be, anyway? We already have JCSA, which is
arguably more than sufficient to serve not only the current demand but also a growth rate into the future, so I
just can't agree that it is appropriate or necessary to vanquish our commitment to the preservation of these
forests as resource lands in the pursuit of chasing that ballistic rainbow. Not even if you listen to the Siren's
song of legal risk reduction by providing lavish land area to assuage the voracious appetite of those that would
say we just can't accommodate commercial shooting facilities within our established commercial and industrial
zones.
Thank you for you consideration of my comments.
Jean Ball
from: ionnrauian ciauianjLu,uryinNu�,.neL�
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2020 10:28 AM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Shooting Ranges
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or
clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear Commissioners,
I strongly support the recommendation of the Planning Commission to restrict all future shooting ranges to indoor
facilities located in industrial and commercially zoned areas.
This is the most important property use issue to come before the County Commissioners since the Pit -to -Pier mining
district decision. In that case, the commissioners came up with the wrong answer and approved a 690 acre gravel
mining district south of SR -104. The political fallout was almost immediate. We went from 3 Republican
commissioners to 3 Democratic commissioners in the following 3.8 months, and it has stayed that way.
Major land use decisions directly affect the environment and the quality of life of your constituents. Health and safety
must be high priorities, but stopping a Hayden Lake atmosphere from further invading our county is even more
important.
Your decision may lead to a law suit by those who want an expansive war -gaming facility that may be more subversive
than recreational. Your lawyers will urge you to avoid a law suit by compromising and yielding to their demands. But,
risk aversion, in this case, will not serve the county well. Please do the right thing and your fellow citizens will stand
with you.
Thanks for your attention and your devoted service to the citizens of Jefferson County.
John Fabian
NF�Q�PI� Gocc
From: Judith Walls <judithwalls@q.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 01, 2020 12:00 AM
To: jeffbocc
Cc: Linda Paralez
Subject: Shooting Ranges
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Please accept the following comments concerning rules for future shooting range development in
Jefferson County
I have lived in Jefferson County over 40 years and have followed historic news about past problems
with the shooting
range near Gardiner. I know the residents in that community are glad to be able to stop their
complaints about their prior
shooting range neighbor who built the range facility without Jeffco public protection
considerations. Now, a new shooting
range is partially constructed near the Shine toward Quilcene area, so the residents in that area
created a citizen group
to protect themselves and their quiet lifestyle. I have read the P.T. Leader article and the listed five
"Alternatives" proposed
by the Jeffco professional planning staff, but fail to understand why the rewrite of the rules from the
planning commission
were not accepted. I support the Planning Commission straight -forward, rewritten rules.
For this reason, I would favor Alternative #4, but object to the wording "...only as a discretionary
use..." because it invites challenges.
Jefferson County has already been subjected to significant expenses associated with litigation over
this issue. Please make that
stop and issue firm, new rules which are not subject to various interpretations.
I encourage you to ensure public protection by ruling future shooting ranges will be totally enclosed
indoors. Lead will not then
be able to leach into water sources. Also, any new indoor range can be inspected as an isolated
environment. We the public
deserve your protection from noise and hazardous facilities. I recommend that you also stipulate an
annual inspection of any
new shooting range will occur for licensing. The EOD (Explosive Ordnance Disposal) personnel
stationed at Indian Island
would be qualified to make such an inspection and submit their report to Jeffco Board of County
Commissioners.
Sincerely yours,
Judith Walls
190 N Bay Way
Pt. Ludlow WA 98365
ph: 360-437-2394
ieffbocc
HFADIP)f;
From: jakerember@gmail.com
Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2020 9:36 AM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Comment on Opposition to Ordinance No. 12-1102-18
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links,
especially from unknown senders.
- This ordinance has the possibility to reduce access to firearm education. Members of the Jefferson County community
will need to travel further and pay more to use indoor ranges.
- The ordinance is likely to limit future business growth and tourism to Jefferson county.
- At present, I am not able to locate any data supporting the conclusion outdoor shooting ranges harm the environment
more so than any other business with a similar land footprint.
- A large building is likely to have a more substantive impact on the environment. It will have a larger carbon footprint to
build and maintain.
- The ordinance is likely to have a disproportionate impact on lower socioeconomic status families.
This is an ordinance targeted to make access to firearm -related activities more difficult. it is specifically nefarious in that
it is likely to impact the working poor more than other members of the Jefferson Country community. This is a
population that relies upon access to hunting as a source of food. To be competent and safe, they need access to
locations to train, learn and teach. ANYTHING that reduces access to education should be considered with significant
scrutiny. If this statement flys in the face of your view of the goal of Ordinance No. 12-1102-18, then at the very
least, it warrants more discussion and consideration.
Best,
Jacob Rember
From: Andrew Lewis <lewisandrew7@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2020 9:51 AM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Commercial Shooting Facilities
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or
clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
I am a Jefferson County resident and I am emailing in opposition to changing any ordinance regarding outdoor shooting
facilities.
-Outdoor shooting facilities allow training in all wether environments, versatility in target arrangement and movement
and distance drills. This is something an indoor facility can not accommodate and is stripping firearm owners from the
ability to learn these skills.
- This ordinance has the possibility to reduce access to firearm education. Members of the Jefferson County community
will need to travel further and pay more to use indoor ranges.
- The ordinance is likely to limit future business growth and tourism to Jefferson county.
- At present, I am not able to locate any data supporting the conclusion outdoor shooting ranges harm the environment
more so than any other business with a similar land footprint.
- A large building is likely to have a more substantive impact on the environment. It will have a larger carbon footprint
to build and maintain.
- The ordinance is likely to have a disproportionate impact on lower socioeconomic status families.
This is an ordinance targeted to make access to firearm -related activities more difficult. It is specifically nefarious in
that it is likely to impact the working poor more than other members of the Jefferson Country community. This is a
population that relies upon access to hunting as a source of food. To be competent and safe, they need access to
locations to train, learn and teach. ANYTHING that reduces access to education should be considered with significant
scrutiny.
Andrew Lewis
Of Quilcene, Wa
4;Apj�qrj
From: rose wilde <mysterybayrose@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2020 10:36 AM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Shooting ranges
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or
clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Please adopt the planning commission's recommendations for shooting ranges in Jefferson county.
Indoors and to scale for recreation, safety and responsible use of the land.
I care about the people who live here, the wildlife, the health of the environment. It is why everyone I know in the
community live here.
Opening the door to countywide large scale outdoor facilities would be irresponsible to all but a select few.
I live with a health disability (Ptsd) within earshot of the proposed facility at Tarboo Lake and am quite concerned.
I love this area and my community of thirty years.
I would hate to have to move.
Especially due to a decision that does not serve the vast majority in this, my beloved county.
Thank you for your consideration, Rose Wilde
jeffbocc
From: Sue Ehrlich Michele Rabey <Nsite2@hotmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2020 1:35 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: comment on shooting range alternatives
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links,
especially from unknown senders.
Good afternoon,
I appreciate this opportunity to participate in the BOCC's effort to resolve the shooting range issue. The article in "The
Leader" was very helpful.
I'm a healthcare professional and a Port Hadlock homeowner.
Out of the five alternatives, I support #5, as it appears to provide the highest degree of safety.
Thank you for having the patience and diligence that this process requires,
Susan Ehrlich, MD
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
From: Owen Fairbank <sofairbank@olympus.net>
Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2020 2:16 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Shooting range amendments to the UDC
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or
clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear Commissioners -
Please support your Planning Commission's recommendation and adopt Alternative #4 of the proposed regulations for
commercial shooting facilities in Jefferson County.
You have heard all the arguments, and so I won't repeat them here.
Thank you.
Owen Fairbank
83.5 Van Buren St.
Port Townsend
o«
From: Kep Kepler <kepckepler@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2020 7:53 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Shooting range
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Two federal court cases have ruled that a city/county 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.
Dean Charles Stanforth: "We seem to have reached the age
where life stops giving us things and starts taking them away."
General Frank Savage "If you don't do it, you'll wonder what fell on you"
General George S. Patton Jr. "It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather, we
should thank God that such men lived"
Disabled American Veteran
USN 73-77 COLD WAR USAF 81-83
1`g�.\SOS\ `i .'a hONOR CO
From: Leefee <2hamfeet@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, February 03, 2020 10:11 AM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Gun range regulations
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
To the members of the Board,
I strongly support the regulations that the board is considering to require that all gun ranges in the county are in
an industrial area and indoors. I moved to Jefferson county for peace and quiet and fully support everyones
right to hunt and do not mind the occasional shots in the distance in that pursuit. But having frequent high
powered rifles being used with no sound mitigation in place would drive me insane. I also worry about war
veterans with PTSD being retraumatized by the large scale outdoor use of firearms.
So please pass the regulation to make all shooting ranges indoors and in an industrial area.
Thank you.
Lisa Feetham
effbocc
From: Julie Jaman <Jamubi@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, February 03, 2020 10:20 AM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: indoor target shooting
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Hello Commissioners,
I am many years a resident in the woods of
the Quimper Peninsula and within earshot of the
gun club. The range was here when I came along,
I made my choice.
But now we are in the 21 st century with different
kinds of issues and problems. The desire to practice
with guns and targets is the inclination of many and has
a long cultural appeal. But it is now part of big business
and regulated. Creating a safe place for such practice
is common sense. In the future indoor facility would be ideal
for all the reasons you know.
Thank you
Julie Jaman
Quimper Peninsula
rrom: ueraiynnrLwymdii.wnr
Sent: Monday, February 03, 2020 2:36 PM
To: jeffbocc
Cc: geralynnr@gmail.com
Subject: Proposed new gun range rules
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
I agree that it is a terrific idea to have all new gun ranges indoors in fairly soundproof buildings.
Sportsman's Club grandfathered in as our only outdoor range is a great idea.
Our population density has increased dramatically. Our once rural county, while a long way from urban, is no
longer the bucolic paradise many of us remember.
Blessings, Geralynn
Sent from my Wad
From: Donald Mc Nees Jr <pt9baja@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, February 03, 2020 5:02 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Comment on Title 8 and 18
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
thank -you for the opportunity to comment.
What strikes me first is the amount of time effort and money that has gone into these Shooting In The County
Ordinances. This is all been done for 1 small existing range and for 1 potential new range. It is obvious that the
not in my back yard organization and anti gun group TRC motivated this effort and waste to stop a potential
range near Tarboo lake. The only reason that there is 1 potential new range applicant is to support training for
an existing business. There is no potential for anyone with any business sense to come to Jefferson County to
build a range as a business. This is an economic impossibility. The only reason the JCSA range exists is because
of the agreement with the county. JCSA has over 700 members, but that only reflects the support of the
surrounding community for a shooting facility and not the level of use. We get from 5 to 20 users per week-
days that we are open and 30 to 60 per weekend day depending on activities. We are a small scale tourist and
recreational facility and in relationship to other Washington State ranges and ranges across the country a very
small shooting facility.
I do see these ordinances as a waste, but we can't reverse the process.We can ,moving forward, pick the best
option for range type and location that would prevent more waste of time and money in litigation. That would
be the option fixing the original ordinances to pass the GMA hearing board and allowing both indoor and
outdoor ranges.
Please don't accept recommendations that will lead to more time, money and effort wasted.
Thank -you, Don Mc Nees
VP JCSA
From: E Fields <fieldsle@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, February 03, 2020 6:00 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Commercial Shooting Facilities comments/ Feb 10 meeting
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or
clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
To Jefferson County Board of Commissioners
1. The moratorium on Commercial Shooting Facilities should be extended until County ordinances have been finalized.
i. As recommended by the Jefferson County Planning Commission, the ordinances should require that all new
Commercial Shooting Facilities should be built indoors. New outdoor shooting ranges should be prohibited due to the
degradation they create in the environment. The existing Jefferson County Sportsmen's Association range should be
grandfathered in.
Thank you.
Elizabeth Fields
ziso Eaglemount Road
Port Townsend
t FAPf�,Yl
From: Philip Fleckman <pf504l@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, February 03, 2020 8:21 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Board of County Commissioners Meeting - Gun Ranges
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear Members of the board. My wife and I enjoy our cabin on Dabob Bay. We supports the Planning
Commissioners' recommendations that all new gun ranges be built indoors in already existing
commercial/industrial areas. This will allow people to practice their gun skills while protecting the environment,
the peace of rural Jefferson County and our forests
From: Geralynnr@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, February 03, 2020 10:33 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Re: Proposed new gun range rules
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Geralynn Rackowski 311 33rd St PT. 360-385-1206.
Forgot to include contact info in the first email supporting the new indoor gun range rules
Blessings, Geralynn
Sent from my Wad
On Feb 3, 2020, at 2:36 PM, Geralynnr@gmail.com <geralynnr@gmail.com> wrote:
I agree that it is a terrific idea to have all new gun ranges indoors in fairly soundproof buildings.
Sportsman's Club grandfathered in as our only outdoor range is a great idea.
Our population density has increased dramatically. Our once rural county, while a long way from
urban, is no longer the bucolic paradise many of us remember.
Blessings, Geralynn
Sent from my Wad
effbocc
From: Forest Shomer <inspass@whidbey.net>
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2020 1:36 AM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Shooting range ordinances
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or
clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear Commissioners,
I support, and urge you to fully support, the recommendations of the Jefferson County Planning Commission regarding
shooting range ordinance modifications.
The Planning Commission has performed due diligence in hearing from the public, taking into account unique
circumstances in our county, and what that body is reflecting to you is the voice of the people.
Every year, a small number of issues reach your Commission that are pivotal for the kind of county most citizens hope
to see evolve here. This is one of those issues—perhaps most reflective of public sentiment as any issue in 2020.
I hope you will honor the work of the Planning Commission and the public which has been activated by the issue.
Sincerely,
Forest Shomer
Port Townsend
MARY MCDOWELL
, )If
I Writs von (t— -15 - o
kbt
I aM-t14-trn
16
Tot g&C_
Board of.County Commissioners
P.O. Box 1220
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Dear Board of Commissioners:
406 T Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
February 1, 2020
,, "r
05 2020
I am writing to support Alternative #5 for Shooting Ranges in Jefferson County. Outdoor
ranges, no matter where they are located and even with mitigations, would have negative
impacts. Imagine someone who owns a house in a heavily wooded and peaceful area. Now
imagine that a shooting range opens up even a mile away. Gone is their peace. Their house
value is lowered. No one wants to buy a house anywhere near an outdoor shooting range. Their
dog is terrorized. If they were ever in battle or even lived in a scary place, their mental health is
compromised.
Now imagine a place where for years people have gone to hunt mushrooms, or hike or just
enjoy the woods. Again, an outdoor shooting range would ruin their experience. The Board of
Commissioners would have chosen the right of an individual to make money running a
shooting range with a minimal investment over the common good. That is not the kind of
community we want to have.
I also support alternative #5 because it does allow indoor ranges in forest resource areas. This
would allow someone to build an indoor range in a very rural area like Quilcene or Brinnon,
Those folks would not have to travel to an industrial or commercial area to be able to shoot.
I also support that alternative #5 limits the facility to small-scale recreation and tourist use (as
described in the county code.) I would hope that would prohibit use for military training, drone
flights, helicopters, machine guns, mortars, etc. I would trust that tourist use does not include
people who want to come here to shoot military style weapons.
In the end the regulation adopted has to recognize the quality of life out here on the peninsula,
why we live here. But it also needs to recognize that people who hunt or like to target practice,
need a safe place to do so that does not disturb either wildlife or humans. Alternative #5 seems
to do both those things.
Sincerely,
cv� j -
Susan Localio
effbocc
f ,.�
R AD 1..
From: Juelie Dalzell <outlook D01BB95914815E91@outlook.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2020 1:19 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: indoor gun ranges
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links,
especially from unknown senders.
I believe I know the culture of this county fairly well having resided here since 1982. This proposal is inconsistent with
the culture of Jefferson County. Mandating indoor gun ranges will not stop shooting in the county. Residents won't use
indoor shooting ranges because they are expensive. The gun owners who love practicing will continue to shoot
outdoors. If the purpose of a rule is not served it will be disrespected. We have enough disrespect already it seems in
our legal system. I don't know what purpose this rule serves. But I can be enlightened I am sure.
Serving as Prosecuting Attorney and County Coroner I learned first hand that gun ownership is probably 85% in our
county.
Juelie Dalzell
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
effbocc
From: David Bise <bikesd@olypen.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2020 7:06 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Gun Ranges
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or
clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Sent from my Phone
I for one have grown weary of the constant blasting coming from the Gun club on a calm day the blasting can be here'd
all over town and it's quite unnerving when I ride my bicycle on Jacob Miller Rd, knowing that little can be done about it
it's only reasonable to require all new shooting ranges be indoors where the shooters can breathe all the toxic residue
they want.
occ
From: Darrell Jones <d.d jones@icloud.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2020 9:05 AM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Shooting Ranges
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or
clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
If we may, we'd like to submit a comment about shooting ranges. We don't see the need for or practicality of outdoor
shooting ranges, and with population increases it seems like accidents waiting to happen.
There is also the issue of lead contamination.
As far as the alternatives that have shooting ranges indoors only, we don't know enough to favor one over the other.
Thanks
Darrell Jones & Lucia Hardy, PT residents
HEARItrIG,71,p1j",C(3R�
3127 Sage Lane
Port Townsend WA 98368
Jefferson County Board of Commissioners
POB 1220
Port Townsend WA 98368
RE: Public Input on Shooting Ranges
Commissioners:
FEB 0 6 2020
Having reviewed your recommendations for the ordinance changes to regulating shooting
ranges in the county, I am satisfied with your recommendation of Alternative #2. 1 prefer
Alternative #4: prohibition of outdoor shooting ranges in all zoning districts but can live with
limiting them to a total of 150 acres. (I think the less outdoor firing noise the better and the
preservation of the maximum public resource sphere is best, but I am trying to be reasonable.)
Thank you for your and staff's hours and hours of time pouring over and dissecting this issue.
You must have gone home many nights quite frustrated and discouraged. I truly appreciate
your due diligence.
Thank you.
&Zzz�' iC/
Sharon P. Pickett
From: Jerry Holmes <jmobileholmes@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2020 10:05 AM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Shooting Facilities
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or
clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
With regard to shooting facilities my suggestion is to require shooting facilities to be located indoors. It is the simplest
and most logical approach.
Do not allow outdoor paramilitary training facilities in the county - period.
Sincerely,
Jerry Holmes
Chimacum WA
Sent from my iPad
effbocc
From: Debi Munro <debimunro@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, February 07, 2020 12:41 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 14-1209-19 Establishing a Moratorium on
Commercial Shooting Facilities in Unincorporated Areas of Jefferson County.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
I would like the Board of County Commissioners to extend the moratorium on Commercial Shooting Facilities
to give the Commissioners ample time to come to a final decision.
Deborah Munro
Port Townsend, WA
'effbocc '�
1 .
P,
From: Debi Munro <debimunro@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, February 07, 2020 12:41 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Proposed Ordinances Revising JCC 8.50 Commercial Shooting Facilities and JCC 18
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
I would like the Board of County Commissioners to select Alternative # S presented to them by the Jefferson
County Planning Commission.
Deborah Munro
Port Townsend, WA
rrum: �cviycivU11L �yyvuii�L,viyNcl"viI
Sent: Friday, February 07, 2020 2:10 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Gun Range Testimony
Attachments: George Testimon y Gun Range.docx
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Here my testimony. I may speak, but if I do, it will be very brief.
George
To: Jefferson County Board of Commissioners
From: George Yount
Subjects: Gun ordinance and moratorium
Date: February 22, 2020
I support the Planning Commission's recommendation of indoor gun ranges to be located only
in Jefferson County. Industrial zones. My original testimony a couple years ago when you held
a hearing on the first moratorium, I emphasized indoor gun ranges and suggested the
industrial park owned by the Port of Port Townsend at Jefferson County Airport. I still think it
is a superior site for multiple reasons. It is close to the county's population center as well.
I also support the moratorium so that we can take the time to get this ordinance right the
second time around.
The Planning Commissions' recommendation is wonderfully crisp and would resolve the many
complex social, economic, and environmental issues caused by open air gun ranges. Think of
the millions and million of dollars that would be saved over the years by individual citizens and
county government alike by not experiencing the constant and relentless stress of the
cacophony of gun fire echoing and re-echoing in the valleys and woodlands of our rural
county. Would this ever be calculated in any environmental impact statement or is this a
"Declaration if non significance"?
I too, as others have pointed out, the process is flawed. You are hearing our comments only
on the one alternative recommended by the Planning Commission. But there are "staff"
alternatives also listed. Why are you not holding hearings on these alternatives?
I agree with the process points submitted by Alex Sidles of the law firm Bricklin and Newman.
I have followed the county's Shoreline Master Plan and Critical Areas Ordinances for over
thirty years. I believe I read programmatic EISs for these policy ordinances and I believe they
were challenged by a number of groups before the GMHB and the court system. Jefferson
County was successful in defending its actions. Now we are not doing programmatic EISs and
now only doing them on the specific project level? There has to be a big picture look at the
impacts otherwise at the project level we are going to be condemned to death of a thousand
cuts. What ever happened to no net loss?
If I understand it, the DCD has only done a DNS for the Planning Commission's
recommendation, not the other alternatives. Am I wrong? I would urge you to do a full
environmental assessment and policy stage.
As I said before, the Planning Commission's recommendation v_ en
though it passed the Planning Commission unanimously it is stiiart dd i! Aon.
As elected officials, you have the right and responsibility to go your own course. A fair process
is everything. It is not just a gun range ordinance that is on the line, it is the credibility of the
Commissioners and county government that are the targets. If we wax on and on in the
comprehensive plan, the shoreline management act, and the critical areas ordinance on how
we want the future of Jefferson County to reflect our values as a rural scenic county, and that
we are the environmental stewards of our lands, waters, and air for generations to come, your
decision will reflect if we are true to our words.
Respectfully Submitted,
George B. Yount
George B. Yount
71725 th Street
Port Townsend WA 98368
effbocc
From: Sally Davis <scampbelldavis50@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, February 07, 2020 4:22 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Outdoor shooting range
J h In
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Board of County Commissioners
P.O. Box 1220
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Dear Board of Commissioners:
I support Alternative #5 for Shooting Ranges in Jefferson County. Outdoor ranges, regardless of where they are located have negative
impacts. No one wants to live anywhere near an outdoor shooting range. It's terrifying for their animals and children. If they were ever in
battle or threatened by a gun it could cause PTSD.
An outdoor shooting range can also ruin the experience of hikers and even walkers. By allowing this the Board of Commissioners would be
choosing the right of an individual to make money running a shooting range with a minimal investment over the common good. That is not
the kind of community we want to have.
I also support alternative #5 because it does allow indoor ranges in forest resource areas. Therefore someone could build an indoor range in a
very rural area like Quilcene or Brinnon and those people would not have to travel to an industrial or commercial area to be able to shoot.
I also support that alternative #5 limits the facility to small-scale recreation and tourist use (as described in the county code.) Which
hopefully would prohibit use for military training, drone flights, helicopters, machine guns, mortars, etc. I assume that tourist use does not
include people who want to come here to shoot military style weapons.
In the end the regulation adopted has to recognize the quality of life out here on the peninsula, why we live here. But it also needs to
recognize that people who hunt or like to target practice, need a safe place to do so that does not disturb either wildlife or humans. Alternative
#5 seems to do both those things.
Sincerely,
Sally Davis
420 Roosevelt St
Port Townsend, WA
98368
360-379-9521
Sent from my iPad
jettbocc ZJ., l 3, t
nre 7i VJ
From: Teri Nomura <nomura@windermere.com> €`
Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2020 9:33 AM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: I'm for Shooting range indoors
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or
clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Why should anybody who lives in Jefferson County have to put up with loud erratic noise forever. This is not like a
construction project that has an end. This is forever. Just say no. Make it indoors if it's so important- and in addition -
buffer that indoor noise.
Yours truly,
Teri Nomura
36o-53i-i6o2
nomura@windermere.com
Windermere Port Townsend
t
jeffbocc
From: Caroline Maillard <carolinem6l@hotmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2020 9:56 AM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Letter in support of Planning Commissioners' rec re: indoor shooting ranges
Attachments: Ltr to JeffCo Commission re gun range regs_Feb 9 2020.docx
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Please see attached. Thank you for your consideration.
Caroline Maillard & Kate Roosevelt
February 8, 2020 pi,
Dear Commissioners Brotherton, Dean, and Sullivan:
We are writing to lend our strong support to the Planning Commission's unanimous
recommendation that all new shooting facilities in Jefferson County be located indoors, in
industrial or commercial zones.
This compromise strikes us as a reasonable solution to what once seemed like an intractable
stalemate. It respects and does not interfere with federal and state laws regarding the right to
own and use firearms. Requiring new gun ranges to be indoors aligns with county government's
obligation to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of all its residents, as well as the
integrity of its natural environment.
Our home sits above Highway 20 on the south end of Discovery Bay; even from this distance,
we would hear gunshots and other sounds of training at all hours from Fort Discovery, Inc's
facility near Gardiner. To allow another such open-air shooting range so close to Tarboo's
residential areas, farms, and working forests would subject these communities to disruptive,
unnecessary noise pollution, lead and copper contamination, and wildfire danger.
In a county with limited developable land in private ownership and an increasing population,
it's become even more critical for local government to develop safe, fair, and environmentally
sound solutions that balance growth and effective stewardship in the places we call home.
The Planning Commission's recommendation clearly meets this standard. We urge you to
approve it.
Thank you for your consideration—
Caroline Maillard and Kate Roosevelt
443 Malamute Lane
Port Townsend, WA 98368
u
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Sunday, February 09, 2020 10:52 AM
jeffbocc
Support for indoor shooting ranges
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
This letter is to express support for the Planning Commissioners' recommendations that all new gun ranges be
built indoors within already existing commercial/industrial areas.
It just makes common sense. Please protect our communities.
Sheila Husting
Quilcene
jeffbocc
r 11
From: Jean Ball <gnarleydogfarm@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2020 4:02 PM
To: jeffbocc
Cc: Kate Dean; Greg Brotherton; David Sullivan
Subject: Re: Staff report
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Hello Commissioners and Staff,
I'm writing today to request that you extend the comment period beyond tomorrow.
The long-awaited staff report which was promised almost 2 weeks ago was finally released on Friday of last
week. When the public was finally able to clap eyes on it, we discovered that it was some 156 pages long.
The late issuance of this voluminous tome, coupled with the imminent closure of the comment period present a
burden on the ability of the public to review the material and provide our feedback in any sort of relevant
manner.
Please consider extending the comment period for at least 1 week so that we may be afforded time to review the
Staff Report prior to the comment closure period.
Thank you for your consideration of my request, Jean Ball
On Wednesday, January 29, 2020, Jean Ball < n�ydogfarm(a,gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Julie,
Thank you for your reply and link to info.
I think we are talking about 2 different things. The thing you are talking about is the slide show as presented by
Mr Hunsucker, which I'm grateful to have because that link provides better quality than the pictures I took
during the briefing. The thing I'm looking for is a long-awaited report which Mr Morley and Mr Hunsucker
said would be made available on Tuesday. If it is available somewhere, we have not yet discovered that hiding
spot.
Warm regards, Jean
On Wednesday, January 29, 2020, jeffbocc <ieffboccQcoJefferson.wa.us> wrote:
Hi Jean, the links to all documents re: this subject are on the County Webpage, Homepage, scroll down & click on
`Latest News',
https://www.co.efferson.wa.us/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=43-7
I believe the last link on that posting is titled'•January 27, 2020 PowerPoint Staff Analysis' & may be what you are
looking for. y �.
YW
Let me know if we can be of further assistance. ` vaaj
a d J `': �J Vol #-J
Julie Shannon
Executive Secretary II
Jefferson County Commissioners Office
36o 385 gioo
From: Jean Ball <gnarleydogfarm@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2020 9:27 AM
To: jeffbocc <leffbocc@co.iefferson.wa.us>
Subject: Staff report
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening
attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Hello Commissioners and staff,
We were told at the Monday briefing that a staff report would be available on Tuesday and we have not seen
it yet. Can you tell us when it will be available?
Kind regards, Jean
***Email may be considered a public record subject to public disclosure under RCW 42.56***
z
E�
jeffbocc n �,
From: Mark Dembro <markdembro@olympus.net>
Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2020 5:57 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Prohibit new outdoor shooting ranges in Jefferson County
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear Jefferson County Commissioners,
I urge you to prohibit new outdoor shooting ranges everywhere in Jefferson County
and to permit indoor shooting ranges only in areas zoned commercial and industrial.
I urge you to accept the Planning Commissioners' Alternative Four.
Sincerely yours,
Mark Dembro
393 Blossom Lane
PO Box 1072
Port Townsend WA. 98368
effbocc �: r
From: P E Conner <peconner@hotmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2020 7:40 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Shooting Range Ordinance
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
To the Jefferson County Commissioners:
As regards the future of shooting ranges in the county, I am totally against any facilities that
include large-scale guns, military type vehicles, helicopters, etc.
I support the Planning Commission's recommendations (Alternative 4):
All future shooting ranges must be indoors, and sited within existing
commercial and industrial zones.
I also feel that the existing gun club in Port Townsend should be "grandfathered" in to allow
them to continue functioning as they have been.
I cannot attend the meeting at Fort Worden due to conflict with work. Thank you for
considering my comments via email.
Sincerely,
Paula Conner
PO Box 754
Port Hadlock 98339
g ;y.
�! � .*.
jeffbocc ►��� �. �
From: markjochems <mdjochems@gmail.com>�'�, A`
Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2020 7:59 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Shooting ordinance options
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear Commissioners Dean, Brotherton, and Sullivan.
Concerning the shooting range ordinance, there is only one option that makes sense for the environment and
the citizens of Jefferson county. That is that all future commercial gun ranges be contained inside a building. I
urge to to select only this option. Thank you. Mark Jochems
jeffbocc
From: Polly Thurston <ptravennest@hotmail.com>
Cfw
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 12:03 AMits
To: jeffbocc « ;,.• r
Subject: shooting range��
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Jefferson County Commissioners,
Please don't allow any more shooting ranges to be outdoors - MAKE ALL SHOOTING RANGES
INDOORS. There are so many reasons for this - the noise, wildlife disturbance, the toxic pollution to
the land and to our aquifers, safety and more. It's proven that shooting ranges can be indoors and be
a lot more safe and not damage the land. The lead contamination from outdoor ranges is a serious
hazard. It's time to not make any more environmental hazards in our county - do you want your
legacy to be a super fund cleanup site like they're dealing with in San Francisco?
The safety issue is a big one too - with an indoor range any stray bullets are contained. Plus, as the
climate crisis worsens, the danger of fire also worsens - shooting ranges can cause fires - Lets not
create any more potential triggers that could burn our county down.
I live on N Jacob Miller Road, and even though I'm not real close, I hear the current outdoor Gun Club
- I find it annoying to live in a beautiful rural place and to be constantly disturbed by that kind of
noise. But more importantly I'm concerned about the animals. I have a neighbor who's dog is
frightened anytime the guns are going off. Thus, as a wildlife biologist, I have to ask how is that for
the wild animals in the area - must be horrific. And my understanding is it's a pretty bad toxic mess at
the Gun Club - so who's going to have to deal with that?
Indoor ranges can be built in Industrial areas, so they're near town but not directly affecting human
neighborhoods .... Indoor ranges make good neighbors.
Plus I heard our Planning Commission unanimously agreed that an indoor range is
recommended. Let's go with their study, rather than special interests.
Thanks for considering this and for taking public feedback. Please deeply consider the health and
safely of the land, the people, the animals. Please keep shooting ranges inside.
Paula Thurston
636 N Jacob Miller Rd
Port Townsend, WA 98368
jeffbocc
From: J Creek <j.creek@hotmail.com> AF.
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 3:23 AM X"
Sent:
To: jeffbocc; J Creek Y r !! r' �I W
w
Subject: West Sound Conservation Council Letter to Jefferson County Comrrf3��
�r's` riling
Gun Ranges
Attachments: WSCC Gun Club Input Jeff. Co.[10].docx; ATT00001.htm
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
A letter from the West Sound Conservation Council to the Jefferson County Commissioners in support of the
Jefferson County Planning Commissioner's recommendations that new gun ranges be located indoors is
attached. Please let me know you have received this email.
Thank you,
Jan Wold
Board Member,
West Sound Conservation Council
West Sound Conservation Council
19240 Jensen Way NE
#2271'
Poulsbo, WA
February 9, 2020
Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners
jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa. us
Dear Jefferson County Commissioners,
West Sound Conservation Council (WSCC) supports the Jefferson County Planning
Commissioners' recommendations that new gun ranges be located indoors in areas that are
already zoned for commercial/industrial uses. This approach was passed unanimously by the
Planning Commission and will help protect the environment of western Puget Sound within
Jefferson County. This recommendation keeps the impacts from noise to a minimum for our
citizens and wildlife. This recommendation also serves to increase public safety and reduce
lead and copper contamination.
One example of the benefit of this proposal is for western Puget Sound birds. Research
published in Science magazine as reported in The Wall Street Journal by Jennifer Calfas,
September 19, 2019, found that "North America's overall bird population has dropped 29%
since 1970, with about three billion fewer birds now than nearly 50 years ago." Additional noise
pollution would be detrimental to the beleaguered Puget Sound bird population.
The marbled murrelet and the common loon feed and may be nesting in Jefferson County.
They have been recorded within three and seven miles of Tarboo Lake and likely occur much
closer.
The Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) is a small seabird that is listed as a
federally Threatened species. The species has been newly up -listed to Endangered by the state
of Washington. Marbled murrelets have been documented in the northern portions of Hood
Canal by the U. S. Forest Service, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife and by
local residents. Marbled murrelets live here because of the forage fish they eat and feed to their
one annual nestling and because of the proximity to old-growth forest nesting habitat, especially
in Olympic National Park. We should not further endanger their existence with large caliber gun
range noise and additional loss of habitat.
The executive summary of the "Washington Department of Fish and Game for the Periodic
Status Review for Threatened and Endangered Species for the Marbled Murrelet in Washington
(2016)," published in October of 2016 states that:
"... At -sea population monitoring from 2001 to 2015 indicated a 4.4% decline in the
murrelet population annually, which represents a 44% reduction since 2001."
The common loon is listed as a Sensitive species in the state of Washington. Common loon
numbers are dropping in part due to a lack of quiet, undisturbed lakes required for breeding,
nesting and rearing offspring. There are at least forty lakes and ponds within approximately six
miles of Tarboo Lake. Disturbance due to gunfire noise and human activity in the areas around
Tarboo Lake or other areas of Jefferson County may be an issue for this species.
PP
� � %e L \ y
Common loons are observed feeding in nearby Squamish Harbor year-round. An adult pair1
been observed with what appeared to be newly fledged offspring feeding as a group on
Squamish Harbor approximately seven miles southeast of Tarboo Lake. This Washington
State Sensitive species may have managed to nest successfully in one of the area's lakes or
ponds and flew to Squamish Harbor as one of the first locations for their fledglings to feed.
Please keep WSCC informed of any actions being taken regarding gun ranges in Jefferson
County at westsoundconservationcouncil@gmail.com.
Thank you,
Jan Wold
WSCC Board Member
From: Nerreca <nerreca@aol.com>
Sent: Friday, February 07, 2020 10:16 AM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Shooting range
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Hi - I cannot make Monday's meeting.
All gun ranges should be inside from now on and no blowing up of cars, military, auto weapons, etc. that on lyour list.
Please don't ruin peoples lives by making then live with gun fire. Imagine your life.
Thank you,
Nancy Erreca
R-
From:
rr M t
'effbocc in�..;John Quinn <jmquin@me.com>
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 8:54 AM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: pending gun range regulation
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear County Commissioners:
I am writing to comment on upcoming shooting range regulations.
My wife and I live approximately a mile from the gun range on Gun Club Road. Some days, the gun reports are
almost constant. They begin in the morning and can last well into the evening. The noise is, for me, a source of
psychological and physical stress. There has been quite a bit of research on the effects of noise in the environment.
The results can include a weakening of the immune system, heart disease, sleep disturbance, depression, and more.
Gun noise does not affect only humans. Wildlife also suffers. The constant gun shots are a major stressor for birds
and terrestrial wildlife. Studies have show that anthropogenic noise disturbs migration and breeding behaviors. This
is especially true for birds.
Added to the daily stress, are the environmental costs. Open air gun ranges produce soil contamination and possible
ground water pollution from years of spent slugs. There will also be the time, money and energy involved in the
future decontamination efforts when the operation eventually shuts down. Both public and private money will go to
cover the considerable legal costs of deciding who will pay for the decontamination, some of which may be beyond
anyone's power to correct.
With the above considerations, it seems clear that any future firing ranges should be confined to indoor facilities, a
move that would go a long way toward eliminating the above objections.
I appreciate your consideration.
John Quinn
Paula Kovars
500 Arabian Lane
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Fnn l�,
From: Jim Moore <glasstools@olympus.net>
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 9:15 AM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Shooting facilities in Jefferson co
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or
clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
I want to encourage you to follow the planning commission recommendations. The problem is noise not shooting.
Indoor ranges solve this problem maintain the quality of life for Jefferson co residents.
Sent from my Pad
effbocc
HEARING*
From: Donald Mc Nees Jr <pt9baja@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 9:55 AM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Hearings
i
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
The Moratorium extension only effects one potential applicant for a new gun range. It could be looked at as a
directed tactic to delay that applicant. The CUP checklist and existing state and federal laws and regulations
were and still are enough for development of a new range.
Please don't reject out right the option of not having Shooting in the County Ordinances. What was in place
was enough and is still enough for safe shooting facilities in our county.
Thak-you
Don Mc Nees VP JCSA
�-A
FW F 0 0 1 h I /-**v
From: Janet and/or Willi <aloha@olympus.net>
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 9:58 AM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: shooting facility comments
Attachments: shooting comments, 21020.odt
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or
clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Please accept these comments on the Planning Commission draft Title 8 and Title 3.8 ordinances.
Janet Welch
T :Arlv�l
Nftk;
Date: February 9, 2002
From: Janet Welch
To: BoCC
Re: Shooting Ordinance
I am wholeheartedly in favor of the Planning Commission draft ordinances that restrict new shooting
facilities to indoor operations. At the Planning Commission hearing I had expressed my support of the
staff Hearings Board response re -writes of Title 8 and Title 18 because I believed that they addressed the
problems identified by the GMHB. Reviewing the current versions, I believe that the Planning
Commission changes further improve those ordinances. I wish I had known that a prohibition on new
outdoor shooting facilities was an option because I would have advocated that the initial ordinance take
that approach. For many of the reasons stated by the Planning Commission, I think that easing the siting
of new indoor ranges and prohibiting the siting of new outdoor ranges are positive changes.
That said, I have found a number of minor, and some potentially major, issues of consistency and clarity
in the drafts for both Title 8 and Title 18. 1 hope that my 'fine tooth' review is helpful to achieving
ordinances that are clear, consistent, and adhere to the intentions of the authors.
Conditional versus Discretionary
Both ordinances are inconsistent in the wording having to do with Conditional Use permitting, given that
the PC objective was to use C(d) permitting. Title 8.50.230 (3) refers to the CUP. It is not clear if this
term would also apply to the Discretionary Conditional Use process. Similarly, sections 8.50.260 and
270 may not be accurate for C(d).
The Title 18 "Whereas" portion is clear that the permitting process to be used in Commercial and
Industrial zones proposed by the Planning Commission is C(d), but in the document the term used in
18.20.135 (2), and 18.20.135 (5)a is "Discretionary Use". The two permitting processes are quite
different and it is important that the terminology in the ordinance be changed to C(d).
Alternative 5 of the DNS provides an alternative which builds on the Planning Commission draft but
adds the ability to site indoor ranges in designated Forestlands. It is not clear whether this would follow
the C process or the C(d) process. I strongly feel that IF (and I'll speak to this later) Alternative 5 is
chosen, the permitting process should facilitate siting facilities in Commercial and/or Industrial zones
rather than Forestlands. Using the C(d) permitting for Commercial and/or Industrial zones and C in
forestland would facilitate that.
Forestland
On the topic of the use of forestlands for shooting facilities, I question the validity of the argument that
there is inadequate acreage in the county zoned Commercial and/or Industrial. The amount of
commercial and industrially zoned land was determined by growth indicators. If there is inadequately
zoned land for the entire array of commercial and industrial uses to be sited in commercial and industrial
zones, then we need to upzone to accomplish that. I question the claim that there is inadequate zoned
land for a particular commercial use given that the amount has been deemed adequate for all other
commercial uses.
Size limitations
Development of commercial uses in large parcels, the very definition of designated forestlands, is
inadequately limited in our current bulk and dimension standards. The 10% impervious surfaces limit
on Resource Lands was never intended to be used as THE size limit to development on those large
a+ god r
parcels. Unless I'm mistaken, under current regulations an4faci
a allowed
85,000 square feet of impervious surface, e.g. a 85,000 building or 66111 rf ��r a lack of
effective size constraints in our ordinances is not a problem confined to shooti9, t this is a
very timely moment to begin to address the problem. Permitting for shooting facilities, warehouses,
recycling facilities and many other uses that utilize very large structures need to be limited in size. I urge
you to consider placing a 50,000 cumulative square foot limit on buildings, starting with shooting
facilities.
SSRT
And this brings me to a fundamental problem with Title 18 as proposed: there is no justification for
classifying shooting facilities under SSRT. The definition of SSRT requires that the use is dependent on
the rural setting. There are no other indoor SSRT uses listed. No other SSRT uses are encouraged to go
into commercial and industrial zones while being prohibited in Rural Residential. It is just the opposite.
Other SSRT uses are almost required to be home businesses and cottage and industries, but shooting
facilities cannot. It is simply a terrible fit: indoor shooting facilities are bonafrde commercial uses.
The TRC has argued that shooting facilities need to be SSRT in order to provide limitations on scale.
But the reality is that there are absolutely NO provisions in the SSRT permitting requirements (or
elsewhere) that set limits on the size or scale of the project. SSRT provides a completely false sense of
security that small scale is somehow defined and applied. It does not. One person's idea of small scale
race car track or whatever is likely to be very different from another's. Limiting the scale of a proposed
project by, at the very least, putting maximum building size in Title 18 provides predictability to
applicants and the community. Hiding behind SSRT does nothing to assuage the concerns of the public;
instead it subjects applicants, staff, and the concerned public a permitting nightmare.
Everybody would benefit from predictable, consistent building maximums. Table 6-1, the Density and
Dimensions table, has a line for Maximum Building Dimensions; it is blank for ALL ZONES! The line
for Area of Building Coverage is mostly blank, with 60% coverage allowed in some zones. I admonish
TRC and the county to roll up their sleeves and embark on this mutually beneficial improvement to Table
6-1 of Title 18. By agreeing to real, rather than inferred, size restrictions, it might be possible to place
shooting facilities under the heading of commercial uses in Table 3-1 rather than SSRT.
Specific edits
Title 8:
Replace omitted definition of "expansion". Term is used in 8.50.310 (5) and needs to be defined.
Require that expansions apply for a new Operating permit, suggest inserting wording into 8.50.240 (1).
Replace omitted definition of "physical containment". Term is used in 8.50.250 (2) as a standard and the
definition is needed (also make it consistent as either 'physical containment' or 'containment' but not
both).
Edits to 8.50.250 (2) have made the sentence meaningless. A meaningful reference to containment is
needed.
The definition of "firearms allowed at ... shooting facilities" is not used, at present, in the ordinance. It
could be used in Purpose 8.50.210 (3) or Operations Component 8.50.240 (3) d.
ING
Amendments of 8.50.020 listed in "Whereas Section 1 d, e, and f' portion of the Planning Commission
document didn't seem to make it into the draft posted on the website. Be sure the changes have been
made.
Title 18:
18.20.135 (2) only refers to Discretionary use and should be omitted. If the Use Table lists both C(d)
uses and C uses, it would be best to not be specific here.
18.20.135 (2) e is a vestige of outdoor facilities and needs to be edited to remove 'natural feature'
reference.
18.20.135 (7) refers to outdoor ranges. Omit.
i ob. A
-oil
From: Randy Sturgis <raysanran@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 10:28 AM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Keeping The Peace - Firearm Practice, Shooting Ranges, Paramilitary Activities/Training
& Patriotism in Jefferson County
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Good morning,
As a tax payer & current resident of rural Jefferson County, I would like to take a few moments of your
time to comment & share with you my recommendations regarding Firearm Ranges and Paramilitary
Compounds for "training" in Jefferson County and in the USA generally.
• Support The Planning Commission's unanimous recommendations regarding Shooting Ranges
and Training facilities.
• Support the recommendation that all/new shooting facilities be located indoors, within an
industrial & a commercial zone.
Federal, state and local law enforcement use indoor shooting facilities for training & practice.
Indoor facilities are consistent with the obligations to promote safety, oversight, property use and any
2nd amendment contemporaty political interpretation.
Security services need to be regulated.
Military & paramilitary training facilities need to be regulated
Manufacture & sales of firearms need to be regulated
Rally Point and promotion of survivalists & promoting the collapse of government (democracy)
structures should be of serious concern.
Following is a small but influential slice of past organized activities under the guise or cover of
patriotism & individual rights:
Malheur
Robert Mathews
The Order
Aryan Nations
Charlottesville
John Birch Society
Make America Great Again
Appreciate your time and service.
Sincerely,
Randy Sturgis
1093 Discovery Ridge Road
Port Townsend, WA 98368
MPAPIN RV,
Dr. Edwin H. and Virginia Kraft
232 S. Palmer Drive
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Ffg
02020 February 10, 2020
Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners
1820 Jefferson Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Re: Total Support of Planning Commission's UNANIMOUS recommendation that all new shooting
Facilities in Jefferson County be located indoors in Industrial and/or Commercial Zones
Dear Commissioners:
My wife and I are long standing permanent homeowner residents of Jefferson County and have been
following the shooting facility issue with Fort Discovery since 2017. We hold the strong opinion that ALL FUTURE
SHOOTING FACILITIES IN JEFFERSON COUNTY SHOULD BE LOCATED INDOORS IN INDUSTRIAL AND/OR
COMMERCIAL ZONES for the following reasons:
1. SAFETY: Bullets are contained and prevented from hitting innocent passers-by.
2. NON-POLLUTING: No lead on ground which avoids groundwater contamination.
3. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION: Forests are protected from threat of triggering potential wildfires.
Also, by locating in commercial or industrial zones, working forests could be maintained as productive
since forest workers would not be under threat from stray bullets. Again, threats of lead and copper
contamination would be eliminated.
4. COST TO COUNTY: We feel serious concern to the County would include the extreme costs of mitigating
contaminated sites if a property is deemed to become a Superfund site and the owner is unable to fund
this cost, abandons the property and the County is left "holding the bag."
5. PREVENTION OF NOISE AND NUISANCE ISSUES: Eliminates noise pollution and prevents complaints by
homeowners who live nearby who would otherwise be deprived of the peaceful enjoyment of their
homes.
6. Professional organizations, such as the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office, would benefit from being able
to train officers at an indoor facility.
We will be relying upon your wisdom and good conscience when you are asked to provide your
recommendations in support of INDOOR SHOOTING FACILITIES in Jefferson County.
Respectfully submitted,
ZZ
Dr. Edwin H. Kraft Virginia A. Kraft
Julie Shannon
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
From: Glenn and Linda Gately
Kate Dean
Monday, February 10, 2020 11:23 AM
Julie Shannon
FW: Commercial Shooting Facilities
Letter to Commisioners Shooting.doc
Sent: Monday, February so, 2020 11:22:3o AM (UTC-o8:oo) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: David Sullivan; Kate Dean
Subject: Commercial Shooting Facilities
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or
clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear Commissioners,
Please consider making commercial gun ranges to be built in already existing industrial or commercial zones.
Attached is my letter.
Linda Gately
711 Robbins Road
Nordland, WA 98358
February 9, 2020
Dear County Commissioners,
I have been very concerned about the Commercial Shooting facility proposed near
Tarboo Lake and could hardly believe that someone would propose such an endeavor in
this area. Again our county did not see this coming to our place.
I would like to recommend all new gun ranges be built indoors in already existing
commercial or industrial areas. This should eliminate any helicopter or high level
military events also. Even in industrial areas sound should be kept so not to interfere with
other businesses. I am familiar with armories in cities in the east and they did not impact
neighbors.
I would like to see the county prevent any commercial training that invites unregulated
military groups to train.
Having regulations in place should reduce litigation and wasted time and expenses for
Jefferson County as well and organizations or individuals planning to invest in a
commercial gun range.
I am not against gun ownership and encourage training and participation in shooting
sports.
I do hope that the Jefferson County Board of Commissions will protect the peace and
environment of our special places.
Thank you,
Linda Gately
360-774-6743
February 10, 2020
To: Jefferson County Commissioners
Subject:: Allowing Shooting Ranges in Jefferson County
Dear County Commissioners,
We concur with the recommendations of the County Planning Commission and
support the arguments set forth by Tarboo Ridge Coalition.
In addition, extensive and ongoing logging along Center Road has and will
continue to remove any sound buffer that might have been provided by the forest.
We retired here nineteen years ago, chosing a quiet rural environment for our
remaining years. The facility as proposed would destroy the nature of Tarboo
Valley and create hardship for businesses and residents in neighboring
communities.
Please don't let our peaceful community be destroyed by an unnecessary and
destructive facility. We have a perfectly good gun range in Port Townsend, which
should be grandfathered in.
Thank you.
Cheryl Halverson
8081 Center Rd.
Quilcene, Wa.
From: Michael Halverson
Sent: Monday, February 10, 202010:06 AM
To: Michael Halverson
Subject: FW: Shooting Ranges in Jefferson County
To: Jefferson County Commissioners
Subject: Allowing Shooting Ranges in Jefferson County
Dear County Commissioners,
FEB 10 2020
My wife and I took up residence along Tarboo Creek in 2001 shortly after we
retired. We have done all we can to preserve the peace and quiet on our 9
acres. With help from Northwest Watershed Institute, we donated 5.5 acres
along both sides of Tarboo Creek to the Jefferson Land Trust. We continue to pay
full taxes on the donated property.
Our children and grandchildren visit often. We have always accepted the
occasional shots fired by hunters in the area but have had to go indoors when
someone decides to fire a hundred or more rounds with their semi-automatic
firearm, our beautiful day in the woods ruined.
Our way of life is under direct threat by proposals to build outdoor shooting
ranges in the county. One huge proposed project a mere 1.5 miles away would, if
built, force us to sell our property at a reduced value and lose our cherished way
of life in the woods.
Please affirm the recommendation of the County Planning Commission to site any
new gun ranges indoors and within industrial zones. The existing range operated
by JSCA should be left alone.
Thank You,
Michael Halverson
8081 Center Road
Quilcene, WA 98376
I\rs
41A
vts! �,I�
�e1�sc�e,
vVitN�S�yb�
Feb 10 comments on extending the commercial shooting facility moratorium
FEB 10 2020
Good afternoon Commissioners,
My name is Peter Newland and I am here this afternoon representing the Tarboo Ridge
Coalition.
TRC supports the proposed moratorium extension. We are impressed by the recent work that has
been done to bring the regulation of shooting facilities into compliance with the GMA and
Jefferson County's Comprehensive plan.
Your planning commission has given you a very good road map for finishing this chapter and
putting viable new rules on the shelf for future use. Alternative 4, which we will discuss in detail
later this afternoon, is a vast improvement over the 2018 ordinances that did not pass muster with
the Growth Management Hearings Board. We are hopeful that later this year, when we sit down
together for our compliance conference with the Hearings Board, that we speak with a unified
voice.
As your staff has noted, the planning commission was operating on a compressed schedule and
while their work is exemplary and we support their recommendations wholeheartedly, there is a
matter that deserves additional thought and modification. We realize it may take a bit of extra
effort to get that work done thus TRC believes an extension of the moratorium is in order.
Like you, TRC's goal is to expeditiously get this matter over the finish line. Later this afternoon
we will share our thoughts on a simple modification of the definition of shooting facilities that
will eliminate the loophole that was recently exploited to detriment of the health and safety of
Jefferson County residents.
Thank you we look forward to our work together.
Dezr.Co rt-,V£Commissio ers,
91
pett
I ,hear are i f
ticn•a�f �tvr�o fears; at these hearings: f r. F� 1+ � . �11
1 the fear that access tosafe public sraAgesv&fbe imepwahly by ever-
more 'restrictive and costly► regulations
2) the fear that access to existing natural beauty and peace will be irreparably lost by failing to
enact limitations and regulations
Somewhere between involdng,constitutional rights as reasons to del ;berately avoid a
regulations and seriously questioning the needfor a y outdoor ranges, there are at least three
compromises
Outdoor rare ale
Day -time hours
Noiseintensity
1) U� on outdoor ranges for projects, that quaWy as Sail -Scale Recreafmn or To'ist is in
"Alternative #'. To develop ,in an 4environn, ientally sensitive maztnerconsistent cart! the
.rugal icharacterlof the,countyt"sounds like the Zountywouldbesaying '#dam not plan on buildr`ng
something that's, niassive in scale,,openall hours. and adriu any arid' all types of weapons
training".
2) Our .ICSA's schedule includes whole days of peace at the range, and hou=rs that typically run.
between 10am to S or 7pm, depending on the day of the week and sunset. It can't please
everyone, but it LqMM the creed for predict qday -tip peace and that it is located in a
county whose economy thrives on its repcttation for natural beauty and rural peacefulness.
3) Our City Councils murficipai, code regulates the level of noise "inn a manner that promotes
fcaommerce, the,use, valr.se and enjbyment ref property, deep, repose, and theqv4fityof the
environment....* And, if I'm reading it correctly, State Exertions are NOT adopted so even=
a shooting raW nuist abide by certain standards that are locally created and enforced: Could`
something sif Wilar be helpful at the coin level? _ ( �1u s; at -r- , 7-6 Jit c) G-(3 p
Thank you for your, consideration.
rND K6 -!)0 5 -SC5A tsN 7 Aft&cTG.6
f3`i C ot5� 5" I'K POT 5'tiRC [F T_H(5
Nicole Fox, 374&:E4ernount Rd, port TGwnsend 5 L-1L-yV rtk L IPL A, I'D
W fc; lvw5 i out NaCV[fW & 1,orkk�
$kt5 5 -To BE, �6-p(.C-Tvxkt, of
CAcq o t ms`s Kta,,;�-s5 -Ta
S A'fE P� VLIC SbiillT 6C INGZE✓S .
`part Towmend spat Code
Chapter 9.09
pie
Noise'
"A t i i • s' ar i C
f. •+ l .: �,. , .ai: # a,...: :J •z" .R.. i. - k.. .r:�::. R ,- y"'R �: d-4.' #1.ii� m._. ,l" d ,. ra
• fti 4.• i,.".} f i �•. ��.". . Z. ^ R" ✓11 :r1�.li y:i :w. 1.. „ P a. a,�.. 1 �. Ff' '.P
• repoofothers.
fly The fotbWft SfW#be pt **wt.,. WevCsonsofbetween the hms of 7M a
P�. � t e..� a: r e.. +1�,x. �+�. ^i x:11
v p-6 P0S EIS F rI 6-1►J C -b �kO -P TVR -MK
Dear Cowlty Commissioners,
Please extend -the end: of thet cures monAztoriumftumMarch23,2020to September 273, 2020
or until tompl a ce iith the Washington, Ste Growth:Maragmvnit, Hearings d's Final
Decision a 'filer .in °Cas No. 19-2 3c is achieved,, whidwww is ear -
The size of of an odor , s m4kact on the stwrawxkg community is
significant in comparison to most other businesses, therefore the crafting of ordinances
.regarding nM otAdoor shoot'shootin raVes, deser s Ow deems -and need not be mMwd.
The County needs to aeate reasonaMe M2gq@gqM for developers as well' as residents; since
marry of them d currently live or recreate within a few miles of any shooting range
bus'+nesses, 'but may very well Wected_ 1 y thern, in the future.
,. .0
HP DIN 40�
.rG Pt cr 4, n
FrERu 10 2020
lympic Promoting the protection, conservation and
Forest restoration of natural forest ecosystems and
Coalition) their processes on the Olympic Peninsula,
including fish and wildlife habitat, and
surrounding ecosystems
Memorandum
To: Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners
From: Patricia Jones, Executive Director, Olympic Forest C do
RE: Comment on Planning Commission Recommendations for Jefferson County Gun Range
Ordinances
Date: February 10, 2020
Board of County Commissioners, Jefferson County:
I am speaking on behalf of the Olympic Forest Coalition, a membership organization working to
protect the forest, watershed and marine water habitats of the Olympic Peninsula. Our
comments go to support Alternative 4, with amendments, and concerns with regard to actual
and potential environmental degradation in our County of any of the other alternatives.
incorporate by reference our comments on the recent inadequate SEPA Determination of Non
Significance and our concerns with regard to environmental impacts of all alternatives, accept
Alternative 4.
The Olympic Forest Coalition supports the Jefferson County Planning Commission
recommendation incorporated into Alternative 4, requiring all new gun ranges be located in
commercial and industrial use zones, and be indoor only, whether the gun ranges are commercial
or not. Our Coalition supports the amendments to the definitions section proposed by the Tarboo
Ridge Coalition. As amended, Alternative 4 would meet the requirements of the Growth
Management Act.
OFCO supports the Tarboo Ridge Coalition amendments to Alternative 4. Requiring conditional
use and operating permits for all ranges will ensure that all ranges receive permitting review,
including SEPA review, and are appropriate and managed to protect the environment and
neighboring land users. Without a permitting requirement, anyone could build a noncommercial
range anywhere in the County, including forests. As currently defined, an outdoor shooting facility
that did not charge fees, membership or other charges, would not require any review for SEPA or
other impacts, nor permitting. This loophole is not intended, acceptable and can easily be
remedied by removing the term "commercial" in the definitions as proppsed by the TRC
amendments.
Our members worked actively over several years trying to bring a Shoreline Management Plan
to our county that would protect our shorelines, lakes, streams, and overall environment. Simply
cCe
.�� _
considering the materials that abound in a military training facility is enough to require careful
consideration and study for any decision on impacts to the environment.
In Stratford, Connecticut, the Remington Gun Club operated for almost seventy years on a
peninsula jutting into the Long Island Sound until the mid-1980s, when a group of fisherman
asked what all that shot was doing to local shellfish. One study found that the club had
deposited 5 million pounds of lead and 11 million pounds of toxic target fragments on its
grounds and nearby waters. Half the ducks in the area had acute lead poisoning, caused by
ingesting the shot while diving for food. Mussels, clams, and oysters were found to contain 10
times the normal level of lead. As a result, the town banned shellfish harvesting on the site. AIW
It is our hope th t the BoCC will not allow this use in any forestland in the County. In a recent
study by Oregon 'State University, researchers found that acre for acre, the most important `
forests to mitigate the climate crisis facing our communities, are the Pacific Northwest forests of
the Olympic Peninsula, western Oregon, and British Columbia. Allow gun ranges in forested
areas further inc( ases the risk of deforestation in our area.
Thank you for your service, and attention to our concerns and views
ccn
I LO 10 2020
, Al�fAl',t �tl
vwF�bu i��� "p� l E
I, Carol Gallup, herein contribute my testimony to the discussion of shooting rangelwm
Jefferson County, WA. I am very much in favor of Alternative #4 created by the
County's professional planning staff.
I find it shocking that outdoor shooting ranges were ever even considered by the County
Commissioners. They are an insult to the environment and create numerous dangers of
all kinds to living things, including people.
I urge you to go with Alternative #4.
Carol C. Gallup
308 E Street, Port Townsend,
carolg202O@gmail.com
WA 98368
FEB 10 2020
I, Lawrence Scoville, longtime resident of Jefferson County, Wa., herein submit my
opinion to the discussion of shooting ranges in Jefferson County, WA. I am very much in
favor of Alternative #4 created by the County's professional planning staff.
I find it shocking that outdoor shooting ranges were ever even considered by the County
Commissioners. They are an insult to the environment and create numerous dangers of
all kinds to living things, including people.
I urge you to go with Alternative #4.
.�a� FEB 10 2020
Lawrence Scoville
308 E Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368
carolg202O@gmail.com
Y`6ieL�U
I �ul��s�PPo�i E
-fire= dra�ba
rn�5 ,n
FEB 10 2020
N&f- oAAaN`6
roltu4LP7�,*\ AD Lit")
u4fort,.
yoo.r *r.-ciuV4. 68 po6iwt
g -dl wv-& *b
hkcYna�''
1c7
7
FEB 10 2020
In the days after the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in 2018 that
killed 17 people and launched a nationwide student movement, filmmakers Emily
Taguchi and Jake Lefferman embedded with students and families whose lives were
forever transformed. They include senior David Hogg, who recorded his class during the
attack and became the face of the Never Again movement; freshman Brooke Harrison,
who was in the first classroom under attack; Sam Zeif, a senior who was locked down in
the same building, texting with his little brother and unsure if they would ever see each
other again; Andrew Pollack, the father of 18 -year-old Meadow, who was killed after
being shot nine times; and the loved ones of 17 -year-old Joaquin Oliver, including his
parents Manuel and Patricia, girlfriend Victoria Gonzalez, and best friend Dillon
McCooty. The filmmakers developed trusting relationships with these students and
families, who opened their doors during some of the most difficult moments of their
lives, and followed their private journeys as they rose to challenge the nation to end gun
violence. Weaving together candid, in-depth interviews, verite footage, and personal
videos, the film chronicles moments both intimate and defining — from the quiet hours of
grief and reflection, to those of political awakening, and onto milestones on the public
stage — creating a moving portrait of one community's crusade to turn tragedy into
progress.
After Parkland will screen in over 100 theaters across the U.S. on February 12 as part
of a nationwide Day of Conversation to commemorate the second anniversary of the
Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. Click here for more information and a
complete list of participating theaters.
FEB 10 2020
February 10,
Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners
jeffboccWo.jefferson.wa.us
Re: Oral testimony re: proposed amendments to Title 8 JCC (Health and Safety) & Title
18 JCC (Unified Development Code)
By Diane Johnson, 1521 Dabob Road, Quilcene
The proposed amendments to Title 8 JCC (Health and Safety) & Title 18 JCC (Unified
Development Code) related to shooting facilities in unincorporated Jefferson County under
consideration by the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners are supposed to
protect the safety and health of those who use those facilities and that of the surrounding
community members. 4t
w"- am speaking A�,,�
on -A" areas (?f critical concern to the citizens of rural Jefferson
County, soun$.wd lead pollution, 44ttr VeS&&&4rM S•
A
SOUND: The County is essentially rural in nature; the sounds of the country are more likely
to be of a natural origin, intermittent, and relatively low decibel. Rural residents are only
intermittently exposed to the kinds of industrial sounds/noises, such as helicopters, heavy
machinery, chain saws, sirens, explosions, or even loud music that residents of more urban
environments must endure in their jobs or home surroundings. These types of sound have
been declared "noise pollution" and a national hazard by Congress as early as 1972 due to
their negative effects on human health. So. NOISE. as defined as any unwanted and
uncontrollable sound, and especially. percussive noises such as gunfire. CAN and DOES
cause physiological and psychological changes and ultimately, damage in the human body.
I am including in my testimony previously submitted documentation regarding the
potential effects of such noise.
LEAD POLLUTION: There are many instances easily found on-line that document that
today's outdoor gun range is tomorrow's EPA Superfund site, which usually end up as the
responsibility of local or state to clean up. The EPA identifies are site-specific variables re:
water, soils, and terrain that determine the danger of lead contamination and pollution; all
of these geologic and soils variables influence how far lead, lead particles, and lead leaching
compounds can travel from the site, and therefore, the exposure possibilities for wildlife
and humans. It is well documented nimals, 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. Exposure can come from direct contact with lead in the soil, airborne during
shooting activities, dust on clothing or on hands, or lead compounds taken up by plants and
then consumed. These concerns make it a land use issue as well as a public and
environmental health issue.
ti r Yur m
FEB 10 2020
Lead contamination is a SEPA issue, as well. The EPA", NRA2, and National Shooting Sports
Foundation 3 have all recommended best management practices concerning lead
containment, reclamation, disposal and necessary record -keeping, -for both indoor and
outdoor ranges. I am also submitting detailed previous written testimony on lead
contamination concerns.
RECOMMENDATIONS: First, IF any size outdoor facility is to be allowed, it is imperative
that noise from such commercial gun range be addressed in the ordinancenot as a
"nuisance," but as an extreme kind of the modern, industrial/urban sound proven to cause
emotional and physiological harm to humans, especially children, and to wildlife.
Second, whether new shooting facilities are indoor or outdoor, lead contamination is a
serious issue, with both environmental and public health concerns. All facilities need SEPA
reviews, with appropriate evaluation of the needs for noise and pollution mitigations.
Third, the BEST solution from the point of view of the general public for whom the noise of
a shooting facility would form a feature of their soundscape, and because lead pollution and
contamination is a major environmental and public health concern, is for all gun/shooting
ranges to be indoors. I ur,�e� ou to adopt the recommendations of the Jefferson County
Planning Commission�'i110 amendments offered by Mr. Alex Sidles, attorney for the
Tarboo Ridge Coalition.
F J , FEB 10 2020
February 10, 2010
Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners
jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us
Re: Testimony re: proposed amendments to Title (Health and Safety) & itie 18 JCC
(Unified Development Code)
By Diane Johnson, 1521 Dabob Road, Quilcene
SUMMARY: The proposed amendments to Title 8 JCC (Health and Safety) & Title 18 JCC
(Unified Development Code) related to commercial shooting facilities in unincorporated
Jefferson County under consideration by the Jefferson County Board of County
Commissioners are supposed to protect the safety and health of those who use those ranges
and that of the surrounding community members. The County is essentially rural in nature;
the sounds of the country are more likely to be of a natural origin, animals calling or
crashing through the brush, or the wind, or rain, the sound of waves, an occasional tree
branch snapping off, those for which our hearing apparatus was adapted. Its residents are
only intermittently exposed to the kinds of industrial sounds/noises, such as helicopters,
heavy machinery, chain saws, sirens, explosions, banging and clanging, freeway sounds, or
even loud music that residents of more urban environments must endure, either in their
jobs or in their surroundings, and certainly, to the sounds of shooting that mimic war.
These types of sound have been declared "noise pollution" and a national hazard by
Congress as early as 1972 due to their negative effects on human health.
BODY OF TESTIMONY: The sense of hearing is our early warning system, it operates 24/7,
and its purpose is to stimulate our bodies to get ready to defend ourselves or move rapidly
away in avoidance.
If the perceived sound -is annoying or upsetting or causes fear, or causes damage to the
body, whether or not the individual is aware of those effects, it is defined as "noise." Noise
can be of any magnitude or duration, therefore, and the degree of upset is determined by its
meaning to the individual and the individual's perceived ability to control the noise.
Noise creates a stress response in the body, which leads to changes in the neuroendocrine
system, including the release of cortisol. If the noise is extremely loud, unremitting or
repeated over a long period of time, or interferes with task performance or speech, a
chronic state of preparedness/stress can occur, eventually even when the stimulus is not
present Such a state leads to the General Adaptive Syndrome, where the neuroendocrine
system NEVER returns to a calm state. Damage from such system overloads can eventually
lead to medical conditions such as gastric ulceration, immune system disorders,
hypertension, atherosclerosis, sterility, obesity, and personality changes, such as excessive
irritability and anger responses.
effects and their costs may not be, generally are not, immediately p�er�ce�2dical
but they
undoubtedly account for a large percentage of the ever-increas o t care in
this country. With respect to gun sounds/noise, one of my friends said it best: "Most
normal people become upset, annoyed, or anxious at the sound of gunfire, and we never get
used to it!"
Researchers have also found that healing from the effects of noise can come through
exposure to natural environments and sounds, and to total quiet. As I noted in my
comments on the 2018 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan on Tuesday evening, Jefferson
County, being predominantly rural in character, is perceived and valued for its "high quality
of life" by others who choose to visit, recreate, or locate here. Preservation of open space
and enhancement of the rural identities and quality of life are seen as economically as well
as ethically desirable, according to the Comp Plan, and can therefore, by extrapolation, be
seen as a place where people come to rest, and, yes, be removed from and heal from their
noisy, busy urban lives. Whether some like it or not, noise, especially noise like the
percussive, alarm -system -activating sounds of gunfire, significantly impair the possibility
that such repose and restoration can occur, either for visitors or for year-round residents.
The compelling reasons for action are the facts that substantial groups of the population are
vulnerable to adverse health effects from noise, that the quality of life is generally eroded by
annoyance from noise, that sleep is disrupted, that productivity is reduced, and that the
concentration required to learn is affected by noisy environments. A significant
responsibility rests on the business or industry to actively reduce noise emission at the
source.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE JEFFERSON COUNTY ORDINANCES: First, IF any size
outdoor facility is to be allowed, it is imperative that noise from such commercial gun range
be addressed in the ordinance, not as a "nuisance," but as an extreme kind of the modern,
industrial/urban sound proven to cause emotional and physiological harm to humans,
especially children, and to wildlife. For this reason, Washington State WAC 173-60-030 and
173-60-050 should be applied. Further, t se ting for the noise pattern should be done at
maximum utilization and weapon caliber, and with helicopter noise, not with a single or few
random pistol or rifle shots. Those are related to what we are used to from hunters for a
brief season of the year, and while still alarming, are of magnitudes less intensity and
duration.
Given the geography of the area, the sound -carrying capacity of the atmosphere, and the
extreme quiet of most county soundscapes, the distance of one mile for considering
residential effects is a joke—the sound of the average hunting rifle can easily be heard at
one mile. For example, due to the increased intensity at the existing shooting range, the
Sheriff says complaints are coming from much farther away, 2 miles or more, in Port
Townsend. The proposed new range has four communities within two miles, and one major
business just over a mile away that would be radically affected by the noise. One mile is not
adequate—two or even three miles is a more realistic radius for consideration of the much
more intense persistent shooting of a shooting facility with multiple ranges and helicopter
pads. These stipulations need to be made in the ordinance to bring them under control of
the operating permit for any outdoor facility, except the home owner's occasional backyard
shooting practice. Such siting issues come under the land use concerns of community
compatibility in the Comprehensive Plan. r � 7' R 251123
The BEST solution from the point of view of the general public for whom the noise of a
shooting facility would form a feature of their soundscape would be for all guar/shooting
ranges to be indoors. I urge you to adopt the recommendations of the Jefferson County
Planning Commission, with the amendments offered by Mr. Alex Sidles, attorney for the
Tarboo Ridge Coalition.
February 10, 2020
Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners
ieffbocc@co.iefferson.wa.us
PCS:
FEB 10 2020
Re: Testimony re: proposed amendments to Titles e 8 JCC (Health and Safety) & Title 18 JCC Unified
Development Code)
My name is Diane Johnson, at 1521 Dabob Road, Tarboo Valley. Thank you, commissioners, for your
efforts in addressing the proposed amendments to Title 8 JCC (Health and Safety) & Title 18 JCC (Unified
Development Code) related to commercial shooting facilities in unincorporated Jefferson County.
Among other important considerations, I ask you to carefully evaluate the issue of lead pollution from
gun ranges, and options for mitigating actions that can be required in conditioning permits under the
CUP. There are many site-specific variables that determine the danger of lead contamination and
pollution that make it a land use issue as well as a public and environmental health issue. It is all three,
but definitely a SEPA issue. I believe it is imperative that the Hearings Examiner have the Range Plan for
Lead Containment and Reclamation, including methods of collection and storage, which is slated for the
Operating Permit, at his/her disposal in establishing his/her rulings re: the condiditional use permit.
There are many instances easily found on-line that document that today's outdoor gun range is
tomorrow's EPA Superfund site. Even the Washington Department of Natural Resources is now
considering severely limiting the allowance of public shooting on State Forests, because they do not
have the resources to police all the areas (identified by on-line shooters as "honey -holes" where you can
go on State land to shoot) that have literally been destroyed by shooters who have no regard for the
DNR rules re: backstops, trash disposal, and spent ammunition disposal.
Why is lead contamination a Public Health Issue? 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, whether at outdoor or indoor ranges. 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.)
Why is lead contamination an Environmental Health Issue? The three keys to pollution are 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 variables ica�' atllle d a an ��
from the site and therefore, the exposure o for v�ril8life and humans.
compounds cantravel
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.)
Why is lead contamination a SEPA issue? The EPA', NRA2, and National Shooting Sports Foundation 3
have all recommended best management practices concerning lead containment, reclamation, disposal
and necessary record-keeping, for both indoor and outdoor ranges. 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 standards5, and 3) verify that facilities are in
compliance with OSHA, EPA and RCRA, with required regular maintenance.' (See Attachment C: Table
3-1— Summary of Key BMPs, BMPs for Preventing Lead Migration.)
RECOMMENDATIONS:
First, IF any size outdoor shooting facility is to be allowed, it is imperative that lead contamination
from such commercial gun range be addressed in the ordinancewith appropriate evaluation of all
extenuating variables required.
Second, the BEST solution regarding lead pollution from the point of view of the general public is
for all gun/shooting ranges to be indoors with proper safeguards for that environment. I urge you
to adopt the recommendations of the Jefferson County Planning Commission (Option 4), with the
amendments offered by Mr. Alex Sidles, attorney for the Tarboo Ridge Coalition.
REFERENCES:
' United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Best Management Practices for Lead at Outdoor
Shooting Ranges, June 2005. Obtainable on line at http://www.epa.gov/region2/wasteZleadshot.
2 National Rifle Association, The NRA Range Source Book: A Guide to Planning and Construction, June
1998.
,Y rm
s National Shooting Sports Foundation, Environmental Aseietsf'brii tion and Management of
Outdoor Shooting Ranges, June 1998. FEB 10 2020
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,"
http•//megaitttrainingsystems com/about-meggitt-training-sysems/10-commandments-of-range-design
Attachment A
Figure 1-1: Effects on the Human Body from Excessive
Exposure to Lead
fR ` FE B 10 2020
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
on
Reproductive Problems
(Adults)
Hearing Problems
Figure 1-1: Effects on the Human Body from Excessive Exposure to Lead
°�FEB 10 2020
Attachment B
Table 2-1-- Common Physical Characteristics at Ranges —
Potential Risks and Benefits Associated with Range Operations
FEB 10 2020
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
Fx rf4meiy 31'ralinP_. soil wrill no', _up; of
' vegetation
i
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 to an -site surface wa er bodiez
Can impede reclamation of expended
I
! Shot Tia raking
3
Flat Terrain
Rainwater may "pond" in areas,
Expended shot easily recovered
promoting lead dissolution and
contamination
Off-site drainage minimized
Wooded areas
May impede lead reclamatieri'uGiiYiliCJNo
r
e •: ;-
s
making equipm= it difficult to r-anouver 1
Ma; provide habitat for miciffe -
I
incfe-qcinq exnncure e0 If.,YeG i
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, ' Ground covers slow down surface water run -
other wildlife food sources I on and run-off
I
`;
o `-,_r: in ysxgetat:r t can 3 7;lutt !8a j inns rrr,•?:
I the -.:)i
Chapter 11 - Page II -3
;04t4 Vzz VL4
ZZ,
FEB 10 2020
Attachment C
Table 3.1— Summary of Key BMPs: l3MPs for Preventing Lead
Migration
FEB 1® 2020
Ali
BMP for Lead at OutdBhootina Ranges
Table 3-1 — Summary of Key BMPs
BMPs for Preventing Lead Migration
Monitoring and Adjusting pH
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
Filter Beds
lead
will interfere with
contaminated runoff
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
kI' wiC 2020
a; Y� '
BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges
Table 3-1— Continued
Controlling Runoff (cont.)
BMP Option
Advantages
Disadvantages
Water/Sediment Traps
1. Low maintenance
1. May require hiring a
2. Assists with range
licensed engineer
drainage
2. Higher initial setup cost
Dams and Dikes
1. Low maintenance
2. Higher initial setup cost
2. Assists with range
drainage
Ground Contouring
1. Lower initial setup cost
1. May require hiring a
2. Assists with range
licensed engineer
drainage
Controlling and Containing, Bullets
Bullet Containment Devices
BMP Option
Advantages
Disadvantages
Earthen Backstop
1. Minimal (if any) initial
1. Build up of bullets
setup cost
increases chances of
2. Accepts firing from
ricochet and fragmentation
various guns and directions
problems
2. Lead removal requires
mining
3. Potential decreased value
of lead because it is less
dean than lead reclaimed
from other trap systems
4. Does not eliminate lead's
introduction into the
environment
Sand Trap
1. Low initial setup cost
1. Build up of bullets
2. Ease of maintenance
increases chances of
3. Accepts firing from
ricochet and fragmentation
various guns and directions
problems
2. Lead removal requires
mining
Pit and Plate Trap (Sand)
1. Low initial setup cost
1. Lead [wilds up on top
2. Simple installation
layer of sand causing
3. Lead removal and
ricochet problems
recycling requires less
2. Increased bullet
extensive mining
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
f
FEB 10 2020
BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges
Table 3-1 — Continued
-Controlling ffld!o "yin t
Bullet Containment Devices cont.
BMP Option
Advantages
Disadvantages
Escalator Trap (Steel)
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
dust
Vertical Swirl (Steel)
1. Can be used indoors or
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
4. May create lead dust
Wet Passive Bullet Trap (Steel)
1. Can be used indoors and
1. Expensive
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
and recycling is easy
Lamella Trap
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
require s cial handling
Chapter III - Page III -21
LIZ,A� � FEB10 2020
d
BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Rartges
Table 3-1— Continued
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
s 'al handling
Shock Absorbing Concrete
1. Adaptable/can be
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
fragments removed
Hand Raking and Sifting
Screening
1. Easily done by dub
members
2. Inexpensive
3. Can be done outside
operating hours
4. Relatively effective
2. Potential economic
returns
1. Effective
2. Can be used at least
accessible ranges
3. Less vegetation needs
to be removed
1. Effective at cleaning the
soil to remove the lead
particles so one is left with
non -lead soil
1. May be more time
consuming at large ranges
2. Weather sensitive (i.e.,
works best under dry
conditions)
3. Exposure to lead and
lead dust possible
1. Vegetation must be
removed
2. Weather sensitive (i.e,,
works best under dry
conditions)
1. Weather sensitive (i.e.,
works best under dry
conditions)
removed
must be
FEB 10 2020
Feb. 10, 2020
Jefferson County Commission:
As a future resident of Quilcene, WA (currently building a home) I'm submitting comments in
opposition to the open gun range proposed and apparently already being built without
permits near Tarboo Lake by Mr. D'Amico. My concerns are noise, soil & water lead
contamination, and safety, as the whole complex is within bullet range of Rt 104.
Please do not abdicate your responsabilty to protect the public and the environment, and
require this and all future shooting ranges in the county to be located indoors under regulated,
safe conditions.
Sincerely,
y
Wayne Brown
1851 Swansonville Rd.
Port Ludlow, WA 98365
(206) 271 - 2900
February 10, 2020
4
To the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners
FEB 10 2020
I would like to comment about your upcoming decision about locating gun
range training facilities in Jefferson County.
I urge you to follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission,
which unanimously agreed that all such new training or commercial gun
range facilities be located indoors. I believe this is the correct course of
action for the following reasons.
Indoor ranges are safe by eliminating any danger from stray bullets. They
eliminate all noise pollution, which was a huge problem with Mr D'Amico's
previous training facility in Discovery Bay.
They safely contain the toxic threat that outdoor ranges pose to our
environment by keeping lead and copper out of our streams and lakes.
Keeping commercial gun ranges indoors is consistent with the 2nd
amendment and does not infringe in any way on state and federal law
regarding the right to own and operate firearms.
I believe keeping gun ranges indoors is a close fit with the county's
obligation to promote health, safety and keeping the peace in Jefferson
County.
The Planning Commission has researched this issue thoroughly. Their
recommendation passed unanimously. I urge you to keep all new shooting
facilities indoors and located in industrial and commercial zones.
Sincerely,
Philip Vogelzang, MD
2021 Egg and I Road
Chimacum WA 98325
Susan Freeman
2110 E. Quilcene Road
Quilcene WA 98377
To the Board of Commissioners.
T4 ,4a Ik
I appreciate the chance to give input into the gun ordinance process again. I know this has been
a hard process but important. I support the unanimous Planning Commission recommendations
of all new commercial gun ranges be situated indoors. This addresses many of the concerns for
future gun ranges.
*One of the major concerns with a gun range is the environmental impact of lead and copper in
the ground. Especially if it is near a water source. Indoors will force the issue of addressing
pollution and not let it get out of hand and create a contamination site, which has already
happened in our county.
*It also addresses noise. This has become a major issue when a gun range site is located almost
anywhere in our county. With more and more a ple rving here it will adversely affect people
who are already here. It's one thing for n `tb move into an area where there is noise
from a gun range and realize that before purchasing your land and another when there are lots of
people alread �l�ing there and their livelihood and ability to enjoy their land is taken away by
the noise of atun range, let alone the huge loss of land value.
*It also helps with safety. It contains stray bullets and makes it safer.
Enforcement has been a problem in this county and our trust that the county will enforce permits
in the future is an issue. Indoor ranges will help make enforcement easier by making the design
and permitting requirements clearer and oversight easier.
I appreciate that the county is taking this seriously from all viewpoints. Even the gun range
consultant from the moratorium committee, Mr. Vargas, said that the future of gun ranges is
indoors.
Thank you for your work on this issue.
c kMd ¢ dr
AL. I 1
FEB 10 2020 r-18 q
tIA
/v 4 I -s Lv�w Com-
IS 15"
Testimony provided by Scott Freeman
2110 E. Quilcene Road
Quilcene WA 98377
President of Tarboo Ridge Coalition
PO Box 177
Quilcene WA 98376
Public hearing on shooting facilities
February 10, 2020
Fort Worden Commons
i
FEB 10 2020
Almost two and a half years ago now, I spoke about the need to protect Jefferson County's
forests at the public hearing on the initial moratorium regarding applications to build commercial
shooting facilities.
That's my theme again today.
I'm here representing myself and my family, but also the Tarboo Ridge Coalition—a community
group that is dedicated to preventing the establishment of paramilitary training facilities in
Jefferson County, and supporting an economy and culture based on farms, fish, forests, and
families.
As an organization representing the larger community, we endorse the Planning Commission's
recommendation that all future gun ranges be built indoors, in commercial and industrial zones2T
There are currently over 1000 total acres in those zoning categories. They occur at locations
throughout the County, which should provide developers with an array of siting options.
Commercial and industrial zones have the infrastructure that these businesses need, in terms of
roads, power, water, and in some cases, municipal sewer. They are also close to population
centers that provide a convenient customer base. It makes sense to site gun ranges in the zones
where they naturally belong, along with compatible uses.
Allowing gun ranges in forest lands, in contrast, not only permanently eliminates an important
resource for our rural economy, but also threatens to overburden existing infrastructure. Careful
planners cluster developments that are industrial in character they don't scatter them
throughout a rural landscape.
In combination with the outdoor range operated by the Jefferson County Sportsmen's
Association, new indoor ranges located in commercial and industrial zones will provide hunters
and people who participate in shooting sports safe and well-managed places to sharpen their
skills, in convenient and sensible locations.
Thank you for your leadership on this issue, and for your work on behalf of this County we love.
4;ad
iqt {5!'i
From Eleanor Mathews
1530 Holcomb Street, Port Townsend WA
To the Jefferson County Commissioners
Jefferson County, Washington
February 10, 2020
Dear Commissioners:
FEB 10 2020
In reference to a request to change zoning regulations in the comprehensive plan related to gun
ranges in Jefferson County:
There will be people with guns. They will want to fire them. It's fair for them to have a
designated place in which to fire their guns in a location that is safe for them and SAFE FOR
PEOPLE AND PROPERTIES IN THE SURROUNDING AREA.
It is fair for residents of the county to have such a facility NOT be located in a rural area which
would burden the county for services such as road maintenance, fire protection, sewage, and
police protection.
It is realistic to include some sort of lead recovery scheme in any application for a gun range.
This would best be accomplished by an indoor facility in areas zoned for industrial use.
I urge you to approve the change currently recommended by the Planning Commission.
Please consider the above. Thank you.
and neighbors.
+� re
FEB 10 2020
Indoors offers full containment of all bullets. (No stray bullets to endangered
the public)
Indoors provides a controlled ventilation environment where fresh air is
drawn past the shooters and down range toward the target area.
(No airborne lead particulates blown back toward shooters)
Indoors provides a controlled ventilation system which filters out lead and
copper before leaving the building.
(No public or environmental exposure to lead and copper toxins)
Easy access for County monitoring of required safety rules.
(No trying to gain access to a forested parcel for safety inspections)
Easy access by Emergency Services when required thereby reducing costs
to the Community.
(No trying to gain access to a forested parcel to provide services.
These are just a few of the safety related items which come to mind.
I sincerely hope that you consider these and issues presented by others who
support the recommendations of the Planning Commissioners for all new
shooting facilities to be indoors and located in industrial and commercial
zoned areas.
Thank you,
Riley Parker
FEB 10 2020
Riley Parker
Commercial Shooting Facilities Ordinances Title 8 and 18
Feb 9, 2020 at 1237:40 PM
Riley Parker
Dear Jefferson County Board of Commissioner
As you know in 20181 was selected to represent the people of District 3 on
the Commercial Shooting Facilities Review Committee. The County hired a
professional shooting range designer, Clark Vargas,
to assist the Review Committee and he provided a national perspective on
shooting facilities.
His advice was:
"Indoor Shooting Ranges are the Future"
"They make good neighbors"
"They are easy to site"
Unfortunately the Review Committee was steered toward outdoor shooting
facilities
and eventually an ordinance was created which allowed unlimited outdoor
shooting facilities.
Today we are finally back to considering indoor shooting facilities thanks to
the Jefferson County Planning Commissioners.
They took a very thoughtful approach in analyzing the potential effects on
our community of outdoor versus indoor shooting facilities. Their
recommendations were overwhelming in favor of indoor shooting facilities. In
fact thatook the time to consider what retail support service would make
them successful business in our community. They also recommend that
these facilities be located in industrial and commercial zoning where public
access and infrastructure are readily available.
Indoor shooting facilities are also the safest option for employees, shooters
February 9, 2020 4 tA�, FEB 10 2020
9
Public Comments
Dear County Commissioners,
I know I speak for many when I say that the recommendations from the Jefferson County
Planning Commission on new shooting facilities in Jefferson county are the ONLY intelligent way
to go, exactly as the recommendations are written. There is only ONE option you should even
be considering: INDOOR SHOOTING ONLY, AND ONLY IN COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL AREAS.
Why? Because this is the SAFEST, QUIETEST, LEAST ENVORONMENTALLY TOXIC route. It is THE
responsible way to go.
There are many of us watching this process, and we see the strength of this recommendation
on several counts. We have folks with PTSD who are literally triggered by gunshot. We have
family members who want the peace and quiet of Jefferson County protected. And that
includes me. Noise pollution is much more than "just a nuisance." It affects wellbeing, quality
of Life, and mental health. And lead pollution is much more than a catch phrase: it changes the
brains of children and adult. Bluntly put it makes us stupider.
I myself have seen close hand the horrible effects of lead poisoning in the environment. I
worked in Wildlife Rescue and Rehabilitation and saw the horrid death animals receive via lead
poisoning. I lived in an area with heavy metals in the well water, and while working with
children with Developmental Delays, had to wonder if their wee brains were poisoned. Also, I
lived in the Bay Area in California where an abandoned shooting range left an overwhelming
mess of environment toxicity, all being pick up by taxpayers. It's a disaster you never want to
see. Don't write policy that will open the door for any overzealous developer to leave us with a
superfund site! Because as you surely know, many developers have walked away from major
contamination, leaving the mess to be cleaned up, or not, by counties, cities, states and the
Federal Government. But by then, it is too late, children have been harmed, society has been
harmed.
The Environmental Working Group in Washington DC stated, in a lengthy study, that: "Lead is
the most prevalent contaminant at Superfund sites across the country (EPA 2001a). The highly
toxic metal triggers more Superfund cleanups than any other industrial chemical or waste
product in the environment. Lead is considered the number one environmental threat to
children's health by the federal government, and at very low levels is linked to subtle
developmental delays and reduced I.Q. in children (EPA 2001b, 2001c). Recognition of the
toxicity of lead is broad and nonpartisan
.... The military has been involved in massive lead cleanup efforts for years, at an estimated 700
military firing ranges across the country. While most of this lead will likely remain on the site,
the nation's firing ranges represent ba rf'aroentll solole„invater and wildlife, and a
potential liability to nearby property owners who may find"themselVes living next to a
hazardous waste site or who might be victims of lead drifting onVE0ejr$g2W8rty.*"
Commissioners, it seems obvious that there is only ONE option you should even be considering:
INDOOR SHOOTING ONLY, AND ONLY IN COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL AREAS. There is no
LOGICAL reason to do anything other, which is exactly why the Planning Commission is right on
the mark. Yet I must note, I have personally been astonished to observe that you as a body
routinely give only a nod to, and then completely ignore, the work of the Planning Commission.
You give them lip service only. If you do that again, in this case, you are NOT SERVING THE
PUBLIC.
If you are not here to serve the public, is would seem you must have another master.
SO I CHALLENGE YOU TO SURPRISE ALL OF US: SHOW US YOU ARE ACTUALLY LISTENEING, THAT
YOU ARE USING YOUR HEART AND MINDS, AND THAT YOU WANT TO DO RIGHT BY THE PUBLIC
YOU SERVE, THAT YOU ARE THINKING INTO PERPETUITY, 10 GENERATIONS INTO THE FUTURE
AS YOU MAKE YOUR DECISIONS: CHOOSE INDOOR SHOOTING ONLY, AND ONLY IN
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL AREAS, FOR JEFFERSON COUNTY.
Thank You y
Catherine Matson Perry /
Port Hadlock ~'
dyi4p—�, Ke -?A4
Resident District Two
SOURCE CITED: https:Hstatic.ewg.org/reports/2001/LeadPollutionAtOutdoorFiringRanges.pdf
2/10/2020 Gmail - Shooting ordinance options
ai[F
�t �, � � s r ��, � � mark jochems <mdjochems@gmail.com>
Shooting ordinance options
1 message
mark jochems <mdjochems@gmail.com>
To: jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us
Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 7:58 PM
Dear Commissioners Dean, Brotherton, and Sullivan.
Concerning the shooting range ordinance, there is only one option that makes sense for the environment and the citizens
of Jefferson county. That is that all future commercial gun ranges be contained inside a building. I urge to to select only
this option. Thank you. Mark Jochems
hitps:Hmail.google.com/maiVu/0?ik=1 d9Oca984f&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a%3Ar3936008932511733236&simpl=msg-a%3Ar394592383... 1/1
s
Feb 10, 2020 Comments supportine4nOt$FR4vith definition modified
Good afternoon Commissioners,
My name is Peter Newland. I live on Tarboo Bay and am a member of the Tarboo Ridge
Coalition. We support your Planning Commission's unanimous recommendation that all future
gun ranges be indoor ranges.
The reasons are quite simple:
1. Indoor Range technology is economically viable in over 16,000 communities large and
small all across America. There are readily available business models and consultants and
contractors who know how to efficiently prosecute the work.
2. Indoor ranges are the safest alternative for training those who wish to own firearms and
indoor ranges can accommodate a wide range of weapons.
3. Indoor ranges can be located, with out adverse consequences, close to existing
transportation corridors, utilities, emergency services and population centers.
4. Indoor ranges ease, for both applicants and jurisdictions, the cost of planning, permitting,
monitoring and enforcement
5. Indoor ranges are good neighbors and eliminate adverse environmental effects including
noise, lead and copper pollution thus protecting our groundwater resources and our
neighbor's peace and quiet
6. Indoor ranges, as recommended by your planning commission, comply with Jefferson
County's comprehensive plan and the GMA by preserving our forests, farms and
fisheries for productive use
7. And most importantly, indoor ranges, located where we can see them, lessen the potential
that individuals, with intentions different from the mainstream, will build unpermitted
encampments in our forests where they have "plenty of ammo and plenty of water".
We urge the Commission to pass ordinances requiring that all future gun ranges in Jefferson
County be located indoors, in areas zoned industrial and commercial.
Thank you.
; t ALI/
Ea, Fi I CC L �,I" & � 4 ivi LLP
z
lawyers working for the environment FEB 10 2020
TO: Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Bricklin and Newman LLP on behalf of the Tarboo Ridge Coalition
DATE: February 10, 2020
RE: Commercial Shooting Ordinance
The Tarboo Ridge Coalition submits this public comment regarding the proposed gun range
ordinance recommended by the Planning Commission, presented in the staff report as
"Alternative 4." The Coalition recommends adoption of Alternative 4 with the following
amendments, which we believe would be sufficient to resolve the remaining issues in the Growth
Management Hearings Board appeal.
The Coalition does not believe Alternative 5 would resolve the appeal.
The following are the recommended amendments to Alternative 4.
1. Amendment of Definitions
Alternative 4 currently proposes the following definitions:
(15) "Commercial shooting facility" means an indoor shooting facility or outdoor
shooting facility designed and specifically designated for safe shooting practice with
firearms, whether open to the public, open only to private membership, or any
combination of the above that for the use of the commercial shooting facility requires a
contract, charges a fee or other compensation, or requires membership. In addition,
where property is used primarily for lawful shooting practice for guests of the owner, and
where the other uses of the property either facilitate shooting practice or are incidental,
intermittent or occasional, it is presumed that the property is a commercial shooting
facility. The term "commercial shooting facility" does not include:
(a) Shooting facilities that are both owned and operated by any instrumentality of
the United States, the State of Washington, or any political subdivision of the
State of Washington.
Public Comment of Tarboo Ridge Coalition
Re: Proposed gun range ordinance
February 10, 2020 s
�.p�
(b) Any portion of a privately=ov�fied pVAY �i0 #or 11wAl1Q,904practice
solely by its owner or the owner's `guests ,� without payment of any
compensation to the owner of the privately -owned property or to any other
person.
(35) "Indoor shooting facility" means a commercial shooting facility within a fully
enclosed structure, including lawful incident sales of firearms, ammunition, component
parts and accessories.
(46) "Outdoor shooting facility" means a commercial shooting facility that is not an
indoor shooting facility.
Under these definitions, an outdoor shooting facility that did not charge money would not
actually be an "outdoor shooting facility," regardless of its size, noise, and environmental
impacts. It would not require an operating permit or even, arguably, a conditional use permit.
The definition in Alternative 4 creates a loophole to allow non-commercial ranges of unlimited
size without environmental or permitting review. Obviously, this loophole is inconsistent with
the County's duty and power to regulate land use to protect the environment and neighboring
land users.
We propose to amend this loophole by amending the definitions as follows:
(35) "Indoor shooting facility" means a shooting facility within a fully
enclosed structure, including lawful incident sales of firearms, ammunition, component
parts and accessories.
(46) "Outdoor shooting facility" means a eemmereiial shooting facility that is not an
indoor shooting facility.
This simple amendment to the definition in Alternative 4 would require a conditional use permit
for both commercial and noncommercial ranges, and an operating permit for commercial ranges
but not for noncommercial ranges. The rest of Alternative 4, including its prohibition against gun
ranges in forest lands, would remain as is.
2. Justification for amendment
Under the 2017 Jefferson County Code, all gun ranges, commercial and non-commercial, needed
a conditional use permit. Our amendment of the Alternative 4 definitions returns the County to
that legal regime.
Requiring conditional use permits for noncommercial ranges is necessary to ensure that
noncommercial ranges receive permitting review, including SEPA review, and are appropriately
sized and managed to protect the environment and neighboring land users. Without a conditional
use permit requirement, anyone could build a noncommercial range of any size, anywhere.
N
Public Comment of Tar oo Ridge Coalition
Re: Proposed gun range ordinance
February 10, 2020
kY� 9 f
Gun ranges have the potential for sev `a bll�i iWe.�t4 , ' cluding lead and copper
pollution in soil and water, noise, inadequate=bullet:On�taitrne� vgrsion of forest land to
non -forest uses, and possible filling of wetlands (as has already oceurreTailQke). These
impacts result regardless of whether the gun range is charging its users money.
Nor is there any reason under the Second Amendment or state pre-emption laws to regulate
commercial facilities but not non-commercial facilities. The Second Amendment guarantees the
right to bear arms. It does not guarantee the right to build gun ranges of unlimited size without a
land use permit. Similarly, as the staff report correctly notes at pg. 13, the County has police
power regulations to protect health, safety, and well-being of its residents and their environment.
That power is not limited by whether an unhealthy, unsafe and environmentally injurious land
user charges its users money. If the County is allowed, under the Second Amendment and pre-
emption, to regulate commercial gun ranges (which the staff report correctly acknowledges is the
case), then the County is also allowed to regulate non-commercial gun ranges.
Requiring non-commercial gun ranges to obtain a conditional use permit would ensure that they,
like commercial ranges, will not injure neighboring land uses. Accordingly, if Alternative 4 were
adopted with the amended definitions we have suggested, the remaining issues in our Growth
Management Hearings Board appeal would be resolved.
By contrast, if Alternative 5 were adopted, the violation of the Growth Management Act would
not be cured. Alternative 5 allows indoor commercial gun ranges, with a permit, in forest lands,
which is a violation of the Growth Management Act's special protections for forest lands.
Alternative 5 also appears to allow non-commercial indoor and outdoor gun ranges, without any
permit or size limitations at all, in forest lands. Needless to say, allowing unlimited -size gun
ranges in forest lands, even if the ranges are non-commercial, is totally inconsistent with
protecting forest land as required by the Growth Management Act.
Conclusion
We are grateful for the work County staff have put in to the staff report. We also appreciate the
work the Planning Commission has done in taking the community's concerns seriously and
crafting a good recommendation to the Board. We urge the Board to close the last remaining
loophole in gun range regulation and require conditional use permits for non-commercial
shooting ranges. With that amendment, we endorse Alternative 4.
3
Public Comment of TfOo Ridge Coalition
'Re: Proposed gun range ordinance
February 10, 2020
Respectfully,
Alex Sidles
Bricklin and Newman
1424 4th Ave, ste. 500
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 264-8600
sidles@bnd-law.com
Attorney for Tarboo Ridge Coalition
4
0
FEB 10 2020
Steve Rankin R
1366 West Sequim Bay Road '
Sequim, WA 98382
February 10, 2020
Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners
1820 Jefferson Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368 FEB 10 2020
SUBJ: Proposed Commercial Shooting Range Ordinance
I am the Range Master at JCSA and as such I "have charge of all small -arms instruction" and "have
overall charge of shooting activities" at JCSA. Speaking of instruction, you may be interested to know
that I provided instruction to 43 new shooters last year — 39 of whom were women. Yes, women are by
far the fastest growing demographic of gun owners.
I have spent a lot of time following this ordinance, yet that is dwarfed by the time and money spent by
the County's attempt to prohibit a lawful business. Imagine how frustrating it is to hear county officials
talk about how limited county resources are, yet on the other hand, observe how much time and money
those officials are willing to devote to this issue. These contradictions along with those contradictions
in the excess of "WhereAs" rationalization statements only go to confirm that this issue is about
politics, and not about public safety.
Speaking of public safety. The one fact that remains clear in all of this is that there has never been a
shooting safety incident at JCSA in over 60 years. Again, firearm safety is not the issue here.
Attitudes and people make shooting one of the safest sports in America, not laws.
Attending the Planning Commission meetings was an education in how little anyone involved knows
anything, or even cares, about shooting ranges. What became clear was how much the members of the
Planning Commission intended to regulate shooting ranges to the greatest amount possible, regardless
of any practical considerations.
Speaking of practical considerations, consider an example on the near horizon. Olympia is currently
steamrolling many new gun control laws through the legislature. A bill recently passed the house will
make ownership and use of many, if not most, contemporary firearms illegal. Firearms that law makers
like to call "weapons of war," the same firearms this County arms its law enforcement officers with.
The bill provides a narrow exception that existing owners may use those firearms but only at licensed
ranges such as JCSA. However, this ordinance would outlaw the use of firearms that are in common
use and extremely popular at JCSA — even though their use at JCSA would to be legal under state law.
This would result in substantial injury to JCSA and its membership, a likely breach of JCSA's license
agreement with the County, and a conflict with impending state law, leading to legal challenges
regarding Washington's preemption laws. Additionally, this clause is assured to have other unintended
consequences that will impact both the citizens and law enforcement officials of Jefferson County. I
recommend that you remove the clause (26) and leave the issue of which firearms may or may not be
used at ranges in Jefferson County to state/4n d federal law makers, and experienced safety officials
such as myself /:?-) //
Steve Rankin�2�-l/��k�/��
Kathleen Waldr
Only Indoor G��" od s� °`° }�
FEB 10 20
Feb 10, 2020 at '11:04:29 AM �
Kathleen 4 i LA
Dear Commissioners Sullivan, Dean & Brotherton.
My name is Kathleen Waldron & I live on Marrowstone Island. Thank
you for a
this opportunity to comment on future shooting ranges in Jefferson
County.
I was so delighted when the Planning Commissioners, after thorough
research in other counties, unanimously voted to have "No Outdoor
Shooting Ranges in Jefferson County"!
And now I am shocked & dismayed to read in the Port Townsend
Leader that you are deciding today between 5 options &the Planning
Commission recommendation is listed as number 4! What is the
motivation for expanding to 5 options? Why is their recommendation
listed as number 4?
I feel for our Planning Commissioners, who I connected with last year,
when promoting no industrial marijuana sites in Rural Residential
zones.
I am so impressed with their dedication, knowledge & hard work on
issues. It feels like you are dismissing their unanimous
recommendation.
Why? What is your motivation?
And Indoor Ranges are the ONLY way to protect all residents,
including wild & domestic animals, from the trauma of what I call "
Second Hand Noise"
E ! FEB 102029
Gun noise feels similar to second hand smoke, be0006 the person
smoking has the pleasure of breathing in smoke, but subjects those
around them to their unhealthy exhaled smoke. Gun owners also
enjoy the shooting of their guns (and protecting their ears) while they
subject all life around them to their "second hand gun noise"!
As a Zoology major and retired counselor, I am very aware of the
traumatic impact to both people and animals to loud and repetitive
noise! Just look at the PTSD experienced by returning vets when they
hear loud noises. We have already protected ourselves from
secondhand smoke and the county can now protect all life from
secondhand gun noise.
I completely support the unanimous recommendation of our great
Planning Commissioners and reject all alternatives except # 4, which
promotes only indoor shooting ranges.
Thank you for protecting all life in perpetuity in Jefferson County!!
Teri Hein
7810ld Tdrb'o6 RA J ,
(J�
Quilcene, WA ; x
FEB 10 202
Two plus years ago I picked up the PT Leader and read an article about a giant gun
range/training camp proposed for a mile and a half from where we live on Tarboo
Road. As I recall I said to my husband Jim something like: Holy Crap.
I'm one of those people who believes the world would be a lot better place if there
were no guns at all. I admire other countries that significantly control their use.
After that article I became part of the original group that formed The Tarboo Ridge
Coalition. While off the board now I remain a staunch supporter. In my involvement
with TRC I have been served not once but twice for harassment - of course both
suits eventually dropped as they were just part of a strategy called Paper Terrorism
in which the perpetrator uses intimidation with spurious lawsuits. It's a thing:
paper terrorism. I'm a retired teacher: people like me don't get served for
harassment very often. While ridiculous suits, they still cost money for an attorney
before the cases were dropped. That's part of the thing called Paper Terrorism:
even if the suit is ridiculous it will cost money to stop.
Fast forward to today. One thing I've learned in the last couple years of paying
attention to gun culture is there are people I actually like and respect who are
members of the gun club. It might sound crazy but I never knew anybody as a friend
who I knew enjoyed shooting guns. It's just not part of my personal culture.
I've also know there is a wide gap between shooters who practice intimidation and
people who simply want to enjoy shooting guns.
I have come to realize that to practice the craft and sport of shooting is really
important to many people. And for me having the place I love to live remain quiet
and peaceful with the environmental protection measures so many Jefferson County
citizens have worked towards is equally important.
_CT �
I support t that we grandfather in the Sportsman's Club and require all
by-) new ranges to be indoors and sited in already z ned commercial/industrial areas.
Not because it answers to my wish to have n un�4a" hich it doesn't, but it is,
in my view, a worthy compromise at a time when people need to practice
compromise respectfully wherever we can. We need that now more than ever in
our country.
Thank you for your continued and challenging work on this topic.
plot Okj-,3
`
C�+
ar _ �.
� t -o
FEB 10 2020
Jefferson County is highly valued for its natural beauty and wildlife. Outdoor gun
ranges present serious problems because of lead accumulation in the surrounding
soil and water, as well as noise pollution and safety concerns. Once the soil around
an outdoor gun range is polluted, it must be bulldozed and removed. Where will
that polluted soil be disposed of? Who will monitor that process? We all know
stories about private industries polluting the environment, walking away and
leaving us to carry the price tag for their pollution. We can't afford that in Jefferson
County. Regulating, inspecting and holding outdoor gun ranges responsible for
their pollution adds pressure to our already financially strapped county
government.
Now federal law enforcement staff and military personnel train on federal ranges.
My daughter was an armorer in the 82nd Airborne and all her training was
accomplished on base. As a country we invest trillions of dollars to maintain our
federal defense services and these bases have entire teams of environmental
professionals providing oversight to deal with the pollution and other negative
aspects related to firearms training. We cannot replicate that here in Jefferson
County.
over
I am here today to present a petition signed byt 400 Jefferson County
residents along with their comments, supporting the recommendation that all
new gun ranges in our county be limited to indoor models only.
To be of assistance, I am giving you an article given to me by my husband, Howard
Gilbert, from the February 2020 Issue of the Firearms News magazine for your
reference. It is titled "The Range is Hot - what you need to know about outdoor and
indoor ranges when planning one." This article is a comprehensive summary
related to gun ranges which could help guide your planning as things move
forward. Thank you for your time and for your hard work on behalf of our county.
Cs? u �ic e n e �VA
360'? (-,5 —01 '?,Ll
� ha�� �, c a �
PAm�lo,h.bV a
�a� 9
IThY did you vote for this petition .
"Require all new shooting ranges in Jefferson County, Washington to be built indoors."
Comments
Helen Rector: This process so far has been driven by fear. Very frightening to see the county bullied.
David Miller: I am signing because I enjoy the peace and quiet of living in a small town. The sound of
gunshots outdoors carries an incredibly long way.
Pamela Roberts: Jefferson County is highly valued for its natural beauty and wildlife. Keeping gun
ranges indoors helps protect everyone's peace and quiet. Regulating and inspecting gun ranges for
pollution adds pressure to our already financially strapped county government. Gun ranges require
oversight because of pollution and safety concerns. Limiting new gun ranges to indoor models only
helps reduce the negative impact that lead bullets have on the environment. Outdoor gun ranges present
a serious problem because of lead accumulation in the surrounding soil and water. Indoor ranges should
also be regulated to require features that protect the environment and the people shooting and working
in the range. These would include air filtration systems and regular testing of workers for lead
exposure.
Debra Feinman: I'm opposed to outdoor shooting ranges because of the toxic metal pollution that can
seep into the ground from spent ammunition.
Jo Tiffany: This will allow gun owners to do target practice and at the same time, allow the rest of us
to live in peace.
Maureen Huff: It's safer for the fauna to have shooting ranges indoors only.
Carol Gonnella: I am so sgning this perition to protect the quality of life for Jefferson County
residents.
Sara Johani: No brainer!
Dennis Daneau: Outdoor gun ranges are loud and not compatible with the with neighborhood housing.
People should not have to put up with the continued noise which can go on for hours within any day. I
used to live close to a gun range and it disturbed the peace which we all are here to appreciate.
John Gordon: It's the way to do it.
Sean Guinan: Indoor shooting ranges are the more sensible recommendation to preserve the
environmental, cultural, and community integrity of Jefferson County.
Diane Diprete: I live near the gun club and I know how annoying the gunshots are so close to my
home. Indoor ranges would be such an improvement in livability.
Debbi Steele: I am signing because I believe outdoor shooting ranges are dangerous and bad for the
environment.
Philip Vogelzang: I care about the peace atlto#e#eon,,Any new gun ranges
should be indoors! •'`:
Kristine Maxwell: The noise level in traditional gun ranges is horrible for many miles around. It
disturbs households, pets, horses, wildlife, and birds unnecessarily.
Miriam Murdoch: I support maintaining the rural character of our community. It's what attracts the
visitors!
Deisy Bach: It is stressful to hear guns going off. It creates noise pollution affecting us and wildlife. It
also creates trash pollution as the bullet casings are often left in the woods.
Norman Johnson: Confine the noise to industrial zones and maintain the pristine silence of rural areas
in Jefferson County, WA.
Elizabeth Morgan Tyler: We need to protect the peace, the forests, the animals and ourselves. The
Olympic Peninsula is a one of the last temperate rain forests on the planet, one of the quietest places on
earth. Please please let's keep it the way it was created, peaceful.
Fran Post: Because animals and humans are so distressed by the sounds of gunfire, I think this is a
very good solution for all.
Perry Spring: 601 Willow St. PT - pollution disturbs wildlife in a way that can negatively impact life
cycle. Also diminishes the enjoyment of natural areas by citizens and visitors who are drawn to
Jefferson Co because of its unique "wilderness out your backdoor" experience.
Marta Peterson: We should all be mindful of the noise we create - mindful of our neighbors!!
Sarah Young: I sign for safety and peace.
Dan Merke: It is outrageous to have an outdoor paramilitary facility in one of the most beautiful areas
of the country.
Merrilee Hannigan: For the safety of those whose backyards are also the woods. The safety for
humans and animals.
Gabriella Ashford: We need to write new codes in our county for air quality, sound, and smells.
Pat Roche: I support requiring shooting ranges to be indoors. There should also be a time frame, that
requires to current JC Range, to comply with this restriction or stop operation. Their noise pollution is
intolerable.
Faith Morgan: I am 100 % in favor of keeping gun ranges indoors.
Jane McKann: I live near the gun club and sometimes it sounds like a warzone. Please don't let others
have to put up with the trauma of hearing gunfire at their home.
Margaret Woodcock: Let's control gun use and environmental effects e.g. sound.
Deborah Hammond: This is an important step towards keeping our county safe.
g y.
Julia Cochrane: Even at my house near 19th ari *'dal eld pro)guns. It is not
what I want to hear from my lawn and I don't wish that noise and the r6a 'y-itr;pre§ents on anyone. I
want to hear bird song and children's laughter.
Kathy Ryan: Indoor ranges are the only ones that make any sense. They allow for learning proper
weapon handling with safeguards for people and the environment. We support Tarboo Creek Coalition
efforts and thank them for their hard work.
Dale Kelley: Allowing such open ranges in residential homes with children and elderly especially is
totally unacceptable!
Ron Myhre: For the sake of living beings, all shooting ranges must be housed indoors Period!
Stephanie Dutton: I live in Quilcene.
Caroline Maillard: This is a good compromise that provides gun owners with a dedicated shooting -
space, while ensuring that other Jefferson County residents, farms, property owners and wildlife aren't
negatively affected.
Tamara Pokorny: So that rural Jefferson County will remain friendly to farms, families, everyone who
enjoys time spent outdoors, pets, livestock and wildlife.
Jean Ball: Our legacy of protecting citizens and the environment is paramount. Indoor only addresses
all our concerns.
John Fabian: I strongly support the recommendation of the Planning Commission to restrict all future
shooting ranges to indoor facilities located in industrial and commercially zoned areas.
This is the most important property use issue to come before the County Commissioners since the Pit -
to -Pier mining district decision. In that case, the commissioners came up with the wrong answer and
approved a 690 acre gravel mining district south of SR -104. The political fallout was almost
immediate. We went from 3 Republican commissioners to 3 Democratic commissioners in the
following 18 months, and it has stayed that way.
Major land use decisions directly affect the environment and the quality of life of your constituents.
Health and safety must be high priorities, but stopping a Hayden Lake atmosphere from further
invading our county is even more important.
Your decision may lead to a law suit by those who want an expansive war -gaming facility that may be
more subversive than recreational. Your lawyers will urge you to avoid a law suit by compromising
and yielding to their demands. But, risk aversion, in this case, will not serve the county well. Please
do the right thing and your fellow citizens will stand with you.
Thanks for your attention and your devoted service to the citizens of Jefferson County.
PETITION
February 10, 2020
Jefferson County, WA: Board of County Commissioners
Require all new shooting ranges in Jefferson County, Washington
to be built indoors.
Signatures
ya #
NAME
LOCATION
DATE
Tarboo Ridge Coalition
Quilcene, WA
2020-01-30
Jean Ball
Quilcene, WA
2020-01-30
David Woodruff
Port Townsend, WA
2020-01-30
Kathel Austin Kerr
Port Ludlow, WA
2020-01-30
Jeanette Woodruff
Port Townsend, WA
2020-01-30
Connie Gallant
Quilcene, WA
2020-01-30
Pamela Roberts
Quilcene, WA
2020-01-31
Tom Peckman
Port Hadlock, WA
2020-01-31
Gary Larson
Port Townsend, WA
2020-01-31
John Fabian
Port Ludlow, WA
2020-01-31
Hilary Metzger
Port Townsend, WA
2020-01-31
Judy D'Amore
Port Townsend, WA
2020-01-31
James Smith
Quilcene, WA
2020-01-31
Berry Shoen
Port Townsend, WA
2020-01-31
Ben Lundahl
Quilcene, WA
2020-01-31
Susan Biskeborn
Port Townsend, WA
2020-01-31
Lee Hoffman
Port Townsend, WA
2020-01-31
Gretchen Cooper
Port Townsend, WA
2020-01-31
Tamara Pokorny
Quilcene, WA
2020-01-31
Bill Thorness
Chimacum, WA
2020-01-31
Danielle Raelson
Hadlock, WA
2020-01-31
Magdalene Adenau
Port Townsend, WA
2020-01-31
Lisa Benson
Quilcene, WA
2020-01-31
Erik Montoya
Port Townsehd�, W .A ,' '
r � 2020-01-31
Olivia Bensons
Quilcene, WA
2020-01-31
Sascha Ebert
Quilcene, WA
2020-01-31
Caroline Maillard
Port Townsend, WA
2020-01-31
Ron Myhre
Port Townsend, WA
2020-01-31
Gary Engbrecht
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Heidi Eisenhour
Port Hadlock, WA
2020-02-01
Margie Koger
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Janet Stevenson
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Ann Welch
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Dale Kelley
Port Ludlow, WA
2020-02-01
Jane Armstrong
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Kathryn Molotsky
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Carl Youngmann
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Christine Wilson
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Katherine Millman
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Owen Fairbank
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
David Jenkins
Chimacum, WA
2020-02-01
John Behrens
Port Ludlow, WA
2020-02-01
Karen Crouse
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Judith Collins
Nordland, WA
2020-02-01
Margaret Snow
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Diana Whitney
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Michael Morrissey
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
r� Y 4 Z•A `f 7,i
:9 �
Jim Donaldson
Port Townsend, WA ��:
2020-02-01
Judith Rudolph
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Richard Doherty M.D.
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Jennifer Westdal
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Betty Prentice
Port Ludlow, WA
2020-02-01
Roxanne Hudson
Chimacum, WA
2020-02-01
Tony Goldenberg
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Rita Kepner
Nordland, WA
2020-02-01
Sharon Bodkin
Nordland, WA
2020-02-01
Jane Macnab Dow
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Robin Ornelas
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Shirley Rivas
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Lynn Carlene
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Karen Hackenberg
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Mercedita del Valle
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Kathleen Casey
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
beverly stoll
Quilcene, WA
2020-02-01
Jock Patton
Port Hadock, WA
2020-02-01
Jerome Druen Druen
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Shirley McRae
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Deborah Hammond
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Linda Okazaki
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Timothy Manring
Chimacum, WA
2020-02-01
Doug Campbell
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
d !
'we, X4.5
Pat Levy
Port Townsend; WA
r ., 2020-02-01
Joan Flowers
Port Ludlow, WA
2020-02-01
Beth Hansen
Chimacum, WA
2020-02-01
Katherine Stevenson
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Margaret Woodcock
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
MaryAnn Seward
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Maria Mendes
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Terri Naughton
Quilcene, WA
2020-02-01
Amanda Kingsley
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Nancy Pope
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Karen Easterly -Behrens
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Kathleen Dwyer
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Gary Forbes
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
David Shiah
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Marta Krissovich
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Leslie Aickin
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Douglas Van Allen
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Shelley Jaye
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Jim Daubenberger
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Beth Stroh -Stern
Brinnon, WA
2020-02-01
Sharon Pickett
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Ellen O'Shea
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Martha Worthley
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
James McCrae
Port Townsen/
,, 2020-02-01
Johm Bellow
Chimacum, WA
t.d' 2020-02-01
Marty Gay
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Gary Estes
Chimacum, WA
2020-02-01
Richard Heckard
Port Ludlow, WA
2020-02-01
Seth Rolland
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Wanda Synnestvedt
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Carol Colley
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Debra Bouchard
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Jeannine Kempees
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Linda Abbott -Roe
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Barb Trailer
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Susan Nelson
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Sharon Comer
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Judith Alexander
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Dicksy Scott
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Kathleen Wacker
Quilcene, WA
2020-02-01
Kathy Ryan
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Corky Parker
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Julia Cochrane
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Susan OBrien
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Lynn Segleau
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
David Kellum
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Cheryl Bentley
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Pamela Browning
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Rita Tomassian-Hopkins
Port Townsend, Vuq
2020-02-01
Breezi Hill
Port Townsend, WA
"2026-02-01
Phil Williamson
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Sarah Schuch
Port Ludlow, WA
2020-02-01
Richard Wood
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Cheri Van Hoover
Port Hadlock, WA
2020-02-01
Larry McDowell
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Kenneth Bleyer
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Sarah McMahan
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Marla Streator
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Mike Mauch
Port Ludlow, WA
2020-02-01
Liz Moore
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Nyla Dartt
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Paul Wrench
Port Hadlock-Irondale, WA
2020-02-01
Sharon Dembro
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Librado Flores
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Leslie Payton
Port Ludlow, WA
2020-02-01
Trudi Kubik
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Bruce Schmidt
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
George Hastings
Nordland, WA
2020-02-01
Naomi Nachun
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Rebecca Watson
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Helena Chechopoulos
Nordland, WA
2020-02-01
Cathy Beatty
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Ian Keith
Port Townsend, WA n .;w
2020-02-01
Jane McKann
Port Townsend, WA y
=0Z 02-01
Anna moore
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Emma Jaqueth
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Faith Morgan
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Pat Roche
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Pat Teal
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Bernadette Stechman
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Janice Misner
Quilcene, WA
2020-02-01
Petra McDowell
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Vicki Adams
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Catherine Kapp
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Jan Gilla ders
Quilcene, WA
2020-02-01
Sonia Story
Chimacum, WA
2020-02-01
Clarence Cornforth
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Chuck Gibilisco
Quilcene, WA
2020-02-01
Gabriella Ashford
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Merrilee Hannigan
Chimacum, WA
2020-02-01
David Moe
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Susan Marett
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Sarah Fitch
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Fayla Schwartz
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Connie Welch
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Stephanie Lutgring
Port Townsend, W&,
2020-02-01
a
Libby Palmer
Port Townsend, WA
1, ry V 11-02-01
David Tonkin
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Victoria Davis
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Rose Wilde
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Mary Karen McHattie
Nordland, WA
2020-02-01
Jennifer Hopkins
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Sarah Young
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Gary Cox
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Laura Tucker
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Ursula Sluis
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Cathy Carroll
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Dan Merke
Seattle/Shine, WA
2020-02-01
Suzanne DeMasso
Port Hadlock, WA
2020-02-01
Noah Frisch
Chimacum, US
2020-02-01
Megan DeVries
Port Hadlock, WA
2020-02-01
marta Peterson
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Sylvia Bowman
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Kevin Hansen
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Donna English
Chimacum, WA
2020-02-01
Robert Sullivan
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Michelle Nock
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-01
Judy Simons
Quilcene, WA
2020-02-01
Riley Parker
Quilcene, WA
2020-02-01
John English
Chimacum, WA
2020-02-01
Amelia Norton
Port Townsend, WQ 47 :,
2020-02-01
joyce duncan
Port Townsend, WA
200-02-01
Linda Radka
Quilcene, WA
2020-02-01
Janet Woodyard
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-02
Perry Spring
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-02
Fran Post
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-02
Bob Diner
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-02
Sandra Stowell
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-02
Annie Benson
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-02
Cheryl Halverson
Quilcene, WA
2020-02-02
Lynn Zephryna
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-02
Lisa Aniballi
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-02
Berry London -Bell
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-02
Blake Thedinga
Chimacum, WA
2020-02-02
Elisa Cole
Quilcene, WA
2020-02-02
Gina Masson
Quilcene, WA
2020-02-02
Ken Wilson
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-02
Elsie Taylor
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-02
Helen Lauritzen
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-02
Sharon DeWees
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-02
Albert Cairns
Qulcene, WA
2020-02-02
Holly Hughes
Chimacum, WA
2020-02-02
Elizabeth Tyler
Chimacum, WA
2020-02-02
Mary Strand
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-02
Marina Garcia
Port Townsend, W;�
$_, 4 ��. °2020-02-02
i
Janice Nehring
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-02
Kate Fowler
Brinnon, WA
2020-02-02
Joyce Wilkerson
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-02
Eric Jorgensen
Chimacum, WA
2020-02-02
Jonathan Moseley
Port Hadlock, WA
2020-02-02
Shayla Holloway
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-02
John M Sheehan
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-02
Allison Dyche
Chimacum, WA
2020-02-02
Peter Rhines
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-02
Siena Foxx
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-02
Frank DePalma
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-02
Roseanna Almaee-Nejadi
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-02
Norman Johnson
Quilcene, WA
2020-02-02
Karen Forbes
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-02
Michele Podesto
Hadlock, WA
2020-02-02
David Amos
Quilcene, WA
2020-02-02
Laura Werner
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-02
Rick Dennison
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-02
Sarah Stockton
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-02
Peter Braccio
Quilcene, WA
2020-02-02
Ellen Heinemann
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-02
Heather Sky
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-02
Nancy Hartman
Quilcene, WA
2020-02-02
Job Day
Port Hadlock, WA
P,,F ; 2020-02-02
.w
Kris DeWeese
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-02
Carrie Hillman
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-02
Robert Jaye
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-02
Linda Rabenold
Quilcene, WA
2020-02-02
Viki Sonntag
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-02
Susan Grant
Port Ludlow, WA
2020-02-02
Deisy BACH
Port Hadlock, WA
2020-02-02
Jennifer White
Chimacum, WA
2020-02-02
Janette Hammond
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-02
Anna Reyes -Potts
Quilcene, WA
2020-02-02
Miriam Murdoch
Brinnon, WA
2020-02-02
Kristine Maxwell
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-02
Keely Hatton
Quilcene, WA
2020-02-02
Darcy Reeder
Port Hadlock, WA
2020-02-02
Gary Hall
Quilcene, WA
2020-02-02
Pablo Thomas
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-02
Ian Weedman
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-02
Timothy Quackenbush
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-02
Myron Gauger
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-02
Jane Navone
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-03
Peri Robin
Chimacum, WA
2020-02-03
Susan Petek
Nordland, WA
2020-02-03
Robert Kapp
Port Townsend, WA,
2020-02-03
.y
George Bennett
Port Townsend, WA
,,. 2020-02-03
Debbi Steele
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-03
Cynthia Koan
Jefferson County, WA
2020-02-03
Sigrid Cummings
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-03
Diane Diprete
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-03
Stanley Cummings
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-03
Bruce Kelley
Nordland, WA
2020-02-03
Alex Bryan
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-03
Karen Rudd
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-03
Chris Lenzi
Quilcene, WA
2020-02-03
Katherine Riley
Port Ludlow, WA
2020-02-03
David Goetze
Quilcene, WA
2020-02-03
Barbara Starr
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-03
Patrick Burnham
Quilcene, WA
2020-02-03
Kelsey Gebauer
Quilcene, WA
2020-02-03
Rebecca Taylor
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-03
Forest Shomer
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-03
Terry Ryan
Quilcene, WA
2020-02-03
Margaret Smith
Port Ludlow, WA
2020-02-03
Deanne McCausland
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-03
Ed Louchard
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-03
Ann King
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-03
Scott Campbell
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-03
Carole Huelsberg
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-03
Patricia Ivers
Nordland, WA
200-02-03
Janice Templin-Weller
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-03
Ruth Larson
Quilcene, WA
2020-02-03
Kelly Larson
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-03
Kathryn Hunt
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-03
David Buuck
Port Ludlow, WA
2020-02-03
Suzanne Carlson
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-03
Abbey Kaufman
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-03
Larry Dennison
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-03
Teresa Cofone
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-03
Jeanie Glaspell
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-03
karyn Stillwell
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-03
Ellie Mathews
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-03
Colleen Labrie
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-03
Lisa Feetham
Chimacum, WA
2020-02-03
Emily Quintana
Quilcene, WA
2020-02-03
Lynn Nadeau
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-03
Michael Mccue
Quilcene, WA
2020-02-03
Don Stromberg
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-03
Mark Dembro
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-03
Patricia Walat
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-03
Roarke Jennings
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-03
Sean Guinan
Chimacum, WA
2020-02-03
Catherine Adler
Quilcene, WA
2020-02-03
K Kennell
Quilcene, WA , °
; 2020-02-03
John Gordon
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-03
Lisa Flanders
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-03
Kate Roosevelt
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-03
Daniel Post
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-03
Oma Landstra
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-03
Walter Parsons
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-03
Fern Stroble
Quilcene, WA
2020-02-03
Dennis Daneau
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-03
Gerald Merritt
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-03
Joanmarie Eggert
Quilcene, WA
2020-02-03
M Thuy Langsea
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-03
David Baker
Chimacum, WA
2020-02-03
Laura Snodgrass
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-03
Jere A Sheldon
Port Ludlow, WA
2020-02-03
Ellan Hazeltine
Chimacum, WA
2020-02-04
Sara Johani
Chimacum, WA
2020-02-04
Aeden Miller
Proctorville, US
2020-02-04
Dennis Kelley
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-04
Margaret Kapka
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-04
Martha Trolin
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-04
Catherine Slaton
Chimacum, WA
2020-02-04
Carol Gonnella
Nordland, WA
2020-02-04
Autumn Scott
Chimacum, WA =
2020-02-04
Robert Livingston
Port Townsend, WA
. � 2020-02-04
Maureen Huff
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-04
Sharon M Carter
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-04
Elizabeth Fields
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-04
Pat Pearson
Port Ludlow, WA
2020-02-04
Cindy Wacker
Chimacum, WA
2020-02-04
Stephanie Harlow
Port Ludlow, WA
2020-02-04
Mary Ellen Meryhew
Port Ludlow, WA
2020-02-04
Richard Meryhew
Port Ludlow, WA
2020-02-04
Elizabeth Albers
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-04
Jan North
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-04
Shelley Brown
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-04
Elizabeth Carlson
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-04
Dana Saladoff
Chimacum, WA
2020-02-04
Jung Mok
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-04
Andrea Stevens
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-04
Jo Tiffany
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-04
Julia Rouse
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-04
Kim Carver
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-04
Sarah Grossman
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-04
Susan Conca
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-04
Ron Hayes
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-04
William Batrett
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-04
Steve Conca
Chimacum, WA
2020-02-04
Kathleen McCoy
Chimacum, V1F,
2020-02-04
Elizabeth Taylor
Port Townsend, WA
`2020-02-04
Wayne Brown
Port Ludlow, WA
2020-02-04
Stephen Yates
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-04
Araya Sol
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-04
Anne Parks
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-04
kit kittredge
Quilcene, WA
2020-02-04
Kimberly Jons
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-04
Yanna Hanson
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-04
Dahr Jamail
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-04
Tim Quiggle
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-04
Curtis White
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-04
Michael Wiegers
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-04
Kathie Meyer
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-05
Paula Schmidt
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-05
Loretta Atkins
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-05
Cheryl Brunette
Nordland, WA
2020-02-05
Joseph Trailer
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-05
Chris Hawley
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-05
Jacob Nachel
Nordland, WA
2020-02-05
Mark Valentine
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-05
James Davis
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-05
Douglas Pierce
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-05
Alecia Kleiner
Port Townsend, VIA
a,, 2020-02-05
Russell Hansen
Port Townsend, WA
' `` 2020-02-05
Georganne Rundblad
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-05
Charles Speidel
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-05
Susan Garner
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-05
Jo Beachy
Nordland, WA
2020-02-05
Lisa Roulst
Port Hadlock, WA
2020-02-05
Len Maranan-Goldstein
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-05
Dale Evans
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-05
Kenneth Siefer
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-05
Heather Harding
Chimacum, WA
2020-02-05
Barbara Stone
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-05
Carol Cummins
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-05
Rae Deane Leatham
Port Ludlow, WA
2020-02-05
Mary Tucker
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-05
Debra Feinman
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-06
Lisa Crosby
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-06
Penney Hubbard
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-06
David Bise
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-06
Jeanne Simmons
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-06
David Miller
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-06
Paul Hosea
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-06
Emma Richards
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-06
Carrol Hernandez
Port Ludlow, WA
2020-02-06
Michael Armstrong
Patricia Conill
Jan Wold
Christine Shields
Dylan Arveson
Robin Abb
Helen Rector
Gary Moen
Madelyn Pitts
Roger Delmar
Port Townsend, ;WA,
2020-02-06
Port Townsend, WA
- 2020-02-06
Port Ludlow, WA
2020-02-07
Brinnon, WA
2020-02-07
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-07
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-08
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-08
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-08
Quilcene, WA
2020-02-08
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-08
TOTAL SIGNATURES = 384
�4
Name
SALLY BURNS BURNS
Abby Wilde
Location
Bainbridge Island, WA
Port Townsend, WA
`'bate
2020-02-10
2020-02-10
Joseph Molotsky Port Townsend, US 2020-02-10
EMS7FWk;et- M=M=
MOVAM:: • • : : : 1
Kathy Kirsch Port Townsend, WA 2020-02-10
• IFAIMVFAMVJ
Now
• .. re • F M 1
MATMUTIT I a 12 m u F I • • _
Elaine Donato Port Townsend, WA 2020-02-10
Name Location Date
:y k,
A+eeireler- dA^--Dhia
Anthony Prud'homme Port Townsend, WA 2020-02-10
Peter von Christierson Port Port Townsend, WA, WA 2020-02-10
Townsend, WA
Darrell Jones Port Townsend, WA 2020-02-10
Artemis Celt Port Townsend, WA 2020-02-10
MM fd-
Steven Young Quilcene, WA 2020-02-10
Rosanna Herman
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-10
auiu►:r°un - - `
0 : C -:
Amanda Webby Port Townsend, WA 2020-02-10
- ---- - --f-I -
- -
Brian Young Port Townsend, WA 2020-02-10
C a
Aaron C Dorr Quilcene, WA 2020-02-10
Jill Hamilton Port Hadlock, WA
2020-02-10
Jeffrey Clithero Port Townsend, WA 2020-02-10
2926-02-10
•
Name
David Hoglund
Location
Port Townsend, WA
Date
2020-02-10
G■:...,ir:n���:nu��- RJ•l�I�lq��A 41141IIi1�ll,
Brenda Bole
Gary Smith
Pt townsend, WA
Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-10
W4110WA MI
2020-02-10
George Esveldt Port Townsend, WA 2020-02-10
Judith Rubin Seattle, WA 2020-02-10
sidonie wilson Port Townsend, WA 2020-02-10
Mexis Koch 2020024
Paula Conner Port Townsend, WA
Donna Fabian Port Ludlow, WA
2020-02-10
2020-02-10
•- i�- -•. • • i"i i i
Chris Doree Port Townsend, WA
2020-02-10
Gail Lucas Port Townsend, WA 2020-02-10
Name Location y.,, Date
Eric Elliott Port Townsend, WA 2020-02-10
i,�i 1 -C -h 21 1
Melody Pace Quilcene, WA 2020-02-10
Bailey- -
I G A n .Q— Co, � !-e- r- Lyu l ( c: --e n -e, WA 2 6 D_v — 61-1 C)
FORMATION
r
F"BRUARY 2020
ISSUE
� t1
13
THE RANGE IS NOT
WHAT YOU 1
TO KNOW A:1
OUTDOOR AND INDOO'
RANGES WHEI
PLANNING 1
TITANS!CLASH OF
THE
THE FN SCAR AND
THE SIG MCX VIRTUS
PATROL SLUG IT OUT
ve
I'm Colonel Stephen Cherry, United States Marine Corp Ps,` Ifed.
When I showed my wife the proposals outlined in this newspaper article, after
about 20 seconds she asked: "don't they know you can't shoot qqaps'a�d rifles
indoors? I answered, "Oh they know. They just don't care."
Remember now, you started this whole thing to stop Joe D'Amico from building
his range. Did your first attempt not put him in a tight enough box? Or is this a
case of you got an inch so now you are going after the mile? It's clear from the
proposals th e no�j'Q contempt for those that enjoy the shooting
sports. If thJV is what we get from t political appointees, what can expect
frorr�i elected officials? %e� k'
I read where 4;want to protect the "...rural lifestyle, peace, health ... yada yada
yada. People move to the country for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is to
be able to do as they please with their land and avoid the rules established by ,A< -w
people Iia arding how they should live. It's sort of one of the
primary reasons the original colonists came to this country.
So we come back to the ues io ,why are you doing this? I think it's all about
1"0— rho 411 exl,L c-5
10K ideolggy- : Y in a position, and can't resist the opportunity, to
impose beliefs on the rest of us. Evidently this business of the abuse of
power isn't reserved only to the highest office in the land.
A couple years ago the complaints by the perennial complainers were that the
existing range was getting too mu h use. Logically, the s lution would be to open
another range. Logic may not be�jiwesr strong suit. So if a are successful in e�r�
attempts here, I predict this thing will go full circle, back to complaints that gun
owners are just having way too much fun.
yr Ok I-
x pIt
Testimony from John Austin 1614 Rosewood St. Port Townsend. Febiil-yj1A,w
Honorable Commissioners, Mr. Phillip Morley, and Staff
First, I wish Mr. Morley a Happy Birthday, May you experience many more, and thank you
for your years of dedication to Jefferson County.
Commissioners,
It is often said that the office of County commissioner is a thankless job. And so it may
seem. A plethora of meetings)Weekends and evenings away from family, threats of lawsuits,
and finally the task of making decisions which will invariably disappoint some of your
constituents.
However, 1 wish to tell you that County Commissioner is NOT a thankless job. For the rest of
your lives you will have people approach you and say Thank you —for what you did.
l hove heard - Thank you for saving "Gibbs take Park - Thank you for maintaining the
DNR Forest at Port Ludlow, Thank you for the no shooting ordinance in Paradise Bay, and so
forth - i hope that for the rest of your lives you may hear the words, " Thank you for saving
us from more outdoor shooting ranges"
You now have an opportunity to protect your constituents from an intrusive, proliferation of
outdoor shooting ranges.,...
For years, you have listened to the complaints generated by the existing grandfathered
shooting range near the Transfer station... Imagine a doubling or a tripling of those complaints
as the people in this county suffer from unrestricted loss of peace....
An outdoor shooting range is an unattractive nuisance that provides recreation to
a small percentage of your citizens. And an irritation to many. It is not necessary for the
training of Law Enforcement. Shooting facilities are available at adjacent counties. .
The Growth Management Hearing Board recognized that the unrestricted proliferation of
outdoor shooting ranges violated the basic premises of the GMA.
Your Planning Commission has written an ordinance which should satisfy the Board and
satisfy the vast majority of your constituents...
Please - for our sake and for the sake of your own legacy - Pass an ordinance which limits
new shooting ranges to indoor facilities.. Thank you
s. ";FEB 10 2020
To County Commissioners: "
I would like the County Commissioners to support the Planning Commissioners
recommendations that all further shooting ranges be indoors.
I live with in 2 1/2 miles of the Gun Range near the fire station off Jacob Miller Road
and I hear guns being fired all the time. I find it unnerving to be reminded of all the
school shootings. There has been a threat of a school shootings in the school district
where my granddaughter lives, and one actual shooting at a neighboring school. An
indoor range would eliminate that noise for others, including veterans suffering
from PTSD.
Indoor ranges protect the environment from the lead and copper contamination as
well as from starting wild fires.
The Planning Commission researched the issues and passed their recommendation
unanimously. I hope that you will do the same.
Sinc rely,
Kate Nichols
2502 Crest Ave.
Port Townsend, WA 98368
711 Robbins Road FEB 10 2020
Nordland, WA 98358
February 9, 2020
Dear County Commissioners,
I have been very concerned about the Commercial Shooting facility proposed near
Tarboo Lake and could hardly believe that someone would propose such an endeavor in
this area. Again our county did not see this coming to our place.
I would like to recommend all new gun ranges be built indoors in already existing
commercial or industrial areas. This should eliminate any helicopter or high level
military events also. Even in industrial areas sound should be kept so not to interfere with
other businesses. I am familiar with armories in cities in the east and they did not impact
neighbors.
I would like to see the county prevent any commercial training that invites unregulated
military groups to train.
Having regulations in place should reduce litigation and wasted time and expenses for
Jefferson County as well and organizations or individuals planning to invest in a
commercial gun range.
I am not against gun ownership and encourage training and participation in shooting
sports.
I do hope that the Jefferson County Board of Commissions will protect the peace and
environment of our special places.
Thank you,
Linda Gately
360-774-6743
FEB 10 2020 2/10/2020
Comments to Jefferson County Board of Commissioners regarding the Jefferson
County planning commission's recommendation of indoor only shooting ranges.
Last week at the Unitarian Church in Port Townsend I listened to Lorna Smith
present the Jefferson County Planning Commission's seemingly well researched
recommendations that all future shooting ranges in Jefferson County be indoors and
limited to commercial and industrial zoned property.
I can only assume that no one on the planning commission has spent any time
involved in the shooting sports. I can only assume that no one on the planning
commission has visited any shooting range currently existing in the county. I can
only assume that the commission has failed to comprehend the difference between
densely populated urban areas such as Seattle and lightly populated rural Jefferson
County. It is also abundantly clear that no one on the planning commission has made
an attempt to start a business that requires purchasing commercial or industrial
property in this county.
Shooting ranges are becoming more popular with the widespread increase in
firearm purchases we have seen over that last decade. The shooting sports have
never been more popular. Indoor ranges are a great for people living in dense urban
areas where they have no other options when it comes to practice safe handling of
handguns. They do not work for the longer ranges needed for rifle practice or for
shooting clay pigeons with shotguns, or for many of the larger group training classes
for pistol, rifle and shotgun.
The idea of limiting new shooting ranges to commercial and industrial zoned
property in this county is tantamount to a ban. Anyone who has spent time in
Jefferson County trying to find properly zoned real estate for opening or operating
any kind of a business can tell you there is little to nothing available at a reasonable
price and, if you can find something, the cost of installing a building and
infrastructure is often prohibitive and even though the county is working hard to
improve, the permitting process can take months to years.
Let's be honest, there is a lot of open space in this county. Build all the indoor
ranges you want. Most shooters in Jefferson County, or those who come for the day
from the Kitsap Peninsula, would rather drive a little farther out to DNR land or
national forest and spend the money they save on more ammunition.
This process is like someone that doesn't like to swim creating the requirements
for future aquatic centers.
Regardless, I say yes to indoor ranges, but only as one of many options available.
As to the Tarboo Ridge Coalition talking points;
1) They are safe - Maybe, they are only safe for limited handgun use, and only
as safe as the management.
c�
2) They minimize noise pollution - Only if people use them. I don't see the
population of Jefferson County rushing to use indoor ranges with all the
outdoor space we have.
3) Outdoor Ranges are a major source of lead and copper contamination. Not
when they have an environmental plan overseen by the county, which
includes testing and removal of the lead on a regular basis. Which is what the
county requires of the only managed outdoor range available to the public
today.
4) Outdoor ranges have been a source of wildfires. Not on the Olympic
Peninsula and only at uncontrolled, out in the woods ranges where anybody
can shoot at exploding targets. This does not happen at ranges overseen by
the county.
5) Over 16,000 indoor ranges in the U.S. today. Yes, in densely populated urban
areas where no other options exist, and only for handguns.
6) Locating in commercial/industrial zones protects working forest. Once again
the people that are out shooting in the open spaces of Jefferson County will
not be using the indoor ranges.
7) They reduce disputes and litigation through specific design and permitting
requirements. This sounds expensive/prohibitive and once again the
majority of the people in Jefferson County will not use indoor ranges.
8) The planning commission passed this unanimously. The political
demographics of Port Townsend just about guarantee that any volunteer
committee that associated with the county will unanimously pass policy that
restricts the use of firearms.
Respectfully,
Brett M. Nunn
l
40 202c)
tR r5 0 V
C 00
k l
FEB 112020
rr .� C -S U 10►�`
, lclen�- 4w\
C)
ve- (aa V,5 V�
r )4z(ajSe 6 � i h c re- a5d
T
yv, e- d J�i r- 4 i
1
ro v) 4kr �ec� ro I -C I'S a -S
re
Ve me- 14
N vn 4-k e or) `' V-5
0 c
' V7
�4-
�j
Po 3C>-wo\V\4(z A-�,M- i5 a oU 'i JAG
(ter
0,
o v, t1- Y) p
-5 Y,(-, o, to v, 5 Q 5 1 *-j
T n
e A 5 1 u �-
I' � I ve ve- -43 r
\j 0.. C V"-- 0,- t V\rN 0\" h V Gov
Ih tk�
a'i'l,
A
kLkv\
'. n Qcre.
From: Riley Parker <riley@happytailsranchnw.com>
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 10:41 AM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Fwd: Commercial Shooting Facilities Ordinances Title 8 and 18
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Commissioners,
Please accept my input below as you consider the options available for the next Commercial Shooting Facilities
Ordinances.
Riley Parker
Sent from my Whone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Riley Parker <riley(?happytailsranchnw.com>
Date: February 9, 2020 at 12:37:32 PM PST
To: Riley Parker <riley�,happytailsranchnw.com>
Subject: Commercial Shooting Facilities Ordinances Title 8 and 18
Dear Jefferson County Board of Commissioner
As you know in 2018 I was selected to represent the people of District 3 on the Commercial
Shooting Facilities Review Committee. The County hired a professional shooting range designer,
Clark Vargas,
to assist the Review Committee and he provided a national perspective on shooting facilities.
His advice was:
"Indoor Shooting Ranges are the Future"
"They make good neighbors"
"They are easy to site"
Unfortunately the Review Committee was steered toward outdoor shooting facilities
and eventually an ordinance was created which allowed unlimited outdoor shooting facilities.
Today we are finally back to considering indoor shooting facilities thanks to the Jefferson
County Planning Commissioners.
They took a very thoughtful approach in analyzing the potential effects on our community of
outdoor versus indoor shooting facilities. Their recommendations were overwhelming in favor of
indoor shooting facilities. In fact the took the time to consider what retail support service would
make them successful business in our community. They also recommend that these facilities be
located in industrial and commercial zoning where public access and infrastructure are readily
available.
Indoor shooting facilities are also the safest option for employees, shooters and neighbors.
Indoors offers full containment of all bullets. (No stray bullets to endangered the public)
Indoors provides a controlled ventilation environment where fresh air is drawn past the shooters
and down range toward the target area.
(No airborne lead particulates blown back toward shooters)
Indoors provides a controlled ventilation system which filters out lead and copper before leaving
the building.
(No public or environmental exposure to lead and copper toxins)
Easy access for County monitoring of required safety rules.
(No trying to gain access to a forested parcel for safety inspections)
Easy access by Emergency Services when required thereby reducing costs to the Community.
(No trying to gain access to a forested parcel to provide services.
These are just a few of the safety related items which come to mind.
I sincerely hope that you consider these and issues presented by others who support the
recommendations of the Planning Commissioners for all new shooting facilities to be indoors
and located in industrial and commercial zoned areas.
Thank you,
Riley Parker
Sent from my Whone
ieffbocc
HEARING
From: ginny albrecht <gtalbrecht@olympus.net>
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 11:14 AM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: shooting ranges
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or
clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
> Board of County Commissioners,
> I would like you to allow only indoor shooting ranges. The reasons given by the Planning Commission say it quite well.
"Outdoor shooting ranges should not be allowed outdoors, except for those that qualify as a "legal nonconforming use"
in Jefferson County in order to "protect the rural lifestyle, peace, health and safety of Jefferson County residents as well
as to avoid impacts to both wild and domestic animals." All of those reasons mentioned are of equal importance to me.
We have a unique county and hopefully you will see the importance of following the recommendation of the Planning
Commission and vote to allow only indoor shooting ranges.
> Thank you.
> Virginia Albrecht
> 340 Cleveland Street
> Port Hadlock, WA
From: Carl Youngmann <cyoungmann@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 11:25 AM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Proposed Ordinances Revising JCC 8.50 Commercial Shooting Facilities and JCC 18
Attachments: C Youngmann BCC Comments 200210.docx; ATT00001.htm
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear Board of County Commissioners,
Attached is my comments regarding these proposals.
Carl Youngmann
Board of Commissioners
Jefferson County
Port Townsend, WA
With respect to consideration of the adoption of a change to the county comprehensive plan
regarding the siting of gun ranges:
My name is Carl Youngmann, a resident of Port Townsend since 2003. For 13 years at the
beginning of my professional life, I was Associate Professor of Geography at the University of
Washington and Director of the UW Cartographic Laboratory. I helped develop computer-aided
land use planning and environmental analysis tools including conducting seminal work in
creation of the ESRI Arclnfo mapping system. In support of state-wide comprehensive planning,
I worked with the Washington State Department of Ecology in the creation of the Coast Zone
Atlas.
It is from this perspective of long-term regional planning that I am commenting on the
proposed changes to the Jefferson County Comprehensive plan and expressing my support for
Alternative Number Four, the siting of all future shooting ranges indoors within existing
commercial and industrial zones.
Eco -systems are best maintained when they are not broken up. Plant and animal communities
in the forest and range land function better when they are not disrupted by commercial and
industrial developments. Activities that break up the movement of animals within their habitats
and isolate plants from symbiotic communities weaken the health of these systems over time.
It is important to maintain as much of the natural rural environment as possible as a transition
zone between the settled portion of the county to the forest preserves in the Olympic National
Forest and Park. Concentrating intense uses within existing areas designated for commercial
and industrial development simply makes sense.
Carl Youngmann, PhD
1530 Holcomb St.
Port Townsend, Washington
�< MF�RING
From: liz moore <gooddogart@olympus.net>
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 12:30 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Indoor Shooting Ranges
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear County Commissioners,
I am writing to ask you to please follow the Planning Commissions unanimous recommendations for future
gun ranges in Jefferson County.
In the 20 years that I have lived here there has been a drastic increase of Growler flights, alcohol has become
available on every corner and every store, pot farms and stores have been developed throughout our county, and
soon oil tanker traffic will increase by 34% in our Salish Sea. I realize most of these things are out of your
hands, but none of them have made Jefferson County a healthier place to live. Salmon are dying, Orcas are
dying, homelessness is on the rise, as are mental health challenges.
People move here for the quiet, the community and the beautiful surroundings. There are few places left
where you can experience quiet. It is your job as stewards of our county , to preserve health, safety and the
integrity of this place we call home.
If you allow Joe D'Amico to continue with his outdoor project you will be encouraging more gun enthusiasts
to move into our peaceful county. D'Amico does not follow rules or respect the rights of people to live in peace.
He is poison to our community. As my husband would say, he is the zit you cannot pop. We live near
Discovery Bay Golf Course and were tortured by the constant sound of explosions and automatic weapons fire
when he was active across the bay. I can only imagine how awful it was for his neighbors.
The "mediation" that is ongoing with D'Amico must be made public- how else can we trust our elected
officials to be working for the good of the county?
I would like all of Jefferson County to be a non- shooting zone, to not allow ANY more gun shops or shooting
ranges, but I know that is asking too much.
Please adopt the planning commissions recommendations and back ONLY INDOOR RANGES in Jefferson
County ( and the fewer the better ). Only allow them to be built in existing commercial and industrial zones to
protect working forests. Indoor ranges will not trigger wildfires, contaminate our environment, or harass
neighbors quite as much.
We had a person about a mile from us who often did practice shooting in his yard. He thought it was ok
because he asked his immediate neighbors if he could shoot at certain times. I'm sure he wore ear protection.
What shooters never seem to consider are the people sometimes miles away who have their peace shattered by
the shooting.
Also, I encourage you to go to https://www.splcenter.or�z/states/washinton, to track the hate groups in
Washington State, of which Joe D'Amico appears to have some affiliation. Do you really want to encourage
more of this here???
If you need a reminder of how gun violence can shatter a community please go to the Rose Theater on
Wednesday for a special nationwide showing of the film After Parkland ( in case the daily news isn't enough to
remind you of why we should not be welcoming more guns into our community.)
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely ,
Liz Moore
Port Townsend
ieffbocc
From: Melody Mazure <mizmelodia@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 12:44 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: In support of all future shooting ranges being indoors
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Hello, I am a concerned citizen/resident of Jefferson County and I am writing to submit my public comment in
support of the Planning Commission's proposal that all future shooting ranges be indoors in industrial and
commercial zones. This makes so much sense for many reasons including that indoor ranges are safe, protect
citizens, minimize pollution, are much more environmentally sound, and that regulating gun ranges is consistent
with upholding second amendment rights.
I feel our county is at a huge crossroads, one that determines what our futures look like. Do we want to continue
to be known for our wild and beautiful places, peaceful country way of life, and as a outdoor enthusiast tourist
destination or do we want to throw that away and become known as the county with the most per -capita outdoor
para -military training camps? That is the choice you must make for all of us with the county's future in mind.
Even if you disregard the majority of your constituents concerns, disregard our environmental concerns and the
many other reasons to regulate shooting ranges, think about the money. Do you really think that private
shooting facilities can even come close in revenue for our county to what tourism brings in? Tourism that will
no longer come if our precious forests are filled with the noise and pollution of large scale shooting ranges.
I implore you to do the right thing and and protect our way of life, our livelihoods, our forests, and our futures.
Sincerely,
Melody Pace
Quilcene
H&VING RECOPh
From: pamela bouchard <pamela179179@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 12:45 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: proposed shooting range rules
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
To the Board,
I strongly support the recommendations made by the Planning commission that all new gun ranges be built
indoors in already existing commercial/industrial areas. They are safe and they decrease noise pollution. They
protect local working forests and preserve areas of nature for all Jefferson county residents and wildlife. They
stop further lead and copper contamination, and decrease the chances of triggering wildfires.
Those who want to own and use firearms and practice shooting can still do it indoors. They need not endanger
the health, safety and general welfare and the natural environment in order to do so.
We moved to port townsend 5 years ago, and it is important to us that we see that the planning commission is
consistent in its decisions to protect this beautiful area that brought us here in the first place.
Thank you for listening,
Pamela Bouchard DVM
occ
From: Seth Rolland <seth@olypen.com>
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 1:24 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: gun range input
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links,
especially from unknown senders.
Dear commissioners,
I hope you will take the recommendations of the planning commission about future gun ranges in our county being
indoors. They studied it, and it passed unanimously. I agree with them that indoor ranges will solve a lot of issues
including noise, lead contamination, safety from stray bullets, preventions of wildfires and balancing the conflicting
needs of various constituents instead of valuing business over residence. It also allows us to keep more working forest
in our county.
Further, if you continually ignore commission suggestions, then why ask volunteers to spend their time on them?
There are thousands of indoor ranges in the country, they work, are viable businesses and allow people to practice with
their weapons. No gun owner rights are infringed with indoor ranges, while outdoor ones infringe on the rights of
neighbors.
I hope you will allow only indoor ranges in our county.
Thanks,
Seth Rolland
Seth Rolland
CUSTOM FURNIT 'rU RE DESIGN
1039 Jackson Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
(360) 379-0414
www.sethrolland,com
occ
H�CAPpll
LA
From: Mhaire <merrymansingler@merrymansingler.org>
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 2:26 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Indoor Gun Range
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
To BoCC,
We enthusiastically support the requirement for all future gun ranges in Jefferson County to be
indoors. We would prefer all gun ranges to be indoors. Unfortunately, the Sportsman Club permit was
recently allowed to be renewed without requirement for mitigation. I summarize our experiences
herein.
We are gun owners. We use these weapons for hunting, target practice to maintain skills, and I am a
former Army Sharpshooter and military veteran. We understand the need for safe, low impact places
to responsibly practice and maintain skills. Local residential neighborhoods are not necessarily safe,
nor are they low impact, so mitigation of weapons use effects is necessary.
Locally, we are within earshot of the Sportsman Club. We are avid birders, with decades of
experience restoring habitat, and therefore observing wildlife in that habitat to document effectiveness
of our efforts. We have noticed on particularly active days at the shooting range, the wildlife (birds
and deer, mostly, but also local pets, especially dogs, who bark more) are more skittish, easily
alarmed, disturbed and wary. Gunfire has observable effect.
Such noises have an effect on humans, too. Gunfire makes me particularly nervous. Loud and abrupt
or sustained noise has been demonstrated to markedly increase stress levels. Increased stress
causes chronic disease, so that's a bad thing. It can also trigger PTSD in those, especially veterans,
who are susceptible.
Gun Club noise is particularly disruptive during their high use times, on holidays and weekends.
Unfortunately, holidays and weekends are when we are most likely to be outside, participating in our
protected property right of "peaceful enjoyment" for which we chose rural living. Sadly, that's hard to
do accompanied by the sound of repeated gunfire.
These periods are also the likeliest times for our children and grandchildren to visit us. They are
VERY nervous about the sounds of gunfire, having never been around it themselves, except in the
unusual instances of gang shootings in their city neighborhood. Hearing gunfire, they run indoors to
hide, scared out of their wits! This is supposed to be a peaceful countryside retreat for us, and this is
a particularly unpleasant experience!
Several in my family, including myself and a surprisingly large segment of our population, have been the
victims of gun violence. Until our society addresses THAT problem, let's not intentionally torture people,
okay?
We also have a long term rental house on our property. The sound of nearby gunfire is a disclosure
we feel we must make to prospective tenants. It does influence their decisions, and it also therefore
influences the property value. (It was not disclosed to us when we purchased our property that the
gunfire sounds would reach here, and it's a challenging thing to discover in due diligence. So I inform
prospective neighbors and realtors for surrounding property sales, so they may be aware).
While I can do nothing about the existing gun club, and I am making no such attempt, I can still act to
prevent these same unpleasant outcomes for future neighborhoods with weapons facilities in our
county. Requiring them to be indoors should mitigate all these prospective effects.
Sincerely,
Mhaire Merryman and
Timothy Singler
Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
effbocc
HEARING
From: Kindy Kemp <kindykemp@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 3:03 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: future shooting range recommendation
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear County Commissioners,
I am a resident of Port Townsend and I support alternative #4 of the Planning Commission's recommendations
for future shooting ranges in Jefferson County.
Indoor shooting ranges would contain stray bullets and prevent harm to animals and contamination of the
environment by lead and copper bullets. Having shooting ranges indoors solves the problem of not only noise
pollution but also a risk of starting wildfires. If the shooting range is located in an industrial or commercial
zone, forest lands are protected (and we need all the forest we can get as a bulwark against climate change).
Regarding the Second Amendment, regulating gun ranges is consistent with state and federal law about the right
to own and use firearms. Keeping shooting ranges indoors is also consistent with the county government's
obligation to promote the health, safety, and general welfare of its citizens as well as preserving the integrity of
the environment.
I strongly urge you to do the best for Jefferson County by requiring all future shooting ranges to be indoors.
Thank you,
Kindra Kemp
565 Blue Sky Drive
Port Townsend, WA
98368
OCC
HEARIAIG
From: J Creek <j.creek@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 3:14 PM
To: jeffbocc; J Creek
Subject: Comment Letter To Jefferson County Commissioners Regarding Gun Ranges
Attachments: Jans_JCC_gunrange_input.docx; ATT00001.htm
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
My letter to the Jefferson County Commissioners in support of the Jefferson County Planning Commissioner's
recommendations that new gun ranges be located indoors is attached. Please let me know you have received this
email.
Thank you,
Jan Wold
Jan Wold
P. O. Box 1340
Poulsbo, WA 98370
February 9, 2020
Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners
jeffbocc@co. jefferson.wa. us
Dear Jefferson County Commissioners,
I live next to Squamish Harbor in Port Ludlow. I am a member of the Boards of both West
Sound Conservation Council and Hood Canal Environmental Council. I support the Jefferson
County Planning Commissioners' recommendations that new gun ranges be located indoors in
areas that are already zoned for commercial/industrial uses. This approach was passed
unanimously by the Planning Commission and will help protect the environment of western
Puget Sound within Jefferson County. This recommendation keeps the impacts from noise to a
minimum for our citizens and wildlife. This recommendation also serves to increase public
safety and reduce lead and copper contamination.
One example of the benefit of this proposal is reduced noise pollution for western Puget Sound
birds. Research published in 2019 in Science magazine reported that "North America's overall
bird population has dropped 29% since 1970. There are about three billion fewer birds now
than nearly 50 years ago." Any additional noise pollution would be detrimental to the
beleaguered Puget Sound bird population.
The marbled murrelet and the common loon feed and may be nesting in Jefferson County.
They have been recorded within three and seven miles of Tarboo Lake and likely occur much
closer.
The Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) is a small seabird that is listed as a
federally Threatened species. The species has been newly up -listed to Endangered by the state
of Washington. Marbled murrelets have been documented in the northern portions of Hood
Canal. Marbled murrelets occur here because of the forage fish they eat and feed to their one
annual nestling and because of the proximity to old-growth forest nesting habitat, especially in
Olympic National Park. We should not further endanger their existence with large caliber gun
range noise and additional loss of habitat.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife stated in 2016 that at -sea population monitoring of
marbled murrelets indicated a 44% reduction of this species between 2001 and 2015.
The common loon is listed as a Sensitive species in the state of Washington. Common loon
numbers are dropping in part due to a lack of quiet, undisturbed lakes required for breeding,
nesting and rearing offspring. There are at least forty lakes and ponds within approximately six
miles of Tarboo Lake. Disturbance due to gunfire noise and human activity in the areas around
Tarboo Lake or other areas of Jefferson County may be an issue for this species.
Common loons are observed feeding in nearby Squamish Harbor year-round. An adult pair has
been observed with what appeared to be newly fledged offspring feeding as a group on
Squamish Harbor approximately seven miles southeast of Tarboo Lake. This Washington
State Sensitive species may have managed to nest successfully in one of the area's lakes or
ponds and flew to Squamish Harbor as one of the first locations for their fledglings to feed.
Please keep me informed of any actions being taken regarding gun ranges in Jefferson County
at j.creek@hotmail.com.
Thank you,
Jan Wold
HEARING
From: Kathleen Wacker <kathleenwacker@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 3:51 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: I support Indoor Shooting Ranges
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
To: Board of County Commissioners
Jefferson County, Washington
jeffbocc co.jefferson.wa.us
From: Kathleen Wacker
267 Skidder Hill Road
Quilcene, WA 98376
(360) 765-0081
RE: New Shooting Ranges
February 10, 2020
Dear Commissioner Dean, Commissioner Brotherton and Commissioner Sullivan,
I am a resident of Jefferson County. I retired here in 2010 and I own, and live full time, on my property in the Community of Snow Creek
Ranch, at Crocker Lake, in Quilcene. I am writing to ask you to support the Planning Commissions recommendation that all new
Jefferson County shooting ranges be indoor only, and that the Jefferson County Sportsman's Club be grandfathered in as the only
outdoor shooting range allowed in the county.
Please require all new recreational, private and commercial, shooting ranges to be indoor ranges only - that solves the problem of
lead pollution and also contains noise pollution. Surrounding counties have wisely adopted this requirement - we should too.
Please require that new recreational, private and commercial, shooting ranges be just that - recreational shooting only. No helipads.
No military training. My federal taxes already pay for the government to train our military. They've been doing a fine job and they do not
need to train at private weapons training facilities in my neighborhood. Seriously - would you want this, on a steady basis, in close
proximity to your property, children, family, pets, livestock and wildlife? Please don't let this happen.
Protect Tarboo Lake! And all the other beautiful places we folks, and the tourists who come here, like to visit in Jefferson
County. While we all like to think that shooters are following rules and paying attention to where their bullets are flying I know of bullet
holes in a house on Crocker Lake that were put there by duck hunters hunting on the Lake and shooting toward the
houses! Another reason to require new ranges be indoors only - projectiles will be contained.
Lastly, please know that establishing more shooting ranges in the area will not put a stop to the shoot -em -up sites that already take
place in the woods in the county. Those folks will not go to a facility where they have to pay a fee to shoot. Those types of shooters are
not practicing their skills - they are only out to shoot stuff into oblivion, and to party while they doing it - empty beer cans and liquor
bottles litter all the sites. It is a mind -set that no permitted shooting range will ever change.
I urge you to keep the gun ranges in Jefferson County small, recreational and indoor. Please consider and adopt the Planning
Commission's recommendation.
Thank you for taking the time to read my letter,
Kathleen
OCC
From: Mary Hunt <rnikefarre1123@gmail.corn>
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 4:08 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Gun Range Regulation
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or
clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Thank you for this opportunity to write to you about regulating gun ranges in Jefferson County.
I would like you to know that as a citizen of Jefferson County, I support the recommendations of the Jefferson County
Planning Commision to require new gun ranges to be indoors. I sight the ability of a well designed indoor range to
control a large part of the pollution impact caused by noise and heavy metals. It is also an improved containment of
high speed projectiles, rather than relying on bunkers and trees. I believe an indoor environment will provide a safe
and effective location to learn the procedures for handling even exotic weapons and weapon systems.
Military and para -military training should, (and as far as I'm concerned, must), remain regulated to military
reservations. These areas already exist and are generally separate from areas used by the general population for
habitation or recreation. This separation reduces the conflict between the population residing in the local area and the
users of an open gun range, reducing the time in court to settle disputes, and the added legal costs to the county. In
any case, I do not believe the majority of Jefferson County citizens would like to host a group of amateur soldiers with
exotic weapon systems, in the county they are working to maintain. I think this is a bad idea, myself.
I would like to thank you again for this opportunity to write to you, and thank you for your efforts as you serve on the
Board of Commissioners for us, the citizens of Jefferson County.
Regards,
Mike
jeffbocc
r16Ai1I
From: Toni M Davison <tonid@centurylink.net> REIi
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 4:12 PMTo: jeffbocc
Subject: Gun range alternatives
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
County Commissioners,
I would like to go on record as strongly advocating alternative 4; restricting gun ranges to be indoors and on
commercial property.
I think this offers a win-win solution by acknowledging the need for shooting facilities and at the same time
having them situated
in places where they do not impact the quality of life of the people, wildlife or surrounding nature.
Thank -you,
Toni Davison
jeffbocc
From: David Bise <bikesd@olypen.com> ���
G RECORur
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 4:16 PM HEm
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Future Gun Ranges
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or
clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Sent from my iPad
Hello my name is David Bise, I reside at 936 M st Port Townsend. I'm in support option 4 on the matter of gun ranges.
Thanks for your difficult work on this matter.
jeffbocc
From: Susanne Feller <susfell@centurylink.net>
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 4:17 PM HEARING
RFrORt�
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Gun Range Alternatives
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear County Commissioners,
I wish to inform you that I support INDOOR gun ranges.
Allowing for indoor gun ranges is a win win situation for everyone.
It allows gun owners to practice their weapons while at the same time not disturb any people nor domesticated or wild animals.
Sincerely,
Susanne Feller
702 Lane De Chantel
Port Townsend, WA 98368
U
A'
�
effbocc'A1r2P.!-
From:
nana@hctc.com
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 4:36 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: (no subject)
Attachments: 2-10-20 Ltr to BOCC re Gun Ranges.doc
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or
clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Enclosed is a letter to the Board of County Commissioners regarding the proposed gun range from the HCEC.
.Donna Simmons
HCEC
February 10, 2020
Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners
P.O. Box 1220
Port Townsend, Washington 98368
Re: Proposed Gun Ranges
The purpose of this letter is to advise the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners of the
Hood Canal Environmental Council's strong support for the Jefferson County Planning Commission's
recommendation regarding the County's proposed weapons training complex. We agree with the
Planning Commission and the Tarboo Ridge Coalition that all gun ranges must be located at indoor
facilities in areas zoned for commercial/industrial uses.
Our concerns regarding the proposal for outdoor gun ranges includes the potential for negative impacts
on public safety issues, environmental impacts and incompatibility with current land uses. In
particular, we oppose any gun range development that will likely disturb sensitive and threatened
wildlife populations, including Marble Murrelets.
It is our understanding that the Planning Commission recommended that Jefferson County's previous
recognize second amendment rights to own and use firearms. However, we believe that any weapons
training activities must be regulated by the County in a way that allows gun owners to practice their
shooting skills while minimizing any environmental degradation.
We understand that Washington State's Growth Management Hearing's Board invalidated Jefferson
County's previous ordinances and ordered County to be in compliance. We sincerely hope that the
Board of County Commissioners will accept the Planning Commissioners recommendations and only
allow gun ranges in indoor facilites in areas zoned for commercial/industrial uses.
Sincerely,
Donna M. Simmons, President
Hood Canal Environmental Council
(360) 877-5747
nana@hctc.com
HICQt
effbocc
From: nana@hctc.com
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 4:39 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: HCEC letter to Jeff. Co BOCC
Attachments: 1-22-2020 HCEC Mtg. Agenda.doc
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or
clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
HCEC letter to BOCC
HCEC BOARD OF DIRECTOR'S MEETING
1:30 p.m. January 22, 2020
Phil Best's Office
3550 Byron Street
Silverdale, Washington 98383
Welcome/Introduction of Guests
REGULAR BUSINESS
Approve November 20, 2019 Meeting Minutes
Treasurer's Report
Approve Meeting Agenda
OLD BUSINESS
Update — Proposed Commercial Geoduck Farms in Hood Canal — Penn Cove
Shellfish — Mussel Raft Relocation
Misery Point issues
Big Beef Shoreline - Public Access?
U.S. Navy Decision on Special Operations Training (No EIS Required)
Revisit Discussion of Non -Deductible Donations to HCEC
NEW BUSINESS
Discussion of large donation willed to HCEC
Timber Harvest Plan on Manke Property South of Holly
OTHER BUSINESS
February HCEC Board Meeting Program — GPC Nate Daniels — Update
Forecast for Hood Canal Chum Salmon Harvest
ADJOURN
occ
H,CA
LARING
From: Helen Rector <hrector122@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 4:44 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Gun Range issue - comments needed by Tuesday 230 pm
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Commissioners,
Please put me down for support of alternative 4 in the gun range discussion. Indoor range as recommended by
the planning commission.
I am not very clear how the planning commission's recommendations were so completely ignored the first time
around. Any comments on that?
It was clear from today's meeting that there are very strong reasons to require future gun ranges to be indoors.
Wonderful presentations by the Tarboo Ridge group.
Please ignore Joe D'Amico and his thugs. They are indeed threatening, and have their fake fb county website.
But they are sneaky, and are really just little boys playing tough with big guns. Send them to Idaho or Alaska.
But please don't let them ruin Jefferson County.
Your citizens have spoken.
Please add this clarification to my hand written comments left at the meeting.
Cheers!
Helen Rector
1218 Rose
PT
±+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"A well-informed mind is the best security against the contagion of folly and vice."
Ann Radcliffe
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
r, vag 1. nc iiivL)ie �ywuuUyaiLLWvlyiii[Jus.neL,-
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 7:31 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Jefferson County gun ranges and moratorium
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or
clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear Commissioners,
I emailed you earlier today and there are a few things I would like to add to my previous email. I agree that the
moratorium should be extended . I also strongly suggest you choose the Planning Commission's alternative #4.
Thank you for all of your hard work,
Liz Moore
26 Discovery Ridge Rd.
Port Townsend
( I had left my address off of my previous email )
HICA r ,
hKh
From: Landin Boring <LandinBoring@msn.com>
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 8:52 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Public testimony commercial shooting facilities - support alternative 4 with
modifications
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links,
especially from unknown senders.
Hello,
I support alternative 4 discussed during the public hearing today, Feb. 10, 2020, which would prevent outdoor shooting
ranges in all zoning districts, and allow indoor shooting ranges only as a discretionary use in commercial and industrial
zoning.
However, I also support that the ordinance should cover both commercial and non-commercial gun ranges, to avoid any
loophole that could be exploited by groups that seek to avoid the ordinance by simply not charging a fee.
Thank you and the county commissioners for your public servie.
Best Regards,
Landin Boring
1630 Washington street
Port Townsend WA
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
From: Kathryn Lamka <kathrynlamka@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 9:29 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Comments on Shooting Facilities Ordinances
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
I attended the hearing today and was "educated" on the various alternatives being considered. I would like to voice my
overwhelming support of alternative 4, which limits the building of new indoor gun ranges to existing commercial and
industrial zones. I feel that allowing construction in forestlands is destructive to habitat (as brilliantly described by the
speaker who was a professor at UW). Also, the environmental impacts of bringing traffic and infrastructure to the
forestland will forever change the very nature of forestland's wildlife habitat, water quality and carbon sequestration.
Do you really want to police the forest? We already encroach upon the environment with what we have designated as
commercial and industrial. Let's use that up before taking more.
Kathryn and Neil Lamka
Kathryn Lamka
Mobile: 206-931-0227
effbocc
From: Nancee Braddock <nanceebraddock@icloud.com>
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 9:30 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Gun range
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Commissioners,
I dearly wish we did not have any outdoor gun ranges in Jefferson County. We live within approx.
1 mile of the Jefferson County Sportsman Assoc. gun range. As we have said before, when we
bought our house no one told us about the gun range noise. The noise is very unpleasant and
disturbs us inside and outside our home. I am a master gardener and enjoy gardening very much
but the gun range noise takes away the enjoyment of gardening. I do greatly appreciate quiet
Mondays now but one day a week is not enough peace and quiet. Also, gun range noise on
holidays is totally unnecessary and extremely disturbing. We were very upset when we found that
Jefferson County chose to renew the Jefferson County Sportsman Assoc. gun range rental on
county land.
To grandfather Jefferson County Sportsman Assoc. gun range in and not require them to build an
indoor range is unacceptable.
Please do the right thing and require ALL Jefferson County gun ranges to be indoors.
Thank you.
Nancee Braddock
31 Barbara Lane
Port Townsend, WA 98368
effbocc
From: Brian Young <ydesign@olypen.com>
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 9:34 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Permits for indoor gun ranges
j!
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or
clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
To the Board of County Commissioners
Regarding permits for indoor gun ranges:
These permits should ONLY be permitted in commercial and industrial zones. Allowing indoor gun ranges to be built in
forest lands will open a can of worms. We already know that some of those who are behind the gun range industry have
shown little or no respect for the law, or any regulations, and have tried tojust go ahead and build their ranges without
even bothering to get a permit. If they are allowed to build ranges (Even supposedly indoor ranges) out in remote
forested areas, it is easy to imagine how that will be abused.
No! Permits should be completely restricted to commercial and industrial zone.
Brian Young
Port Townsend, WA
occ
From: Larry <Idennison021@wavecab1e.com>
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 9:37 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Gun Range Ordinance
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear Commissioners,
You have sent this issue back to your Planning Commission for the second time to get
their recommendation in light of the GMHB decision. They have recommended that
you require new shooting ranges be indoors where noise and stray bullets can be
controlled. Doesn't this seem to be a reasonable solution in a current wooded natural
area, short of not allowing them altogether? Do we truly want to be known as the Alt -
Right training ground of the Northwest? Please follow the recommendation of your
Planning Commission.
Larry Dennison
1224 Cleveland St
Port Townsend 98368
'effbocc
From: rose wilde <mysterybayrose@gmail.com> °�Al
°0►
a
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 9:40 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Gun ranges
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or
clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Please vote to keep them indoors in existing commercial areas. Much easier for encouraging/enforcing compliance or if
resources are needed. Much safer for all Please let the forests be
Thank you, Rose Wilde
Sent from my iPhone
effbocc
From: Gail Workman <marksyounglady@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 9:50 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Re shooting ranges: Please support alternative 4 with modifications
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear Community Council Members,
I would like to reiterate our neighbor Landin Boring's message as follows:
"I support alternative 4 discussed during the public hearing today, Feb. 10, 2020, which would prevent outdoor
shooting ranges in all zoning districts, and allow indoor shooting ranges only as a discretionary use in
commercial and industrial zoning.
However, I also support that the ordinance should cover both commercial and non-commercial gun ranges, to
avoid any loophole that could be exploited by groups that seek to avoid the ordinance by simply not charging a
fee."
I am in complete agreement with Landin's statements. I will also add that my husband and I live in Port
Townsend and own 85 acres in Quilcene, including a stretch of the Big Quilcene River. We're well aware of the
disruption that human -made noise of any kind makes to the peace and well-being of individuals who are forced
to listen to it. This is one reason we abandoned Seattle. Any repetitive or intrusive noise, at any decibel level,
has the potential to disturb those who have to hear it. Imagine a neighbor who plays heavy metal music all day,
just loud enough to hear it but not loud enough to call for law enforcement. Even worse, the sound of gunfire --
from however great a distance --comes across as threatening, as it is a reminder of the dire consequences for
humans and wildlife of gun use.
Thank you for reading my message, and thank you for proceeding on this issue with concern for all, as you have
been doing.
Sincerely,
Gail Workman
300 Calhoun Street
Port Townsend
P.S. The links on the Jefferson County BoCC website for sending emails did not work today with either Chrome
or Firefox.
effbocc
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
jbuss@juno.com
Monday, February 10, 2020 10:03 PM
!r
jeffbocc
Please Don't Ruin Jefferson County Farms and Forests with War Zones
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners,
Are militias really the kind of tourists you want to attract to Rural Jefferson County? I live about two miles
from the existing Shooting Range, and the gunfire is often fairly constant. If I lived in a rural area, it would not
be because I love the sound of gunfire. If you must have them, please put these Shooting Ranges indoors, and
put them in Industrial Zones. They have no place even in Commercial Zones, let alone amongst Forests and
Farms and Rural Homsteads. How would you like one on the front lawn of the Courthouse? These are not
people -friendly land uses, and there are more people in this county who love the privacy and quiet of their Rural
getaways than there are people who crave the smell of gunpowder.
Jim Buss, resident of Port Townsend
lertaocc
From: Owen Fairbank <sofairbank@olympus.net>
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 10:04 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Shooting range amendments to the UDC
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear Commissioners -
Following my request of a week ago that you support your Planning Commission's recommendation and adopt
Alternative #4 of the proposed regulations for commercial shooting facilities in Jefferson County, I would like
to add that I strongly urge you NOT to permit shooting ranges in forest land.
According to your recently -adopted Comprehensive Plan:
"Forest lands provide both economic and ecological benefits to local residents, making their conservation a high
priority under the GMA." [p.1-109]
and
The purpose of forest zoning "is to ensure large tracts of forest lands of long-term significance are protected
from incompatible uses thereby sustaining the ability of forest resource extraction activities to be maintained as
a viable commercial activity." [p.2-11]
I believe that shooting ranges, indoors or outdoors, and their attendant infrastructure are not compatible these
goals of conserving our working forests.
Furthermore, (RCW 36.70A.070(b)(v)) requires rural counties such as Jefferson County "to protect against
conflict with the use of agricultural, forest, and mineral resource lands." Our Comp Plan also specifies rural
land use that is "compatible with the use of the land by wildlife and for fish and wildlife habitat". Following
these standards, shooting ranges in forest lands would not conform with the requirements of the State's UGA or
the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan..
Thank you for your consideration.
Owen Fairbank
815 Van Buren St.
Port Townsend
effbocc
From: Deborah Hammond <debkat48@gmail.com>�yits yT 1
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 10:07 PM 3
V41�
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Please keep gun ranges out of our forest lands and indoors
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or
clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
I believe the only safe place for gun ranges is in appropriately built indoor facilities. I appreciate that existing outside
ranges are things we should accept. I walked dogs for years to the sounds of guns at the shelter. Not a comfortable
experience, I promise you. But we can do better than that. Please ensure that from now forward ranges be built indoors
in facilities located in industrial areas. It's a sensible and fair thing to do.
Thank you,
Deborah K. Hammond
4404 Lopez Avenue
Port Townsend WA
jeffbocc
From: k2 ----- <kkennell@gmail.com> ,
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 10:08 PM r
lle
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Gum Ranges
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Please limit these gun ranges to already established commercial &
industrial areas not in forests and undeveloped areas without
infrastructure.
Thank you,
K. Kennell
Quilcene, WA
ettoocc
r ok
0
From: Mike Mauch <mauchskier@yahoo.com>lu'��
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 10:08 PM "
To:J 'effbocc
Subject: All new gun ranges must be indoors.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
All new gun ranges in Jefferson Co must be INDOORS. Now is the time for the Jefferson Co BoCC to do the right
thing for Jefferson County and adopt the recommendations from the Hearings board and the Jefferson Co
Planning commission. To go against these recommendations again would be unconscionable and a slap in the
face to the residents of Jefferson Co which you represent. There is no need to sacrifice our forests to give people a
safe well managed place to train with firearms.
Mike Mauch
301 Shore Drive
Port Ludlow WA
errnocc
From: Mara Mauch <marasmaill@gmail.com> ,
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 10:22 PMS `" , ' M AN
t
To: jeffbocc %P Y
Subject: All gun ranges must be indoor and ONLY in commercial or industrial zones
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
The BoCC MUST approve and implement the recommendations of the Planning Commission and require all
new gun ranges to be:
- Indoors ONLY
- Limited ONLY to commercial and industrial zones
The gun ranges must NOT be allowed to be built on inholding forest parcels - under any circumstances!
There is absolutely no need to sacrifice our forests to firearms training when there are already over 1000 acres
and arguably many more acres available in commercial and industrial zoning that can be used.
Mara Mauch
301 Shore Drive
Port Ludlow, Jefferson County, WA
jeffbocau Np,
c
W
From: AIL <alelatham@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 11:02 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: shooting range comment
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
I support siting indoor shooting ranges in commercial and industrial zones only.
Siting them on forest parcels would be incompatible with maintaining those areas for forest
product production.
Al Latham
470 Dharma Rd.
Chimacum WA 98325
From: Leefee <2hamfeet@gmail.com>''"
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 12:15 AM y
To: jeffbocc"
Subject: Gun range regulations
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Please do not allow gun ranges in our forest lands. Please limit it to indoor industrial or commercial areas
ONLY. This will be safer, easier to regulate and keep our forest lands ecology thriving. I live near privately
held forest lands and do not wish to see gun ranges disturbed my peace, the wildlife, and contaminate the soils
of those areas.
Thank you.
Lisa Feetham
Chimacum washington
jeffbocc
From: Judith Lucia <judith1ucia7@gmai1.com> ! �►�',r'',1
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 4:55 AM
To: jeffbocc v y;
Subject: Indoor gun ranges
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
To the BOCC
We strongly believe that any new gun ranges in Jefferson County should be indoor, and situated within
commercial and industrial zones.
Regards,
Judith Lucia
Jeff Lucia
PO Box 321
Quilcene, WA 98376
360-765-3782
occ
Dr %,(% �r
From: James Baird <netwin@me.com> xp ;
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 4:56 AM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Alternative 1
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or
clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Commissioners,
I request you consider Alternative 3. as the most acceptable option related to Title 8 and Title 3.8 of the moratorium
ordnance. I feel it is the best option of those listed.
Please also look at long term solutions that solve noise issues by providing upgrades to the existing site leased to
Jefferson County Sportsman group. Army Corp of Engineers constructed the facility. Consider further tax -payer funded
/ ecological federal funded upgrades to address the noise and containment issues raised.
Thank you,
James Baird
36o 93.2-0099
effbocc
From: daniel cochran <quinn699@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 6:59 AM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Gun ranges +� ,
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or
clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear Jefferson county commissioners
I have lived in Jefferson county for ig years and have voted here every year.We love this area and maintain a beautiful
home here full time.We do not support open gun ranges in any forest Iand.The proposed military training gun range is
not acceptable in Tarboo valley or anywhere for that matter.Please understand and respect the voting majority of the
people who reside in Jefferson county.
Sincerely Daniel Cochran
Sent from my Phone
jeffbocc
From: P B <pmburnham@gmail.com> e , '
err
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 7:36 AM Are 1
To: JjeffboccUA01
,
at t
Subject: New Gun Ranges
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear Board of County Commissioners,
I am an owner of property within Jefferson County. I highly support the proposal to require all new gun ranges
to be built indoors. I also think that it is vitally important that we keep any new gun ranges within commercial
and industrial zones, as recommended by the Planning Commission.
Indoor gun ranges should be located next to other commercial/industrial uses. This is the most logical solution.
Thank you,
Patrick Burnham
'effbocc 60nx „ .
From: Joan Purdy <joanpurdy@embargmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 7:45 AM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Gun ranges
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or
clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
When you vote think of the future. What do you want the forest to look like when your grandchildren's
grandchildren live here? Indoor gun ranges is a sane idea. Leaving forest for our ancestors is also a sane idea. The
consequences from today will be felt for generations to come.
Thank you for your weighing consideration. Joan Purdy
ieffbocc
From: Terry Ryan <tpat376@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 7:47 AM
To: jeffbocc .'
Subject: Gun range sites
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
I support the gun range sites to be in industrial and commercial areas. There is already enough noise in my neighborhood
from guns being fired. Terrance Ryan
,r d
From: Bob Podrat <bpodrat@comcast.net> 7`;;`"►�
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 7:54 AM a N '1
To: jeffbocc„,4
Subject: Gun range
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links,
especially from unknown senders.
As a citizen of Jefferson County, I highly endorse that gun ranges be permitted only within commercial and industrial
zones.
Thanks you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Bob Podrat
2211 Spruce Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
ieffbocc
ato A, From: - - <ellen@vicrock.com> �k /V
r
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 8:08 AM3��,i
To: jeffbocc •
Subject: Shooting range
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
I do not support limiting shooting ranges to indoor in Jefferson County. In a rural county such as ours, it is
impractical to impose such limitations.
Limiting us to only Jefferson Sportsman's Club will increase the shooting on forestlands, private property and
other unsafe areas.
Letting a small group of property owners determine policy for an entire county is not good practice.
Commissioners need to evaluate the needs and safety for the entire county population as a whole.
Ellen Crockett
From: Teri Hein <terihein@comcast.net>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 8:23 AM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: keeping indoor ranges in industrial areas
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
BOCC: We are thrilled there is strong consideration to allow only new INDOOR gun ranges. This is critical to
this county. Equally critical is that they not be sited on forest land. Our forests are for forests, whether they are
to be logging and the jobs they provide or for doing their part for climate change or part of our recreational
world. Indoor ranges need to be where there is already infrastructure, enough water, etc. That ONLY makes
sense!
Worried about lawsuits and second amendment stuff: surely you can provide a provision in the ordinance (like
I know anything about this) that indicates the percentage of land currently available that would qualify and what
you would do should it fall below a certain level. But honestly, how many indoor ranges would we actually
ever need (none in my opinion) or want (that's another story.)??
But don't sacrifice our forests. There is the Gun Club, a potential indoor range and our DNR etc land open to
shooters. That is enough!
Also: please be certain to add the "commercial and the non-commercial" language suggested by the TRC
attorney yesterday at the hearing. We don't want anyone with previously interested "commercial" uses to
simply start a "club" for shooters which could get out of hand. Especially anyone not prone to honor the
law. (There is a Polish restaurant in Seattle which, if you want to eat there you have to be a member but, guess
what, you can join for $1 on the spot.)
And lastly, it is time the county gets in place mechanisms to fine people who break the law and to enforce these
laws.
Thank you for all your work on this. There is a light at the end of the tunnel.
Teri Hein
Quilcene
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Tom Sparks <tomsparks6l@yahoo.com>
Tuesday, February 11, 2020 8:44 AM
O)P,��J
Jeffbocc
Keeping Indoor Gun Ranges in Commercial and Industiral zoned property
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or
clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Greetings,
I'm writing you on behalf of myself, my family and neighbors of The Jacob Miller Neighborhood Association.
we Strongly urge you to press forward with you plan to only permit gun ranges that are indoors.
AND we strongly urge you to keep those permitted ranges in commercial and industrial areas,
NOT in inforest holdings or remote locations.
Let's cut to the chase .... we don't want paramilitary training of any kind and the closer the ranges are to monitoring eye
s..the better.
We DO NOT WANT the tarboo valley gun range to get grandfathered in after it sits with no permits for a few years .... go
t that?
As Abe Lincoln said, keep your friends close and keep you enemies even closer.
true then, true today.
By the way -while you read this..multiple Americans died from gunshot wounds. !
tom parks
jeffbocc
From: Kate Nichols <katennichols@yahoo.com> AN
C
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 8:46 AM �" r
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Support Planning Commission's recommendation for limiting indoor gun ranges to
commercial and Industrial zones
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
To County Commissioners:
We do not need to sacrifice forest land for firearm practice. Jefferson County has enough commercial
and industrial zones that gun ranges do not require additional land in inholding forests parcels. The
infrastructure is already in place in commercial and industrial areas, adding more infrastructure to
forest land does not support good environmental practices. Gun ranges are incompatible with other
uses of forest land, which includes important environmental benefits such as water quality and wildlife
habitat. This could also set up a precedence for other uses in forest lands, further eroding the public
benefits of the land.
Please do not open forest lands up to indoor gun ranges.
Sincerely,
Kate Nichols
2502 Crest Ave
Port Townsend, WA 98368
effbocc
From: Mark & Tami Pokorny <valleyrockfarm@gmail.com> -'► f'
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 9:00 AM 6'
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Comments on New Shooting Range Ordinances
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear Honorable Commissioners David Sullivan, Kate Dean and Greg Brotherton,
I'm writing to express my views as a private citizen, and member of Tarboo Ridge Coalition, in favor of the new
shooting range ordinances proposed by the Planning Commission, Alternative 4, to include the amendments
requested by TRC. These ordinances, backed up by your leadership and ongoing enforcement efforts, will help
ensure that both commercial and non-commercial ranges are sited indoors within commercial and industrial
zones and appropriately evaluated, permitted, and managed for the health, safety and well-being of all County
citizens.
Yesterday, I discussed the growing risk of wildfire in Jefferson County and the wildfire hazards linked to
outdoor shooting ranges. As our winters become wetter and warmer, a predicted impact of climate change, so
too are our summers becoming longer, hotter, drier and smokier. Western Washington is, increasingly,
wildfire country. Casual target shooting is the source of numerous wildfires across open spaces in the West.
But, just as at least one shooting range has seriously contaminated soils in Jefferson County, poor
management, including illegal operation, of outdoor shooting also increases wildfire risk here.
AIG puts out a Loss Control Bulletin specific to shooting range fire prevention
(https•//www aig com/content/dam/aig/america-canada/us/documents/brochure/plcb-shooting-range-fire-
prevention.pdf). It cautions, "Shooting ranges face unique fire risks such as the use of inappropriate firearms,
the ammunition shot at the range, poor housekeeping, or improper maintenance of backstops." AIG points
out that range owners can't prevent fires without the informed cooperation, on appropriate gun and ammo
use, from their customers. It's also clear that the style attitude of the range managers also makes a difference.
The visibility and accessibility of the JCSA range helps maintain its reputation and safety record.
There will always be people who would choose to profit by degrading the quality of life and undermining the
vibrancy of our community by ignoring the law or pushing for incompatible businesses and non-commercial
activities tucked away on forest lands. Please don't establish a precedent for conversion to shooting ranges. Our
forests serve so many important purposes that would be compromised by incompatible, polluting,
transformative, and potentially dangerous businesses and activities, including shooting ranges. Out of sight and
inaccessible, even indoor ranges would likely invite adjacent outdoor shooting, fringe shooting activities, poor
management, or worse.
Mistakes happen, but not all mistakes are equally risky. Risk is the combination of likelihood plus severity of
consequence. There is hardly anything more consequential than wildfire ripping through forests laced with
homes, on a hot and windy afternoon. Conditions can change rapidly and unpredictably here, and we are not
immune to large fires. It makes sense to buffer the risks of wildfire by siting ranges indoors in locations where
adequate water, monitoring and enforcement, fire suppression, and access are maximized and where
unacceptable degradation of forest lands and the health, safety and well-being of adjacent landowners and the
public is minimized.
Approval of the Planning Commission ordinances, as amended by TRC, is climate adaptation. It also
acknowledges the life's work and investments of families surrounding forest in -holdings, recognizes our
collective dedication to agriculture, wildlife, and recreation, and sustains the County's reputation as a
welcoming destination for tourists and as a healthy, wonderful place.
Jefferson County is entrusted to your care. Its future is in your hands. Please close the loopholes and adopt the
Planning Commission's Alternative 4 with the TRC amendments.
Respectfully,
Tami Pokorny
'effbocc
A.
From: Michael Hamilton <mhamilton@olympus.net� +}1`q
. .
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 5:01 PM G*
To: jeffbocc,
Subject: new gun range considerations
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or
clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Jefferson County Board of Commissioners,
As a 45 year resident and property owner of Jefferson County my preference for new gun range permitting would be
that proposed new gun ranges are regulated as follows (not necessarily in order of significance):
1. all new gun ranges be limited to non-commercial, non -aerial and non-military / para -military usage. We have
adequate amounts of land allocated to military purposes.
2. in order to control pollution (sound, light and heavy metals) and debris, relatively easily and cost effectively (less of a
burden on tax base for clean-ups, etc), all new shooting facilities should be situated in purpose designed and built
indoor structures. clean up and county infrastructure maintenance costs should be born by the developer not the tax
payer.
3. for the past 44 years we have lived next door to property zoned light industrial, which until a year or so ago had not
been used industrially.
We have always known about the zoning in our neighborhood but still are not comfortable with the new level of noise,
environmental impact and intense activity happening now in our neighborhood. It would be unconscionable for our
County to allow new shooting facilities to be built in neighborhoods or rural areas which have not previously been
available to the noise, environmental impact and intense activity (including traffic and road maintenance) that would
accompany new shooting facilities.
4. no bomb, mortar, missile, air craft or drone type activity should be allowed as part of any shooting range regulations.
Thank you for your consideration,
Michael Hamilton
124 North Water Street
Port Hadlock, WA 98339
jettbocc I -104440f ,
From: Nancy Wyatt <nancywyatt50@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 9:19 AM i
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Indoor range option 4 only
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Honorable County Representatives:
I was present for the entire public meeting and all of the testimony by community members and Alex
Sidles. Please add these comments to the public record:
1. There are 16,000 indoor shooting ranges in the USA. That means 16,000 people/groups have figured out a
business plan that works and is profitable. The "reason" or excuse that they "are too expensive" is not
valid. Obviously we could learn from them.
2. The argument presented that indoor ranges don't provide services for shotguns or rifles was dispelled with a
simple google search and these two ranges (popped up on the first page of search results) advertise shotgun
and/or rifle shooting opportunities. See links below.
3. Somebody has to step up for Jefferson County and keep it from becoming a special place like Hayden Lake,
etc We are not that.
We are counting on you to do the right thing and adopt only indoor ranges in Jefferson County.
Sincerely,
Nancy Wyatt
1661 Dabob Rd
Quilcene, WA98376
Also, Please read interesting article below:
https•//www nbcsandiego com/news/local/22-acre-gun-range-causing-chaos-for-
residents/ 142430/
From: don pitkin <donp96@gmai1.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 9:21 AM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Shooting Range Ordinances
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
I am opposed to more restrictions to our Jefferson Shooting Range that has a good safety record over 50 years.
None of the latest concerns are justified. All these new restrictions will cost the Range more money that they
don't have therefore the excessive cost will lead to the closure of the Range.
This is my biggest concern; good and responsible citizens won't have a safe place to shoot therefore they will
go to undersigned areas to shoot that can cause a problem.
Shooting and hunting has been great sports which you are trying to eliminate one law at the time.
We are citizens or Jefferson County.
Sincerely,
Donald and Carmen Pitkin
142 Sunshine Rd
Gardiner, WA 98382
donp969gmail.com
jeffbocc
From: Anna Moore <pickledogmouse@gmail.com> Y; ,"`�
..
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 9:27 AMS,- '
To: jeffbocc
Subject: In support of the Planning Commission's Alternative #4
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear county commissioners,
I am writing to you in regards to the debate over Fort Discovery and any future firing ranges in the area. I would
like to state that I support extending the moratorium, that I agree with the Planning Commission's Alternative
#4, and that any future gun ranges in Jefferson County should be located indoors and in existing commercial or
industrial areas.
Growing up in a rather rural neighborhood in Jefferson County I frequently heard the gunfire of my distant
neighbors, with the sound carrying all the way out of the valley and up to the top of the hill where we live.
Those were just a few people, and yet the sound would startle me, our dog, and wildlife in our area. One does
not live in the countryside so that they can feel like they are in a war zone. The Fort Discovery range concerns
me not just because of noise pollution and the environmental disruption that causes, but because of possible lead
and copper contamination being introduced into the environment as well. The Tarboo watershed is one that
countless people have tried to help and preserve for many, many years - I planted trees along the river as a child
- and to allow possible metal contamination in the watershed counteracts the caring and hard work of so many
people. An indoor range would help limit the impact the range has on the land, animals, and people in the area.
I hope you carefully consider the thoughts of those of us who are writing to you during this process.
Sincerely,
Anna Moore
26 Discovery Ridge Rd
Port Townsend, WA
98368
effbocc
From: Dale Kelley <darykelley@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 9:43 AM
Y Y pw
ri`
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Tarboosh Lake Facility
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or
clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
To whom it may concern:
As a voting resident and property owner inJefferson County, I am writing to urge you to support that gun range facilities
such as the proposed Tarboosh Lake facility, be placed ONLY on commercial and industrial zone areas. It does not
belong on forested residential areas.
Thank you for your consideration on this important matter in protecting our residential quality of life.
Rev. Dale Kelley
360-437-5129
Dale Kelley
jeffbocc J�.t'"' `,. 4' r wr
d l
From: Wade, Nathan <nathan.wade@ptpc.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 10:02 AM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Public comment on the moratorium and Ordinance of Title 8 and Title 18 in Jefferson
County
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
For the public record,
I am submitting this memo in response to your solicitation for public comment on the moratorium and
Ordinance of Title 8 and Title 18 in Jefferson County.
Firearms ownership is a civil right, and more importantly a privlageded tradition in American culture and
society. The first trip to the gun range for target practice is a right of passage for most young adults in rual
areas, their first steps into self reliance and responsibility as an american citizen, shaping their understanding of
adulthood.
Recreational shooters, liceneced hunters and law enforcement require range spaces that allow for a variety of
firearm types (pistols, rifles, shotguns including bird "trap") to stay practiced and safe in the field. Indoor firing
lanes represent an expensive and ineffective venue for real world firearms training, more suitable to heavily
populated cities without open space. Indoor ranges are arguably less safe than outdoor ranges due to crowded
fireing lines and the potential for ricochet and lead inhalation.
Creating a social stigma around firearm ownership and the exercise of our civil rights not only does a disservice
to law abiding citizens of Jefferson County, it demoralizes and dissuades the next generation from exercising
their rights and responsibilities. As a member of the "millenial" generation, I can assure you the interest in
exercising the second amendment and creating a social balance between freedom and responsibility has never
been stronger in Jefferson County.
I would advise you to step back, look honestly at the politically charged rhetoric being brought to the table in
favor of restricting and stigmatizing our use of firearms in Jefferson County (a largely rual area), and choose a
socially responsible approach to balancing land use and civil rights.
Thank you for your time and consideration in reading this comment.
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
From: Philip Vogelzang <philip.vogelzang@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 10:05 AM,#
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Gun range comment - to the Commissioners
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
February 11, 2020
Dear Jefferson County Board of Commissioners.
Please stop listening to your attorney, Philip Hunsucker. He has provided you with bad legal advice, which has
turned this into a deeply flawed process. Step back and look at the breathtaking turn of events that have occurred
around this gun range issue and how the public has been whipsawed, all in response to a potential litigant and
fueled by Mr. Hunsuckers unseemly fear of being sued.
Rather than starting with an open and transparent process, Mr. Hunsucker disingenuously chose to hold closed -
door meetings with only one individual threatening litigation over many months. When asked to provide a written
record of what transpired, Mr. Hunsucker chose to redact nearly all of the records under the guise of "privilege".
He continues to bias the process by telling you (and us) what is and isn't feasible, legally. I saw him do this again at
yesterday's public comment meeting, passing judgment on the various options that he has chosen to put before you.
Listen to the public who elected you! You make the decisions, not him! The citizens of Jefferson County are
overwhelmingly opposed to open-air commercial gun ranges. Land use issues are by their nature litigious. Trying to
legislate from a position of fear and intimidation leads to chaos.
Tell Mr. Hunsucker to stand down and get out of the way. As our leaders, you must be willing to fight for what is in
the best interests of this county and not for a single individual, determined to sue the County no matter what.
He has turned this process into a circus for too long. Time for you, our elected officials, to take control and make
decisions based on your own conscience, not based upon flawed, timid and short-sighted thinking provided by Mr.
Hunsucker.
Sincerely,
Philip Vogelzang, MD
Chimacum WA
From: Edwin Kraft <ekraftl7@gmaiLcom>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 10:29 AM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Indoor Gun Ranges in Commercial / Industrial Zones ONLY
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
To: Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners
From: Dr. Edwin H Kraft and Virginia A Kraft
Dear Commissioners:
We believe in the right of our residents to pursue legal hunting in appropriate places. We therefore also
understand the need of hunters to hone their skills at appropriate facilities. In keeping with these objectives, we
strongly support a decision by the BOCC to require that such gun ranges be indoors, and be required to site in
commercial / industrial zones, NOT in rural and / or forested areas. We come to this conclusion for the
following reasons:
1. Facilities such as gun ranges MUST be sited indoors in order to avoid the environmental and
residential degradation that has been cited many times by ourselves and others.
2. Such indoor gun ranges must be located in industrial / commercial zones since they are, in fact,
commercial operations.
3. Commercial operations require the infrastructure available in established commercial / industrial
zones, such as waste management, emergency services and operational oversight, and that those
services be provided in an efficient, cost effective, manner.
4. Allowing commercial operations in rural, residential, forested lands would put Jefferson County in a
situation where such disbursement would cost the county far more to provide the essential services
than if they were located in established commercial zones. Allowing one commercial operation
outside of established zones would open up the county to demands to sight many other commercial
operations outside established zones.
5. Commercial operations such as gun ranges located in forested areas would be totally incompatible
and adverse to our local community objectives of a rural, peaceful lifestyle, while providing
sustainable wood harvest and wildlife habitat.
We therefore urge you in the strongest terms to adopt a requirement that:
All future gun ranges be INDOOR facilities and required to be located ONLY in appropriately approved
commercially / industrially zoned properties.
Thank you very much for your attention.
Dr. Edwin H Kraft and Virginia A Kraft
232 S. Palmer Dr., Port Townsend, WA 98368
From: Carl Youngmann <cyoungmann@gmail.com> d ` ra t .:
gaAft
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 10:30 AM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Amended Remarks
Attachments: C Youngmann BCC Comments 200211.docx; ATT00001.htm
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
After attending in the public hearing on February 10, 2020, I wish to extend my remarks to include Alternative
Number Five.
To Board of Commissioners
Jefferson County
Port Townsend, WA
UPDATED February 11, 2020
After attending the public hearing yesterday at Fort Worden, I wish to update my previously submitted
comments to add my concerns about Alternative Number Five.
With respect to consideration of the adoption of a change to the county comprehensive plan regarding the siting
of gun ranges.
My name is Carl Youngmann, a resident of Port Townsend since 2003. For 13 years at the beginning of my
professional life, I was Associate Professor of Geography at the University of Washington and Director of the
UW Cartographic Laboratory. I helped develop computer-aided land use planning and environmental analysis
tools including conducting seminal work in creation of the ESRI ArcInfo and COMPASS mapping systems. In
support of state-wide comprehensive planning, I worked with the Washington State Department of Ecology as
the General Editor of the creation of the Coast Zone Atlas.
It is from this perspective of long-term regional planning that I am commenting on the proposed changes to the
Jefferson County Comprehensive plan and expressing my support for Alternative Number Four and against
Alternative Number Five, the siting of all future shooting ranges indoors within existing commercial and
industrial zones.
Eco -systems are best maintained when they are not broken up. Plant and animal communities in the forest and
range land function better when they are not disrupted by commercial and industrial developments. Activities
that break up the movement of animals within their habitats and isolate plants from symbiotic communities
weaken the health of these systems over time. It is important to maintain as much of the natural rural
environment as possible as a transition zone between the settled portion of the county to the forest preserves in
the National Forest and Park. Concentrating intense uses within existing areas designated for commercial and
industrial development simply makes sense.
Alternative Number Five is exactly the type of land use intrusion into the rural environment that leads to habitat
disruption and the decline of forest health. There are all kinds of reasons not to permit the fingers of urban land
uses sprawl into the undeveloped forests of the Olympic Peninsula. The most compelling is the role health
forests play in the carbon cycle of the planet and the need to foster and not deter that role.
Carl Youngmann, PhD
1530 Holcomb St.
Port Townsend, Washington
Carl Yotingmann
1530 Holcomb Street
PORT TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON 9S368
360 379 3660 0 CYOUngmann @ gmail.com
To Board of Commissioners
Jefferson County
Port Townsend, WA
UPDATED February 11, 2020
After attending the public hearing yesterday at Fort Worden, I wish to update my previously
submitted comments to add my concerns about Alternative Number Five.
With respect to consideration of the adoption of a change to the county comprehensive plan
regarding the siting of gun ranges.
My name is Carl Youngmann, a resident of Port Townsend since 2003. For 13 years at the
beginning of my professional life, I was Associate Professor of Geography at the University of
Washington and Director of the UW Cartographic Laboratory. I helped develop computer-aided
land use planning and environmental analysis tools including conducting seminal work in
creation of the ESRI Arclnfo and COMPASS mapping systems. In support of state-wide
comprehensive planning, I worked with the Washington State Department of Ecology as the
General Editor of the creation of the Coast Zone Atlas.
It is from this perspective of long-term regional planning that I am commenting on the
proposed changes to the Jefferson County Comprehensive plan and expressing my support for
Alternative Number Four and against Alternative Number Five, the siting of all future shooting
ranges indoors within existing commercial and industrial zones.
Eco -systems are best maintained when they are not broken up. Plant and animal communities
in the forest and range land function better when they are not disrupted by commercial and
industrial developments. Activities that break up the movement of animals within their habitats
and isolate plants from symbiotic communities weaken the health of these systems over time.
It is important to maintain as much of the natural rural environment as possible as a transition
zone between the settled portion of the county to the forest preserves in the National Forest
and Park. Concentrating intense uses within existing areas designated for commercial and
industrial development simply makes sense.
Alternative Number Five is exactly the type of land use intrusion into the rural environment
that leads to habitat disruption and the decline of forest health. There are all kinds of reasons
not to permit the fingers of urban land uses sprawl into the undeveloped forests of the Olympic
Peninsula. The most compelling is the role health forests play in the carbon cycle of the planet
and the need to foster and not deter that role.
Carl Youngmann, PhD
1530 Holcomb St.
Port Townsend, Washington
From: cogle@wavecable.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 10:41 AMS
focc trr t�
To: Jefb
Subject: Gun Ranges
g
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or
clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
I am a member of the Jefferson County Sportsmens Assn. herein referred to as JCSA. I am also a member of the Kitsap
Rifle and Revolver Club.
Gun ranges all over the country, notjust the State of Washington are under attack by anti 2nd amendment zealots who
don't like guns, don't like people who have guns and don't like gun ranges. I understand locally they may be
receiving financing for their efforts from Mike Bloomberg.
Proposals from TRC are ridiculous and unacceptable. The expense to build an indoor range to meet the needs of JCSA is
out of site. JCSA has a loo yd. rifle
line with limited availability of Zoo and 300 yds. 2 days a week and an area for shooting trap.
The obvious is TRC is promoting an agenda so costly and unreasonable it is impossible to achieve there by eliminating
the JSCA range.
JCSA has a good range, run by responsible people. Responsible people do not shoot in the woods.
Common sense needs to apply in all decisions.
Read the constitution including the Washington constitution.
TRC does not run the county and they need to be put in their place and back off.
Carl Ogle, member JCSA.
Iettbocc
From: Carol Lee Boone <carollee22@comcast.net'
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 10:48 AM t
To. jeffbocc �"' �✓'`'
Cc: Carol Lee Boone; Kate Riley; Tom Gillespie
Subject: Gun Ranges
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear BOCC,
It would be a travesty to allow an outdoor shooting range in the beautiful forests of Jefferson County. It would
be completely incompatible with fire prevention efforts, wildlife habitat,
water quality, and the overall environmental protection that is needed.
The only shooting range that can be allowed must be indoors, and on commercial or industrial land.
Thank you,
Carol Lee Boone
carollee22@comcast.net
ieffbocc I h", k )01.11
From: Riley Parker <riley@happytailsranchnw.com>/7
4W too, ex00� ilk
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 10:51 AM'.
To: jeffbocc `
Subject: Comment on Commercial Shooting Facilities Ordinance Title 18
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or
clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear Commissioners,
I am writing to ask that you do not expand the zoning for Shooting Facilities to include any forest resource lands. There
is strong public opposition to these lands being used for Shooting Facilities plus the fact it is clearly against the
Comprehensive Plan for Jefferson County.
Allowing Shooting Facilities in our forest resource lands will lead to another lawsuit before the Western Washington
Growth Management Hearing Board.
Please accept the Jefferson County Planning Commissioners recommendations, with a few minor modifications which
the Tarboo Ridge suggested yesterday, so that we can all put this ordinance behind us.
We all look forward to supporting the citizens of Jefferson County is a positive way as the needs are great, instead of
spending our time and money on attorney fees.
Sincerely Yours,
Riley Parker
Sent from my iPhone
From: Todd Uecker <cgmwster@gmail.com>.�
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 10:53 AM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Shooting range
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear Commissioners -
I write this in support of the existing JCSA outdoor range and alternative #1 of the proposed options.
The opportunity for safe discharge of firearms under the guidance of an organization dedicated to safe handling
will continue to protect safety and encourage good sportsmanship at a reasonable membership cost. For hunters,
the opportunity to sight in a rifle at 100 yards is standard practice and critical for humane harvesting of game.
An indoor facility will not provide this. Additionally an indoor range will be cost -prohibitive to many and
encourage shooting in places like gravel pits and quarries. Our shop is located adjacent to a county gravel pit
and we hear a lot of gunfire there, never certain which direction the projectiles are headed. This will be the
future if onerous regulations are adopted.
Todd Uecker
President
Cape George Marine Works, Inc.
1924 Cape George Rd.
Port Townsend, WA 98368
_... _ 44i f M y
From: Mado Most <madomost@gmail.com>+,?
0 q yo- s
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 10:59 AM
To: jeffbocc,fi
Subject: Limit Jefferson County Gun Ranges
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear Board of County Commissioners:
I write to you to ask that you please limit new gun range proposals in Jefferson County to commercial and
industrial zones as recommended by the Planning Commission. There are many reasons to do this:
The infrastructure is already in place
No more development in our beautiful forests and nature areas
The environmental impact is much less
No more development by shady characters for questionable purposes
Jefferson County has over 1000 acres in commercial and industrial zoning. It seems to make sense to keep
these types of operations in areas which can accommodate them.
Sincerely,
Mado Most
4642 Willamette Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
jeffbocc M4VAl:�a7 _
From: Heather Harding <heatherh@olympus.net>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 11:05 AM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Please limit indoor ranges to industrial zones`""
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear Commissioners,
I have been closely following your process of reevaluating gun range locations. Thank you for putting so much
time and care into this discussion. I live on Van Trojen Rd near Chimacum High School, and just one local
person's penchant for shooting regularly at dawn is having a huge impact on the quality of our lives on the road,
making this topic particularly poignant to me.
I am 100% in favor of limiting gun ranges in our county to indoor only. I think it is equally important to limit
the ranges to industrial zones for the following reasons:
A gun range is a business that involves public use, so traffic, parking, sewer and other infrastructure
needs are more suitable to industrial zones. There used to be Tom Jay's Red Dog Studio (bronze
foundry) at the end of my road, and it increased traffic on my road 10 -fold. That was just the employees
driving on the road; a public business like a gun range would be exponentially more impactful in a rural
area to the residents and environment (non -human residents).
With a business comes risks which are better managed in industrial zones. I once worked at a
kindergarten that was on private land in Port Townsend. When it was discovered that fire trucks could
not safely navigate the driveway, we were shut down. If a low-risk kindergarten is shut down,
certainly a gun range with much higher volume of people involved using explosive firearms would pose
a much greater risk, making industrial zones' easy access to emergency services essential.
Our natural lands should be preserved, not developed. I am a co-founder/coordinator of the Tidelands to
Timberline natural history training course through Jefferson Land Trust. Our course has become so
popular that local residents are waiting years to get into the program. I can attest to the growing interest
of county residents in the beauty and value in preserving the natural areas that surround us. These
residents are looking to you to support the Comprehensive Plan by limiting Gun Ranges to industrial
zones so more of our forests and natural areas remain undeveloped.
Thank you for your service and attention to this matter. I have lived in Jefferson County for over 20 years, and
I am proud to call it home because of the efforts of my local leaders like you to maintain the values and quality
of life for all of its residents.
Sincerely,
Heather Harding
1555 Van Trojen Rd.
Chimacum, WA 98325
land owner and concerned resident
heatherhkolympus.net
jeffbocc
1/",r�'
From: Leslie Hoge <leslie@hogedesign.biz> ��
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 11:06 AM
To: jeffbocc ,.
Subject: Gun ranges .�
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or
clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear Board Members,
Please require all gun ranges to be indoors in commercial or industrial zones
They do not belong in forests or close to residential areas.
When my husband and I walked along the beach at Dabob Bay on Sunday, we could hear the rapid-fire burst of
automatic gun fire, probably carrying 15 miles through forest land and over hills and water. This is disruptive and
inappropriate.
That sort of noise is to be expected in an industrial zone, and an industrial/commercial zone also has the infrastructure
to support such use. And indoor facilities will protect neighbors and the fragile environment.
Thank you,
Leslie & John
Beach Drive
Quilcene, WA
From: Andrea Lawson <andrea@andreaklawson.com>«':r,
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 11:06 AM
To: A. Lawson
Cc: jeffbocc
Subject: Re: new gun range considerations
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Jefferson County Board of Commissioners,
I am very concerned about the impact of gun ranges on our community, environment, health, safety and
economy.
As a 40 year resident and property owner of Jefferson County my preference for new gun range permitting
would be that proposed new gun ranges are regulated as follows (not necessarily in order of significance):
all new gun ranges be limited to non-commercial, non -aerial and non-military / para -military usage. We have
adequate amounts of land allocated to military purposes.
2. in order to control pollution (sound, light and heavy metals) and debris, relatively easily and cost effectively
(less of a burden on tax base for clean-ups, etc), all new shooting facilities should be situated in purpose
designed and built indoor structures. clean up and county infrastructure maintenance costs should be born by
the developer not the tax payer.
3. for the past 44 years we have lived next door to property zoned light industrial, which until a year or so ago
had not been used industrially. We have always known about the zoning in our neighborhood but still are not
comfortable with the new level of noise, environmental impact and intense activity happening now in our
neighborhood. It would be unconscionable for our County to allow new shooting facilities to be built in
neighborhoods or rural areas which have not previously been available to the noise, environmental impact and
intense activity (including traffic and road maintenance) that would accompany new shooting facilities.
4. no bomb, mortar, missile, air craft or drone type activity should be allowed as part of any shooting range
regulations.
Thank you for your consideration,
Andrea Lawson
124 North Water Street
Port Hadlock, WA 98339
Andrea K. Lawson
Producer of Visions in Motion 2020!
Please join Visions
Gofundme Campaign
I create visual stories
of woman power, nature, joy, rebirth, mystery and memory.
For studio news, Please Sign Up For my Newsletter Here
www.andreaklawson.com
P.O. Box 306
Port Hadlock, WA 98339
andreagandreaklawson.com
lnstagram:
gandreaklawsonart
gvi s ionsinmotion2020
Upcoming Exhibits:
Visions in Motion 20/20
Key City Public Theatre, Port Townsend, WA 2/1/20-2/9/20
New Work
Uptown Dental Gallery, Port Townsend WA
10/20-12/20
.!, � ? f �
From: Betsy Coddington <betsycoddington@comcast.net> 1 n ',,�
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 11:08 AM
la►
To: jeffbocc .
Subject: Gun Ranges`
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or
clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
I strongly support the Planning Commission's recommendation that all future gun ranges be built as indoor ranges in
commercial and industrial zones. The environmental and quality of life for nearby residents should never be sacrificed
for activities which can be achieved indoors without disturbing either.
Please vote for the health, safety and quality of life for humans, wildlife and environment through common sense
regulation as recommended by the Planning Commission.
Betsy Coddington
Rick Root
zoo 5 Palmer
Port Townsend, WA. 98368
jeffbocc!'°
From: Helen Rector <hrectorl22@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 11:10 AM
To: jeffbocc �' �► R ,a
Subject: Gun Range
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Please add these to some earlier comments:
gun anges should not be in forest areas. They should be limited to commercial and industrial zones for these
reasons: first
Infrastructure (traffic/parking, water, power, and in some cases sewer) is in place;
We prevent scattershot development in forest zones that strains infrastructure and is incompatible with existing
uses*;
We prevent forest loss and permanent and negative impacts on an important resource base, as well as
environmental benefits in carbon sequestration, wildlife habitat, and water quality;
We make fire prevention efforts, emergency services, operational oversight, and environmental clean-up more
efficient, by keeping more firearms out of forestlands;
We avoid a slippery slope, with possible appeals to site scrap yards, marijuana growing operations, affordable
housing, or other uses in forestlands—all of which are incompatible with the Comprehensive Plan.
Jefferson County has over 1000 acres in commercial and industrial zoning—a number that could be expanded
with careful study. We don't need to sacrifice our forests to give people a safe, well-managed place to train with
firearms.
*Well-trained planners concentrate commercial and industrial activity --they don't scatter warehouses and
machine shops among forest parcels. Another way to say this is like with like --indoor gun ranges should be
located next to other commercial/industrial uses; forests should be left as productive forests.
We don't need any more hidden, hard to monitor, opportunities to develop without permits. No more ranges
which are places to sneak in ugly sites for paramilitary training, and doomsday prep and weapon storage.
Jefferson county is not the place for this. Too many safey issues.
Cheers!
Helen Rector and Robert Powers
1218 Rose
PT
±+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"A well-informed mind is the best security against the contagion of folly and vice."
Ann Radcliffe
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ieffbocc
From: Susan Freeman <susanleopoldfreeman@gm
R?1(
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 11:15 AM r
To: jeffbocc °t",
Subject: Ordinance 4 versus 5 ..+
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attacPiments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear Commissioners,
I attended the hearing yesterday and heard opinions about the difference between Ordinance 4 and Ordinance
5. I thought the words that Janet Welsh presented were very thoughtful. I've thought a lot about this since
yesterday and want to let you know what I've been thinking. I am in full support of indoor ranges and think that
our county is really ahead in their thinking about this. Thank you for listening to the Planning Commission's
advise. I support their Ordinance of #4.
I don't understand in the Ordinance #5, the need for the 150 acres of inholding forest land that would be
available for indoor ranges. Is this to make more land available besides commercial/industrial areas? If so, it
would make more sense to add land near the commercial zones because there is already structures set up to
accommodate additional traffic/power/emergency access/septic etc. It would make sense to add a complex to
an area that already has commercial use. It doesn't make sense to break up our forest land with a big indoor
range because of the environmental effect on the forest ( or what about a marijuana complex in inholding forests
etc?) Are these the kind of operations we want scattered through the forests? It seems it would make it harder
to monitor, break up our forest with roads, make more potential for fire and hard to have emergency support. I
support Ordinance 4 and not 5. It just doesn't make any sense at all to open up forest land for this kind of
development. If you need more acres that are available to avoid law suits about 2nd amendment rights then
figure out how to add them somewhere else but don't break up our forest land with this kind of development.
Thank you for your work and thoughtfulness on this issue.
Susan Freeman
2110 Quilcene Bay Road,
Quilcene
'effbocc ! T �
From: Keith Lazelle <lazelle@waypt.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 11:17 AM, x y
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Gun ranges should be kept out of forestlands!
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Attn: Honorable Jefferson County Board of Commissioners:
We want to urge you to supporting commercial and industrial zones ONLY for gun ranges.
We firmly and totally believe that indoor gun ranges should be located next to other commercial and industrial
uses.
FORESTS SHOULD BE LEFT AS PRODUCTIVE FORESTS!
This matter is of great importance to us, so I ask that you please, please, please take this matter serious and with
careful thought.
Thank you so much for your attention to this very important matter,
Jane Hall & Keith Lazelle
1634 Toandos Road
Quilcene, WA 98376
'effbocc '.•'
From: Annette Huenke <amh@olympus.net> -..
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 11:22 AM
To: jeffbocc `
Subject: siting of gun ranges
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or
clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear Commissioners:
I write to request that you support the siting of gun ranges in commercial and industrial zones only. The sound
pollution of regular gunfire has no place in our forests— it is upsetting to humans and non -human animals alike.
thank you.
Annette Huenke
North Beach
jeffbocc 44AV - ,II ,
From: Ezra Goetzen <ezramfgoetzen@gmail.corn>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 11:30 AMS
To: jeffbocc 4d
Subject: Shooting range and alternative 4
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
My name is Dr. Ezra MF Goetzen. I live in Quilcene and am deeply concerned about an establishment of an
outdoor shooting range in our community. As a psychologist I work with veterans and others afflicted with Post
Traumatic Stress. There is a large number of veterans that live in the Quilcene community, many of them
searching for a peaceful place. I believe that an outdoor shooting range will be extremely disturbing to their
recovery, the peaceful atmosphere of quilcene and the overall culture of our community. I am in favor of
alternative 4.
Thank you for your consideration.
Dr. Ezra MF Goetzen Psy.D.
Psychotherapy, Art Therapy, HRT and GCS evaluations
(646) 397-2005
www.ezramfgoetzen.com
211 Taylor St. Suite 6
Port Townsend, WA 98368
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Riley Parker <riley@happytailsranchnw.com>
Tuesday, February 11, 2020 11:31 AM
jeffbocc
22 -Acre Gun Range Causing Chaos for Residents — NBC 7 San Diego
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or
clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear Commissioners,
We need to ensure that our ordinances control the establishment of these types of shooting ranges.
Riley Parker
https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/22-acre-gun-range-causing-chaos-for-residents/142430/
Sent from my iPhone
I
- It
. -V
From: pamela bouchard <pamela179179@gmail.com> °�+�►, �_�?.`
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 11:39 AM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: proposed shooting range regulations
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or
clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
To: the Board of Commissioners,
First of all I would like to thank you for your hard work. I attended the meeting yesterday and I thought you were fair
and reasonable. I have already sent in comments but I learned new information yesterday so 1 would like to add some
more comments.
The most important thing is that the new regulations should extend to both commercial and non commercial venues.
As a veterinarian I can attest that the dangers from heavy metal contamination and noise and habitat destruction to
wildlife are significant and irreparable, and it is there regardless of whether or not the shooting is at a commercial
facility. A group of people could structure their organization as a "club" or "membership" and avoid calling themselves
a commercial operation, but all the risks would still be there - the danger to public safety being foremost. The rules
must be clear. There are still plenty of other places where people can shoot a rifle.
I am also concerned that you are considering allowing the ranges to be located in forestland. It will be very difficult and
expensive to regulate compared to putting them in industrial zones. Any business has to deal with regulations when it
establishes itself and why should a shooting range get a special exemption to be located in a forest land? It sets up a
dangerous precedent. Veterinary clinics are only allowed to be located in certain permitted zones, and I don't think that
gun ranges are safer than veterinary clinics. I understand that this is an emotional charged issue, but a business is a
business and it must deal with permits and regulations that are set up to protect public welfare and safety and preserve
working forest land. Please do not make an exception for them.
Thank you so very much for listening,
Pamela Bouchard DVM
effbocc
From: Keith Marzan <bluesea5001@outlook.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 11:47 AM
J"' m
if S p Y
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Gun Ranges keep the public safe. Well maintained and well operated ranges are good
for the Jefferson county Citizens.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Thank You
Keith Marzan
359 R Street
Port Townsend
jeffbocc
From: J. Brady Duncan <tworaven@msn.com> "
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 12:06 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Indoor Gun Ranges
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Good afternoon,
I'm contacting you today to voice my support for the proposal to locate new gun ranges indoors and in
commercial and industrial zones only. I do not support the idea of locating these facilities in inholding forest
plots.
My wife and I hold property and are building a new home at Leyland Lake.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
J Brady Duncan
jeffbocc fir,.
From: laisri Lingappa <jaisriling@gmail.com>Vol
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 12:14 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Comment on proposed gun range in Quilcene
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
To the Jefferson County Commissioners,
Recently my husband and I went hiking at Mount Walker, which we try to do once a month to stay in good
health. This steep short hike is particularly good for maintaining fitness. In the past, I have told lots of people
about this great hike, and the beautiful Hood Canal area, and promised to bring friends and family with us when
they visit. Sadly, on the way down from the Mt Walker summit, the peacefulness of this hike was badly
disturbed by the repeated sound of gunfire that went on for quite a long time. I have since been told tsince
hat this was likely due to illegal target shooting and was likely quite distant from where we were - however, it
provides a good example of the impact that a legal gun range in the area would have.
The terrifying sound of gunfire on that day left a bad impression on us - we have not been back to hike Mt
Walker since. Taking a day off to enjoy nature is not rewarding if the experience is marred by the sound of
weapons of any kind. A gun range in the Quilcene area will reduce tourism and the business that tourism
brings; it also will badly mar the landscape for those of us who live in Jefferson County.
Please rethink this plan. The Quilcene area is incredibly beautiful and serene, but we will not be bringing our
family and friends there to be terrified by the sound of shooting. An environment is not serene if people are
shooting guns.
Thank you for your consideration; I suspect I speak for many nature lovers in Jefferson County.
Jaisri Lingappa
1519 Washington St
Port Townsend, WA 98368
jeffbocc A" �1 j
}. ` . ': �
t z ,' >' y I
From: 2k1ein kleinpr.net <2k1ein@k1einpr.net> y
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 12:18 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Gun Ranges
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Please DO adopt new regulations that require gun ranges to be built indoors. The regulations should extend to
commercial and non-commercial regulations, otherwise we've just created a big loophole. Thanks for
considering our thoughts,
Jim and Renee Klein
1536 Jackson Street
Port Townsend
'effbocc
From: Robert d'Arcy <robertdarcy57@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 12:23 PM a J'
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Jefferson County Sportsman's Association
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear County Commission.
I am writing to you today to ask you to protect the rights of your citizens to maintain access to the JCSA gun
range.
With out belaboring the Second Amendment Rights discussion or the discussion regarding the value and safety
the range has offered it's citizens, I ask you to support
and adopt Alternative # 1.
Protecting the citizen's 2A rights and continued support to provide a safe and effective sportsman's range is key
to the quality of life many citizens in this county.
With Respect,
Robert d'Arcy
2546 Haines st
Port Townsend
206 310 8573
effbocc
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
skip I <lostboyskip@gmail.com>
Tuesday, February 11, 2020 12:25 PM
jeffbocc
Comment on the paramilitary training camp proposed for tarboosh lake.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or
clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
To whom it may concern,
I am a resident of the dabob valley in Quilcene, quite close to tarboo lake. I am deeply concerned about and completely
opposed to the idea of a shooting range in this area. The residents of this area want to feel safe, and we want to protect
the sacred land, environment, animals, plants, soil and future of humans cohabitating in this place.
I am in favor of alternative 4
My name is christalena link
Clink
�':
jeffbocc �� � , { r'�f .� i :
From: Mary Kollar <mary@ajkollar.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 12:26 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Siting of indoor gun ranges
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear Commissioners:
We are relieved that gun ranges will be restricted to indoor facilities, encouraging safety and education for
firearms users. Furthermore, we hope these new indoor facilities will be in commercial/industrial zones so that they
may be less intrusive on the areas for conservation and recreation that so many of us enjoy in Jefferson County. No
doubt, the builders of such facilities would also embrace these zones as being more accessible to those who want to use
a shooting facility. Such locations would also be more accessible to monitoring by government agencies, sheriffs and
safety professionals.
Thank you for taking our concerns into consideration.
Allan and Mary Kollar
1420 East Quilcene Road
jeffbocc
From: Steven Young <steve.young@netavpros.com> a,,`
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 12:27 PM
To: jeffbocc
Cc: Patricia J. Neideigh-Young
Subject: Written Comments Regarding Shooting Ranges
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear BOCC,
As co-owner of Yak's in the Cradle Farm at 10035 Center RD, Quilcene, we strongly hope the BOCC will
decide to allow new shooting ranges for Jefferson County to be built in commercial and industrial zones only -
preferably indoors.
If built, the proposed outdoor range near Tarboo lake will directly impact our ability to continue operating. As
evidenced by over 800 visitors at last year's Jefferson County Farm Tour, our Yaks are strong tourist draw and
our sales tax revenue from meat and fiber goods can only help the county. The proposed range and all that goes
with it will shut us down - period.
Please do the right thing to protect our water tables (very delicate near our property), forests and overall way of
life that makes Jefferson County such a great place.
Kind regards,
Steve Young
425 830 5006
ettnocc ;1*
From: Penney & Mike <penneymike@olympus.n,,-
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 12:32 PM
To: jeffbocc to i A.
Subject: Support for Planning Commissions recommendation''
Attachments: letter to county commissioners.pdf; ATT00001.htm '`
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners
Kate Dean, David Sullivan, Greg Brotherton
Dear Kate, David and Greg,
February 11, 2020
Regarding support for the Planning Commission's carefully considered recommendation on the siting of gun
ranges, my remarks are based on knowledge of the area along Center Road (which I know best and includes
Tarboo Lake), but apply to rural/forested areas throughout Jefferson County.
My family has owned property in Jefferson County since mid 1940s, I've lived on property we currently own
on Center Road since 1975. I've seen many changes in land use throughout the county and am concerned about
the possibility of gun ranges being allowed in dwindling forest resource areas.
In the 1970s & 80s, while director of the Quilcene Community Center and Senior Meals Program, I became
friends with "old timers" in their 70s and 80s who told stories of small scale farms along Center Road, the big
fire that impacted the timber harvest, and the few homesteaders living in the area.
Small farms, timber harvesting and homesteading have been the traditional use of this part of the county
and continue to be so through a younger generation of property owners who chose to raise their families
in a rural area.
Recreational hunting is also a traditional use. Firearms, used in season, are part of the lifestyle for many who
live in a rural area and who vacation here. Healthy wildlife habitat supports this use.
Tarboo Lake, and the few other publicly accessible lakes in the county, offers other recreational uses -
fishing, swimming, picnicking, and enjoying wildlife. When I managed the Port Townsend Visitor Information
Center for 7 years we were often asked by tourists where they could go to swim in a lake, fish, picnic, bird
watch, etc. and Tarboo Lake (as well as the other lakes) was a popular place.
By allowing gun ranges to only be built in existing commercial and industrial zones, we do not lose the
remaining forested areas in the county, an important resource for the reasons mentioned above. Once an
area is opened to commercial development, such as a gun range, the impact on wildlife habitat, water quality, as
well as the cost of the needed infrastructure (which in itself is damaging to the surrounding environment) is
irreversible.
Long ago I swam in Tarboo Lake, often daily, and often when no people were around. This was before the area
around the lake was logged. I witnessed diverse wildlife, saw birds nesting, and recall a time, while swimming
the length of the lake, watching deer drinking from the lake's edge while an eagle flew in to roost in a tree to
hunt fish. I felt connected to Nature, transported to an earlier time.
There are few publicly accessible places in Jefferson County where one can experience such a connection.
Those places need to be cherished and preserved. Not everyone can easily access National Park and Forest
lands. Creating a healthy place to live and visit in Jefferson County includes preserving zones of forested
areas, preserving traditional and current uses of those areas, and utilizing areas already zoned and
developed for commercial use for indoor gun ranges and other commercial endeavors.
To be redundant, I beseech the Commissioners to implement ordinances regulating commercial shooting
facilities with respect to traditional and current land uses, to protect wildlife, wild areas, and rural lifestyles in a
county of dwindling wild areas and natural resources. Keep the gun ranges inside and in already commercially
zoned and developed areas.
Thank you.
Penney Hubbard
see attached for printable copy
Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners
Kate Dean, David Sullivan, Greg Brotherton
Dear Kate, David and Greg,
February 11, 2020
Regarding support for the Planning Commission's carefully considered recommendation on the siting of
gun ranges, my remarks are based on knowledge of the area along Center Road (which I know best and
includes Tarboo Lake), but apply to rural/forested areas throughout Jefferson County.
My family has owned property in Jefferson County since mid 1940s, I've lived on property we currently own
on Center Road since 1975. I've seen many changes in land use throughout the county and am concerned
about the possibility of gun ranges being allowed in dwindling forest resource areas.
In the 1970s & 80s, while director of the Quilcene Community Center and Senior Meals Program, I became
friends with "old timers" in their 70s and 80s who told stories of small scale farms along Center Road, the
big fire that impacted the timber harvest, and the few homesteaders living in the area.
Small farms, timber harvesting and homesteading have been the traditional use of this part of the
county and continue to be so through a younger generation of property owners who chose to raise
their families in a rural area.
Recreational hunting is also a traditional use. Firearms, used in season, are part of the lifestyle for many
who live in a rural area and who vacation here. Healthy wildlife habitat supports this use.
Tarboo Lake, and the few other publicly accessible lakes in the county, offers other recreational uses
- fishing, swimming, picnicking, and enjoying wildlife. When I managed the Port Townsend Visitor
Information Center for 7 years we were often asked by tourists where they could go to swim in a lake, fish,
picnic, bird watch, etc. and Tarboo Lake (as well as the other lakes) was a popular place.
By allowing gun ranges to only be built in existing commercial and industrial zones, we do not lose
the remaining forested areas in the county, an important resource for the reasons mentioned above.
Once an area is opened to commercial development, such as a gun range, the impact on wildlife habitat,
water quality, as well as the cost of the needed infrastructure (which in itself is damaging to the surrounding
environment) is irreversible.
Long ago I swam in Tarboo Lake, often daily, and often when no people were around. This was before the
area around the lake was logged. I witnessed diverse wildlife, saw birds nesting, and recall a time, while
swimming the length of the lake, watching deer drinking from the lake's edge while an eagle flew in to roost
in a tree to hunt fish. I felt connected to Nature, transported to an earlier time.
There are few publicly accessible places in Jefferson County where one can experience such a connection.
Those places need to be cherished and preserved. Not everyone can easily access National Park and
Forest lands. Creating a healthy place to live and visit in Jefferson County includes preserving zones
of forested areas, preserving traditional and current uses of those areas, and utilizing areas already
zoned and developed for commercial use for indoor gun ranges and other commercial endeavors.
To be redundant, I beseech the Commissioners to implement ordinances regulating commercial shooting
facilities with respect to traditional and current land uses, to protect wildlife, wild areas, and rural lifestyles
in a county of dwindling wild areas and natural resources. Keep the gun ranges inside and in already
commercially zoned and developed areas.
Thank you.
Penney Hubbard
jeffbocc
From: Robyn Johnson <johnsrobyn@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 12:42 PM
To: jeffbocc aye' °�s►W.0
Subject: Planning Commission Recommendation --YES;
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
February 11, 2020
To: Honorable Board of County Commissioners
Re: SUPPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION—
AMENDMENT #4
Dear Commissioners:
I have witnessed the long road to a new shooting range ordinance for our county.
I observed first-hand the Moratorium Committee meetings, and all of the public hearings that have since been
held. It has been a long and tedious and contentious process for all. Thankfully the Planning Commission's
recommendation to allow indoor ranges only, in commercial and industrial areas, is now before you for
adoption.
PLEASE:
1. Approve the Planning Commission's recommendation in full.
2. Reject any proposal to allow shooting ranges (commercial or non-commercial) in our county's in -
holding forest lands.
3. Eliminate a last major loophole by striking the distinction of commercial vs. non-commercial shooting
ranges. All shooting ranges must obtain permits.
The facts and sources supporting indoor ranges continue to be extensively documented by letters and public
testimony that you have received from citizens. County residents are expressing fear about environmental,
social, public safety, and noise pollution, and the very real prospect of enabling militia -type "strongholds" to be
built in our forests. I feel these fears deeply. I am grateful that here in Jefferson County, with your leadership,
we will prevent them from happening.
Respectfully,
Robyn Johnson
1035 Carl Johnson Road
Quilcene, WA 98376
jeffbocc 1y
From: Jerry Holmes <jmobileholmes@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 12:06 PM
To: jeffbocc 4 1+
Subject: Gun Range Options
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or
clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Commissioners: to me gun ranges should be indoors and located in commercial or industrial settings where certain
infrastructure exist or can be added easily. This is simple and logical.
Sincerely,
Jerry Holmes
Chimacum WV
Sent from my Pad
effbocc
From: rick oltman <rick@capecleare.com> #_4�*"„'"k �'►�
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 12:53 PM
To: jeffbocc r 1
Subject: Please limit gun ranges
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Commissioners
Please adopt indoor gun ranges and commercial and the industrial zones
as the planning commission advised .
As a 42 year citizen of Jefferson County and gun owner who lives 2 miles from the
Sportsmens range. It's only fair for all, please contain the noise and other liabilities for future
generations .
Thank you
Rick Oltman
370 Mlddlepoint rd
1
jettbocc = }.`.
From: J <j_esg2@hotmail.com> 9
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 1:03 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Comment on Shooting Range Proposal
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Hello,
I am writing to comment on the shooting range proposal. I am a resident of Jefferson County and live in
Brinnon. I am in favor of alternative 4. Keeping shooting ranges indoors protects people, wildlife, the
environment and the local economy - all things that the residents of Jefferson County hold dear. It is common
sense and simple. Thank you for making more time for people to voice their opinions.
Sincerely,
Jenny Esquivel
jeffbocc
From: Mabs Sanok <mabscsanok89@gmail.com>
a
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 1:09 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: New Commercial Gun Ranges
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
To Whom It May Concern:
My name is Mabs Sanok, and I'm a resident of Jefferson County. I am writing to express my support of
regulations ensuring all new commercial gun ranges in the county be restricted to indoor ranges situated in
commercial and industrial zones only. I do not believe inholding forest land should be used for these purposes.
Thank you for your consideration,
Mabs Sanok
erraocc ,IN
From: Ehx Two <ehxtwo@gmai1.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 1:15 PM 4.
To: jeffbocc a
Subject: Regarding shooting ranges in Jeff. Co.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Greetings Commissioners,
I'm emailing you to voice my strong support of Alternative 4 in regards to future shooting ranges in the county.
As advocate of guns i believe in the safe and responsible use of fire arms, and believe this alternative 4 is in line
with this position. I believe following the guidelines put together by a group specifically whose mission it was
to look into the most responsible way to create shooting ranges is common sense. While i have shot in some of
the various unregistered, informal spots around the county, i don't believe concentrating this inside of any
outdoor range truly solves the problem, an indoor range is much preferable.
As a resident downstream, in the Tarboo Valley area, i also am concerned about the environmental impact of of
shooting, and also defer to the experts that have looked into this, the planning commision, and follow their
common sense suggestions.
In all, please choose the option that serves the greatest good and ensures the safety and security of our
community and environment, which is Alternative 4 in this instance.
Thank you for your consideration and time,
Matt Beaudoin
Dabob rd, Quilcene
jeffbocc ! it f +i t
From: Karen Brennan <karenlpbrennan@yahoo.com>-�`S
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 1:16 PM '''�*.
To: jeffbocc: 4
Subject: New Commercial Gun Ranges should be indoor and located in industrial zones
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
To Whom It May Concern:
My name is Karen Brennan, and I'm a resident of Marrowstone Island. I am writing to express my support of regulations ensuring all
new commercial gun ranges in the county be restricted to indoor ranges situated in commercial and industrial zones only.
Thank you for your consideration,
Karen Brennan
jeffbocc
yt
From: Dan and Carla <spinnermail@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 1:16 PM 411J
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Commercial and industrial zones only, please!
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
To Whom It May Concern:
My name is Carla Powell, and I live on Marrowstone Island. I am writing to express my support of regulations ensuring all new
commercial gun ranges in the county be restricted to indoor ranges situated in commercial and industrial zones only. I do not believe
inholding forest land should be used for these purposes.
Thank you for your consideration,
Carla Powell
errnocc f
From: Debbi Steele <deborahksteele@gmail.com>°' 4 • f"�r
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 1:21 PM
To: jeffbocc ¢rd
Subject: BoCC comment
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
I am writing in support of commercial and industrial zones being used ONLY for the use of indoor
shooting ranges.
Thank you,
Debbi Steele
2205 Redwood St.
Port Townsend
805.312.6547
effbocc
From: Jerry Holmes <jmobileholmes@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 1:24 PM
To: jeffbocc" a `
Subject: Feb. 10th Public Hearing
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or
clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
I wanted to comment on your process. You added some speakers to the room at the Commons and it really improved
my ability to hear the speakers. Thanks.
In my opinion you allowed the county attorney to drone on for far too long. I thought legal aspects could have been
covered in half the time. It seemed counter productive to me.
Sincerely,
Jerry Holmes
Chimacum WA
Sent from my iPad
'effbocc
From: Ron Myhre <rjmyhre@gmail.com>
waw ,� r• �;'. t
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 1:30 PM �g 5
To: jeffbocc '.
Subject: Gun Range Locations mat
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear County Commissioners,
Please do the only logical right thing here in regards to new gun ranges in Jefferson Co. and that is to insist all
gun range locations be developed in Commercial and industrial areas only and that these ranges be constructed
in an enclosed building as to not to disrupt the integrity of all environments affected in anyway. I believe this
decision for the immediate and future generations will in the long run be met with smart, sane, caring and long
range forethought on behalf of you our County Commissioners!
Please consider all Jefferson County Citizens welfare when making this important decision for our future and
not just to satisfy a minority groups want for a so-called, "Dream Facility" inflicting pollution in all it's phases in
a pristine, rural, forested setting!!
Thank you,
Very concerned citizen,
Ron Myhre
Port Townsend
ieffbocc
From: Amanda Webby <amandawebby@hotm ,r ti
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 1:37 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: 4th option for indoor gun rangesr
ms's
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or
clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear commissioners,
I have owned and run a business (dog day care and boarding) on my land for 18 years and feel there are a few things I
can speak to regarding gun use in the county.
Firstly, I see (and feel) first hand the stress and fear that gun noise causes. Each time a neighbor starts shooting, several
of our guest dogs scramble, wide eyed with tails tucked to scratch wildly at the nearest gate or door. My staff is trained
to literally run to let them in so they don't hurt themselves trying to escape the perceived danger. Other dogs aren't
afraid, nearly excited by the wild life that is stirred into a fearful frenzy by the shots. This has become increasingly
common over the past decade. It was awful when we'd hear the near constant weaponry from the other side of
Discovery Bay. The noise easily travelled 2 miles from the bay to where we live.
I live on a road where more than half my neighbors have and regularly use guns. I care for each of them and for their
freedoms despite the fact that I dislike their gun use. So, in the spirit of compromise, I support the 4th option of having
indoor ranges on commercial land. Many of my neighbors shoot dangerously on their property. Some after dark, one
who has macular degenerative disease and another whose bullets have whizzed onto another neighbor's land scaring
the dickens out of the roofers who were nearly struck.
It is my hope that if folks have a safe quiet place to enjoy their hobby, in a way that will be less dangerous and
downright terrifying.
When I opened my kennel, I knew that in some places kennels are mandated to have indoor only facilities. In order to
address the noise concerns of my neighbors I was fanatical about screening dogs and not hosting those who barked
much. I also hired a crew of employees whose job it is to attend to them and bring them inside to settle down
immediately if they are barking. I work hard to maintain the peaceful environment. This is not only to satisfy the
conditional use permit we have, but also out of neighborly respect. I am happy to comply with county rules and ask that
the county also ask gun ranges to do what they need to do to be quiet and safe.
It is upsetting and ironic that I have lost business when a new client comes to tour our quiet kennel and hears gunshots.
After wowing them with how dreamy the dogs behavior is, gunshots have started up and dogs begin to bark and flinch
in response. "My dog is terrified of gunshot. I'll have to bring her somewhere else." was the most recent response.
I have tried to request that neighbors consider shooting during our closed hours, but frankly I don't want to anger my
neighbors with guns. Bottom line, in an effort to protect the rights of gun users, we have made life much less peaceful
for those of us trying to milk goats, work in the garden, play with our kids, or sip coffee on the porch with a friend. It
seems that asking for safe indoor shooting ranges in areas we expect to be industrial, is a minimal ask in order to lessen
the effects of this loud intrusive hobby on the rest of us.
With deep respect for your consideration and hard work of this topic,
Amanda Webby
io Timberline rd
Sent from my Phone
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ed <ecabler@embargmail.com>
Tuesday, February 11, 2020 1:37 PM
jeffbocc
Restrict Gun Ranges to Commercial and Industrial Zones r
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear Board of County Commissioners,
I wholeheartedly endorse the Planning Commissions' recommendation to:
• Restrict gun ranges to commercial and industrial zones and
• Restrict all new gun ranges to indoor facilities.
Commercial and industrial zones, by their nature, have the infrastructure and facilities to support a gun range.
I believe forest land is an important human and wildlife environmental resource. This resource would be compromised, to
the detriment of humans, wildlife and the environmental, if a gun range were allowed within its boarders.
Thank you.
Kind regards, Ed Cabler
jeffboccf,;r!,�,
4 r�
From: Betty Wynstra <julianne09Photmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 1:50 PM s
To: jeffbocc .y
Subject: Ordinance - Title 8 and 18
Attachments: commissioners feb 2020.docx
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Feb 11,2020
Commissioners,
I attended the meeting at Fort warden and listened to all the comments. I have several I wish to discuss.
Thank you for allowing the additional time to send in written comment.
I can appreciate the effort that went into researching parcels that could be available to indoor shooting
facilities. That will save someone a lot of time and energy if they should ever move forward with building
one here in Jefferson County.
I do have several concerns with the possible decision to only allow indoor ranges. Most indoor ranges
are about 25 yd for shooting distances. That's fine for those who shoot pistol and don't need or want to
move. This yardage for rifles is a good starting point. But what about the long-range shooters and
hunters? They need to practice at further distances. I am pretty sure there isn't a single hunter who
doesn't care where on an animal he hits, as -long -as they hit them. They want a good clean shot. When
hunters don't have that, they are searching for the animal for hours or even days. Mad at themselves for
not placing it correctly. Where do they learn how? Long range practicing. 100, 200, 300 yds... that's the
minimum of what is needed. That isn't feasible indoors. So guess where they will wind up practicing. Out
in the woods. Who's gonna clean that up afterwards?
And what about the shot gun shooters? Indoors.... That's pretty funny. So where are they going to
practice? Yup out in the woods.
I just don't understand why anyone would think that only indoor ranges are the future. I will admit that
an indoor range would be nice to use occasionally on the days you didn't want to get wet. But an indoor
range would also eliminate any of the monthly competitions, matches or games that require a lot of
space for the different stages and the movement required from one target to the next. These help
prepare us for real life active shooter situations we pray we are never in. Situations like the White
Settlement, Texas church was in just after Christmas 2019. We train for those situations that ultimately
protect those around us whether they share our views on firearms or not. I am definitely not the only
gun owner who has accepted the responsibility to protect not only myself but those around me as well.
But if you limit our practice area to only a 25 yd lane that's about 3' wide you take away our ability to
train for these types of situations. To me that is unacceptable. I don't think you have a right to tell me
how I am able to train by limiting the space I am allowed to practice in. Especially if I'm ever put in a real
life situation that could potentially save your life or the life of someone you know. If so, at that time you
would be thankful that that training was available to me.
If you think that an indoor range will deter people from shooting in the woods—you are sadly mistaken.
That will increase. And again, I ask, who would be responsible for the clean up of trash and lead from
those shooters? That is more damaging to the environment than a range like JCSA (or the one being
built in Tarboo) who has to follow local state and federal regulations in regard to lead and other safety
issues.
Feb 11,2020
As for the animals, the gun fire might startle them at first, but then they get used to it. I have a video of
being at JCSA and having to call a ceasefire for almost 20 minutes because 2 deer decided to walk on the
berm where we were shooting. If the noise was such a nuisance, would they be there?
For someone to say that bringing paramilitary guns to our county is inviting a school shooting. That's a
pretty ridiculous comment. Most of those situations the guns were stolen or illegal. Guns don't shoot
themselves someone has to pull the trigger. That evil someone is the problem not the tool that they are
using.
If you haven't noticed, we have spent way too much time and money on this issue already. So, I beg of
you, please choose alternative 1 and let's get this county back on track.
Thank you for your time,
Betty Wynstra
Port Ludlow
From: J Creek <j.creek@hotmail.com> is
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 1:56 PM*
To: jeffbocc; J Creek of
Subject: Additional Comments To Jefferson County Commissioners RegardingVun Ranges
Attachments: Jans_JCC_gunrange_input.docx; ATT00001.htm
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
I understand that the deadline to give input on gun ranges has been extended until 4:30pm. today. I would like
to add some additional information to my letter, attached below, that I sent to you yesterday.
I used to live about two miles from an outdoor gun range in the Poulsbo area and could certainly hear the noise.
I expect that the types of uses proposed at Tarboo Lake will be far more loud and heard much farther away.
Gun ranges should not be permitted in areas that are not zoned for commercial/industrial areas. They most
certainly should not be allowed in forested areas. This is especially true in Jefferson County due to the many
threatened and endangered species that are found in the county and the proximity to the Salish Sea, Hood Canal
and Olympic National Park. I did list two examples of these species in my 2/9/20 letter attached below.
Gun ranges should only be sited in areas that have infrastructure in place. Development should not be scattered
around in forested areas and most certainly not near lakes. It is not compatible with forestry, wildlife and public
uses. When people are attracted out to forested areas to shoot at an indoor or outdoor gun range it will be human
nature to stop in adjacent areas to shoot a few rounds. This creates a public safety issue. Impacts to water
quality are also a concern.
It would certainly be more efficient and economical for fire prevention, oversight and environmental cleanup to
have gun ranges sited indoors in commercial/industrial areas. Please do follow the well thought out advice of
the Planning Commissioners.
Thank you,
Jan Wold
Begin forwarded message:
From: J Creek <j.creek@hotmail.com>
Date: February 10, 2020 at 3:14:15 PM PST
To: "jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us" <jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us>, J Creek
<j .creek@hotmail.com>
Subject: Comment Letter To Jefferson County Commissioners Regarding Gun Ranges
My letter to the Jefferson County Commissioners in support of the Jefferson County Planning
Commissioner's recommendations that new gun ranges be located indoors is attached. Please let
me know you have received this email.
Thank you,
Jan Wold
Jan Wold
P. O. Box 1340
Poulsbo, WA 98370
February 9, 2020
Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners
jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us
Dear Jefferson County Commissioners,
live next to Squamish Harbor in Port Ludlow. I am a member of the Boards of both West
Sound Conservation Council and Hood Canal Environmental Council. I support the Jefferson
County Planning Commissioners' recommendations that new gun ranges be located indoors in
areas that are already zoned for commercial/industrial uses. This approach was passed
unanimously by the Planning Commission and will help protect the environment of western
Puget Sound within Jefferson County. This recommendation keeps the impacts from noise to a
minimum for our citizens and wildlife. This recommendation also serves to increase public
safety and reduce lead and copper contamination.
One example of the benefit of this proposal is reduced noise pollution for western Puget Sound
birds. Research published in 2019 in Science magazine reported that "North America's overall
bird population has dropped 29% since 1970. There are about three billion fewer birds now
than nearly 50 years ago." Any additional noise pollution would be detrimental to the
beleaguered Puget Sound bird population.
The marbled murrelet and the common loon feed and may be nesting in Jefferson County.
They have been recorded within three and seven miles of Tarboo Lake and likely occur much
closer.
The Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) is a small seabird that is listed as a
federally Threatened species. The species has been newly up -listed to Endangered by the state
of Washington. Marbled murrelets have been documented in the northern portions of Hood
Canal. Marbled murrelets occur here because of the forage fish they eat and feed to their one
annual nestling and because of the proximity to old-growth forest nesting habitat, especially in
Olympic National Park. We should not further endanger their existence with large caliber gun
range noise and additional loss of habitat.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife stated in 2016 that at -sea population monitoring of
marbled murrelets indicated a 44% reduction of this species between 2001 and 2015.
The common loon is listed as a Sensitive species in the state of Washington. Common loon
numbers are dropping in part due to a lack of quiet, undisturbed lakes required for breeding,
nesting and rearing offspring. There are at least forty lakes and ponds within approximately six
miles of Tarboo Lake. Disturbance due to gunfire noise and human activity in the areas around
Tarboo Lake or other areas of Jefferson County may be an issue for this species.
Common loons are observed feeding in nearby Squamish Harbor year-round. An adult pair has
been observed with what appeared to be newly fledged offspring feeding as a group on
Squamish Harbor approximately seven miles southeast of Tarboo Lake. This Washington
State Sensitive species may have managed to nest successfully in one of the area's lakes or
ponds and flew to Squamish Harbor as one of the first locations for their fledglings to feed.
Please keep me informed of any actions being taken regarding gun ranges in Jefferson County
at j.creek@hotmail.com.
Thank you,
Jan Wold
occ
tea. —Oc— - -I °I
From: E Fields <fieldsle@yahoo.com>tit•,
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 2:00 PM14
,y
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Commercial Shooting Ranges'
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or
clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
On Feb. 3, 2020 1 submitted a comment regarding shooting ranges. I would like to add that in addition to new shooting
ranges should be indoors only, they also should be sited in industrial and commercial zones where there is
infrastructure already in place and emergency services are nearby. It also prevents random development in forest
zones that is incompatible with existing uses.
Thank you.
Elizabeth Fields
zsso Eaglemount Road
Port Townsend
t
jeffbocc
From: Bob Woodyard <robertojaneto@olympus.net>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 2:16 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: gun ranges
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Hello,
We support ALL new gun ranges to be built in doors and limited to commercial and industrial zones!
Janet Woodyard
robertoianeto(a-olympus. net
jeffbocc �P 4� ,r. R ►r
From: Eileen Gatto <eileenfg@live.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 2:26 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Input, the proposed gun ordinance
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links,
especially from unknown senders.
918 Taylor Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
February 11, 2020
Board of County Commissioners
Jefferson County Washington
Dear Commissioners:
I am writing in regards to the shooting ordinance being considered for the
county. I attended the meeting yesterday at the Commons at Fort Worden and
I am alarmed by some of the viewpoints expressed. Some of the statements I
heard made are alarmist and inaccurate; some seem to be very imaginative.
No one wants a paramilitary shooting operation in their back yard. However, it
is clear that what started as a movement to prevent such an operation in
Quilcene has become a movement to prevent any new shooting ranges in the
county. The option the TRC supports would create rules that would prevent
any new non-commercial facility due to the high costs of commercial or
industrial land as well as the costs of a building sufficient to house a long -gun
range. Those costs would be astronomical, and only someone intending to
make money from a shooting range would be able to afford to build one.
Do you really want to encourage commercial ranges by eliminating non-
commercial ones? Do you really want to force people who have legitimate
reasons to practice shooting to go out into the woods to practice? Do you
really want to force our local police to build their own facility or travel out of
the area at taxpayer expense to practice a skill so essential to their and our
protection?
The idea that allowing people to shoot certain weapons in the county means
that a school shooting will occur is fear -mongering. That this is an issue that
is related to Global Warming is a huge stretch. That a stray bullet in a well-
built, outdoor range is going to spark a wildfire in Washington State is not
realistic. There are too many controls in place for that to occur. The
suggestion that if there isn't enough commercial land available for a shooting
range, more commercial land should be made available for one, is simply
disingenuous. They don't want any ranges built at all.
That shots fired at the JCSA can be heard out at Fort Worden is just plain
silly. I have lived here for over 25 years and I have never heard a single shot
from the Sportsmen's club except when right next door to it, in spite of many
hundreds of hours hiking and biking alone in town and in the woods. Perhaps
the woman who stated this was the same woman who wrote to say she was
hearing gunshots, only to be informed she was actually hearing the operation
of nail guns being used to construct a house a couple of blocks away.
Unfortunately, it appears the TRC has gone from presenting reasonable
concerns about a large-scale, paramilitary training center to presenting every
conceivable thought or excuse to try to prevent legal shooting in Jefferson
county, no matter how unreasonable, inaccurate and downright imaginative
some of these excuses are. The claims by some of the more strident voices of
the TRC asserting they support the second amendment and are gun owners,
even if true, are attempts to appear reasonable when their demands are in fact
unreasonable.
An indoor range simply cannot accommodate trap shooting. This is where a
clay target is sent into the air by a machine and the shooter fires at it. This
hobby has been practiced safely for decades at the JCSA and is one of the
most popular events there. Neither will an indoor range accommodate practice
with long -guns, something that is important for those who need to harvest
their own food to feed their families. I know this offends some whose diet is
vegetable based, but it is an important source of food for many of our citizens.
Further, I encourage you to remember that rifle shooting is a part of at least
one Olympic sport, and is a skill gained with time and patient practice.
The TRC says they have obtained roughly 1200 signatures in support of their
goal. As you know, that number represents a tiny portion of the population of
our county. There are many in the west of Jefferson county who are totally
unaware of the changes being crafted over here. Please make sure the TRC's
goal to prevent a paramilitary operation in their back yard does not result in
the abuse and removal of the rights of the larger population of citizens. It is
not fair or right or justifiable to take away the rights of individuals throughout
the entire county in order to satisfy a group of people mostly from Quilcene
and the east county.
z
Sadly, I am absolutely certain if the TRC has their way with their chosen
option (claiming to have crafted it right down to the final two words), they will
chip away at the rights of the local range we have now, as they have already
started to do with their quiet hours and days and their wishes that no police
be allowed to practice there. I ask you to recognize the TRC has gone too far.
Please don't allow a small, vocal minority to have such tremendous power over
the rest of us. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Eileen F. Gatto
Port Townsend
3
jeffbocc ` ,!v,*N
From: Caraway Tobin <caraway.tobin@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 2:29 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: In opposition to the Tarboo lake shooting range
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Hello,
I am writting this email to state my opposition to the Tarboo lake shooting range.
My name is Nicholas Tobin and I live in Quilcene. For the sake of peace and community I am asking for the
county commissioner to regect the allowance of having paramilitary organzation operate in this community. I
am in favor of alternative 4.
Thank you.
jeffbocc 1 �.' "'�Iva
r.
From: nava@hctc.com,e
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 2:31 PM S` it"L"i
To: jeffbocc
Subject: HCEC Comments - gun range ordinance
Attachments: 2-10-20 Ltr to BOCC re Gun Ranges.doc
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or
clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Enclosed is a letter from the HCEC regarding the Jefferson County proposed gun range regulations/ordinance and also
the Planning Commission's
recommendations. Please disregard the letter I e-mailed the county just
after what I thought was the deadline yesterday. I have made corrections to that letter. It is my understanding that the
deadline is now 4:30 today. Please respond and let me know that you received this e-mail letter.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this issue.
Donna Simmons, President
Hood Canal Environmental Council
(36o) 877-5747
nana@hctc.com
February 10, 2020
Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners
P.O. Box 1220
Port Townsend, Washington 98368
Re: Proposed Gun Ranges
The purpose of this letter is to advise the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners of the
Hood Canal Environmental Council's strong support for the Jefferson County Planning Commission's
recommendation regarding the County's proposed weapons training complex. We agree with the
Planning Commission and the Tarboo Ridge Coalition that all gun ranges must be located at indoor
facilities in areas zoned for commercial/industrial uses.
Our concerns regarding the proposal for outdoor gun ranges includes the potential for negative impacts
to public safety, the environment and current land uses. In particular, we oppose any gun range
development that will likely disturb sensitive and threatened wildlife populations, including Marble
Murrelets.
It is our understanding that the Planning Commission recognized second amendment rights to own and
use firearms. We agree, however, we believe that any weapons training activities must be regulated by
the County in a way that allows gun owners to practice their shooting skills while minimizing any
environmental degradation.
We understand that Washington State's Growth Management Hearing's Board invalidated Jefferson
County's previous ordinances and ordered the County to be in compliance. We sincerely hope that the
Board of County Commissioners adopt a new ordinance that includes the Planning Commissioners'
recommendations and only allows gun ranges in indoor facilites in areas zoned for
commercial/industrial uses.
Sincerely,
Donna M. Simmons, President
Hood Canal Environmental Council
(360) 877-5747
nana@hctc. com
lerraocc y r.
!'
From: Deborah Pedersen<deborahgpedersen@yahoo.com>'�°%�'.
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 2:35 PM
To: jeffbocc��'
Subject: Comment regarding shooting range ordinances
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
To the Commission:
I am pleased that the long process we have gone through has given us a chance to make progress on refining
what we want to do. The work done to establish that the existing gun range may continue operating for at least
twenty years has helped a lot to lower tensions about the ordinances.
It is clear that a great deal of public opinion is against allowing shooting ranges on most of the privately -owned
land in our county because of the many environmental effects and the disruption of neighbors. I was delighted
to hear that the consultant who worked with the County stated that "indoor ranges are the future." I am
delighted that that option has been presented to you for consideration.
I would prefer Alternative #4 if you determine that the amount of land available in commercial and industrial
zones is sufficient to pass legal muster, although I realize that there are no guarantees about how a court would
rule. Unless there is a legal problem with applying this regulation both to commercial and to private ranges, I
support that amendment.
Commercial and industrial zones certainly have advantages in terms of having necessary infrastructure either
available or nearby. The proximity to population wouldn't cause a noise nuisance problem because the ranges
would be indoors.
If you determine that there is too much legal risk in limiting ranges to our commercial and industrial parcels, I
would support Alternative #5 for inholding forest lands but with the added restriction that parcels that have
forests of statewide significance should not be eligible for consideration.
I appreciate the research and analysis done by staff as well as by the Planning Commission for the benefit of the
people of our county.
Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this process.
Deborah Pedersen
131 Rose St
Port Townsend, WA 98368
jeffbocc * i f ,�) 1�
From: Allan Tarvid <atarvid@msn.com> « ` •�
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 2:37 PMt=,
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Shooting Range Ordinance
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
I am a member of the Jefferson County Sportsmen's Association and would like to express my opinions on
the upcoming shooting range ordinance deliberations.
First, I don't think any change is necessary, but if an alternative must be chosen, I favor Alternative 1. It
seems to be the least egregious with the fewest nonsensical components.
Several alarming subjects were brought up by attendees at recent board meetings. One indicates that
there are Jefferson County residents who actually believe that inanimate objects can force people who
bring them into the county to commit crimes. A statement along the lines of "Bringing paramilitary guns to
the county invites school shootings." was heard. Apparently, they believe that law abiding citizens who
bring a certain type of perfectly legal firearm to be safely used at the JCSA range may suddenly be
controlled by the chunk of plastic and metal and forced to attack schools. If the county has a mental
health program, perhaps these people should be contacted by its personnel.
Some residents who moved into homes near shooting ranges are suddenly becoming aware that they are
noisy. People with this trait/affliction also move in next to railroad tracks and then think the trains should
be rerouted so as not to disturb them. Others buy homes at the ends of runways and then want the
airports closed because of the noise. The self-centered silliness of these people doesn't even merit
discussion.
There also appear to be residents who think regulated shooting ranges built with safety in mind are
unnecessary since people can shoot "in the woods". How do the folks who live next to these woods, or
drive past them, feel about folks blasting away with who knows what without safe berms stopping the
bullets and no safe gun handling practices required?
If an alternative ordinance must be selected, please choose Alternative 1.
Thanks for your consideration and your service to the community.
Allan Tarvid
Sequim
jeffbocc 01t A'V ' "01 P I
From: mike mcelwain <mikemcelwain@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 2:50 PM
To: jeffbocc
` ay.,
Subject: Jefferson County Sportsmens Club
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear County Commissioners,
I am a Jefferson County resident and I am respectfully requesting that you vote to let the Sportsmen's Club to continue to operate as it
has for the past decades that it has with very little impact to the area it's in and no safety incidences.
In the years it has been in existence it has had very little impact to the area and environment and to put further restraints and operating
costs will create a broader impact to residents of rural Jefferson County. I have heard complaints of residents stating that the shooting
sport has encroached their area of residents and they have voiced concern of noise, vandalism and ecological concerns. It seems to me
that the lowest impact would be to let the club continue business as usual which keeps the concerns focused in a small and already
defined area.
Please vote in good faith of the agreement that is in place.
Best Regards,
Mike McElwain
Port Hadlock
jeffbocc"
From: Mary Hunt <MaryClareHunt@olympus.net>
Sent: Tuesday, Ya..
, Februar 11, 2020 2:54 PM
To: jeffbocc`"'�
Subject: Inside shooting ranges comments
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
I support the recommendations of the Jefferson County Planning Commission to require new gun ranges to be
indoors for all the prior reasons given and more.
When I hear a helicopter heading to the hospital it's the sound of those trained to save lives. If this land is
approved for para -military training, it will also be the sound of those trained to take lives. You'll never know
who is flying overhead. It's also the sound of big money backing a training base, which will keep the county
swamped in legal terrorism if you try to remove it.
This is not defensive training, once helicopters are involved it becomes offensive training and our area gets
labeled as the place where para -military people go, not tourists. At best it disturbs the peace of our days and at
worse it ends the days of others.
The pads could also be a ploy to get what they want, i.e. guns of war training. They'll agree to take the pads
away to get their war training site, either way, the county still loses.
Which culture do you want to hear and market a military state or a state of compassion?
Respectfully,
Mary Hunt
145 Blue Sky Drive
Port Townsend, WA 98368
MaryClareHuntgOlympus. net
714-926-1223
jeffbocc °""i►� ''°.i�.a
From: Claude Wootten <beaversrus@icloud.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 2:57 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Gun range and moratorium comment
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or
clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear County Commissioners,
I am writing to encourage you to extend the moratorium concerning gun ranges in Jefferson County. I am also in
support of Alternative #4 from your Planning Commission. Requiring any new gun ranges to be built indoors on
commercial or industrial property makes the most sense for so many reasons.
Fire is a very real concern as our summers become drier. We must do all we can to keep firearms out of our forests
where emergency services would have difficulty responding. If you look at Australia you know that we are also
vulnerable. Our forests are too important to sacrifice for the benefit of a few gun enthusiasts.
You have heard all the reasons for putting all the gun ranges indoors. Would you want to live next to a gun range? I
doubt it.
I live in Sequim and was tortured along with many neighbors with the relentless shooting and explosions from Joe
D'Amico. It was HELL. Unless we buy property next to a gun range or a military base, we should be entitled to peace
and quiet.
Please follow the Planning Commission's recommendations for Alternative 4. It is the only option that makes sense .
Thank you for doing the right thing for your community.
Sincerely,
Claude and Patricia Wootten
Sequim
Sent from my iPad
OCC
x
From: Anna Mulligan <annamulligan@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 3:01 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Shooting ranges the Jefferson County
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or
clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Hello County Commissioners,
I was unable to attend the hearing yesterday since it was held during work hours, but I have been following the issue all
along and have consistently supported the position to TRC as well as the current recommendations of the Planning
Commission. I believe that shooting ranges should be kept indoors in Jefferson County. I also think they should be
restricted to land zoned as commercial or industrial, not on inholding forest parcels.
I appreciate to your time in revisiting this issue and strongly believe that the County should uphold the thoughtful
recommendations of the Planning Commission.
Thank you once again,
Anna Mulligan
jeffbocc
From: Peter Newland <pnewland@whidbey.net>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 3:07 PM
To: jeffbocc
Cc: Greg Brotherton; Kate Dean; David Sullivan
Subject: RE: Fairness Doctrine and Commercial Shooting Facility Ordinances
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links,
especially from unknown senders.
February 11, 2020
The Honorable Jefferson County Board of Commissioners
Dear Commissioners,
The staff report made available last Friday examines the availability of commercial and industrial lands to site indoor
shooting ranges and supports the Planning Commission's recommendation by concluding that adequate sites, in diverse
locations, are available to meet any reasonable demand projection.
There is no showing in the analysis that other zoning classifications are needed to accommodate the demand or, if
indeed additional sites were required, that it would be logical to select Jefferson County's forests. Further, there is no
explanation of how the County calculated 150 acres as the supposed additional need. There is also no explanation of
why the proof of concept sketches focused on inholding forests.
The Alternative 5 recommendation defies logic and common sense. The public is thus left to search for other possible
reasons for the recommendation. As we all know and the County has thoroughly documented, Fort Discovery has
commenced, without SEPA review or land use permits, building a commercial shooting facility. Fort Discovery owns
inholding forestry designated land. As we have made clear numerous times over the past 25 months, the private
meetings between County staff and Fort Discovery raise concerns of fairness and place a stain on the effort to create
sensible legislation.
By accepting Alternative 4, the planning commission's recommendations, with the changes TRC has provided, the
concern about past County actions will dissipate. I fear the selection of any other alternative will damage the public trust
that is essential to a well-functioning democracy.
For a better understanding of the fairness doctrine I have attached a link to Chrobuck vs. Snohomish County.
https•//law lustia com/cases/washington/supreme-court/1971/41145-1.html
Thank you for your continuing efforts to craft sensible legislation.
Regards,
Peter Newland
Quilcene WA 98376
� ry a
'effbocc I
From: Steve Rankin <steve@serenitysys.com>}
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 3:10 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Public Comment - Proposed Commercial Shooting Range Ordinance
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Steve Rankin
1366 West Sequim Bay Road
Sequim, WA 98382
February 10, 2020
Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners
1820 Jefferson Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
SUBJ: Proposed Commercial Shooting Range Ordinance
I'm sure you can understand, I wasn't able to speak to everything in the allotted 3 minutes yesterday, hence this
addendum. I'll try to keep it reasonably concise as I'm certain each of you is as tired of this as my friends and I
are.
First, I'd like to introduce myself a little further. As you may recall, I am the Range Master at JCSA and as such
I "have charge of all small -arms instruction" and "have overall charge of shooting activities" at JCSA. I was born
in Chicago, IL where I remember neighborhood preschoolers stabbing each other before being old enough to
join gangs that are the source of most of Chicago's violence. After moving from Chicago, I grew up in
Berkeley, CA where I lived in the area until my wife retired and we moved to the Olympic Peninsula. Many
years ago, in California we noticed the prevalence of NIMBY (not in my backyard) whenever there was a
discussion of some of the realities of society's needs. That line of thinking is alive and well on the Olympic
Peninsula; the "Yes, we need such'n'such, but not in my backyard" kind of thinking.
Contrary to what many think of us, most gun owners are really nice folks with contemporary values regarding
wildlife and ecology, just like everyone else. Actually, the real prime movers and supporters of wildlife
preservation and ecological restoration are the gun owners, hunters and fishers of society. This has been true for
over 100 years. Did you know that roughly 85% of WA Dept of Fish and Wildlife budget comes from excise
taxes paid by gun owners and the like, not from the public? The same is true for much of the real work behind
salmon recovery in Puget Sound.
My wife and I have been active in salmon recovery since late 2003.. After spending many hundreds of hours in
the field with the hands-on side of salmon recovery, I received the Governor's 2009 Volunteer Service Award
for my efforts in that field. I was subsequently `drafted' into the leadership as was the first citizen to serve on
the North Olympic Peninsula Lead Entity for Salmon and served there for 8 years. During that time, I was also
asked to join, then asked to Chair the Hood Canal Lead Entity. Besides being an ever-present supporter and
assistant, my wife has been a docent at the Dungeness River Center for nearly 20 years.
The point is that many of us are not only sensitive to the environment, we are as personally and actively vested
in preserving and recovering our ecosystems as anyone. No doubt more vested than the average citizen.
My professional background includes 7 years Army followed by 19 years in the Coast Guard where I was
involved in anti -terrorism and law enforcement, and search and rescue. I also retired from a California fire
department and have a Masters degree. I am an NRA Certified Pistol Instructor, Chief Range Safety Officer,
and Concealed Carry Weapon (CCW) Instructor. In the International Defensive Pistol Association (IDPA),
where I am a Master -class shooter, I hold the positions of Match Director and Chief Safety Officer. In the
United States Practical Shooting Association (USPSA) I am a Chief Range Officer. I have both trained and
officiated all over the Western states in the NRA, IDPA, USPSA and ICORE. As C. J. mentioned today, she is
also an NRA Range Safety Officer and Certified Pistol Instructor.
As I said before, I was sorely disappointed with the deliberations of the Planning Commission. My rant ...
I witnessed frequent comments and unrealistic scenarios by the more vocal members to swarms of helicopters,
machine guns (unlawful in Washington state), and infantry brigade training (a brigade is over 3,000 troops!),
leading to recommendations of a 7 db sound limit (the sound of a pin drop) and mandatory indoor ranges. What
was not present during their deliberations was any discussion of the practicality, legality or financial feasibility
of any of their ideas. The Chair of the Planning Commission during one of the later meetings, even noted that
the faces on the members of JCSA told him that the discussion must have crossed a line into the incredulous. It
had, but the process does not allow for our input. Particularly bothersome was the all too cozy relationship
between one particular member of the Planning Commission and the representative of the TRC during the
meetings, when she frequently conferred with the TRC representative for input.
Thank you for that soap box moment.
Indoor ranges.
• Indoor ranges are certainly an obvious solution for urban areas that are already densely populated and
built up. They also work in locations with severe winters and high gun popularity, such as Idaho and
Montana. Indoor ranges are financially viable in those areas because the customer base is sufficient to
support the high cost of operation. This is simply not true in a low-density rural area such as Jefferson
County.
• Mandating indoor ranges exclusively effectively prohibits all of the popular shotgun sports such as trap
and skeet, as well as most rifle shooting. Zeroing a rifle at 100 yards for the hunting season simply is not
possible in an indoor range. It could be a difficult decision to defend against a proposal for an outdoor
shotgun range, considering that trap and skeet ranges are generally the least offensive of all shooting
sports and often sited in urban areas.
• Regarding public health; another compromise. Indoor shooting ranges are quiet on the outside, however
they are incredibly noisy on the inside as all of the percussion noise is trapped and reflected inside the
range area of the building. It's also a fallacy to think that lead and copper are magically trapped, filtered
and disposed of in an indoor range. My personal experience is that those issues are perhaps more serious
in an indoor range than the traditional outdoor range.
• Lastly, it goes without saying that a commercial indoor range will not be suitable for law enforcement
training or periodic qualifications.
I couldn't help but notice the number of TRC people today that complained of the noise of unregulated gunfire
in their neighborhood. Many claimed that gunfire was incessant and at hours that are earlier or later than what
would be allowed at a commercial outdoor shooting facility. It so clear to me that a nice commercial outdoor
shooting facility in their area would benefit those folks.
• Ranges have large earthen berms that mostly surround the shooting area. This not only traps the
projectiles; the shape of the berm reflects the percussion sound into the sky where it quickly dissipates.
One only has to travel a short distance before the sound is reduced to the level of ordinary conversation.
This is not true at a private range typically consisting of a small push-up berm or a hillside backstop.
The forest or tree line around a private range actually reflects the sound back to the ground making the
report of gunfire much louder to those in the vicinity.
While it is possible to hear the gunfire outside JCSA, the normal sounds of civilization are louder
outside JCSA than the sound of gunfire.
Gun fire at odd hours would be greatly reduced as many of those shooting on their property would
move their shooting to the range.
I also noticed the thinly veiled attempt by the TRC to make the entire county a no -shoot zone by changing the
wording of the ordinance to apply to non-commercial ranges as well as commercial ranges. OTOH, there were
some from the TRC that wondered why everyone didn't simply just shoot on their own property, if they wished.
Struck me as an elitist "Let them eat cake" attitude.
One of the most problematic clauses in the ordinance as recommended by Staff is the section defining
"Firearms allowed at commercial shooting facilities". At this point in time, the wording of this section is not a
problem because virtually every gun in Washington state that is legal to possess is also legal to carry and
discharge. Careful study of bills currently in the legislature will change that. I just received notice this morning
that House Bill 2240 is likely to leave the Rules Committee and be eligible for floor vote at any time. HB
2240, like several other bills will ban many guns and standard capacity magazines. However, those bills also
provide for exceptions, including exceptions for existing owners of said firearms allowing them to legally own,
and use (discharge) in a licensed range. However, those existing owners will not be allowed carry those
firearms. The current wording of the staff recommended ordinance requires that the gun be legal to carry. The
result is that a great many guns, probably the majority of what is in common use at JCSA, would be unlawful to
use at JCSA in spite of being legal to use by state law. This seems to be obvious grounds for a state preemption
challenge, as well as other significant consequences, including significant financial injury to JCSA and its
members.
Please note that as the Range Master, I am tasked with the responsibility to ensure that JCSA will complies with
federal, state and local laws. Section 1.14 of our license agreement with Jefferson County provides that "JCSA
may establish rules for the utilization of the Property by citizens, law enforcement and its members." JCSA will
establish and enforce whatever rules it needs to ensure strict compliance with all federal, state and local laws.
As I mentioned, this may result in unintended consequences as sometimes ambiguous and contradictory state
laws change in the future. My suggestion is to either (a) remove this section from the proposed ordinance as it is
unnecessary and potentially troublesome to both JCSA and Jefferson County, or (b) modify it to clearly avoid
any differences between firearms and their lawful uses in Washington state and firearms allowed on ranges in
Jefferson County.
Lastly, I feel like I need to point out that the TRC does not represent the general population of Jefferson County.
It is apparent that the TRC is well organized and well -funded. However, they are still just one part of your
constituency. Unlike previous hearings, we at JCSA did not promote attending yesterday's meeting among our
members and friends, so please don't let the disparity of numbers at yesterday's hearing influence your
deliberations.
Thank you.
Steve Rankin
jeffbocc
From: David Shiah <dcs6952@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 3:20 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Shooting ranges
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links,
especially from unknown senders.
HI,
I strongly support future shooting ranges in our county be restricted to indoors only in industrial and commercial zones
only.
Thanks,
David Shiah
74 Hilton Ave.
Port Townsend, WA 98368
1
jemocc
From: Chris Schuller <c.schuller78@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 3:24 PM
To: jeffbocc y
Subject: Shooting range ordinance
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
My name is Chris Schuller. I live in the quilcene area. I think it is okay to hear occasional gun fire. It is a
normal part of living in a rural area. I even enjoy the use of firearms myself. That said, I absolutely oppose out
door commercial shooting facilities. The constant din of gunfire would greatly affect the mental health of many
people in the surrounding area not to mention the effects on animals domestic and wild. Also to be considered is
the introduction of large amounts of lead into the soil and by extension into the watershed.
I support alternative 4. I believe all new shooting ranges should be indoors and located in an existing industrial
use area.
Thank you for your consideration,
Christopher Schuller
Quilcene Wa.
jeffbocc
t D
%F
From: Brenda Bole <irieaerie@olypen.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 3:25 PM
b�
To: jeffboccy�
Subject: Ordinances re GunRegulations
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or
clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Thank you for your time and integrity in working to resolve this issue. I encourage you to restrict ranges to indoor
shooting on industrial or commercial property.
Brenda Bole
3441 Eaglemount Road
Pt Townsend WA
206-627-6143
Sent from my iPhone
jeffbocc
From: Brenda Bole <irieaerie@olypen.com>�`sx
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 3:31 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Fwd: Gun regulation Ordinances
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or
clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Thank you for your time and integrity in resolving this issue. I encourage the commissioners to adopt restrictions to
indoor shooting on industrial and/or commercial property only. Peace of mind relies on safety and for the majority of
humans and animals do not find a sense of safety when gun fire (particularly automatic weapons) rings across the land
and lead pollutes land and water. Our county needs restrictions greater than or equal to our neighboring counties to
avoid creating a funneling of gun ranges from neighboring areas.
Brenda Bole
3441 Eaglemount Road
Pt Townsend WA
2o6-617-6143
> Sent from my iPhone
IYA IN,
jeffbocc 1 .a , P..`' k ° } ' _ -v
From: Becky Berryhill <beckyberryhill@gmail.com> ` 4
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 3:35 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Comment in favor of alternative 4
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear BOCC,
My name is Rebecca Berryhill and I am a resident of Quilcene. I am writing to express my support of the
planning commission's recommendations to require all new commercial shooting facilities in Jefferson County
to be built indoors in areas zoned industrial or commerical. This option just makes the most sense. It would be a
truly bizarre and backwards approach to planning to allow large scale commerical construction in forest land,
and creates a blueprint for our beautiful and productive working forests to be turned into an industrial patch
work. We already have areas zoned for similar infrastructure, and this could even be expanded with careful
study, but these types of projects just do not belong in the forest!
Thank for you doing the right thing for our working forests, communities, and way of life,
Rebecca Berryhill
fir- k
From: Jean Ball <gnarleydogfarm@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 3:36 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: CSF siting on commercial and industrial ONLY
Attachments: 2.11.2020 CSF commercial.industrial zones only.docx
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Hello Commissioners,
Attached are my comments regarding siting CSF on commercial and industrial zones only.
Kind regards, Jean
February 11, 2020
Commissioners Dean, Sullivan and Brotherton,
I strongly urge you to restrict commercial shooting facilities to land
zoned as either commercial or industrial and to disallow inholding
forest land to be perverted for such development. Among the reasons
why I support this approach are:
-The simple fact that Jefferson County has ample land zoned as either commercial
or industrial without expanding into forest resource land. According to our own
Michelle Farfan's apt analysis of commercial and industrially zoned land in
Jefferson County, we have over 1000 acres appropriately zoned for this type of
activity. Allowing our forest resource lands to be corrupted for such land use
when there is clearly sufficient opportunity to site a development such as this is
just a disingenuous farce. This idea is designed to serve a single applicant as
opposed to the whole of the county or the legacy of your tenure. You are the
guardians of our county. Your decision will impact the future residents of our
beloved county for generations to come.
-The slippery slope affect. Where does this approach end? What industry should
be allowed to clear our forest resource lands and develop the ground? Should I
have cleared my forest and developed a marijuana business? Should we develop a
metal scrap yard on what was once inholding forest land? Perhaps a hospital
should be sited where a forest resource once was? Maybe we should allow a
paper mill to clear the forest and develop the land to create jobs? I know ... we
should clear the forest and develop affordable housing! Yes, that is the answer!
Pave it. Who needs all those trees blocking the view anyway?
-The proximity of commercial and industrial zones to other necessary resources
and distance of inholding forests from resources. Many of our industrial and
commercial zones are situated with easy access to sewer, water, electricity, and
are near to medical facilities and fire services. Can that be said of inholding forest
lands? Don't we think this is important and necessary? The thought of locating a
shooting facility out in the sticks and having to install the infrastructure to operate
the business seems insurmountable. The thought of a life-threatening accident
taking place in a remote location and not having access to medical facilities seems
like a gross oversight. An instructor at JCSA taught me that a person can bleed out
in less than 45 seconds
-Fire prevention, in particular forest fire prevention. Tami brought up some
alarming concerns about climate change, forest fires and our capacity to deal with
fires. Fires in remote locations on inholding forest lands will be far more impactful
and difficult to gain control of than fires in commercial or industrial zones. If there
is a fire at a location out in the forest and ignites the surrounding forest resource
lands....well that sounds like an apocalyptic scenario to me.
-Access to water in extremely limited WRIA. Coupled with the fact that public
water on commercial and industrial zones is ample, water rights on rural parcels
are exceptionally scarce. Compound that with the fact that Jefferson County has a
housing crisis. Our rural parcels should be used for housing, not for commercial
development. Especially not when we have perfectly suitable opportunities for
siting shooting facilities on zones which are equipped with access to
infrastructure. Allowing a commercial development to develop inholding forest
lands at the expense of reserving those water rights for residential or agricultural
use is, in my opinion, an unwise dereliction of duty and a misappropriation of
priorities.
-The compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan. Allowing development of
inholding forests for the conversion into commercial use is incompatible with the
Comp Plan.
Thank you for your consideration of my comments, Jean Ball
Vt
jeffbocc
From: Kindy Kemp <kindykemp@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 3:49 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Limit indoor gun ranges to commercial and industrial zones
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
To the Jefferson County Board of Supervisors:
I am asking you to extend the moratorium and to limit the siting of indoor gun ranges
to commercial and industrial zones only.
If indoor gun ranges are limited to commercial and industrial zones, then there will be
infrastructure (traffic/parking, water, power, and in some cases sewer) already in
place. Limiting the ranges to commercial and industrial zones will prevent scattershot
development in forest zones, avoiding straining infrastructure while maintaining compatibility
with existing uses: Well-trained planners don't scatter warehouses and machine shops in
among forest parcels, but keep those things in the areas where they belong. Keeping gun
ranges out of forests will prevent forest loss and permanent and
negative impacts on an important resource base, as well as
environmental benefits in carbon sequestration, wildlife habitat, and
water quality.
Keeping firearms out of forestlands will make fire prevention efforts,
emergency services, operational oversight, and environmental clean-up
more efficient. Also this will help to avoid a slippery slope with possible appeals
to site scrap yards, marijuana -growing operations, affordable housing, or other uses in
forestlands—all of which are incompatible with the Comprehensive Plan.
Jefferson County has over 1000 acres in commercial and industrial zoning—a number that
could be expanded with careful study. We don't need to sacrifice our forests to give people a
safe, well-managed place to train with firearms. Locate indoor gun ranges next to other
commercial/industrial uses; let forests be forests.
Thank you,
Kindra Kemp
565 Blue Sky Drive
Port Townsend, WA
98368
jeffbocc
From: Carrie Walker <carriewalker416@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 3:55 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: tarboo ridge comment
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Hello,
My name is Carrie Walker and I live in Quilcene.
As a citizen of Quilcene, I support Alternative 4 in regards to the shooting range. Shooting ranges should be
indoors and in areas zoned commercial and/or industrial.
We do not need more colonization, militarization and habitat destruction in Jefferson County.
Thank you,
Carrie Walker
jeffbocc
From: Judy Alexander <lightenup@olympus.0r_ P N t
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 3:57 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: the gun range regulation
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or
clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Greetings to all on the BOCC,
Thank you for your service. I could not do your job, and appreciate that you do! I am not adept at comment that is
oriented toward the legal aspects of this gun range consideration. My appeals to you come more from my heart and
soul. In sharing these comments, however, I ask you to appeal to your own heart and soul in how you deal with the
controversy over this decision, going forward.
I will start my commentary by saying I am strongly in favor of allowing only indoor shooting ranges, and only in areas
zoned industrial and commercial. A large part of the beauty and value of our area of the world is a result of how well we
have protected our natural landscapes, our farms, our watersheds, and in particular, our forests. We need to continue
that legacy. Introducing gun ranges, and particularly allowing para -military practice ranges, into our forested and
pristine areas is completely counter to the heart and soul of our county. It is counter to what I understand of our
Comprehensive Plan document. Once they are allowed, they would be with us forever.
Most of what I want to say is this: once I heard about the proposed gun range at Lake Tarboo, my mind went
immediately to the concern that we would be inviting a military element into Jefferson County that could easily result,
down the line, in a school shooting event, something that is becoming all too common around the US. As a culture, we
are becoming numb to these stories by their very frequency of occurrence. Here, we know our youth, we know our
school teachers and we know our school administrators. I never want to open a newspaper or turn on a radio broadcast
with news of a local shooting. I know I am making an association with this proposed range that is not a guaranteed leap
into such a reality. But somewhere people have to draw the line where the right to bear arms has gone to the extreme.
Our students should also not have to go to school frightened, or worried, about being killed, or worse, to get killed.
And the people who live near Lake Tarboo, by choice, to heal from the wounds of war should not be subjected to
further trauma inflicted by outdoor shooting noise and mayhem.
It seems reasonable to me to make the regulations be in alignment with the heart and soul of our community. Most
people at the hearings I have attended have been clearly saying that the paramilitary allowance of gun range practice
here is NOT what local people want.
Please represent that by your decision-making going forward with this issue. We have a second chance to get it done
correctly this time.
Sincerely, and, thank you again, for your service. Yourjob is a difficult one. Especially in handling this issue. Judith
Alexander
ieffbocc
From: Jean Ball <gnarleydogfarm@gmail.com> � i '' "" "�' 4.4t".►e., _At
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 3:57 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Red herring, anyone?
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Hello Commissioners,
In the age of Trump, I have noticed a great many falsities being peddled. I am quite certain this new normal has
not been lost on you, but I wanted to point out something that continues to bug me.
This buffoonery surrounding a false and misleading claim that if we restrict all new CSF to indoor -only it will
effectively eliminate our ability to practice with long guns has me a bit baffled. I suppose it is possible that the
people spewing this nonsense also think we are going to take away their rifles and shotguns, too. Absurd
fearmongering is a ridiculous foundation on which to build county code.
I would like to remind everyone that we have JSCA, with a contract to continue doing business for several
decades. Gun owners can go there and practice with their long guns, safely, with mentors and environmental
safeguards and clean-up protocol. JSCA has an exemplary track record and adequate infrastructure to host long
gun training and practice.
I would also like to point out that nobody is trying to tell any gun owner that they can't practice in their
backyard or on DNR land.
Saying that gun owners can't use long guns at indoor facilities is akin to saying you cant race Nascar on a Tyco
car track. If an indoor facility is constructed to do the job required of it, there is no problem. Further, business
development responsibilities are the burden of the business owner. Nobody reduced my responsibilities when I
started my business, I had to jump through every hoop and they kept moving the hoops.
Thank you for you consideration of my comments, Jean Ball
occ
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Kathleen Wacker <kathleenwacker@gmail cdriRa
Tuesday, February 11, 2020 3:59 PM
jeffbocc
Re: I support Indoor Shooting Ranges
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Want to add that I support protecting our forests, lakes and streams - allow indoor gun
ranges in commercial and industrial zones only.
Kathleen
On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 3:51 PM Kathleen Wacker <kathleenwacker(?gmail.com>wrote:
To: Board of County Commissioners
Jefferson County, Washington
jeffboccCcr�co. iefferson.wa. us
From: Kathleen Wacker
267 Skidder Hill Road
Quilcene, WA 98376
(360) 765-0081
RE: New Shooting Ranges
February 10, 2020
Dear Commissioner Dean, Commissioner Brotherton and Commissioner Sullivan,
I am a resident of Jefferson County. I retired here in 2010 and I own, and live full time, on my property in the Community of Snow
Creek Ranch, at Crocker Lake, in Quilcene. I am writing to ask you to support the Planning Commissions recommendation that all new
Jefferson County shooting ranges be indoor only, and that the Jefferson County Sportsman's Club be grandfathered in as the only
outdoor shooting range allowed in the county.
Please require all new recreational, private and commercial, shooting ranges to be indoor ranges only - that solves the problem of
lead pollution and also contains noise pollution. Surrounding counties have wisely adopted this requirement - we should too.
Please require that new recreational, private and commercial, shooting ranges be just that - recreational shooting only. No helipads.
No military training. My federal taxes already pay for the government to train our military. They've been doing a fine job and they do
not need to train at private weapons training facilities in my neighborhood. Seriously - would you want this, on a steady basis, in close
proximity to your property, children, family, pets, livestock and wildlife? Please don't let this happen.
Protect Tarboo Lake! And all the other beautiful places we folks, and the tourists who come here, like to visit in Jefferson
County. While we all like to think that shooters are following rules and paying attention to where their bullets are flying I know of bullet
holes in a house on Crocker Lake that were put there by duck hunters hunting on the Lake and shooting toward the
houses! Another reason to require new ranges be indoors only - projectiles will be contained.
Lastly, please know that establishing more shooting ranges in the area will not put a stop to the shoot -em -up sites that already take
place in the woods in the county. Those folks will not go to a facility where they have to pay a fee to shoot. Those types of shooters
are not practicing their skills - they are only out to shoot stuff into oblivion, and to party while they doing it - empty beer cans and
liquor bottles litter all the sites. It is a mind -set that no permitted shooting range will ever change.
I urge you to keep the gun ranges in Jefferson County small, recreational and indoor. Please consider and adopt the Planning
Commission's recommendation.
Thank you for taking the time to read my letter,
Kathleen
People who wonder whether the glass is half empty or half full miss the point.
The glass is refillable.
errnocc
From:
CW <baytime@me.com>
n`k
Sent:
Tuesday, February 11, 2020 4:08 PM
" -fir ;
To:
jeffbocc
Subject:
Shooting Ranges in Jefferson County
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
February 11, 2020
Dear County Commissioners,
I am extremely concerned about the health and safety of the population, our economy, and our environment due to
existing and proposed shooting ranges in Jefferson County. I became concerned three years ago when I sat on my
beautiful deck near the fairgrounds and heard the sound of gun shots coming from the woods! I called the city and
learned about the gun range where people are legally allowed to shoot guns. Hearing gunshots from my home is
bad but It's extremely disconcerting to know that a man/private business blatantly disregards our laws with little to
no consequences. If the county/USACE grants a bully after -the -fact permits to do business in Jefferson County,
who is to say that more violent, noisy, dangerous businesses will join him in Jefferson County.
I strongly support the Planning Commission's recommendation that all new shooting facilities be located indoors, in
industrial and commercial zones. It is thoughtful and legal. Indoor ranges protect our rural economy and support
rights to gun ownership and safer shooting.
The Olympic Peninsula draws recreational tourists who we depend on for a strong, local economy. Military,
paramilitary, National Guard, Homeland Security or non -local law enforcement activities conflict with a recreational
and tourist economy. It is dangerous for hikers (local and tourists) to walk where there are explosions and repeated
gunfire while recreating on our public lands.
I think wildfires are the biggest and scariest consequence of permitting outdoor gun ranges. Wildfires devastate
people, communities and their economies. They don't bounce back. Fires cost lives, property, our drinking water,
the ability to breathe and are extremely expensive to taxpayers. They are deadly.
In this CBS report: https•//www cbsnews com/news/guns-blamed-for-sparking-some-wildfires-in-west/
" the man says, Clark Aposhian, chairman of the Utah Sports Shooting Council, said that perhaps
5 percent of the wildfires in the state have been caused by target shooters this year." Okay, if only 5% of the
fires were started by shooting... that's 5% more fires that we wouldn't have to spend taxpayer money to fight.
To say nothing about the lives, property, economy that is devastated!
If we must have new commercial shooting facilities, they belong indoors to prevent fires,noise and water pollution
while protecting people, pets, livestock and property.
Thank you for taking my comments into consideration
Sincerely,
Charlotte Wells
281-455-9595
4607 Holcomb St.
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Charlotte Wells
baytime(a)-mac.com
"How could we have ever believed that it is a good idea to grow our food with poisons?" — Dr. Jane Goodall
iiECE14E['
WARING RECOPJ JEFFERSON COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
c -,,,y, -Iv aha �v �ol�--
v
U .J
4S � .�-t� � �'J��� ,Z a� v� much
ih � A14to,,oA-v,,,e 4, as
C-( ,)Yr -
ass r`(r7
.J
�Vcj�
b1,��
"04 s 0
J
onc
�.C4��s 4u c6 -r, s,'aejv I -A' -I/tat -firnw hay t,
0 4,4
Wye o� n'tQ a, n s YAM a. re Ab
y� �J�euk4ul' Y) �ckQ ;rk
I;,�-s�l� cha; �.Qo rnc� � Qw4k) irnP��
'I� I i ve,o � �.11 46v, m�bo-.�-
ems, cmGP� acJv�l-e-
e,4�e,4� on Ys�q>& k d c t
�7e
4
A�sc,�ar. I wrre- Qhb n16rt
loS E C-Ib
'�i.Q. T-WJiY21 04wili ao Y1�e� � �-�v.�.v� irk
-�- h^c�n r��- �
-� �av�t t� � g���re- YXS?�,l
�Y�n� ��'%,�� , s��,� bo" �Y? oma �'-rrcrr�s� ,
m cn. � �'r i 1'ha,�
fNv�c. V1 Scw� � l E,��e,C X.�.�c�vn� �1✓'���i i� �Y��e�
14PI 9he&s �km
/Y - �
0 CL CQ
C�
w i sFug
Yfojd" �-OQY20,,
"
�J
� wwA kSk , Wk, vvll� Wcz
� k -m, VA -L
ve he ar af
1�uV)e, o �ietmt� su�en-�� sires �'(rir�f
vv� P)
a's
yrllt � f'Nt ) ss t � erla WY�e c+ A. 4nj
)6v/ -
bb
Julie Shannon
From: Greg Brotherton UcApjr#,�,
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 11:50 AM IL
To: Julie Shannon PP �r1
Subject: FW: Range Ordinance
From: Kenneth Thompson
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 11:49:33 AM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: Greg Brotherton
Subject: Range Ordinance
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Jefferson County
Range Ordinance
Dear Commissioner Brotherton:
I have taken the trouble to drive out to the Tarboo area to see what all the controversy is about.
I think you must know what I saw driving into Tarboo lake: bad road and trees. I did not see dwellings. I did see the litter from unsupervised shooting
activities in the area. I would rather see gun use in a supervised facility than out in the woods.
I understand one of the options being evaluated is an indoor range. Not being a hunter, how would an indoor range serve the hunters in the county? Not
having a range suitable for hunters will continue the annoyance and unsafe shooting activities taking place in the woods. Jefferson County is still a rural area,
it continues to need a safe out door facility for gun sports.
I for one am tired of this issue occupying the counties resources for the benefit of a few. Let's move on to something that affects the entire county, such as
housing.
Regards,
Kenneth Thompson
751 Fir St.
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Julie Shannon
C,2 p
Q! .f
a.
From: Greg Brotherton
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 12:31 PM
To: Julie Shannon
Subject: FW: Support for Planning Commissions recommendation
Attachments: letter to county commissioners.pdf; ATT00001.htm
From: Penney & Mike
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 12:31:00 PM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: Greg Brotherton
Subject: Support for Planning Commissions recommendation
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners
February 11, 2020
Kate Dean, David Sullivan, Greg Brotherton
Dear Kate, David and Greg,
Regarding support for the Planning Commission's carefully considered recommendation on the siting of gun
ranges, my remarks are based on knowledge of the area along Center Road (which I know best and includes
Tarboo Lake), but apply to rural/forested areas throughout Jefferson County.
My family has owned property in Jefferson County since mid 1940s, I've lived on property we currently own
on Center Road since 1975. I've seen many changes in land use throughout the county and am concerned about
the possibility of gun ranges being allowed in dwindling forest resource areas.
In the 1970s & 80s, while director of the Quilcene Community Center and Senior Meals Program, I became
friends with "old timers" in their 70s and 80s who told stories of small scale farms along Center Road, the big
fire that impacted the timber harvest, and the few homesteaders living in the area.
Small farms, timber harvesting and homesteading have been the traditional use of this part of the county
and continue to be so through a younger generation of property owners who chose to raise their families
in a rural area.
Recreational hunting is also a traditional use. Firearms, used in season, are part of the lifestyle for many who
live in a rural area and who vacation here. Healthy wildlife habitat supports this use.
Tarboo Lake, and the few other publicly accessible lakes in the county, offers other recreational uses -
fishing, swimming, picnicking, and enjoying wildlife. When I managed the Port Townsend Visitor Information
Center for 7 years we were often asked by tourists where they could go to swim in a lake, fish, picnic, bird
watch, etc. and Tarboo Lake (as well as the other lakes) was a popular place.
By allowing gun ranges to only be built in existing commercial and industrial zones, we do not lose the
remaining forested areas in the county, an important resource for the reasons mentioned above. Once an
area is opened to commercial development, such as a gun range, the impact on wildlife habitat, water quality, as
well as the cost of the needed infrastructure (which in itself is damaging to the surrounding environment) is
irreversible.
Long ago I swam in Tarboo Lake, often daily, and often when no people were around. This was before the area
around the lake was logged. I witnessed diverse wildlife, saw birds nesting, and recall a time, while swimming
the length of the lake, watching deer drinking from the lake's edge while an eagle flew in to roost in a tree to
hunt fish. I felt connected to Nature, transported to an earlier time.
There are few publicly accessible places in Jefferson County where one can experience such a connection.
Those places need to be cherished and preserved. Not everyone can easily access National Park and Forest
lands. Creating a healthy place to live and visit in Jefferson County includes preserving zones of forested
areas, preserving traditional and current uses of those areas, and utilizing areas already zoned and
developed for commercial use for indoor gun ranges and other commercial endeavors.
To be redundant, I beseech the Commissioners to implement ordinances regulating commercial shooting
facilities with respect to traditional and current land uses, to protect wildlife, wild areas, and rural lifestyles in a
county of dwindling wild areas and natural resources. Keep the gun ranges inside and in already commercially
zoned and developed areas.
Thank you.
Penney Hubbard
see attached for printable copy
Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners
Kate Dean, David Sullivan, Greg Brotherton
Dear Kate, David and Greg,
February 11, 2020
Regarding support for the Planning Commission's carefully considered recommendation on the siting of
gun ranges, my remarks are based on knowledge of the area along Center Road (which I know best and
includes Tarboo Lake), but apply to rural/forested areas throughout Jefferson County.
My family has owned property in Jefferson County since mid 1940s, I've lived on property we currently own
on Center Road since 1975. I've seen many changes in land use throughout the county and am concerned
about the possibility of gun ranges being allowed in dwindling forest resource areas.
In the 1970s & 80s, while director of the Quilcene Community Center and Senior Meals Program, I became
friends with "old timers" in their 70s and 80s who told stories of small scale farms along Center Road, the
big fire that impacted the timber harvest, and the few homesteaders living in the area.
Small farms, timber harvesting and homesteading have been the traditional use of this part of the
county and continue to be so through a younger generation of property owners who chose to raise
their families in a rural area.
Recreational hunting is also a traditional use. Firearms, used in season, are part of the lifestyle for many
who live in a rural area and who vacation here. Healthy wildlife habitat supports this use.
Tarboo Lake, and the few other publicly accessible lakes in the county, offers other recreational uses
- fishing, swimming, picnicking, and enjoying wildlife. When I managed the Port Townsend Visitor
Information Center for 7 years we were often asked by tourists where they could go to swim in a lake, fish,
picnic, bird watch, etc. and Tarboo Lake (as well as the other lakes) was a popular place.
By allowing gun ranges to only be built in existing commercial and industrial zones, we do not lose
the remaining forested areas in the county, an important resource for the reasons mentioned above.
Once an area is opened to commercial development, such as a gun range, the impact on wildlife habitat,
water quality, as well as the cost of the needed infrastructure (which in itself is damaging to the surrounding
environment) is irreversible.
Long ago I swam in Tarboo Lake, often daily, and often when no people were around. This was before the
area around the lake was logged. I witnessed diverse wildlife, saw birds nesting, and recall a time, while
swimming the length of the lake, watching deer drinking from the lake's edge while an eagle flew in to roost
in a tree to hunt fish. I felt connected to Nature, transported to an earlier time.
There are few publicly accessible places in Jefferson County where one can experience such a connection.
Those places need to be cherished and preserved. Not everyone can easily access National Park and
Forest lands. Creating a healthy place to live and visit in Jefferson County includes preserving zones
of forested areas, preserving traditional and current uses of those areas, and utilizing areas already
zoned and developed for commercial use for indoor gun ranges and other commercial endeavors.
To be redundant, I beseech the Commissioners to implement ordinances regulating commercial shooting
facilities with respect to traditional and current land uses, to protect wildlife, wild areas, and rural lifestyles
in a county of dwindling wild areas and natural resources. Keep the gun ranges inside and in already
commercially zoned and developed areas.
Thank you.
Penney Hubbard
U; I CA J�Jr
� 6 t r,�i prl^ an W
Julie Shannon01C
From: Greg Brotherton
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 3:07 PM
To: Julie Shannon
Subject: FW: Fairness Doctrine and Commercial Shooting Facility Ordinances
From: Peter Newland
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 3:06:31 PM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: jeffbocc
Cc: Greg Brotherton; Kate Dean; David Sullivan
Subject: RE: Fairness Doctrine and Commercial Shooting Facility Ordinances
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
February 11, 2020
The Honorable Jefferson County Board of Commissioners
Dear Commissioners,
The staff report made available last Friday examines the availability of commercial and industrial lands to site indoor
shooting ranges and supports the Planning Commission's recommendation by concluding that adequate sites, in diverse
locations, are available to meet any reasonable demand projection.
There is no showing in the analysis that other zoning classifications are needed to accommodate the demand or, if
indeed additional sites were required, that it would be logical to select Jefferson County's forests. Further, there is no
explanation of how the County calculated 150 acres as the supposed additional need. There is also no explanation of
why the proof of concept sketches focused on inholding forests.
The Alternative 5 recommendation defies logic and common sense. The public is thus left to search for other possible
reasons for the recommendation. As we all know and the County has thoroughly documented, Fort Discovery has
commenced, without SEPA review or land use permits, building a commercial shooting facility. Fort Discovery owns
inholding forestry designated land. As we have made clear numerous times over the past 25 months, the private
meetings between County staff and Fort Discovery raise concerns of fairness and place a stain on the effort to create
sensible legislation.
By accepting Alternative 4, the planning commission's recommendations, with the changes TRC has provided, the
concern about past County actions will dissipate. I fear the selection of any other alternative will damage the public trust
that is essential to a well-functioning democracy.
For a better understanding of the fairness doctrine I have attached a link to Chrobuck vs. Snohomish County.
https•//law iustia com/cases/washington/supreme-court/1971/41145-1.html
Thank you for your continuing efforts to craft sensible legislation.
Regards,
Peter Newland
Quilcene WA 98376
Julie Shannon
From: Greg Brotherton
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 4:18 PM
To: Julie Shannon
Subject: FW: Important discrimination issue regarding indoor gun ranges
From: Sonia Story
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 4:18:21 PM (UTC-o8:oo) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: Greg Brotherton
Subject: Important discrimination issue regarding indoor gun ranges
r 1***
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or
clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Greetings Greg Brotherton,
Thank you for your service to our county.
Regarding proposed revisions to CHAPTER 8.5o JCC COMMERCIAL SHOOTING FACILITIES AND TITLE 18 JCC,
consider the following:
1. If indoor gun ranges are allowed to be located on inholding forest lands, then how does that prevent any other
business owner in our county from also demanding to put up their business in forest -zoned land?
If the right to build an indoor gun range on inholding forest -zoned land is given to a gun range owner, then it may only
be a matter of time before a business owner of any kind sues the County for the same right to build a business in forest -
zoned land. You would have to treat all businesses equally in this matter and if you do not, that is discrimination.
The most wise solution is to allow indoor gun ranges and other large scale (non -cottage industry) businesses to be built
ONLY on industrial and commercial property. And, if more land is required to accommodate an indoor gun range, then
we can plan for that accordingly by developing more industrial and commercially -zoned property for the county as a
whole.
2. Non-commercial versus commercial gun ranges Because of the immense potential of gun ranges to create severe
and lasting damage to humans, wildlife, environment, peace, productivity, recreational opportunities, and rural living, it
follows that any new gun ranges, BOTH commercial and non-commercial (i.e. membership -based) gun ranges, should
be subject to the same rules: indoor only and only allowed on commercial and industrial lands.
3. We cannot rely on our CUP process to protect critical areas. The CUP process is supposed to protect critical areas, but
in reality, it does not. The ineffectiveness of the CUP process has been proven again and again, it only works when
citizens are law-abiding. Whether there is designated "enforcement" or not, in reality, there is no enforcement that has
ever worked in situations where individuals with guns decide they are above the law.
Let's be honest, we do not have the funds or abilities as a county now or in the foreseeable future, to provide for
adequate enforcement of CUP rules. Therefore, to make the rules clean and clear for the county's future, new gun
ranges—commercial or non commercial—should be indoors and in commercial/industrial zones that can be expanded
to meet needs of prospective county business owners.
We require rules that are CLEAR, FAIR, and that will serve the county for the years and decades to come.
Again, thanks for all you do for our county.
I urge you to vote on the side of sanity, following the planning commissions guidelines, and in service to what the vast
majority of county residents want.
Sonia Story
Chimacum, WA 98325
From: Janet and/or Willi <aloha@olympus.net>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 4:17 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: a few more edit comments for shooting ordinance
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or
clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Honorable Commissioners,
The hearing yesterday caused me to go back to the Title 18 definition of `commercial shooting facilities'. Obviously I do
not agree with what I believe was the argument from TRC to eliminate the term, however in looking at it I realized that
the Planning Commission (probably erroneously) added the word `and' between the two exceptions to the term. It
needs to be removed.
Thank you,
Janet Welch
I U11�1Ir
REn
ieffbocc
1
From: Peter Newland <pnewland@whidbey.net>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 4:17 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: FW: Tarboo supplemental comment re Ezell and backyard shooting.
Attachments: 2020 02 11 - Tarboo supplemental comment to BOCC.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links,
especially from unknown senders.
Greetings Honorable Commissioners,
Attached is supplemental testimony addressing some public comments made at yesterday's hearing.
We trust this addresses the concern about individuals shooting on their own property and misconceptions about the
various Ezell rulings.
Regards,
Peter
Peter Newland, Board Member
Tarboo Ridge Coalition
P.O. Box 177
Quilcene, WA 98376
BRICKLIN & N E W M A N LLP
lawyers working for the environment
TO: Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Alex Sidles, Bricklin and Newman LLP on behalf of the Tarboo Ridge Coalition
DATE: February 11, 2020
RE: Tarboo Ridge Coalition supplemental comments
The Tarboo Ridge Coalition offers this supplemental comment, to address certain remarks we
heard during the February 10 hearing.
We continue to support Alternative 4, with an amendment to include non-commercial shooting
facilities in the regulation. That amendment would be constitutional and would not prohibit
"backyard shooting."
I. Constitutionality of Regulating Non -Commercial Facilities
The County is not precluded by the Constitution from regulating non-commercial shooting
facilities.
In Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 684 (7th Cir. 2011) ("Ezell T'), the Seventh Circuit found
unconstitutional a city ordinance that required firearms owners to train on a gun range, and also
banned gun ranges from city limits. The Court found this to be an impermissible intrusion on the
right to bear arms.
The Court began its analysis by noting that local governments have the right to regulate guns
outside of the home. Id. at 703. Thus, the authority of Jefferson County to regulate gun use at gun
ranges to some reasonable degree is a given. The issue is whether the specific regulations are
legitimate given the severity of the restraints it imposes on gun users balanced against the public
interest benefits. Id. at 708.
In Ezell I, the court struck issued a preliminary injunction after finding that the ordinance would
impose a drastic restraint on the right to bear arms:
The City's firing -range ban is not merely regulatory; it prohibits the
"law-abiding, responsible citizens" of Chicago from engaging in
Public Comment of Tarboo Ridge Coalition
Re: Supplemental comments
February 11, 2020
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.
Id.
Needless to say, the regulation of non-commercial shooting facilities is nothing like the Ezell I
ordinance. Gun ranges will not be banned in Jefferson County and no one in Jefferson County is
compelled to train on gun ranges.
In Ezell I, the city attempted to justify the public safety concerns of gun ranges with evidence that
rang hollow:
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.
Id. at 709.
As later summarized by the same court in Ezell IT
We held [in Ezell IJ that banishing firing ranges from the city was a
severe encroachment on the right of law-abiding, responsible
Chicagoans to acquire and maintain proficiency in firearm use, "an
important corollary to the meaningful exercise of the core right to
possess firearms for self-defense." Id. at 708. Accordingly, 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." Id. at 708-
09. The City did not carry this burden, so we instructed the district
court to enjoin the firing -range ban. Id
Ezell v. City of Chicago, 846 F.3d 888, 893 (7th Cir. 2017) (emphasis supplied).
Unlike that situation, here Jefferson County has ample evidence that gun ranges in forest zones
create a host of problems. These include soil contamination, as seen at the defunct gun range at
Discovery Bay; conversion of forest land to uses incompatible with forestry; and noise complaints,
including from the unpermitted range at Tarboo Lake. (The ranges in Ezell were all indoors.)
Public Comment of Tarboo Ridge Coalition
Re: Supplemental comments
February 11, 2020
Chicago's inability to justify its draconian, unjustified ordinance sheds no light on the legitimacy
of Alternative 4's balanced approach, supported by substantial evidence of public harm that can
be avoided by this approach.
The limited scope of Ezell I has been recognized in many cases. For instance, the ruling in Ezell I
would not apply to an ordinance banning guns stores in certain areas:
... Ezell is inapposite because, as the Seventh Circuit noted, "[t] he
City's firing -range ban is not merely regulatory; it prohibits the law-
abiding, responsible citizens of Chicago from engaging in target
practice." Ezell, 651 F.3d at 708. Ezell recognized the difference
between a ban and "laws that merely regulate rather than restrict,
and modest burdens ... may be more easily justified." Id.
Teixeira v. Cty. of Alameda, 2013 WL 4804756, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2013), affd in part, rev'd
in part and remanded, 822 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2016), on reh'g en Banc, 873 F.3d 670 (9th Cir.
2017), and affd, 873 F.3d 670 (9th Cir. 2017).
For similar reasons, Ezell I provides no useful direction here. Alternative 4 does not "prohibit"
law abiding citizens from using gun ranges. It does not impose a "severe encroachment" on the
right to bear arms. It merely would assure that the gun ranges are located in areas that are
compatible for such uses. Nothing in Alternative 4 would run afoul of the ruling in Ezell L
In Ezell v. City of Chicago, 846 F.3d 888 (7th Cir. 2017) ("Ezell IP'), the Seventh Circuit found
unconstitutional an ordinance that restricted publicly accessible shooting facilities to
manufacturing zones (thereby excluding ranges from commercial zones) because the city failed to
explain why gun ranges were incompatible in commercial zoning—in fact, there were several
private and government ranges in commercial zones that had operated without problems. The
Court noted that only 2.2% of the city was zoned industrial. Moreover, while the city did not
provide evidence as to how much of that 2.2% was suitable for a gun range, the absence of any
gun ranges permitted after the law went into effect was suggestive that the restrictions were severe,
perhaps acting to prohibit gun ranges altogether. Id. at 893 – 94.
The city argued that public interest concerns justified the restrictions, but the court readily
determined that the city had no evidence to substantiate that the restrictions would address those
concerns:
The City claims that confining firing ranges to manufacturing
districts and keeping them away from other ranges, residential
districts, schools, places of worship, and myriad other uses serves
important public health and safety interests. Specifically, the City
cites three concerns: firing ranges attract gun thieves, cause airborne
lead contamination, and carry a risk of fire.
Public Comment of Tarboo Ridge Coalition
Re: Supplemental comments
February 11, 2020
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.
Id. at 895.
Ezell II is no more on point than Ezell I. Under Alternative 4, the exclusion of gun ranges from
the forest zones is supported by the need to protect the environment from noise and lead
contamination, plus the need to preserve forest lands for timber purposes. As evidenced by the
example of the former gun range in the forest lands at Discovery Bay, a gun range in a forest zone
can leave behind hundreds of thousands of dollars in clean-up costs and may take decades to be
cleaned up. As evidenced by the noise complaint from Tarboo Lake, residents are already
adversely affected even from the unpermitted range there. The County is well within its police
powers to regulate (and indeed, under the GMA, it must regulate).
Moreover, gun ranges under the proposed Alternative 4 are not confined just to manufacturing
zones, but rather are allowed in both manufacturing and commercial zones (the very zoning the
Seventh Circuit supported for gun ranges in Ezell II). As the staff report's review of parcels
indicates, there are ample undeveloped parcels available for gun ranges in those zones. If we also
include developed parcels that could be re -developed to gun ranges, the number of available
parcels is even higher. The facts are strikingly different from those in Ezell II where the zoning
left at most 2% of the land available for gun ranges and, perhaps effectively, none at all.
Nothing in the Ezell cases prohibits the regulation of non-commercial ranges solely because they
are non-commercial. It is irrelevant, for constitutional purposes, whether a gun range's customers
are paying money for the privilege of shooting. If commercial ranges can be regulated (which they
can), then non-commercial ranges can also be regulated.
In fact, it is probably more defensible to regulate both commercial and non-commercial ranges
than to regulate commercial ranges alone. The Ezell II court faulted the City of Chicago for
prohibiting ranges in zones where private or police ranges were already allowed. The court
reasoned that the adverse impacts from public ranges are no different from those of private or
police ranges, so the court found no basis for the city's prohibition of one class of gun range but
not the other. Here, we are asking the County to treat all classes of gun ranges—commercial and
non-commercial—the same. Ezell II encourages exactly this kind of even-handedness.
II. No Prohibition Against Backyard Shooting
Alternative 4, including the regulation of non-commercial shooting facilities, does not prohibit
"backyard shooting." It is a land use ordinance, not a shooting ordinance. It regulates the
construction of gun ranges, including non-commercial gun ranges. It does not prohibit the shooting
of guns.
4
Public Comment of Tarboo Ridge Coalition
Re: Supplemental comments
February 11, 2020
The staff report correctly notes that shooting can occur without gun ranges on the Forest Service
and DNR lands, as well as in the Rural Residential zones (other than the designated no -shooting
areas). Nothing in Alternative 4, including the regulation of non-commercial ranges, in any way
limits these lawful shooting activities.
It is important not to conflate gun ranges with dispersed shooting. Gun ranges are subject to land
use regulation, because they concentrate a large volume of noise, land conversion, and soil and
water contamination, over a sustained period of time, into a particular area. By contrast, occasional,
dispersed "backyard shooting" has far fewer of these impacts. The difference between a gun range
and backyard shooting is equivalent to the difference between a restaurant and a backyard
barbeque. The restaurant is subject to land use regulation. The barbeque is not.
Conclusion
We remain grateful to the County staff and the Planning Commission. We hope these supplemental
comments will clarify that Alternative 4, and the regulation of non-commercial ranges, is good
policy, consistent with the Growth Management Act, and allowable under the Constitution.
From: Mark <PyrPaw@wavecable.com>
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Tuesday, February 11, 2020 4:28 PM
jeffbocc
shooting ordinance
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links,
especially from unknown senders.
To Jefferson County
Below is part of the lies you are being told.
Lie # one -'noise pollution' from ranges can be heard from miles away, You can only hear shooting if
you are in relative close to the range.
Even if you are in clear sight of the range you can hear it maybe'/4 mile and then it is a muffled pop.
Lie # two — "lead pollution and the water, taking hikes in the woods and hearing illegal gunfire, that
the animals receive second hand gun noise and it affects the wildlife",
If it affects the wildlife why are ranges routinely stop fire for wildlife to clear the ranges. The further
encroachment of habitat is far greater danger to wildlife that shooting ranges.
Lie #3 "if we are bringing paramilitary guns to our county, then we are inviting a school shooting
here."
The fact is school and any other "gun free zones" are soft targets for anyone of an evil heart and
demented mind. Anyone who believes it is from guns is deceived.
Wrong fact — "Someone even said ... why do we need another outdoor range when people can just go
out in the woods and shoot! "
Oh yes, where people shoot without berms and backstops, shooting without rules or the opportunity
to learn from one another. No rules to help keep shooting areas clean.
In short if you allow the ordinance you are infringing on our ability to keep and bear arms. Part of
which is to know and learn the proper, safe operations of said arms as written in the 2nd amendment.
Anyone one who does recognize this as the first step to destroying our freedoms is totally ignorant or
ignoring even recent history and is a fool Are you one?
✓Ylw&
qfflicts Vaeuntm
�ING
��o
jeffbocc
From: Peter Bahls <peter@nwwatershed.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 4:28 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Shooting range ordinance comments from NWI
Attachments: Shooting range ordinance NWI Comments to BOCC Feb 112020 .pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Please confirm receipt. Thanks!
Peter Bahls, Executive Director
Northwest Watershed Institute
3407 Eddy Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
360-385-6786
www.nwwatershed.org
JV VY •
Northwest
Watershed Institute
February 11, 2020
3407 Eddy Street I Port Townsend, Washington 98368
voice 360.385.6786 fax 360.385.2839
email peter@nwwatershed.org I www.nwwatershed.org
Honorable Board of County Commissioners
Jefferson County
jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us
Dear Jefferson County Commissioners:
1) Please extend the comment period on the proposed ordinance and options at least one
week. There was not sufficient time to review the staff report, completed only on Friday
February 7 and that I did not find out about until the hearing yesterday. Extending the
comment period one extra day is not sufficient. The public deserves time to review the
report, which provides the main justification and rationale for the staff's
recommendations. At first glance, the recommendations to allow new shooting facilities
in forestland zones and give a pass to non-commercial facilities appears to have very
weak justification.
2) Northwest Watershed Institute (NWI) supports Alternative 4 as recommended by the
Planning Commission — allowing new commercial shooting facilities only in commercial
or industrial zoned lands. NWI does not support the staff recommendations to allow
new indoor commercial shooting facilities in inholding forest or other forest zoning. The
staff argues that "industrial" zoning prohibit shooting facilities. However, even if so,
there appears to be no discussion of whether commercial lands would allow for such
uses. Furthermore, the Appendix A assessment groups potential industrial and
commercial zoned properties making it difficult to determine the amount of commercial
land available. Finally, the staff report does not discuss what possible minor revisions to
the code could be made to ensure that shooting ranges were allowed in industrial
zoning if that is the issue.
3) There is a giant loophole in the ordinance that gets two sentences of discussion in the
staff report. The ordinance avoids discussion of non-commercial shooting facilities,
whether indoor or outdoor. Apparently these facilities could be built without a permit
and with no regulation on size or scope. The TRC attorney has provided a Feb 10 2020
letter with his recommendation that would expand the ordinance to non-commercial
facilities. This approach may work if a definition of a "shooting facility" can be drafted
that does not impede on second amendment rights.
In summary, once again, the staff appear to be bending over backwards to "maximize
compliance with the Supremacy Principle" (page 35 of the staff report) by allowing shooting
ranges in forestlands and ignoring non-commercial ranges. Jefferson County has no obligation
to "maximize" this compliance, especially when it means potentially not complying with GMA,
SEPA and other requirements intended to protect the public. Alternative 4, as presented by the
Planning Commission, and amended to cover non-commercial ranges as discussed above,
would meet the Second amendment concerns without sacrificing Jefferson County's
forestlands, environmental quality, and rural life.
Thanks to you and the staff for your hard work and perseverance on behalf of the citizens of
Jefferson County.
Sincerely,
Peter Bahls
Executive Director
jeffbocc
From: Joanmarie Eggert <eggertdj@aol.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 4:29 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Gun Ranges
ul"ANG Pgro
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
I live in Jefferson County, and support the Planning Commission's recommendation to site gun ranges indoors
and in commercial and industrial zones only. I worked on cleaning up gun ranges from contamination, and
understand the potential for ill effects on the environment. Keeping them indoors allows better control and
better safety. Gun ranges are consistent with indoor and commercial zoning requirements and would put an
unnecessary strain on forested lands.
Please help protect our lovely Jefferson County
Thank you
Joanmarie Eggert
510 Quilcene, WA 98376
206-225-7505