Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff ReportSTAFF REPORT TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENTING STAFF COMMENTS ON ORDINANCES RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON REGULATION OF COMMERCIAL SHOOTING FACILITIES February 7, 2020 Michelle Farfan, Associate Planner, Department of Community Development TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Planning Commission's Response to Board of County Commissioner's September 23, 2019 Referral............................................................................................................. 1 1.2 The Growth Board's Final Decision and Order............................................................... 1 1.2.1 The Growth Board Determined that Ordinance No. 12-1102-18 (Title 8 - Health and Safety Code) Determined was a Development Regulation ................................ 2 1.2.2 Ordinance No. 15-1214-18 (Title 18 — Land Use Code) Determined to be Invalid.. 2 1.2.3 The FDO Did Not Address Whether the Two Ordinances Allow a Land Use that is Inconsistent with and Fails to Implement the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies in Violation of GMA.................................................................. 3 1.2.4 Compliance Required................................................................................................ 3 13 Staff's October 16, 2019 Proposed Amendments............................................................ 3 1.3.1 Staff's Proposed Amendments to County Ordinance No. 12-1102-18 (Title 8 - Healthand Safety Code)........................................................................................... 3 1.3.2 Staff's proposed amendments to County Ordinance No. 15-1214-18 (Title 18 — LandUse Code)......................................................................................................... 4 2 THE EXISTING LEGAL FRAMEWORK.............................................................................. 5 2.1 Growth Management Act (GMA) Principles................................................................... 5 2.1.1 The Rural Element.................................................................................................... 5 2.1.2 Conservation of Forest Lands................................................................................... 6 2.1.3 Development Regulations......................................................................................... 7 2.2 Jefferson County's Implementation of GMA.................................................................. 7 2.2.1 Jefferson County's Discretionary Use Approval Criteria ......................................... 8 2.2.2 Jefferson County's Conditional Use Approval Criteria ............................................ 9 2.2.3 Outdoor Shooting Ranges Before Ordinance 12-1102-18 ...................................... 10 23 The Supremacy Principle............................................................................................... 11 2.3.1 WAC 365-196-725 Applies the Supremacy Principle to GMA .............................. 11 I 2.3.2 The Supremacy Principle Explained....................................................................... 11 2.3.3 The Constitutional Right to Bear Arms................................................................... 11 2.3.4 State Preemption of Firearms Regulations and Its Exceptions ............................... 12 2.4 The Constitutional Power of Counties to Adopt Health and Safety Regulations.......... 13 2.5 All of the Alternatives Analyzed by the County Rely on Exemptions to Preemption... 13 2.6 Regulation of Noise in Washington—Three Types of Noise Regulations .................... 13 2.6.1 Regulation of Noise Based on Maximum Noise Levels ......................................... 13 2.6.2 Regulation of Noise Based on Nuisance................................................................. 13 2.7 WAC 173-60-060—Nuisance Regulations Not Prohibited ........................................... 14 2.8 "Exempt Noise" Related to Shooting............................................................................. 14 2.9 Limits on Adoption of Local Noise Ordinances............................................................ 15 2,10JCC Exempts the Lawful Discharge of Firearms from its Noise Ordinance ................. 16 2,11 Regulation of Noise Under The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).................... 16 2.12 Constitutional and Statutory Protection of Applicants ................................................... 17 2.13 Property Rights Limitations........................................................................................... 17 2,14 Equal Protection Must be Afforded............................................................................... 18 2.15 Limits on Ordinances that Are Arbitrary, Capricious, Unlawful, or Exceed Lawful Authority Under RCW 64.40.20............................................................................. 18 2.16 County Growth Management Policies Implement these Limitations ............................ 18 3 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................................... 19 3.1 Staff's Proposed Changes to the Planning Commission's Title 8 Ordinance (Appendix 2): ............................................................................................................................ 19 3.1.1 Repeal and Replace County Ordinance No. 12-1102-18 (Title 8 - Health and Safety Code) Instead of Amending it................................................................................. 19 3.1.2 The Findings in the Planning Commission Recommendations Support its Indoor Commercial Shooting Facility Only Approach, but Need Correction .................... 20 3.1.3 The Definition of Firearms Allowed at Commercial Shooting Facilities Should be Deleted as Unnecessary........................................................................................... 28 11 32 Staff's Proposed Changes to the Planning Commission's Title 18 Ordinance (Appendix 3): ............................................................................................................................ 30 3.2.1 Section 1. Modification of Title 18 JCC Should be Revised .................................. 31 3.2.2 Section 6. SEPA Compliance.................................................................................. 31 3.2.3 The Findings in the Planning Commission Recommendations Support its Indoor Commercial Shooting Facility Only Approach but Need Correction ..................... 31 3.2.4 The Planning Commission Recommends Only Indoor Commercial Shooting Facilities as a Discretionary Use in All Rural/UGA Commercial and Industrial Zoning (Excluding Resource-based Industrial Zoning) .......................................... 31 3.2.5 Analysis of the Planning Commission Recommendation Under the Supremacy Principle.................................................................................................................. 33 3.2.6 Modified as Recommended by Staff, the Ordinances Proposed in the Planning Commission Recommendations, fully comply with GMA and all Statutory and Constitutional Requirements................................................................................... 35 4 SEPA COMPLIANCE FOR THE DRAFT ORDINANCES ................................................. 35 4.1 Alternatives Considered................................................................................................. 36 4.1.1 No Action................................................................................................................ 36 4.1.2 Alternative 1............................................................................................................ 37 4.1.3 Alternative 2............................................................................................................ 38 4.1.4 Alternative 3............................................................................................................ 39 4.1.5 Alternative 4............................................................................................................ 40 4.1.6 Alternative 5............................................................................................................ 40 4.2 Comments Received During the SEPA 14 -Day Comment Period ................................ 41 5. CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................................41 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM.................................................................................................. A iii 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Planning Commission's Response to Board of County Commissioner's September 23, 2019 Referral. On December 3, 2019, the Jefferson County Planning Commission (Planning Commission) timely forwarded their recommendations) on proposed amendments to County Ordinance No. 12-1102- 18 (Title 8 - Health and Safety Code) and Ordinance No. 15-1214-18 (Title 18 — Land Use Code) (collectively the two ordinances), including the Planning Commission's required findings and conclusions (Planning Commission Recommendations). The Planning Commission Recommendations have Appendices as follows: Appendix 1, which is the October 16, 2019 staff report that contained as Appendix A staff's proposed amendments to County Ordinance No. 12-1102-18 (Title 8 - Health and Safety Code) and as Appendix B staff's proposed amendments to County Ordinance No. 15-1214- 18 (Title 18 — Land Use Code); • Appendix 2, which is the Planning Commission's proposed amendments to County Ordinance No. 12-1102-18 (Title 8 - Health and Safety Code); and, • Appendix 3, which is which is the Planning Commission's proposed amendments to County Ordinance No. 15-1214-18 (Title 18 — Land Use Code). The Planning Commission Recommendations were in response to the September 23, 2019 referral to the Planning Commission from the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC), who asked the Planning Commission to begin work immediately, in coordination with staff, on legislation to revise the two ordinances. The September 23, 2019 referral from the BoCC requested the Planning Commission provide a recommendation on how to prepare regulations that comply both with the 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), the GMA supremacy rule in the Washington Administrative Code (WAC), and the BoCC's original intent to adopt uniform operating requirements for both existing and new commercial shooting facilities within unincorporated Jefferson County. The BoCC's September 23, 2019 referral stated: The Planning Commission's recommendations must comply with state and federal law. We recognize the complexity of the work you have before you. WAC 365-196-725 states that comprehensive plans and development regulations adopted under the GMA are subject to the supremacy principle of Article VI, United States Constitution and of Article XI, Section 11, Washington state Constitution. 1.1 The Growth Board's Final Decision and Order. On September 16, 2019, the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (Growth Board) issued the FDO, which invalidated Jefferson County Ordinance No. 12-1102-18 (Title 8 - ' These recommendations can be found at http://test.co.j efferson.wa.us/WebLinkExtemal/0/edoc/2291969/2019%2012%2003%20PC%2ORecomtnendations% 20-%20SIGNED.pdf. 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. 1.2.1 The Growth Board Determined that Ordinance No. 12-1102-18 (Title 8 - Health and Safety Code) Determined was a Development Regulation. The Growth Bard held Ordinance No. 12-1102-18 (Title 8 - Health and Safety Code) was a development regulation: • "First, the County expanded the size, scope and types of land uses allowed for shooting facilities in Title 8." FDO, 8. • "Second, Title 8's purpose statement at JCC 8.50.210 illustrates the County's intention to regulate commercial shooting facilities under Title 8 ..." FDO, 8. • "Third, Title 8 requires a new shooting facility applicant to obtain an operating permit and a conditional use permit under Title 18.... Once an applicant has both permits, then a hearing examiner reviews both permits required in Title 8 and Title 18." FDO, 9.2 • "Fourth, Title 8 cross-references the administrative remedy for appeals to the hearing examiner process in Title 18 JCC 18.05.080 and .085 ..." FDO, 10. The Growth Board held that this ordinance was invalid because it did not undergo SEPA review or public participation required for a development regulation. FDO, 12-13. 1.2.2 Ordinance No. 15-1214-18 (Title 18 — Land Use Code) Determined to be Invalid. The Growth Board determined this ordinance to be invalid because: • "[T]he County conducted no SEPA analysis of the Title 8 Ordinance and issued a Declaration of Non -Significance for the Title 18 Ordinance, notwithstanding the fact that the two Ordinances working together authorized the permitting of shooting facilities of significantly greater scale and intensity than what was previously allowed throughout the County's Forest -Commercial, Rural and Inholding Resource Lands." FDO, 15. • "The Board finds that the County's amendments of Titles 8 and 18 are inextricably intertwined. The end result of the County's actions in adopting amendments to both titles will allow larger shooting facilities with more uses in natural resource lands than previously allowed in its development regulations. " FDO, 16. 2 Since the Growth Board issued the FDO, the County passed a new hearing examiner code, Chapter 2.30 JCC. 4 1.2.3 The FDO Did Not Address Whether the Two Ordinances Allow a Land Use that is Inconsistent with and Fails to Implement the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies in Violation of GNU. There were five issues the Growth Board approved for decision. In the FDO, the Growth Board summarized the fifth issue as: "Do the two Ordinances allow a land use that is inconsistent with and fails to implement the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan goals and policies in violation of GMAT" FDO, 13. The Growth Board failed to consider Issue 5: "In light of the Board's findings and conclusions in this Final Decision and Order in which the Board has determined it has jurisdiction over Title 8's development regulations and the failure of the County to comply with the requirements of Chapter 43.21C RCW in adopting the Title 8 Ordinance as addressed above, combined with remand to the County, the Board will not address Issue 5." (Emphasis added.)" The County has appealed the FDO under the Administrative Procedures Act, in part, because it believes the Growth Board violated its own rules in not deciding Issue 5. 1.2.4 Compliance Required. The Growth Board set the following compliance schedule in the FDO: Compliance Schedule Date Due Compliance Due March 2, 2020 Compliance Report/Statement of Actions Taken to Comply and Index to Compliance Record March 16, 2020 Objections to a Finding of Compliance March 30, 2020 Response to Objections April 7, 2020 Telephonic Compliance Hearing April 14, 2020 10:00 a.m. FDO, 19. 1,3 Staff's October 16, 2019 Proposed Amendments. The Planning Commission Recommendations included as Appendix 1, the October 16, 2019 staff report, which in turn contained as Appendix A staff's proposed amendments to County Ordinance No. 12-1102-18 (Title 8 - Health and Safety Code) and as Appendix B staff's proposed amendments to County Ordinance No. 15-1214-18 (Title 18 — Land Use Code). 1.3.1 Staff's Proposed Amendments to County Ordinance No. 12-1102-18 (Title 8 - Health and Safety Code). Staff's proposed amendments can be summarized as follows: • Not a Development Regulation. The ordinance was revised with the intention it would not be a development regulation. Staff moved everything that could be construed as a development regulation to Title 18 — Land Use Code. • Focus on Operations Only. The ordinance was revised to focus only on operations of a commercial shooting facility and requires an operating permit with an operational environmental health and safety plan with components for operations, safety, environmental operational best management practices, and sound suppression • Review by Qualified Shooting Range Evaluator. The permit application must be reviewed by a qualified shooting range evaluator. • Administration by Environmental Public Health. The ordinance was revised to have it administered by the Environmental Public Health Department (EPH), which is better equipped to enforce operating permits. • Appeals to Hearing Examiner Under the New Hearing Examiner Code. EPH's decision can be appealed to the Jefferson County Hearing Examiner under the new Hearing Examiner Code in Chapter 2.30 JCC.3 1.3.2 Staff's proposed amendments to County Ordinance No. 15-1214-18 (Title 18 — Land Use Code). Staff's proposed amendments can be summarized as follows: • Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Required for All Commercial Shooting Facilities. CUP would be required for all commercial shooting facilities. All 12 CUP approval criteria must be met. • Must be Small Scale Recreation or Tourist Uses. To Protect Forest Resource Lands all outdoor commercial shooting facilities must be Small Scale Recreation or Tourist Uses. • Outdoor Commercial Shooting Facilities Only Allowed in Commercial Forest (CF), Rural Forest (RF) and Inholding Forest (IF) Zones. Outdoor commercial shooting facilities allowed with a CUP in CF, RF and IF, but prohibited everywhere else. • Indoor Commercial Shooting Facilities Only Allowed in Commercial, Industrial, Manufacturing Zones. Indoor commercial shooting facilities allowed in commercial, industrial, manufacturing zones with a CUP, but prohibited everywhere else. • Closes Loopholes. Closes unnamed use loophole. Closes cottage industry and home based business loopholes. • Receives Design i Requirements. Commercial shooting facilities design requirements moved to the Title 18 Ordinance from the Title 8 Ordinance. 3 Chapter 2.30 JCC was adopted after the Growth Board issued the FDO. E Quota to Protect Forest Resource Land. Limits how much land designated as Forest Resource Land can be used for outdoor commercial shooting facilities. Conditional Use Permit Adjudicated by Hearing Examiner with Appeals to Superior Court. CUPS can be appealed to the Jefferson County Hearing Examiner under the new Hearing Examiner Code in Chapter 2.30 JCC. The CUP approval process proposed by staff requires adjudication by the Hearing Examiner under the new Hearing Examiner Code in Chapter 2.30 JCC. Decisions of the Hearing Examiner may be appealed to Superior Court under the Land Use Petition Act. 2 THE EXISTING LEGAL FRAMEWORKGrowth Management Act (GMA) Principles. 2.1.1 The Rural Element. All counties and cities are required to designate agricultural, forest lands and mineral resources that are not characterized by urban growth and have long term significance, and critical areas. RCW 36.70A.170. [A] county should foster land use patterns and develop a local vision of rural character that will: Help preserve rural -based economies and traditional rural lifestyles; encourage the economic prosperity of rural residents; foster opportunities for small-scale, rural -based employment and self-employment; permit the operation of rural -based agricultural, commercial, recreational, and tourist businesses that are consistent with existing and planned land use patterns; be compatible with the use of the land by wildlife and for fish and wildlife habitat; foster the private stewardship of the land and preservation of open space; and enhance the rural sense of community and quality of life. RCW 36.70A.011. "Counties shall include a rural element including lands that are not designated for urban growth, agriculture, forest, or mineral resources." RCW 36.70A. 170(5)(a). "The rural element shall permit rural development, forestry, and agriculture in rural areas." RCW 36.70A.170(5)(b). "The rural element shall include measures that apply to rural development and protect the rural character of the area, as established by the county, by: (i) Containing or otherwise controlling rural development; (ii) Assuring visual compatibility of rural development with the surrounding rural area; (iii) Reducing the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low- density development in the rural area; (iv) Protecting critical areas, as provided in RCW 36.70A.060, and surface water and groundwater resources; and (v) Protecting against conflicts with the use of agricultural, forest, and mineral resource lands designated under RCW 36.70A.170." 5 RCW 36.70A.170(5)(c). The "rural element may allow for limited areas of more intensive rural development, including necessary public facilities and public services to serve the limited area as follows: (i) Rural development consisting of the infill, development, or redevelopment of existing commercial, industrial, residential, or mixed-use areas, whether characterized as shoreline development, villages, hamlets, rural activity centers, or crossroads developments. (A) A commercial, industrial, residential, shoreline, or mixed-use area are subject to the requirements of (d)(iv) of this subsection, but are not subject to the requirements of (c)(ii) and (iii) of this subsection. (B) Any development or redevelopment other than an industrial area or an industrial use within a mixed-use area or an industrial area under this subsection (5)(d)(i) must be principally designed to serve the existing and projected rural population. (C) Any development or redevelopment in terms of building size, scale, use, or intensity shall be consistent with the character of the existing areas. Development and redevelopment may include changes in use from vacant land or a previously existing use so long as the new use conforms to the requirements of this subsection (5)." RCW 36.70A.170(5)(d). The intensification of development on lots containing, or new development of, small-scale recreational or tourist uses,' including commercial facilities to serve those recreational or tourist uses, that rely on a rural location and setting, but that do not include new residential development. A small-scale recreation or tourist use is not required to be principally designed to serve the existing and projected rural population. RCW 36.70A.170(5)(d)(ii). "Rural counties may allow the expansion of small-scale businesses as long as those small-scale businesses conform with the rural character of the area as defined by the local government according to RCW 36.70A.030(16)." RCW 36.70A.170(5)(d)(iii). "Rural counties may also allow new small-scale businesses to utilize a site previously occupied by an existing business as long as the new small-scale business conforms to the rural character of the area as defined by the local government according to RCW 36.70A.030(16). Id. 2.1.2 Conservation of Forest Lands. GMA imposes planning goals. RCW 36.70A.020. RCW 36.70A.020(8) states the following goal for natural resource industries: "Maintain and enhance natural resource-based industries, including protective timber, agricultural, and fisheries industries. Encourage the conservation of productive forest lands and productive agricultural lands, and discourage incompatible uses." Allowing conversion of resource lands to other uses, or allowing incompatible uses nearby, impairs 'Neither GMA nor its implementing regulations define "small-scale recreational or tourist uses." no the viability and productivity of resource industries. Richard L. Settle, Washington's Growth Management Revolution Goes to Court, 23 Seattle U.L. Rev. 5, 22 (1999). Development regulations must "assure that the use of lands adjacent to agricultural, forest, or mineral resource lands shall not interfere with the continued use, in the accustomed manner and in accordance with best management practices, of these designated lands for the production of food, agricultural products, or timber, or for the extraction of minerals." RCW 36.70A.060(1)(a). 2.1.3 Development Regulations. RCW 36.70A.030(8) states: "Development regulations" or "regulation" means the controls placed on development or land use activities by a county or city, including, but not limited to, zoning ordinances, critical areas ordinances, shoreline master programs, official controls, planned unit development ordinances, subdivision ordinances, and binding site plan ordinances together with any amendments thereto. A development regulation does not include a decision to approve a project permit application, as defined in RCW 36.70B.020, even though the decision may be expressed in a resolution or ordinance of the legislative body of the county or city. WAC 365-196-200(8) states: "Development regulations" or "regulation" means the controls placed on development or land use activities by a county or city, including, but not limited to, zoning ordinances, critical areas ordinances, shoreline master programs, official controls, planned unit development ordinances, subdivision ordinances, and binding site plan ordinances together with any amendments thereto. A development regulation does not include a decision to approve a project permit application, as defined in RCW 36.70B.020, even though the decision may be expressed in a resolution or ordinance of the legislative body of the county or city. "Development regulations under the act are specific controls placed on development or land use activities by a county or city. Development regulations must be consistent with and implement comprehensive plans adopted pursuant to [GMA]." WAC 365-196-800(1). Regulations designed "to protect the environment, ensure compatibility with neighbors through siting, design, and land use regulations, constitute land use controls." FDO, 9. 2.2 Jefferson County's Implementation of GMA. In Jefferson County, Title 18 JCC, is "a principal tool for implementing the goals and policies of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, pursuant to the mandated provisions of the State of Washington's Growth Management Act (Chapter 36.70A RCW), Shoreline Management Act (Chapter 90.58 RCW), Subdivisions Code (Chapter 58.17 RCW), State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA, Chapter 43.21C RCW), and other applicable state and local laws." JCC 18.05.020(1). JCC 18.05.020(1) also states: No land shall be subdivided or developed for any purpose which is not in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan or applicable provisions of this code. 7 2.2.1 Jefferson County's Discretionary Use Approval Criteria.5 For any discretionary use, the Jefferson County Code requires: (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) 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. JCC 18.15.045. 5 The Planning Commission did not recommend changes to the discretionary use approval criteria. Staff concurs. 2.2.2 Jefferson County's Conditional Use Approval Criteria.6 For any conditional use, the Jefferson County Code requires that "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. JCC 18.40.530(1) (emphasis added). "In instances where all of the above findings cannot be made, the application shall be denied. JCC 18.40.530(2). (emphasis added). 6 The Planning Commission did not recommend changes to the conditional use approval criteria. Staff concurs. I 2.2.3 Outdoor Shooting Ranges Before Ordinance 12-1102-18. Prior to adoption of Ordinance 12-1102-18, JCC 18.20350(1 stated: 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 18.15.572. 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: 0) Outdoor shooting and archery ranges; (Emphasis added) The use table in Title 18 JCC (JCC 18.15.040, Table 3-1) authorized "outdoor shooting ranges" under a conditional use permit in Commercial Forest (CF), Rural Forest (RF) and Inholding Forest (IF) only. But indoor shooting ranges were not named uses. "Small-scale recreation or tourist uses" was defined as "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 36.70A.070(5)(d)(ii)." JCC 18.10.190. "Recreational uses," and "tourist uses" were not defined in Title 18 JCC. "Outdoor Shooting Range" was defined in JCC 18.10.150 as "See `Shooting Range." "Shooting Range" was defined in JCC 18.10.190 as meaning 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." 2018-025, 130 (emphasis added). "Firearms," "group firing positions," and, "specific weaponry" were not defined in Title 18. (Instead, "firearm" had been defined in JCC 8.50.040, part of the Health and Safety Code. But the Title 8 definition was not made applicable to Title 18.) JCC 18.20.350(8) contained provisions related to "Outdoor Shooting Ranges." However, there undefined and ambiguous terms. The word "ammunition" used in the former JCC 18.20.350(8)(a) was not defined. While the former JCC 1820.350(8)(b) referred to a "National Rifle Association Range Manual," there is no such document. The former JCC 18.20.350(8)(i) referred to "the approval authority," but the definitions in Title 18 use the term "approving authority." Further, "safety and noise factors" used in JCC 18.20.350(8)(i) is not defined. 10 2.3 The Supremacy Principle. 2.3.1 WAC 365-196-725 Applies the Supremacy Principle to GMA. WAC 365-196-725(1) is a GMA regulation that states: "Comprehensive plans and development regulations adopted under the act are subject to the supremacy principle of Article VI, United States Constitution and of Article XI, Section 11, Washington state Constitution." 2.3.2 The Supremacy Principle Explained. Article I, Section 2 of the Washington Constitution states, "The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land." There is a fundamental principle of Washington law sometimes called "the preemption doctrine," that derives from Article VI of the United States Constitution, Article I, Section 2 of the Washington State Constitution, Article XI, Section 11 of the Washington Constitution, and RCW 36.32.120(7) that the WAC calls the "Supremacy Principle," which holds that a higher authority of law will displace the law of a lower authority of law when the two authorities come into conflict. Under the Supremacy Principle, state statutes and regulations cannot conflict with the United States Constitution, the Washington Constitution, and federal laws; and, local ordinances and regulations cannot conflict with the United States Constitution, federal laws, the Washington Constitution, or state laws. 2.3.3 The Constitutional Right to Bear Arms. The Washington Constitution, Article I, Section 24 protects the right to bear arms: "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men." (Emphasis added.) According to the Washington Supreme Court, "This `right to bear arms' is an individual right that exists in the context of that individual's defense of himself or the state." City of Seattle v. Evans, 184 Wash. 2d 856, 862, 366 P.3d 906, 909 (2015). Washington Constitution, Article I, Section 24 is worded slightly differently from the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, in that it makes clear on its face that the right is an individual right. In contrast, the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." However, in 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court decided D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008), which held that the Second Amendment guarantees "the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation." Id., 554 U.S. at 592, 128 S. Ct. at 2797. At its "core," the U.S. Supreme Court has explained, the Second Amendment protects the "right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home." Heller, 554 U.S. at 635, 128 S.Ct. at 2821-22. In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court made it clear that the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms fully applicable to the States. McDonald v. City of Chicago, Ill., 561 U.S. 778, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3042, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010). In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court made clear that this individual right applied to even "weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like." 11 MacDonald., 554 U.S. at 627-8, 128 S. Ct. at 2817. However, incorporation of the Second Amendment into the Fourteenth Amendment "the right to keep and bear arms is not "a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose" and "does not imperil every law regulating firearms." Id., 561 U.S. at 786, 130 S. Ct. at 3047. 2.3.4 State Preemption of Firearms Regulations and Its Exceptions. RCW 9.41.290 provides that the State of Washington fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulations within its boundaries, and counties may only enact ordinances as expressly authorized by RCW 9.41.300. Importantly, RCW 9.41.290 states: Cities, towns, and counties or other municipalities may enact only those laws and ordinances relating to firearms that are specifically authorized by state law, as in RCW 9.41.300, and are consistent with this chapter. Such local ordinances shall have the same penalty as provided for by state law. Local laws and ordinances that are inconsistent with, more restrictive than, or exceed the requirements of state law shall not be enacted and are preempted and repealed, regardless of the nature of the code, charter, or home rule status of such city, town, county, or municipality. (Emphasis added.) However, cities, towns, and counties or other municipalities may enact only those laws and ordinances relating to firearms that are specifically authorized by state law, as in RCW 9.41.300, and are consistent with Chapter 9.41 RCW. RCW 36.32.120(7) provides that the county legislative authorities shall make and enforce, by appropriate resolutions or ordinances, all such police and sanitary regulations as are not in conflict with state law. RCW 9.41.300(2)(a) provides an exception to RCW 9.41.290 under which a county may, by ordinance, restrict the discharge of firearms in any portion of its jurisdiction where there is a reasonable likelihood that humans, domestic animals, or property will be jeopardized so long as such ordinance shall not abridge the right of the individual guaranteed by Article I, section 24 of the Washington Constitution to bear arms in defense of self or others. "It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern- day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right." 12 2.4 The Constitutional Power of Counties to Adopt Health and Safety Regulations. The Washington Constitution, Article XI, Section 11, confers upon county legislative authorities the police power to adopt regulations necessary to protect the health, safety, and well-being of its residents. 2.5 All of the Alternatives Analyzed by the County Rely on Exemptions to Preemption. All of alternatives analyzed by the County upon the Washington Constitution, Article XI, Section 11, RCW 9.41.300(2)(a), and, RCW 36.32.120(7). 2.6 Regulation of Noise in Washington—Three Types of Noise Regulations. There are two types of noise regulations: (1) Regulation of noise based on maximum noise levels; (2) Regulation of noise based on nuisance; and, (3) Regulation of noise based on SEPA. 2.6.1 Regulation of Noise Based on Maximum Noise Levels. An example of regulation of noise based on maximum levels is JCC 8.70.050(1): All of the following are defined as "public nuisance noises": Sound that originates from the property that exceeds the noise levels permitted by Chapter 173-60 WAC (Maximum Environmental Noise Levels), as that chapter now exists or as it may hereafter be amended. WAC 173-60-040 Maximum permissible environmental noise levels. (1) No person shall cause or permit noise to intrude into the property of another person which noise exceeds the maximum permissible noise levels set forth below in this section. (2)(a) The noise limitations established are as set forth in the following table after any applicable adjustments provided for herein are applied. EDNA OF EDNA OF NOISE SOURCE RECEIVING PROPERTY Class A Class B Class C CLASS A 55 dBA 57 dBA Bio dBA CLASS a 57 60 65 CLASS c 60 65 70 (b) Between the hours of 10.00 p.m. and 7'00 a.m. the noise limitations of the foregoing table shall be reduced by 10 dBA for receiving property within Class A EDNAs. (C) At any hour of the day or night the applicable noise limitations in (a) and (b) above may be exceeded for any receiving property by no more than: (i) 5 dBA for a total of 15 minutes in any one-hour period; or (ii) 10 dBA for a total of 5 minutes in any ane -hour period; or (iii) 15 dBA for a total of 1.5 minutes in any one-hour period. [Order 74-32, § 173-60-040, filed 4122175, effective 911175.] 2.6.2 Regulation of Noise Based on Nuisance. An example of regulation of noise based on nuisance is JCC 8.70.050(2)-(l l): All of the following are defined as "public nuisance noises": 13 (4) Between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Sunday through Thursday (example: 10:00 p.m. Sunday to 7:00 a.m. Monday) or between 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on Friday or Saturday (example: 11:00 p.m. Friday to 7:00 a.m. Saturday), any sound made by persons or by use of a musical instrument, whistle, sound amplifier, portable audio equipment, or other device, electronic or not, capable of producing or reproducing sound, which sound emanates frequently, repetitively, or continuously from any social gathering, building, structure, or property, such as sound originating from a band session, tavern or bar operation, an indoor or outdoor social gathering, and where law enforcement determines the volume of such sound is such that it can be clearly heard by a person of normal hearing at a location which is (a) 150 feet or more from the source of the sound and (b) not located on the property containing the source of the sound; (5) Sound from portable audio equipment, including that found in or as part of a motor vehicle audio system, while traveling or parked in public streets, or in park areas, residential and commercial zones, or any area where residences, schools, human service facilities, or commercial establishments are in obvious proximity to the source of the sound, and where the volume of such audio equipment is such that law enforcement determines it can be clearly heard by a person of normal hearing at a distance of 150 feet or more from the source of the sound; provided, however, that this section shall not apply to persons operating portable audio equipment within a public park pursuant to an event sanctioned by a responsible authority under valid permit or license; (8) Sound from the discharge or use of any explosive device between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.; (11) Sound which law enforcement determines unreasonably disturbs or interferes with the peace, comfort, and repose of one or more reasonable persons of normal hearing, regardless of the distance between the source of the public nuisance noise and the person(s) being unreasonably disturbed or annoyed. Under this subsection, a sound meter reading is not necessary to establish that a public nuisance noise exists; (12) Any other noise that is otherwise prohibited by state or federal law. 2.7 WAC 173-60-060—Nuisance Regulations Not Prohibited. Nuisance regulations not prohibited. Nothing in this chapter or the exemptions provided herein, shall be construed as preventing local government from regulating noise from any source as a nuisance. Local resolutions, ordinances, rules or regulations regulating noise on such a basis shall not be deemed inconsistent with this chapter by the department. 2.8 "Exempt Noise" Related to Shooting. RCW 70.107.080 states: 14 Exemptions. The [Department of Ecology] shall, in the exercise of rule-making power under this chapter, provide exemptions or specially limited regulations relating to recreational shooting and emergency or law enforcement equipment where appropriate in the interests of public safety. The [Department of Ecology] in the development of rules under this chapter, shall consult and take into consideration the land use policies and programs of local government. JCC 8.70.060 states: Exempt noises. Sounds originating from the sources listed here do not constitute a violation of this chapter, are not "public nuisance noises" and are defined as an "exempt noise" regardless of where or when they occur, unless otherwise noted. (18) The lawful discharge of firearms; (19) Sounds exempted under Chapter 173-60 WAC, as that chapter now exists or as it may hereafter be amended. (Emphasis added.) Kitsap County v. Kitsap Rifle and Revolver Club, 184 Wash. App. 252, 280 (2014) states: Sounds created by firearm discharges on authorized shooting ranges are exempt from KCC 10.28.040 (maximum permissible environmental noise levels) and KCC 10.28.145 (public disturbance noises) between the hours of 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM. KCC 10.28.050. The Washington Department of Ecology also exempts sounds created by firearms discharged on authorized shooting ranges from its maximum noise level regulations. RCW 70.107.080; WAC 173-60-050(1)(b). The Code broadly defines "firearm" as "any weapon or device by whatever name known which will or is designed to expel a projectile by the action of an explosion," including rifles, pistols, shotguns, and machine guns. KCC 10.24.080(1). As a result, the noise from the weapons being fired at the Club's range falls within the noise exemption provisions of KCC 10.28.050, and thus is exempt from the maximum permissible environmental noise levels and public disturbance noise restrictions. 2.9 Limits on Adoption of Local Noise Ordinances. WAC 173-60-110(2): "No ordinance or resolution of any local government which imposes noise control requirements differing from those adopted by the department shall be effective unless and until approved by the director [of the Department of Ecology] ." 15 • RCW 70.107.060: "Noise limiting requirements of local government which differ from those adopted or controlled by the department shall be invalid unless first approved by the [Department of Ecology]. If the [Department of Ecology] fails to approve or disapprove standards submitted by local governmental jurisdictions within ninety days of submittal, such standards shall be deemed approved." 2.10 JCC Exempts the Lawful Discharge of Firearms from its Noise Ordinance. In 2014, Jefferson County adopted Chapter 8.70 JCC (Noise Control), amidst significant public comment. The noise ordinance first proposed by staff was significantly revised after public comment and testimony was received. Currently, JCC 8.70.060(18) exempts from its regulation: "The lawful discharge of firearms." (Emphasis added.) 2.11 Regulation of Noise Under The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). SEPA provides a basis for regulation of the siting of shooting ranges, including on the basis of noise. SEPA is a state statute not a county law or ordinance. Regulation based on SEPA would not be preempted under RCW 9.41.290. RCW 43.21C.135(1) authorizes the County to "adopt rules, ordinances, and resolutions which incorporate any of the following by reference to the appropriate sections of the Washington Administrative Code:" (1) Rules and guidelines adopted under RCW 43.21C.110(1); and, model ordinances adopted by the department of ecology under RCW 43.21C.130. Chapter 197-11 WAC contains the regulations that implement RCW 4321C.135(1). Jefferson County's approved SEPA-compliant regulation is Article X. Chapter 18.40 JCC, starting with JCC 18.40.700. SEPA is a procedural law that ensures state agencies, among others, consider environmental impacts and alternatives before taking certain actions. Cornelius v. Washington Dep't of Ecology, 182 Wn.2d 574, 598, 344 P.3d 199, 210 (2015). If no categorical exemption from SEPA exists, the relevant agency or actor proposing a development must meet certain environmental review and documentation requirements. WAC 197-11-310. SEPA establishes a process to ensure that potential environmental impacts are identified, considered, and mitigated prior to an action being taken that could adversely impact the environment. RCW 43.21C.060 and WAC 197-11.660. SEPA, its implementing rules, Chapter 197-11 WAC, and Chapter 18.40 JCC will require full disclosure or mitigation of noise impacts before any new commercial shooting facility can be built. First, applicants must prepare an "environmental checklist" to describe basic information about a proposal's environmental impacts. WAC 197-11-960; Cornelius, 182 Wn.2d at 598, 344 P.3d at 210. The environmental checklist must be substantially in the form found in WAC 197-11-960 and must be used before any project can be approved. WAC 197-11-315(1). The noise portions are in Section 7.b. of the SEPA checklist: b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? 16 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: WAC 197-11-960.8 "You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge." Id. (Instructions for Applicants). Persons adversely affected by the noise and noxious fumes from the proposed highway and, as persons directly affected, have standing to raise SEPA issues. Leschi Imp. Council v. Washington State Highway Comm'n, 84 Wn.2d 271, 274, 525 P.2d 774, 778 (1974), opinion corrected, 84 Wn.2d 271, 804 Ptd 1 (1974). Regulation of the siting of shooting ranges pursuant to SEPA provides a constitutionally permitted basis for regulation that is not preempted by RCW 9.41.290 (shooting regulation preemption) or Chapter 173-60 WAC (noise preemption). 2.12 Constitutional and Statutory Protection of Applicants. In addition to the limitations on lawful shooting discussed above, the following additional limitations on government action must be kept clearly in mind. These limitations could be a source of liability for the County, if the County Commissioners were to pass regulation that does not have a rational basis or is directed at a particular person. 2.13 Property Rights Limitations. The United States and Washington Constitutions prohibit taking property without due process. Wash. Const. art. I, § 2 (1889) and U.S. Const. amend. XIV. However, "a law that regulates the use of property violates substantive due process only if it `fails to serve any legitimate governmental objective, making it arbitrary or irrational."" Yim v. City of Seattle, Wn.2d, 451 P.3d 694, 700 (2019). That also has long been the test under federal law. See Samson v. City of Bainbridge Island, 683 F.3d 1051, 1058 (9th Cir. 2012); Vill. of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 395, 47 S. Ct. 114, 121, 71 L. Ed. 303 (1926). Before November 14, 2019, Washington courts had sometimes added another requirement that could be used to invalidate a land use law on due process grounds that the law "unduly oppressive" to the landowner. But the Washington Supreme Court disavowed over 60 prior cases on November 14, 2019 to reject the "unduly oppressive test." Yim at Wn.2d , 451 P.3d 694, 704-06. Washington has a vested rights doctrine that applies to completed applications. This is codified in RCW 19.27.095(1), RCW 58.17.033(1), RCW 36.70B.180; Erickson & Assocs., Inc. v. McLerran, 123 Wash. 2d 864, 868, 872 P.2d 1090, 1093 (1994), Abbey Rd. Grp., LLC v. City of Bonney Lake, 167 Wash. 2d 242, 251, 218 P.3d 180, 183 (2009), Town of Woodway v. Snohomish Cty., 180 Wash. 2d 165, 173, 322 P.3d 1219, 1223 (2014). The County takes the position that vested rights is limited to those codified in the above statutes. However, the Washington Supreme Court limited its holding in a vested rights case in 2017 and did not reach this issue. Snohomish Cty. v. Pollution 8 A complete SEPA checklist can be downloaded at https:Hecology.wa.gov/DOE/files/d7/d7373ce2-12cb-4fd2-a0el- ld25557acl87.pdf. 17 Control Hearings Bd., 187 Wash. 2d 346, 359, 386 P.3d 1064, 1070 (2016), as amended (May 2, 2017), reconsideration denied (May 10, 2017). A violation of rights under the U.S. Constitution is subject to liability under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, including damages and reasonable attorney's fees. 2.14 Equal Protection Must be Afforded. The constitutional guarantee of equal protection of law is a limitation on exercises of the police power, including zoning and other land -use regulations. Equal protection is guaranteed by the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution, which is expressly binding upon state governments and their subdivisions, and by Article I, Section 12 of the Washington Constitution.9 See § 4.8. Denial of equal protection of law, 17 Wash. Prac., Real Estate § 4.8 (2d ed.). An ordinance violates equal protection if it: (1) applies unequally to members within a designated class; (2) has no real basis to distinguish between those in and outside the class; and, (3) has no rational relation to the purpose of the ordinance. Paradise, Inc. v. Pierce Cty., 124 Wn. App. 759, 777-78, 102 P.3d 173, 183 (2004). A person who complains of a denial of equal protection must convince a court that the person is treated differently from other persons and that, as relates to the regulation, there is no rational distinction between the complainant's situation and that of the persons treated more favorably. § 4.8. Denial of equal protection of law, 17 Wash. Prac., Real Estate § 4.8 (2d ed.). 2.15 Limits on Ordinances that Are Arbitrary, Capricious, Unlawful, or Exceed Lawful Authority Under RCW 64.40.20. "Owners of a property interest who have filed an application for a permit have an action for damages to obtain relief from acts of an agency which are arbitrary, capricious, unlawful, or exceed lawful authority, or relief from a failure to act within time limits established by law." RCW 64.40.20. Actions are arbitrary and capricious if they represent willful and unreasoning decisions made without regard for facts and circumstances. Saben v. Skagit Cty., 136 Wash. App. 869, 877, 152 P.3d 1034, 1037 (2006)(emphasis added). RCW 64.40.20(2) authorizes recovery damages and reasonable costs, including attorney's fees. Damages includes diminution in value and lost profits. Cox v. City of Lynnwood, 72 Wash. App. 1, 8, 863 P.2d 578, 584 (1993), 72 Wash. App. at 10, 863 P.2d at 584. Legal liability may exist where there was interference for an improper purpose or by using an improper means. Pac. Nw. Shooting Park Assn v. City of Sequim, 158 Wash. 2d 342, 351, 144 P.3d 276, 280 (2006). 2.16 County Growth Management Policies Implement these Limitations. Policy LU -P-1.2 of the 2018 Comprehensive Plan states that the County must follow the supremacy principle and "Acknowledge and protect the rights of private property owners in 9 Wash. Const Art. I, § 12, reads: "No law shall be passed granting to any citizen, class of citizens, or corporation other than municipal, privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens, or corporations." 0 preparing land use, development, and environmental regulations, prohibit arbitrary and discriminatory actions, and preserve reasonable uses for regulated properties. 3 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the BoCC consider revising the Planning Commission's recommended ordinances attached as Appendix 2 and Appendix 3 to the Planning Commission Recommendations as discussed in this section. 33 Staff's Proposed Changes to the Planning Commission's Title 8 Ordinance (Appendix 2): 3.1.1 Repeal and Replace County Ordinance No. 12-1102-18 (Title 8 - Health and Safety Code) Instead of Amending it. Staff proposed to the Planning Commission that County Ordinance No. 12-1102-18 (Title 8 - Health and Safety Code) be amended and Ordinance No. 15-1214-18 (Title 18 — Land Use Code) be repealed and replaced. Upon further consideration, staff now recommends that the two ordinances be repealed and replaced. Since the JCC already has been amended via the two ordinances, a repeal and replace will be easier for the Code Reviser to implement. 3.1.1.1 The Caption Should be Revised. The Caption should be revised as follows: COUNTY OF JEFFERSON STATE OF WASHINGTON An Ordinance Repealing and Replacing Ordinance No. 12-1102- } ORDINANCE NO. 18 and Amending Chapter 8.50 } Jefferson County Code related to } Shooting in the County 3.1.1.2 Section 1. Modification of Chapter 8.50 JCC, Should be Revised. Section 1 should be revised to state: Section 1. Repeal and Replacement of Ordinance No. 12-1102-18 and Amending Chapter 8.50 Jefferson County Code. Ordinance No. 12-1102-18 and Amending Chapter 8.50 Jefferson County Code is repealed and replaced with this ordinance. The Chapter 8.50 JCC is amended as in the Appendices attached. 3.1.1.3 Section 6. SEPA Compliance. Section 6. SEPA Compliance should be amended to state: 19 On January 13, 2020 the SEPA responsible official issued a determination of nonsiginficance (DNS) after reviewing a January 6, 2020 SEPA Checklist (Checklist). Consistent with RCW 43.21C.030(2), WAC 197-11-060, and Washington State Department of Ecology, State Environmental Policy Act Handbook, 43 (2018), the Checklist analyzed five non -project alternatives, including the December 3, 2019 recommendation of the Jefferson County Planning Commission, in addition to the no -action alternative. Five written comments were received timely on the DNS. All these written comments make claims that are belied by a careful review of the Checklist. None of the written comments were from state or federal agencies or Indian Tribes. A detailed response to one of the commenters was sent on February 5, 2020 that addresses all the issues raised in the comments. The SEPA responsible official has considered the written comments and expects the County will prepare additional responses to the written comments not already responded to and issue a final DNS during the week of February 10, 2020. 3.1.2 The Findings in the Planning Commission Recommendations Support its Indoor Commercial Shooting Facility Only Approach, but Need Correction. 3.1.2.1 WHEREAS, target shooting on both national forest lands and state-owned lands (Department of Natural Resources lands) is permitted unless a specific area has been closed for public safety. Staff agrees this proposed finding is correct • "Target shooting is permitted on DNR -managed lands where it can occur in compliance with the rules outlined in WAC 332-52-145 in developed recreation facilities specifically designed for target shooting; or areas with an unobstructed, earthen backstop capable of stopping all projectiles and debris in a safe manner. The vast majority of DNR -managed land is open to target shooting." htlps://www.dnr.wa.gov/targetshooting, last accessed February 2, 2020. WAC 332-52-145(3). • Target shooting on national forest lands is permitted unless a specific area has been closed for public safety. htlps://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/olympic/learning/g safety- ethics/?cid=fsbdev3_049550, last accessed February 2, 2020. The only regulations specific to use of weapons imposed by the Forest Service is that you cannot discharge a weapon within 150 yards of any structure/development or occupied area, within or into a cave, across or on a road or body of water, or in any manner that endangers a person. You also cannot use any tracer or incendiary ammunition. Forest Service regulations require that you also comply with all State laws regarding the use of firearms while hunting. htlps://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/trails/welcome.shtml, last accessed February 2, 2020. 20 3.1.2.2 WHEREAS, twenty percent of the land -base in Jefferson County falls under management where dispersed target shooting can be carried out by anyone who has legal possession of a firearm. Staff agrees this proposed finding is correct in principle. About 20 percent of the land in Jefferson County is zoned Rural Residential (RR -5, RR -10 or RR -20). 2018 Comp Plan, 1-17, Exhibit 1-9. However, the proposed finding may not account for no shooting areas adopted in Article II of Chapter 8.50 JCC. Accordingly, staff recommends that the proposed finding be modified as follows: WHEREAS, about twenty percent of the land -base in Jefferson County falls tmde,. r,.,,,.,geme„*is zoned Rural Residential (RR -5, RR -10 or RR -20), where dispersed target shooting can be carried out by anyone lawfully present who has legal possession of a firearm provided their property not in a no shooting area designated in Article II of Chapter 8.50 JCC and they do not discharge the firearm recklessly. 3.1.2.3 WHEREAS, such dispersed, sporadic sport -oriented target shooting is less impactful, from both a noise impact and a human health impact, than the concentrated impacts posed by outdoor commercial shooting facilities. Staff agrees this finding is correct as a matter of common sense. 3.1.2.4 WHEREAS, the BoCC finds it is in the public interest to provide for indoor commercial shooting facilities in Jefferson County in the face of increasing population pressure and the limited space where people can live. Staff agrees that population is expected to grow in Jefferson County and will further limit space where people can live. "Much of the county is publicly owned land. About 60 percent of the county comprises the Olympic National Park and Olympic National Forest and roughly 20 percent is under the jurisdiction of federal and state agencies. The Hoh Reservation and a small corner of the Quinault Reservation are also located in Jefferson County." Washington State Employment Security Department web site at htlps://esd.wa.gov/labormarketinfo/county- profiles/jefferson, last accessed February 2, 2020. Between 2010 and 2018, the population in Jefferson County increased from 29,872 to 31,729, a 6.2% increase. Washington State Employment Security Department web site at htlps://esd.wa.gov/labormarketinfo/county-profiles/jefferson, last accessed February 2, 2020. "The county's population is projected to grow to 35,494 by 2020. The county's population is projected to increase by 1.9 percent average annual growth in the next 10 years, and 1.6 percent average annual growth over the next 20 years, which is a higher growth rate than the United States and Washington state averages." Washington Department of Commerce, Choose Washington, htlp://choosewashingtonstate.com/why-washington/our- region/jefferson-county, last accessed February 2, 2020. 21 Staff also agrees that it is in the public interest to provide for indoor commercial shooting facilities in Jefferson County. 3.1.2.5 WHEREAS, the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan states that the County's agricultural and forest working lands should be protected and conserved. Staff agrees this finding is correct in principle. See for example, Exhibit 1-13 of the 2018 Comprehensive Plan: EXHIBIT 1-13 Summary of Resource Land Use & Zoning Designat(ons Prime Agricultural The purpose of the prime agricultural lands district is to Agriculture Lands (AP -20) protect and preserve areas of prime agricultural soils for the continued production of commercial crops, livestock, or other agricultural products requiring relatively large tracts of agricultural land. It is intended to preserve and protect the land environment, economy, and lifestyle of Commercial Forest agriculture in Jefferson County_ These lands must be (CF -80) protected as "agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance." Agricultural Lands of The purpose of theagricultural lands of local importance Agriculture Local Importance district is to protect and preserve parcels of land which, (AL -20) while not necessarily consisting of prime agriculture soil Lands Overlay or relatively large acreage, are still considered important District (MRL) to the local agricultural economy, lifestyle, and environment. As such they deserve protection as "agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance_' Inholding Forest This district encompasses parcels at least 20 acres in size Forestry (IF -20) that are entirely surrounded by designated forest resource lands and that are not vested for development under Washington State law. Rural Forest The purpose of the rural forest district is to ensure forest Forestry IRF -40j 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. Commercial Forest The purpose of thecommercial forest district is to ensure Forestry (CF -80) 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. Mineral Resource The mineral resource land district is to provide for the Mineral Extraction Lands Overlay conservation of mineral lands of long-term commercial District (MRL) significance. The intent of this district is to aid in sustaining and enhancing mineral extraction and processing activities of long-term commercial significance by protecting designated lands from incompatible development and to allow for the continued contribution of mineral lands to the Jefferson County economy_ Source. Jefferson County, 2078 22 2018 Comp Plan, 1-25-26. According to the 2018 Comprehensive Plan: To conserve the forest resource land base in Jefferson County and maintain the forestry industry while recognizing the diversity of forest landowners, Jefferson County has established the following forestry zoning districts: ► Commercial Forest Lands (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. ► Rural Forest Lands (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. ► Inholding Forest Lands (IF): This district encompasses parcels at least 20 acres in size that are entirely surrounded by designated forest resource lands. While important for the preservation of forestry lands, lands in the IF zone are not necessarily forest lands of long-term significance due to their smaller parcel sizes (20 acres). Together, these three zoning districts account for more than 76% of unincorporated areas in Jefferson not under Federal, State, or Tribal jurisdiction. Exhibit 2-3 shows a breakdown of acreage in each of the forest lands zones. 2018 Comp Plan, 2-11-12. However, staff recommends modifying this proposed finding as follows: WHEREAS, the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan states tithe County's agricultural and forest wof4Eitig lands of long term significance should be protected and conserved. 3.1.2.6 WHEREAS, the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan states that 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. Staff agrees this proposed finding is correct, though stated slightly differently than in the Comprehensive Plan. For example, the Comprehensive Plan states: "One of the goals of the GMA is the conservation of productive natural resources lands of long-term commercial significance, including forestlands, agricultural lands, and mineral resources. All counties and cities planning under the GMA are required to identify and designate such natural resource lands for conservation to avoid conflicts with other incompatible uses and ensure these lands are available to support economic productivity and healthy ecological systems." 2018 Comp Plan, 1-109. 23 "Forest lands provide both economic and ecological benefits to local residents, making their conservation a high priority under the GMA." 2018 Comp Plan, 1-109. • "To conserve the forest resource land base in Jefferson County and maintain the forestry industry while recognizing the diversity of forest landowners, Jefferson County has established the following forestry zoning districts: ► Commercial Forest Lands (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. ► Rural Forest Lands (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. ► Inholding Forest Lands (IF): This district encompasses parcels at least 20 acres in size that are entirely surrounded by designated forest resource lands. While important for the preservation of forestry lands, lands in the IF zone are not necessarily forest lands of long-term significance due to their smaller parcel sizes (20 acres). Together, these three zoning districts account for more than 76% of unincorporated areas in Jefferson not under Federal, State, or Tribal jurisdiction. 2018 Comp Plan, 2-11-12. To be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Staff recommends modifying the proposed finding as follows: WHEREAS, the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan states that the purpose of the faf distfiet forest lands zones 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. 3.1.2.7 WHEREAS, lead and other heavy metals at shooting ranges are distributed through spent ammunition, propellants, "lead rain", shattered bullets, and errant rounds. Staff agrees that lead and other metals can be released during operations at a shooting range. USEPA Region 2 in its 2005 publication entitled Best Management Practices for Outdoor Shooting Ranges (USEPA 2005), which would be adopted for best management practices under the Title 8 ordinance recommended in the Planning Commission Recommendation states there are three possible site-specific pathways that "may or may not occur at each individual range:" (1) Lead that oxidizes when exposed to air and dissolves when exposed to acidic water or soil; (2) Lead bullets, bullet particles, or dissolved lead moved by storm water runoff. USEPA 2005, 1-2. According to 24 USEPA, `By implementing appropriate lead management at outdoor shooting ranges, range owners and operators can reduce the environmental and health risks associated with lead deposition, meet legal requirements and realize quantifiable benefits." USEPA 2005, 1-2. "Because wind is unlikely to move heavy lead particles very far, airborne dust is generally considered a potential threat only when there are significant structures that block air flow on the firing line." USEPA 2005, 1-4. However, "Range workers may also be exposed to lead dust while performing routine maintenance operations, such as raking or cleaning out bullet traps." USEPA 2005, 1-4. Further, "at ranges where shooting occurs into or over water," "birds can ingest [lead] shot, mistaking it for food or grit." USEPA 2005, 1-4. Using best management practices in USEPA 2005 required by the Planning Commission Recommendations, exposure to lead and other heavy metals would be mitigated. However, staff could find no scientific article discussing "lead rain" and assumes what is meant by this term is lead dust. Google searches for "lead rain" mostly gave results for a video game of that name or a song of that name by Eric Kerns. Thus, use of the term "lead rain" could be confusing to the reader. Furthermore, from scientific literature, it seems that other metals that may be released as a shooting facility mostly are not distributed through spent ammunition but from the gases produced by igniting caps in cartridges. As discussed in the County's December 6, 2019 SEPA checklist, when a cartridge is shot, and before the projectile leaves the gun, all the powder grains should be completely burnt; however, if this ideal case does not happen, it is possible to find unburnt or partially burnt powder particles. K. -M. Pun, A. Gallusser, Macroscopic observation of the morphological characteristics of the ammunition gunpowder, Forensic Sci. Int.; 175(2-3), 179- 185 (2008) (Pun and Gallusser 2008). Firing a weapon produces combustion of both the primer and powder of the cartridge. Gunpowder or "black powder" is no longer used in modern firearms. The powder used in modern ammunition is known as smokeless powder. Smokeless powder mostly is made of nitrocellulose, also known as cellulose nitrate, guncotton, and NC. There also may be trace amounts of other chemicals in smokeless powder. For handguns and shotgun loads nitrocellulose is enhanced with nitroglycerin. The residue of the combustion products, called gunshot residue (GSR), can consist of both burned and unburned primer or powder components, combined with additional residues from the surface of the bullet, surface of the cartridge case, and lubricants used on the firearm. Residues can be either inorganic or organic in nature. C. Vachon and M. Martinez, Understanding Gunshot Residue Evidence and Its Role in Forensic Science, Am J Forensic Med Pathol (2019); 40: 210-219 (Vachon and Martinez, 2019). Residues most often derive from the primer cap, which typically contains a mixture of components: the shock -sensitive explosive lead styphnate, oxidizer barium nitrate, and antimony sulfide fuel. Thus, the most commonly encountered residue metals are lead (Pb), barium (Ba), and antimony (Sb). (Vachon and Martinez, 2019). Less common elements in GSR include aluminum (Al), sulfur (S), tin (Sn), calcium (Ca), potassium (K), chlorine (Cl), copper (Cu), strontium (Sr), zinc (Zn), titanium (Ti), or silicon (Si). How much GSR is produced depends upon a number of factors including, the size and geometry of the powder grains, the variability of the color of the powder, the length of the barrel and the type of base of the bullet. (Pun and Gallusser 2008). 25 While the gist of this proposed finding is correct, namely that lead and other heavy metals may be chemicals of concern at shooting ranges, portions of this proposed finding are incorrect or confusing, so staff recommends it be modified as follows: WHEREAS, without best management practices such as those suggested by the United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 2 in its 2005 publication entitled Best Management Practices for Outdoor Shooting Ranges (USEPA 2005), lead and other heavy metals released at shooting ranges could negativelypact human health and the environment at shooting fanges afe distfibtited ffifetigh spent afnfntmifien, propellants, "lead fain", shattefed btillets, and effant Fetinds.. 3.1.2.8 WHEREAS, lead is a known health hazard and neurotoxin that can affect humans and animals alike. Staff agrees this proposed finding is correct. "Lead poisoning is a serious health risk. At higher concentrations, it is dangerous to people of all ages, leading to convulsions, coma and even death. At even very low concentrations, it is dangerous to infants and young children, damaging the developing brain and resulting in both learning and behavioral problems." USEPA 2005, 1-4. 3.1.2.9 WHEREAS, noise pollution above certain levels, particularly persistent, repetitive, percussive noise pollution associated with shooting ranges, is deleterious to humans and animals alike. Staff agrees that persistent, repetitive, percussive noise above certain levels, is deleterious to humans and animals alike_ RCW 70.107.010, part of Noise Control Act of 1974, states: "The legislature finds that inadequately controlled noise adversely affects the health, safety and welfare of the people, the value of property, and the quality of the environment. Antinoise measures of the past have not adequately protected against the invasion of these interests by noise." Under the authority of the Noise Control Act of 1974, the Washington Department of Ecology issued Chapter 173-60 WAC, which contains maximum permissible environmental noise levels at WAC 173-60- 040. he 2012 NRA Range Source Book published by the National Rifle Association (2012 Source Book states: "That certain types of noise can affect human health and safety is well documented. Adverse effects depend on their loudness and frequency spectrum." 2012 Source Book, I-6-9. But this is true not just with noise that may be created by shooting ranges. And, "Although the physics of sound is the same everywhere, each range will be different from others." 2012 Source Book, I- 6-9. Nevertheless, "Shooting ranges produce high levels of sound. Sound waves often travel beyond the boundaries of the range property. Escaping sound waves may be perceived as unwanted community noise by neighboring property owners." 2012 Source Book, I-6-5. Accordingly, staff recommends modifying the proposed finding as follows: WHEREAS, noise pelitifien above certain levels, particularly persistent, repetitive, percussive noise pellution asseeiatedwith shooting fanges, is deleterious to humans and animals alike; and, WHEREAS, noise at outdoor shooting facilities is much more likely to generate complaints by nearby residents, than noise at indoor shooting facilities. 26 3.1.2.10 WHEREAS, technology exists to control such noise pollution at indoor shooting facilities but not at outdoor shooting ranges, where there are no known methods to completely control or eliminate noise leaving outdoor shooting ranges that can reach and negatively impact humans, domestic and wild animals, and where such impacts cannot be fully mitigated. Staff agrees that "there are no known methods to completely control or eliminate noise leaving outdoor shooting ranges that can reach and negatively impact humans, domestic and wild animals." The 2012 Source Book states: "No set distance eliminates noise complaints entirely." 2012 Source Book, I-1-18. Furthermore, "studies conducted for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) indicate noise complaints are likely when inhabited dwellings exist less than one half (1/2) mile from the facility. Beyond that distance, the chance of generating noise complaints is reduced." 2012 Source Book, I-1-18. However, a commercial shooting facility that employs mitigation measures and proper land use siting to ensure that the project, as mitigated, is not likely to have probable significant adverse impacts on the environment, as described in the SEPA Checklist. Furthermore, technology exists to abate noise at both indoor and outdoor shooting ranges. However, staff agrees that a higher degree of noise abatement is possible at an indoor shooting range than at an outdoor shooting range. 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 (NIOSH 2009), which contains best management practices that the Planning Commission's recommended ordinances would require, states: "Recently, state-of-the- art systems and training equipment designed to reduce lead and noise exposures have been introduced and are gaining wide acceptance among firing range operators and law enforcement agencies. Specifically, new backstop systems are available that eliminate bullet fragmentation and airborne lead by capturing whole, intact bullets into their rubber media. These backstops also reduce noise exposures compared to steel backstops." NIOSH 2009, 17. Accordingly, staff recommends modifying the proposed finding as follows: WHEREAS,reg ater technology exists to control suialrnoise pien impacts at indoor shooting €ae44esranges thanes at outdoor shooting ranges, where +hefe afe „e knew-li met4eds to eempletely eentrelofelifninate—noise leaving outdoor shooting ranges scan reach and negatively impact humans, domestic and wild animals unless the outdoor shooting range's noise is mitigated through best management practices and the outdoor shooting range is properly sem; 3.1.2.11 WHEREAS, state of the art HVAC keep air clean for clients and workers. Staff agrees this proposed finding is correct, as applied to indoor shooting ranges. However, staff suggests a slight modification to make the proposed finding more accurate as follows: WHEREAS, properly maintained state of the art HVAC keep air clean for clients and workers 27 3.1.2.12 WHEREAS, bullet traps at indoor shooting ranges now provide total containment for spent ammunition and contaminants which can be reclaimed and recycled, protecting the County's human health and natural resources. Staff agrees with the gist of this proposed finding that bullet traps maximize environmental protection. However, staff is unaware of any scientific literature proving 100 percent or "total" containment is possible. And, bullet traps are not just for indoor shooting ranges. Accordingly, staff recommends modification of this proposed finding as follows: WHEREAS, bullet traps at indeefshooting ranges now provide total the maximum possible containment for spent afnffmnifienbullets, which can be reclaimed and recycled, andthereby minimizing eentammantsany resulting contamination whieh ean be feelaimed and eyelea, and protecting the County's human health and natural resources. 3.1.3 The Definition of Firearms Allowed at Commercial Shooting Facilities Should be Deleted as Unnecessary. The Planning Commission recommended adding a definition of "Firearms allowed at commercial shooting facilities," as follows: (26) "Firearms allowed at commercial shooting facilities" means weapons that can be legally, owned, carried and discharged in accordance with the laws of Washington under Chapter 9.41 RCW (`Firearms and Dangerous Weapons') and not additional weaponry in use by military forces which require specialized authorization, training and training grounds. Machine guns, destructive devices, and certain other firearms are prohibited on commercial shooting facilities. The definition of these items may be found in Title 26 U.S.C., Chapter 53, section 5845, also known as the National Firearms Act. Examples are: any select fire firearm (aka full -auto), mortar, rocket launcher, grenade, Molotov cocktail. Staff understands that the intent of this proposed changes is to preclude any military type weapons from being used at commercial shooting facilities. However, other laws already cover this topic, including laws that: • Limit reckless shooting of firearms (RCW 9.36.050 and RCW 9.41.230); • 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)7- Limit .41.010(17); Limit the discharge of a short -barreled rifle or a short -barreled shotgun as those terms are defined in RCW 9.41.010; and, • Prohibit discharge of a destructive device as that term is defined in 25 U.S.C. Section 5845 and any explosive as that term is defined in RCW 70.74.010(5). These laws are referenced in the Planning Commissions proposed ordinance in JCC 8.50.310(6) which states: Nothing in article shall be construed as: (a) Authorizing an application or a permit for an outdoor mar shooting facility to be located in whole or in part in an area designated as an area where the discharge of firearms is prohibited under Chapter 8.50 JCC. Sheefing ra„gesOutdoor shooting facilities in such areas are expressly prohibited. (b) Permitting the discharge of firearms, the ownership or possession of which is otherwise prohibited by law. (c) Permitting the use or possession of a firearm by an individual who is otherwise prohibited by law from owning or possessing that firearm. (d) Allowing or authorizing the discharge of firearms otherwise prohibited by state or federal law. (e) Allowing or authorizing the discharge of tracer or incendiary ammunition. (f) Allowing or authorizing the discharge of a destructive device as that term is defined in 25 U.S.C. Section 5845(f) or any explosive as that term is defined in RCW 70.74.010(5). (g) Allowing or authorizing 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), unless specifically authorized under RCW 9.41.190(3). (h) Allowing or authorizing the discharge of a short -barreled rifle or a short -barreled shotgun as those terms are defined in RCW 9.41.010, unless specifically authorized under RCW 9.41.190(3). (i) Permitting a commercial shooting facility to maintain or create a public nuisance as defined in Chapter 7.48 RCW, JCC 5.10.050, JCC 8.20.140, JCC 8.30.020, JCC 8.55.070, Chapter 8.70 JCC, Chapter 8.90 JCC, JCC 15.05.100, or Title 18 JCC. 0) Abridging or altering the rights of action by the state, by the county or by persons, which exist in equity, common law, or other statutes to abate pollution or to abate a nuisance. (k) Limiting a court of competent jurisdiction from: i. Ruling that a commercial shooting facility is a public nuisance; or, ii. Requiring additional noise, environmental or safety controls as a condition of continued operation of a commercial shooting facility. (1) Nullifying or rendering void the terms of any existing or future injunctive order issued by a court of competent jurisdiction pertaining to operations or activities at a shooting range or commercial shooting facility. 29 Because state and federal laws regulate these topics, staff believes the addition is unnecessary and may be preempted by state or federal law. In addition, while written as a definition, the language proposed in the Planning Commission Recommendation is really a prohibition that would need to be rewritten as such to avoid confusion. Accordingly, staff recommends removing this definition from the final ordinance. 3.1.3.1 Staff's Proposed Improvement to JCC 8.50.230 Operating Permit Required. Staff proposes that the definition of "expansion" that was deleted in the Planning Commission's recommended ordinance be retained but modified slightly and a new JCC 8.50.230(2) be added as follows: "Expansion" means any proposed change that increases the operations permitted for a commercial shooting facility, including expansions of a commercial shooting facility lawfully operating as of the effective date of the ordinance codified in this article. Examples of expansions include but are not limited to additional firing positions, lengthened periods of operations, increases in permitted firearm caliber or range, or increased size of shot fall or direct fire zones. Modifications made solely through routine maintenance of a commercial shooting facility, such as the installation of sewer, water or other utilities, pavement of a parking lot, the installation of safety baffles, construction of side or backstop berms, or the construction or remodeling of a clubhouse, shall not be considered an expansion. (2) An expansion as defined in JCC 8.50.220(X) of a commercial shooting facility shall require a new operating permit. This proposed change clarifies that a new operating permit would be required in the case of an expansion, as defined. 3.1.3.2 Staff's Proposed Improvement to JCC 8.50.250 Minimum Standards. Staff proposes that a definition of "containment" be added as follows: "Containment" means the prevention of projectiles from leaving a shooting range during operations. (2) Containment. Commercial shooting facilities shall be operated so that when firearms are operating in accordance with the rules and regulations (as defined above) there is containment. The effect of this proposed change is to make clear the level of containment required. 3.2 Staff's Proposed Changes to the Planning Commission's Title 18 Ordinance (Appendix 3): Staff proposes the following improvements to the Planning Commission's recommended ordinance. 01 3.2.1 Section 1. Modification of Title 18 JCC Should be Revised. Section 1 should be revised to state: Section 1. Repeal and Replacement of Ordinance No. 12-1102-18 and Amending Chapter 8.50 Jefferson County Code. Ordinance No. 15-1214-18 (Title 18 — Land Use Code) is repealed and replaced with this ordinance. Title 18 JCC is amended as in the attached Appendix. This will simplify and clarify the section. 3.2.2 Section 6. SEPA Compliance. Section 6. SEPA Compliance should be amended to state On January 13, 2020 the SEPA responsible official issued a DNS after reviewing a January 6, 2020 SEPA Checklist (Checklist). Consistent with RCW 43.21C.030(2), WAC 197-11-060, and Washington State Department of Ecology, State Environmental Policy Act Handbook, 43 (2018), the Checklist analyzed five non -project alternatives, including the December 3, 2019 recommendation of the Jefferson County Planning Commission, in addition to the no -action alternative. Five written comments were received timely on the DNS. All these written comments make claims that are belied by a careful review of the Checklist. None of the written comments were from state or federal agencies or Indian Tribes. A detailed response to one of the commenters was sent on February 5, 2020 that addresses all the issues raised in the comments. The SEPA responsible official has considered the written comments and expects the County will prepare additional responses to the written comments not already responded to and issue a final DNS during the week of February 10, 2020. 3.2.3 The Findings in the Planning Commission Recommendations Support its Indoor Commercial Shooting Facility Only Approach but Need Correction. The Planning Commission Recommendation included the same proposed findings in Appendix 3 as in Appendix 2. These proposed findings should be corrected as discussed in connection with Section 3.1.2 of this Staff Report. 3.2.4 The Planning Commission Recommends Only Indoor Commercial Shooting Facilities as a Discretionary Use in All Rural/UGA Commercial and Industrial Zoning (Excluding Resource-based Industrial Zoning). The Planning Commission Recommendation would prohibit in all zoning districts outdoor commercial shooting facilities that do not have an established legal non -conforming use and would allow indoor commercial shooting facilities only as a discretionary use (without additional bright - line rules) in all rural/UGA commercial and industrial zoning (excluding resource-based industrial zoning). 31 3.2.4.1 Analysis of the Planning Commission Recommendation Under GMM Requirements for Protecting Forest Resource Lands of Long -Term Commercial Significance. Consistent with GMA, the Planning Commission Recommendation protects forest resource lands of long-term significance, namely Commercial Forest (CF) and Rural Forest (RF) districts. "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." 2018 Comp Plan, 2-11-12 (emphasis added). Similarly, "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." Id. (emphasis added). However, the Planning Commission Recommendation also prohibits indoor shooting facilities in the Inholding Forest (IF) district. "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." 2018 Comp Plan, 1-25-5. "While important for the preservation of forestry lands, lands in the IF zone are not necessarily forest lands of long-term significance due to their smaller parcel sizes (20 acres)." 2018 Comp Plan, 1-25-5 (emphasis added). 10 JCC 18.15.020(2) discusses the Forest Resource Lands (FOR) land use class and states (2) Forest Resource Lands (FOR). (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. (Emphasis added.) Thus, in Jefferson County, Commercial Forest (CF -80) and Rural Forest (CF - 40) districts are "forest lands of long-term significance." JCC 18.15.020(2)(a) and &. But Inholding Forest (IF) districts are not automatically forest resource lands of long-term commercial significance. JCC 18.15.020(2)(c). 10 Some Inholding Forest (IF) parcels are much smaller than 20 acres. Some are even 4 or 5 acres. 32 3.2.4.2 Analysis of the Planning Commission Recommendation Proposing Indoor Commercial Shooting Facilities in Industrial Zones. The ability of the County to adopt the Planning Commission's proposed ordinance in all industrial zones may be limited by the current definition of "Industrial use, heavy or resource-based" in the Jefferson County Code. Under the Jefferson County Code, indoor commercial shooting facilities may not qualify as an industrial use in heavy or resource-based industrial districts. JCC 18.10.090 states: "`Industrial use, heavy or resource-based' means a use engaged in the basic processing and manufacturing of materials or products predominately from extracted or raw materials or natural resources; a use engaged in storage of or manufacturing processes using flammable, hazardous or explosive materials; or manufacturing processes that potentially involve hazardous or commonly recognized adverse conditions." 3.2.5 Analysis of the Planning Commission Recommendation Under the Supremacy Principle. 3.2.5.1 The Planning Commission did not Recommend Regulation of Non -Commercial Shooting Facilities. Some written public comments submitted to the Planning Commission suggested that Jefferson County should regulate non-commercial shooting facilities. However, in deference to the Supremacy Principle, the Planning Commission did not recommend those changes. Staff concurs. 3.2.5.2 Requirement of Only Indoor Commercial Shooting Facilities, that Are Not Grandfathered. The Planning Commission's Recommendation states: The significant change in Appendix 3 (Title 18 Ordinance) is to: (1) Limit new commercial shooting facilities to allow indoor shooting ranges as a discretionary use in all commercial and industrial zoning districts (except resource based industrial zoning district), subject to review under the State Environmental Policy Act; and, (2) State that outdoor shooting ranges, except those that qualify as a legal nonconforming use under JCC 18.20.260, shall not be allowed in Jefferson County in order to protect the rural lifestyle, peace, health and safety of Jefferson County residents as well and to avoid impacts to both wild and domestic animals. The Second Amendment at its "core" protects the "right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home." Heller, 554 U.S. at 635, 128 S.Ct. at 2821-22. (Emphasis added.) Weapons training and shooting practice can be obtained at indoor shooting ranges and outdoor shooting ranges alike. The Jefferson County Code does not prohibit individuals from training and practicing with weapons outdoors on private property except in lawfully established no shooting areas. And, individuals can practice shooting on Olympic National Forest and Washington Department of Natural Resource lands in Jefferson County where target practice is specifically authorized." Further, individuals can train and practice shooting at the Jefferson " See the discussion above. 33 County Sportsmen's Association facility, 12 located just outside of the City of Port Townsend on land licensed by Jefferson County. 13 Aerial Photograph with overlay of Jefferson County Sportsmen's Association Facility Staff undertook an analysis of whether indoor commercial shooting facilities actually could be sited, assuming compliance with existing provisions in Title 18 JCC and the Planning Commission Recommendation that commercial indoor shooting facilities be allowed only as a discretionary use in all commercial and industrial zoning districts (except resource based industrial zoning district), subject to review under the SEPA. In addition, staff analyzed whether indoor commercial shooting facilities could be sited, assuming compliance with existing provisions in Title 18 JCC: (1) As a discretionary use in all rural/UGA commercial and industrial zoning (excluding resource-based industrial zoning); (2) In forest resource lands as a conditional use, (a) subject to the 12 conditional use approval criteria in JCC 18.40.530; (b) subject to the forest resource district protections in JCC 18.15.150 and Table 3-1; and, (c) as Small -Scale Recreation or Tourist Uses. Small -Scale Recreation or Tourist Uses limited by JCC 18.20.350(3); but, (d) subject to a quota of approximately 150 acres total in the 328,785 acres of forest resource lands throughout the county. A technical memorandum describing this analysis is attached as Exhibit A. lZ http://jeffersoncountysportsmen.orWwp , last accessed February 2, 2020. " The land for the Jefferson County Sportsmen's Association facility is licensed through December 31, 2040. M Based on this analysis, commercial shooting facilities could be sited within commercial/industrial zones and Inholding Forest (IF) zones. Since Inholding Forest (IF) zones (maximum 20 acres) are smaller than Commercial Forest (CF) (maximum 80 acres) and Rural Forest (RF) (maximum 40 acres), siting indoor commercial shooting facilities in Commercial Forest (CF) and Rural Forest (RF) zones likely would be possible too. Compliance with the Supremacy Principle could be maximized by allowing indoor commercial shooting facilities in Commercial Forest (CF), Rural Forest (RF), and Inholding Forest (IF) zones, as a conditional use, (a) subject to the 12 conditional use approval criteria in JCC 18.40.530; (b) subject to the forest resource district protections in JCC 18.15.150 and Table 3-1; (c) as Small - Scale Recreation or Tourist Uses. Small -Scale Recreation or Tourist Uses limited by JCC 18.20.350(3), and (d) subject to a quota of approximately 150 acres total in the 328,785 acres of forest resource lands throughout the county. With the proposed quota, staff believes GMA compliance would be satisfied. However, allowing indoor commercial shooting facilities within Commercial Forest (CF) and Rural Forest (RF) districts, which are forest lands of long-term commercial significance in Jefferson County, 14 is subject to greater risk of successful claims of lack of GMA compliance. As Inholding Forest (IF) districts are not automatically forest resource lands of long-term commercial significance in Jefferson County, allowing indoor commercial shooting facilities in commercial/industrial districts and Inholding Forest (IF) districts would satisfy both the Supremacy Principle and the GMA. Staff finds that indoor commercial shooting facilities in Inholding Forest (IF) districts as a conditional use, subject to the small-scale tourist and recreation standards, and subject to the quota is consistent with the GMA's requirement to protect forest resource lands of long-term commercial significance. 3.2.5.3 Staff's Proposed Improvement to JCC 18.20.135 Commercial Shooting Facilities. In the Planning Commission's Recommendations, JCC 18.20.135(7) states: "(7) Outdoor commercial shooting facilities are further regulated under JCC 18.20.350(8)." This is a remnant of the ordinance staff proposed to the Planning Commission that no longer applies and should be deleted. 3.2.6 Modified as Recommended by Staff, the Ordinances Proposed in the Planning Commission Recommendations, fully comply with GMA and all Statutory and Constitutional Requirements. Staff believes the ordinances proposed in the Planning Commission Recommendations, as modified consistent with these staff recommendations, fully comply with GMA and all statutory and constitutional requirements discussed above. 4 SEPA COMPLIANCE FOR THE DRAFT ORDINANCES On January 13, 2020, the County's SEPA responsible official issued a DNS based on a January 6, 2020 SEPA checklist that considered 5 alternatives, in addition to a no action alternative. 14 JCC 18.15.020(2)(a) andb). 35 4.1 Alternatives Considered. 4.1.1 No Action. Under the no -action alternative, the Jefferson County Code in existence before November 2018 will remain in effect. Under the pre -November 2018 code: • There were no uniform, comprehensive regulatory scheme for commercial shooting facilities. • "Outdoor shooting ranges" could be permitted with a conditional use permit (CUP) in forest resource lands as "Small -Scale Recreation or Tourist Uses" in JCC 18.20.350. • It would have been difficult, if not impossible to enforce JCC 18.20.350 because of missing terms related to the definitions of "small scale" and "small-scale recreation or tourist uses." • 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. • 18.20.350(8)(a) required that shooting ranges be "located, designed, constructed and operated to prevent the likelihood of discharge of ammunition beyond the boundaries of the parcel where they occur." (Emphasis added). But "ammunition" was nowhere defined. See JCC 18.10.010. And, firearms shoot bullets or projectiles, not ammunition. • There was reliance on existing laws that: ■ Require compliance with critical area, shoreline and wetlands buffers; ■ Limit nuisance noise; ■ Limit reckless shooting of firearms (RCW 9.36.050 and RCW 9.41.230); ■ 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); • .41.010(17);■ Limit the discharge of a short -barreled rifle or a short -barreled shotgun as those terms are defined in RCW 9.41.010; and, ■ Prohibit discharge of a destructive device as that term is defined in 25 U.S.C. Section 5845 and any explosive as that term is defined in RCW 70.74.010(5). • Compliance with all 12 conditional use approval criteria was required. • 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. W • 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. • 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. • Shooting ranges could have been permitted on Forest Resource Lands, provided there was compliance with the forest resource districts protections in JCC 18.15.150. • There were no generally accepted environmental best management practices (BMPs) for operation of shooting ranges were required. • There were no generally accepted environmental best management practices (BMPs) for siting and development of shooting ranges were required. • There were no express minimum standards for operation of a CSF were required. • There were no express minimum standards for siting and design of a CSF were required. • There were no liability insurance requirements. • There were no facilities design plan. • There was no safety plan. • There was no operations plan. • There was no environmental plan. • There was no noise abatement plan. • There was no initial inspection. • There was no annual inspection. • There was no professional review of a permit application. • There was no compliance certification under oath. • There were no specified consequences for non-compliance, including no authority to suspend or cancel a permit. 4.1.2 Alternative 1. Alternative 1 is legislation passed by the Board of County Commissioners in 2018, namely Ordinance No. 12-1102-18 (Title 8 - Health and Safety Code) and Ordinance No. 15-1214-18 37 (Title 18 — Land Use Code) adopted on December 14, 2018. The Growth Board invalidated these two ordinances on procedural grounds. FDO, 15-16. These procedural grounds have been addressed by completing the public participation process and the SEPA process for both ordinances. The Growth Board decided not to consider whether "the two ordinances allow a land use that is inconsistent with and fails to implement the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan goals and policies in violation of GMA." FDO, 13. This issue and the issue of whether the County complied with SEPA for Ordinance No. 15-1214-18 (Title 18 — Land Use Code) are now on appeal. The County believes a SEPA DNS that is not challenged in a Growth Board action, as was the case with Ordinance No. 15-1214-18 (Title 18 — Land Use Code), is sufficient to satisfy SEPA. Alternative 1 can be summarized as follows: • Allows outdoor commercial shooting facilities in forest resource lands only with a CUP, subject to the 12 CUP approval criteria in JCC 18.40.530 and the forest resource district protections in JCC 18.15.150 and Table 3-1. • Allows indoor commercial shooting facilities 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. • 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. • Fixes the ambiguities, loopholes and missing standards and best management practices identified in the no -action alternative. 4.1.3 Alternative 2. Alternative 2 is legislation recommended to the Jefferson County Planning Commission by staff on October 16, 2019 and is contained in the Planning Commission Recommendations in Appendices A and B, Part of Appendix 1. Alternative 2 can be summarized as follows: Allows outdoor commercial shooting facilities in forest resource lands only with a CUP, subject to the 12 CUP approval criteria in JCC 18.40.530 and the forest resource district protections in JCC 18.15.150 and Table 3-1. Limits outdoor commercial shooting facilities 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). • Limits outdoor commercial shooting facilities in forest resource lands with a quota (approximately 150 acres total in the 328,785 acres of forest resource lands throughout the county). M • Allows indoor commercial shooting facilities 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. • 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. • Fixes the ambiguities, loopholes and missing standards and best management practices identified in the no -action alternative. 4.1.4 Alternative 3. Alternative 3 was proposed by TRC during the public participation process with the Jefferson County Planning Commission. 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 3 can be summarized as follows: • Allows outdoor commercial shooting facilities in forest resource lands only with a CUP, subject to the 12 CUP approval criteria in JCC 18.40.530 and the forest resource district protections in JCC 18.15.150 and Table 3-1. • Limits outdoor commercial shooting facilities 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). • Requires bright -line rules including (a) a limit of one conditional use per parcel; (b) Prohibiting use of commercial shooting facilities by military, paramilitary, National Guard, Homeland Security or non -local law enforcement; (c) Maximum of 5 firing points per parcel; (d) No shooting from aircraft; (e) No drone or helicopter flights within the parcel; (f) No machine guns, mortars, rocket launchers, etc.; (g) Noise standard at property boundaries of a maximum of 40db; or, (h) 500 -yard setback from shorelines (streams and lakes) and additional wetlands/wetland-buffers. • Does not use a quota to limit outdoor commercial shooting facilities in forest resource lands. • Allows indoor commercial shooting facilities with a CUP in rural/ UGA commercial and industrial zoning (excluding resource-based industrial zoning). • Fixes the ambiguities, loopholes and missing standards and best management practices identified in the no -action alternative. we 4.1.5 Alternative 4. 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 4 can be summarized as follows: • Prohibits outdoor commercial shooting facilities in all zoning districts. • Indoor commercial shooting facilities allowed only as a discretionary use (without additional bright -line rules) in all rural/UGA commercial and industrial zoning (excluding resource-based industrial zoning). • Defines "Indoor shooting facility" to include "lawful incidental sales of firearms, ammunition, component parts, and accessories." • Fixes the ambiguities, loopholes and missing standards and best management practices identified in the no -action alternative. 4.1.6 Alternative 5. Alternative 5 was proposed as potentially necessary to ensure compliance with constitutional requirements, including under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, if the BoCC decides to limit commercial shooting facilities to indoor facilities. Alternative 5 can be summarized as follows: • Prohibits outdoor commercial shooting facilities in all zoning districts. • Allows indoor commercial shooting facilities as a discretionary use (without additional bright -line rules) in all rural/UGA commercial and industrial zoning (excluding resource- based industrial zoning). • Allows indoor commercial shooting facilities in forest resource lands only with a CUP, subject to the 12 CUP approval criteria in JCC 18.40.530 and the forest resource district protections in JCC 18.15.150 and Table 3-1. • Limits indoor commercial shooting facilities 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). • Limits indoor commercial shooting facilities in forest resource lands with a quota (approximately 150 acres total in the 328,785 acres of forest resource lands throughout the county). • Defines "Indoor shooting facility" to include "lawful incidental sales of firearms, ammunition, component parts, and accessories." • Fixes the ambiguities, loopholes and missing standards and best management practices identified in the no -action alternative. .O 4,2 Comments Received During the SEPA 14 -Day Comment Period. Staff received five comments during the SEPA comment period. The comments were from (1) Darlene Shanfaled, President of the Washington State Sierra Club's North Olympic Group; 15 (2) The Tarboo Ridge Coalition; 16 (3) Riley Parker, an individual who also is a member of the Tarboo Ridge Coalition Board of Directors; 17 (4) Diane Johnson, an individual who also is a member of the Tarboo Ridge Coalition Board of Directors; 18 and, (5) Patricia Jones, Executive Director of the Olympic Forest Coalition; 19 All these written comments make claims that are belied by a careful review of the Checklist. None of the written comments were from state or federal agencies or Indian Tribes. A detailed response to the TRC comments was sent on February 5, 2020 that addresses all the issues raised in the comments. The SEPA responsible official has considered the written comments and expects the County will prepare additional responses to the written comments not already responded to and issue a final DNS during the week of February 10, 2020. 5. CONCLUSION Staff recommends the proposed ordinances in the Planning Commission Recommendations as discussed above. If there are questions, they should be directed to Michele Farfan. is https://www.sierraclub.org/wasWngton/north-olyLnpic. 16 haps://tarbooridgecoalition.org . 17 haps://tarbooridgecoalition.org/our-board/. 18 https://tarbooridgecoalition.org/our-board/. 19 http:HolyMpicforest.org/. 41 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM EXHIBIT A 0 :111 BERK MEMORANDUM DATE: February 7, 2020 Phone; (206) 324-8760 2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 1000 Seattle, WA 98121 www.berkconsulting.com TO: Michelle Farfan, Associate Planner, Jefferson County Department of Community Development; Philip C. Hunsucker, Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney FROM: Lisa Grueter, AICP, Principal, and Kevin Gifford, Senior Associate, BERK Consulting, Inc. RE: Parcel Analysis for Title 18 Commercial Shooting Facility Ordinance This memorandum provides a planning -level review of two alternatives under consideration by Jefferson County regarding the Commercial Shooting Facility Ordinance. This memorandum is organized as follows: 1.0. Introduction and Purpose........................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Introduction...................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2. Purpose............................................................................................................................................................1 1.3. Alternatives Evaluated..................................................................................................................................2 2.0. Analysis.....................................................................................................................................3 2.1. Parcel Availability.........................................................................................................................................3 2.2. Facility Analysis..............................................................................................................................................6 3.0. Conclusion................................................................................................................................. 9 4.0. Appendices............................................................................................................... Appendix -1 4.1. Appendix A BERK Qualifications.............................................................................................Appendix-1 4.2. Appendix B: Site Analysis Rural/UGA Commercial and Industrial zoning ......................Appendix -2 4.3. Appendix C: List of Parcels Potentially Suitable for Shooting Facilities in Rural/UGA Commercial andIndustrial zoning..............................................................................................................................Appendix-3 4.4. Appendix D: Site Analysis Inholding Forest (IF) parcels......................................................Appendix-5 4.5. Appendix E: BERK Forest Parcel Availability Analysis.........................................................Appendix-6 February 7, 2020 1.0. Introduction and Purpose 1.1. INTRODUCTION BERK Consulting, Inc. (BERK) was retained by Jefferson County to review from a planning -level perspective two alternative regulatory approaches to indoor commercial shooting facilities in terms of possible locations to site them. BERK staff qualifications are included in Appendix A. BERK prepared spatial analysis in ESRI ArcGIS and reviewed example development schematics prepared by Jefferson County Community Development Department staff. BERK reviewed information about operational facilities elsewhere in the Puget Sound region to consider conceptual feasibility. 1.2. PURPOSE The purpose of this technical memo is to assess whether indoor commercial shooting facilities could be sited and operated lawfully in Jefferson County under two legislative proposals analyzed in Jefferson County's December 3, 2019 SEPA Checklist (Checklist). In addition to the No Action Alternative, the Checklist considered a total of five alternatives: • No Action Alternative: Under the no -action alternative, the Jefferson County Code in existence before November 2018 would remain in effect. ■ Alternative 1 is legislation passed by the Board of County Commissioners in 2018, namely Ordinance 12-1 102-18 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). • Alternative 2 is legislation recommended to the Jefferson County Planning Commission by Jefferson County Staff on October 16, 2019. • 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 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 is proposed as potentially necessary to ensure compliance with constitutional requirements, including under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Each are described in the SEPA Checklist issued in December 2019, available at the SEPA Register: https://apps.ecolociy.wa.ciov separ/Main SEPA/Record.aspx?SEPANumber=202000219. February 7, 2020 This technical memo reviews Alternative 4 (summarized below) and Alternative 5 (summarized below) since these are respectively the alternatives being carried forward for consideration by the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). 1.3. ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED 1.3.1. Alternative A. 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 4 can be summarized as follows: • Prohibits outdoor commercial shooting facilities in all zoning districts. ■ Allows indoor commercial shooting facilities only as a discretionary use (without additional bright -line rules) in all rural/urban growth area (UGA) commercial and industrial zoning (excluding resource- based industrial zoning). • Defines "Indoor shooting facility" to include "lawful incidental sales of firearms, ammunition, component parts, and accessories." ■ Fixes the ambiguities and loopholes, and adds missing standards and best management practices, compared with the No Action Alternative. 1.3.2. Alternative 5. Alternative 5 was proposed as potentially necessary to ensure compliance with constitutional requirements, including under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, if the BOCC decides to limit commercial shooting facilities to indoor facilities. Alternative 5 can be summarized as follows: ■ Prohibits outdoor commercial shooting facilities in all zoning districts. ■ Allows indoor commercial shooting facilities as a discretionary use (without additional bright -line rules) in all rural/UGA commercial and industrial zoning (excluding resource-based industrial zoning). ■ Allows indoor commercial shooting facilities in forest resource lands only with a conditional use permit (CUP), subject to the 12 CUP approval criteria in JCC 18.40.530 and the forest resource district protections in JCC 18.15.150 and Table 3-1. ■ Limits indoor commercial shooting facilities 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). ■ Limits indoor commercial shooting facilities in forest resource lands with a quota (approximately 150 acres total in the 328,785 acres of forest resource lands throughout the county). • Defines "Indoor shooting facility" to include "lawful incidental sales of firearms, ammunition, component parts, and accessories." 2 February 7, 2020 Fixes the ambiguities and loopholes, and adds missing standards and best management practices, compared with the No Action Alternative. 2.0. Analysis 2.1. PARCEL AVAILABILITY 2.1.1. Alternative 4. Michelle Farfan, Associate Planner (Farfan) at the Jefferson County Department of Community Development (DCD) has extensive knowledge of the various uses of parcels in unincorporated Jefferson County. Farfan identified at approximately 18 properties on which indoor commercial shooting facilities in rural/UGA commercial and industrial zoning (excluding resource-based industrial zoning). Three of the parcels are largely undeveloped: (1) Parcel APN 001 212 010; (2) Parcel APN 702 231 015; and, Parcel APN 901 024 008. Farfan has prepared drawings showing how an indoor commercial shooting facility could be sited on these three parcels. Farfan's drawings for these three parcels are attached as Appendix B. In addition to these three parcels, Farfan identified parcels not in use or currently in use that could be developed as indoor commercial shooting facilities. A list of these additional parcels is attached as Appendix C. BERK reviewed Farfan's analysis and agree the approach Farfan took was reasonable. Under the Jefferson County Code (JCC) indoor commercial shooting facilities may not qualify as an industrial use in all industrial districts. JCC 18.10.090 states: "`Industrial use, heavy or resource-based' means a use engaged in the basic processing and manufacturing of materials or products predominately from extracted or raw materials or natural resources; a use engaged in storage of or manufacturing processes using flammable, hazardous or explosive materials; or manufacturing processes that potentially involve hazardous or commonly recognized adverse conditions." Accordingly, the analysis was expanded to forest lands. 2.1.2. Alternative 5. There are three types of forest land designations in the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan: ► Commercial Forest Lands (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. ► Rural Forest Lands (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. 11 3 February 7, 2020 ► Inholding Forest Lands (IF): This district encompasses parcels at least 20 acres in size that are entirely surrounded by designated forest resource lands. While important for the preservation of forestry lands, lands in the IF zone are not necessarily forest lands of long-term significance due to their smaller parcel sizes (20 acres). To conserve forest lands of long-term commercial significance under the Growth Management Act (GMA), Jefferson County regulates the designations and implementing zones to ensure forestry is a primary use. However, Inholding Forest Lands (IF) are not necessarily forest lands of long-term significance due to their smaller parcel sizes (20 acres).' Thus, IF zoned properties are potential locations to consider for both forestry and non -forestry uses such as indoor commercial shooting facilities. Farfan also looked at possible forest lands where indoor commercial shooting facilities could be sited. Based on the smallest type of forest land zoned in Jefferson County at a minimum of 20 acres, Inholding Forest (IF) parcels were chosen for the initial analysis. Farfan identified at four Inholding Forest (IF) parcels for further analysis: (1) Parcel APN 721 191 002; (2) Parcel APN 801 311 003; (3) Parcel APN 901 133 006; and, (4) Parcel APN 801-074-004.2 Farfan has prepared drawings showing how an indoor commercial shooting facility could be sited on these four parcels. Farfan's drawings for these four parcels are attached as Appendix D. BERK reviewed Farfan's analysis and agree the approach Farfan took was reasonable. In addition to Farfan's analysis, BERK analyzed all the Inholding Forest (IF) parcels in Jefferson County to determine whether they would support commercial shooting facilities. After removing lands in public ownership, land trust ownership, or forest industry ownership, BERK chose the following criteria to screen parcels, to increase the chances of a favorable result: (1) Existing or potential access to a County Road measured by selecting parcels within 0.25 mile of a county road centerline; (2) Critical areas extent such as wetlands and streams do not appear to preclude development (i.e. at least 2 acres appears unencumbered so that 10% lot coverage appears attainable); and, (3) the site is located in a Group A or B water system service area, or appears to be in an area where producing wells are located based on the State of Washington Department of Ecology database. A further screen would be needed to determine if a well already exists on the properties. Analysis tiers include: • Properties with all criteria apparently met • Properties within water service areas and without extensive critical areas but with a private road access The minimum guidelines to classify forest lands of long-term commercial significance include criteria such as the size of parcels. Other factors include forest production, land grades, availability of services, nearby land uses, etc. See WAC 365-190-060 and WAC 458-40-530 for land grades. 2 This parcel currently does not have access to a road sufficient to obtain an address under the JCC and would not be a viable parcel for an indoor commercial shooting facility at this time. 11 4 February 7, 2020 Properties with access to a County road and without extensive critical areas but without mapped locations of water service or known wells; a secondary review would be needed Alternative 5 also includes the potential for indoor shooting facilities in Commercial Forest (CF) and Rural Forest (RF) zones as well as the IF zone considering conditional use permit criteria, forest district protection standards, and a quota of about 150 acres. See Section 2.1.2. Thus, in addition to mapping potential IF zoned lands according to the above criteria, BERK also evaluated CF and RF lands regarding the same criteria for roads, critical areas, and water availability. Results show about 2 RF and 6 CF properties appear to meet all criteria for County road access, sufficient buildable (unconstrained area) and location within a water system service area. About 8 IF, 50 RF, and 66 CF properties have potential County road access and sufficient buildable (unconstrained area), but would need water supply to be confirmed at a more parcel -specific level. Other properties have similar characteristics regarding buildable area and water supply but only have access to private roads. See Appendix E for more information. Table 1. Forest Land Parcel Availability Analysis IF -20 - Inholding Forest 8 1 16. Tier 1 - Group A/B Water System Tier 2 - Water Supply to be Confirmed RF -40 - Rural Forest Tier 1 - Group A/B Water System 8 116.1 522,084.5 Mll,llff 2 79.7 Tier 2 - Water Supply to be Confirmed 50 2,004.8 CF -80 - Commercial Forest 725,858.5 ......... = .......... M I Tier 1 - Group A/B Water System 6 196.0 Tier 2 - Water Supply to be Confirmed Grand Total 66 5,662.5 132 8,059.1 Source: Jefferson County Assessor, Jefferson County GIS, BERK 2020. II 5 February 7, 2020 2.2. FACILITY ANALYSIS On November 1, 2018, the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS)3 analyzed building design for indoor firing ranges in its Whole Building Design Guide.4 According to NIBS, "The WBDG is the only web - based portal providing government and industry practitioners with one-stop access to up-to-date information on a wide range of building -related guidance, criteria and technology from a'whole buildings' perspective." https://www.wbdg.orci/about-wbdg-whole-building-design-guide, last accessed February 41 2020. The WBDG is organized into three major categories: (1) Design Guidance; (2) Project Management; and, (3) Operations & Maintenance. According to the WBDG web site, "Development of the WBDG is a collaborative effort among federal agencies, private sector companies, non-profit organizations and educational institutions. Its success depends on industry and government experts contributing their knowledge and experience to better serve the building community." Ibid. 3 "The National Institute of Building Sciences was established by the U.S. Congress in the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, Public Law 93-383. NIBS is an authoritative voice that supports advances in building science and technology to improve the built environment." htti2s://www.nibs.org[12age/about, last accessed February 4, 2020. 4 "The WBDG is the only web -based portal providing government and industry practitioners with one-stop access to up-to-date information on a wide range of building -related guidance, criteria and technology from a 'whole buildings' perspective. Currently organized into three major categories—Design Guidance, Project Management and Operations & Maintenance—at the heart of the WBDG are Resource Pages, reductive summaries on particular topics. Development of the WBDG is a collaborative effort among federal agencies, private sector companies, non-profit organizations and educational institutions. Its success depends on industry and government experts contributing their knowledge and experience to better serve the building community." htti2s://www.wbdg.org/about-wbdg-whole-building design -,ug ide, last accessed February 4, 2020. 11 6 NIBS design guide for indoor firing ranges provides example plans: Figure 1. Indoor Firing Ranges Example Plans ►Ue Plenum VYWI Target System ILI Firing Range Space Type o lw4r 20.4r W -0 - Lead Dust E wacumson System t i Lead Dust Evacuation Ballistic Baffles °- System To sir we Mech °r Control f�gel S � •'e g•-0. • Aar Plenum Wall Shooting Booths Bullet T(OP Firing Mange Section Source: National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) 38'-0' 8 Manes 4 ea. r February 7, 2020 The NIBS design guide for indoor firing ranges provides an example building program: Table 2. Firing Range Design Guide National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) W PW TENANT USA:PESCRIPTICIF • •• TENANT OCCUPIABLE AREAS Range 5,594 Bullet Stop 8 90 720 Firing Lane 8 337.5 2,700 Shooting Line 8 45 360 Scoring Tables 2 90 180 Work Bench 8 22.5 180 Range Control 1 150 150 Cleaning Room 8 25 200 Storage 1 300 300 Mechanical 1 300 300 Male Staff Toilet 1 60 60 Male Staff Showers 1 20 20 Male Staff Lockers 1 112 1 1 2 Female Staff Toilet 1 60 60 Female Staff Showers 1 20 20 Female Staff Lockers 1 112 1 1 2 Housekeeping 1 120 120 Tenant Suite 5,594 5,594 1.1 Tenant Usable Areas Source: National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) February 7, 2020 6,143 6,143 �i 8 February 7, 2020 Farfan also provided BERK with information on actual indoor commercial shooting facilities that BERK believes would fit within the profile of the drawings she made in Appendices B and D. First, a company called Action Target that designs and builds indoor shooting ranges has a list of its projects in its 2018 Portfolio published on its web site. See https://www.actiontarciet.com/wp- content/uploads/201 8 105/Select- Project- Portfolio-2018-Web.12df, last accessed February 2, 2020. A copy of the 2018 Action Targets Portfolio will be provided on request. Finally, Farfan identified several operating commercial shooting facilities within the Puget Sound region that appear to fit the profile in Farfan's drawings, namely: • Pacific Indoor Tactical, 951 Northeast 21 st Court, Oak Harbor, WA, 98277. https://www.12acificindoortactical.com�, last accessed February 2, 2020. • Lakewood Shooting Range, 11701 Pacific Highway Southwest, Lakewood WA 98499 (253) 582- 0222. https://Iakewoodshootincirancie.com/, last accessed February 2, 2020. ■ The Marksman, 11003 Canyon Road East, Puyallup WA 98373 (253) 535-4363. https://www.themarksman.net/, last accessed February 6, 2020. • Bull's Eye Indoor Range LLC, 414B Puyallup Ave, Tacoma WA 98421 (253) 627-2855. http://bullseyeshooter.com/, last accessed February 2, 2020. ■ Champion Arms, 18801 East Valley Hwy., Kent WA 98032 (253) 872.0444. https:/ championarms.com�, last accessed February 6, 2020. Based on this information, the drawings Farfan prepared that are in Appendices B and D are reasonable and would support an indoor commercial shooting facility on the parcels where Farfan provided a drawing. This information also supports the conclusion that the Inholding Forest (IF) parcels that BERK identified in Appendix E, would support a commercially viable indoor shooting range. 3.0. Conclusion BERK concludes that the process Farfan used to identify parcels which could support an indoor commercial shooting facility is reasonable. BERK also concludes that a number of additional Inholding Forest (IF) parcels would provide the land area sufficient for an indoor commercial shooting facility. Finally, BERK concludes that the information discussed in Section 2.1 demonstrates that Farfan's drawings would reasonably accommodate in indoor commercial shooting facility. Signed: Lisa Grueter, AICP, Principal Date: February 7, 2020 11 9 February 7, 2020 4.0. Appendices 4.1. APPENDIX A BERK QUALIFICATIONS This report is written based upon my specialized knowledge in land use planning: Lisa Grueter, AICP (Principal) is a land use planner with more than 33 years of experience in policy planning for the public and private sectors. Her expertise includes comprehensive and subarea planning under the state's Growth Management Act, customized programmatic and planned action environmental documentation under the State Environmental Policy Act, shoreline master programs under the Shoreline Management Act, and the integration of these laws into cohesive, implementable planning policies. Lisa has worked with counties and cities across Washington State and spent seven years as a senior planner for the cities of Sumner and Renton. She received a B.A. in Social Ecology from the University of California, Irvine and a Master of City Planning from the University of California, Berkeley. Lisa served as project manager for the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Update in 2018. Lisa also developed the Kitsap County Comprehensive Plan and Capital Facility Plan and EIS in 2016. Lisa has developed policies, regulations, and land use suitability evaluations for a variety of cities and counties including Chelan, Skagit, Snohomish, and Whatcom Counties and the cities of Chelan, Covington, Kenmore, Lakewood, Puyallup, Renton, Sumner, Woodinville, and others. Lisa has led more than 30 programmatic and planned action Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) documents. This report is supported by planning and spatial analysis provided by: Kevin Gifford (Senior Associate) is a senior urban planner and GIS analyst with a background in land use and environmental planning, urban design, and spatial analysis. Kevin specializes in developing planning policies and regulations informed by rigorous analysis, which he applies to comprehensive and subarea planning under Washington's Growth Management Act, shoreline master programs under the Shoreline Management Act, and environmental documentation under the State Environmental Policy Act. Kevin has worked on comprehensive plans, environmental assessments, and policy studies for communities throughout the Puget Sound region and across Washington State. In addition to this experience, he brings specialized skills to his projects in spatial analysis, data visualization, visual resource assessment, and land capacity analysis. Kevin has experience preparing a variety of SEPA and NEPA environmental impact analyses, including Planned Action EISs and Environmental Assessments. Kevin also supports community planning projects through spatial analysis, cartography, visual resource assessment, and environmental impact analysis using a variety of software, including ArcGIS. Kevin received a Master of Urban Planning and a Bachelor of Environmental Design from Texas A&M University. Kevin recently completed a Master of Information and Data Science (MIDS) from the University of California, Berkeley in 2019. 11 Appendix -1 February 7, 2020 4.2. APPENDIX B: SITE ANALYSIS RURAL/UGA COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ZONING Site analyses diagrams and maps appear following this cover sheet for the below properties. Due to file compression, all pages are 8.5x1 1 and not necessarily to scale. Area Name - Acres Diagram Glen Cove LI Zone APN 001 212 010 LI/C 6.61 Yes Quilcene Light Industrial APN 702 231 015 LI/M 12.02 Yes Manufacturing UGA RVC Transition - Lower APN 901 024 008 RVC 7.72 Yes Hadlock Road 11 Appendix -2 w 0117103'4 v uu�761002 / o v S .cQtZ 001162001 `6 007,6188 98 0 r �ppL T T 0 Ar =a eat c di T v' ! V e T i U015.2006 If / 001164019HTF 71 O r i Ir0e011�75006 Cou R r,y ?' r . 001174001 n �`,L+d �..�. fir» `E C tti s-f 001164003 r h — O 001212008 CD co 001205002 0 ai a off 001205003 001211002 ry 7d 001201001 001212009 i of 001205004 UQ1212034 ' d 001205005 001212001 I, — —= 001211001 D0121201 �Fh 00 1100120110213 001201021 l , 12120p) 001222001 001201006 o�! 001211007 _ y / 001212002 001201022 a�S_n,�u�J ,u�JrLALro.>n�?1 4%i�rv� �L}�1c1��l1.r�; rrLnrri r�ainro lio.KIR EPF-WM RR -10 RR -10 RR -5 RR -5 . . . AL -20 RR -5 RR5 :.; 0. .J RR -5 RR -20 AL -20 N RR -20 ;T These ata are provided on an "AS -IS" basis, without warranty of any type, expressed or implied, including but not limited to any warranty as to their performance, merchantability, or fitness for 1.18,056 any particular Duroose. RR -20 ■ +I qtr RR i" r i RR -5 I J Q i LI I ` Lf LI �I11- I" -Lf "l LI � LI LI C II LL,C Luc . vG UC I r LUC Lt i 1lIC RR -5 RR -5 Jefferson Counly WA, WA DNR, Source Lsr, DigilalGlobe, Gec Eye. Earthstar Geagraphws, CNESIAkrbus CS, USDA. USGS, AeroGRID iGN, and the GIS User Community. Jefferson County, WA, Pro -West & AssoCmates. Inc, Glen Cove LI & LI/C Zone a ;ON, C;r Date: 1 12 212 0 20 fhVC� That man c ml a cJ,cfn ae}�. y.r„n.o rdN ca rvwc v Mr kralinn onn,al nnrvvR, fnac a.w nn.a �KreN }w�,.._. JEFFERSON COUNTY ASSESSOR - — PARCEL YAP i. ," r lav in Park AdHll+on Adf r,-71mei n I:aCUr M roarTM Wft w M wib.av n ppare.➢ +p +yE Cue !1P J yr. � _ ^•^+ -- _ pFlJIIM du 'VIfM'AddNle + - I , � � =f' �=l r z ^� � ,r.--�3�•-;�.• 'I it _ i{jE I v: -m-cw Ire i• 71 asp so ���s+�. ar 1 a. •� II �J&i �+�Ei� "" S ��•'vL � 44 y:r 4s -a3 ; e i a+ iyrar 11 IT y �li� F >/• F,-- .. �'---1 _ ■b�A � 8 7 Denny xne ArlEU rc - TM law.ica dcw MI M Y•r'..Y m�lotYY M■eanYpMxnp. vb I, '. � I -- .--- r . i -'� -._ -.. ..... ' - - 3 . , ! gin. oma+„ a rrx2ii+++•�M n I:aCUr M roarTM Wft w M wib.av n ppare.➢ +p +yE Cue !1P J yr. � _ ^•^+ -- _ pFlJIIM du 'VIfM'AddNle + - I , � � =f' �=l r z ^� � ,r.--�3�•-;�.• 'I it _ i{jE I v: -m-cw Ire i• 71 asp so ���s+�. ar 1 a. •� II �J&i �+�Ei� "" S ��•'vL � 44 y:r 4s -a3 a+ iyrar 11 IT y �li� F rr 10 9 "r•• oona+aol. sro ■b�A B SFG, LLC 81N61N4 SITE PLAN 4IO' - '� gin. oma+„ a rrx2ii+++•�M _--.�Lg� +un a9.� I"�2E7 � �� .Mnri 1 aa. L1 Slop v � xns+am� i omsamr �a+sm, r , 1a ,I. n fa.•er vr"• ASSCSSOR .,r~•. s ,1FFFERSQN COUNTY ray Add"nd In RR -S PPR an "AS -IS' hasis.wilhout warralrty of any type, expressed or impieq, including but not fimited to any warranty as to their performance, merchant abify,orfitness fw anv oarticLAar ouroose, RR -5 RR•5 - ftl21R J91fosnn Co on ly vvA. SNA. MR, Source Evi, II) igi to lGlobe GeoEVe, Ear1+151ar GeographICS CNE.S'Arbus G5. USDA. USGS. Aero GRIiJ IGN and fie Cls UserCommundy .lc"&S on County. WA.. Pro-We51 A Assoc... .Inn. Quilrrene Light Industrial/Menufactureing Zone :c G u Date: IQ112421) `9� If 12 YAP scY[ Bafx yxp[F TY. xMrN I.M[rY R roF axe aerxF.� w.wa mrar. a�Fonucnnr. nr•.sc ax�o ro aE pw ann e.e,...w rr,.� _ •,n.om NE1 f4 SEC 23 TWP27N crx.wry sw'.'�s +n �x• RGE 2W E s•ser am � 6 u R© EVILLE g er qq g — — — �+ ( CATED) rely .aa ^ w¢w lwxrx 41 SCALE: TRANOUILCENE JONES ti i row xwc rx. p SHORT PUT z A P . F. REMKM 'lZ naA. °P wa/.a XrFERSON COUNTY ASSESS19R 7022310 arr "AS-]S" basis. without warranty of any type, expressed c implied, iWudint but riot Fmited to any warranty as to thea performance, merchantabiOly, or frtness for anv particular amoose. nG 71 ca Cb WNt x ■ r STT 1 117 " a " yd + +�-I I I lTr r - C w) t`�j� tlia �- FIa�Ce sr�j 74 Vit[ - seo cas �l z Q 14!C 13'&"/ yZ-0 not teen?- �eOfce-A -0 LorkdSCctpimq I an "AS-IS" basis, without wa rra My of any type, expressed or implied, includij but not limited to any warranty as to their performance, merchantability, orfilness for any oarlicdar ournose. w an "AS -I5" basis. without r�rranty of any type, expressed or impfed, inGuding but not limited to ary warranty as to their performance, merchantadihty, or fitness for 1:9,02a anv oarticular okYmoze. n WA ..•:n7t5 0 v ! � r o, vas t m }.7 7L i S. 1 gp- .Ft �\ 'Tr�t �•J R Y AP. OV �r n L6 O 3i5 " a 5?a20 "r 659 - 90102 dL105 ;lee,f,0 •!,S _S 7 37.7/, iA J 7 soao 1: 111004 •�� ,� M. fi+ UGA RVC Transitional Zoning (currently applied) Date: 1/221202{} �i CA ry, �i C p4a i I 6aIes, - '}�rrmrr��: C_ f00 f Ne t LID, "= C90' Po rc-o--A APN 976200401 CC Multiple GC .............................................................................................................................................................. Multiple RVC Transitional Zoning attached maps 0.99 5.7 50.6 27.47 19.9 26.5 See attached maps N NII 11 Appendix -3 February 7, 2020 4.3. APPENDIX C: LIST OF PARCELS POTENTIALLY SUITABLE FOR SHOOTING FACILITIES IN RURAL/UGA COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ZONING Maps of areas appear following this cover sheet for the noted properties. Due to file compression, all pages are 8.5x1 1 and not necessarily to scale. Area Name Pa rce' '7- neMffresT Maps Commercial or Industrial Parcels ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Beaver Valley Convenience Crossroads APN 821 182001 CC 3.24 ............................................................................................................................................_............................................................................................................................................................................................_..........................................................._.......................................................... Brinnon Convenience Crossroads (Portion, APN 602242003 CC 2.31 Hielvick Store) Brinnon Rural Village Center Multiple RVC 18.8 Center Road Light Industrial APN 801 102004 LI 9.51 Eastview Industrial Plat Multiple LI/M 8 Four Corners Neighborhood Crossroads Multiple NC 26.5 Gardiner Neighborhood Crossroads Multiple NC 5.3 Glen Cove Heavy Industrial Multiple HI See X APN 976200401 CC Multiple GC .............................................................................................................................................................. Multiple RVC Transitional Zoning attached maps 0.99 5.7 50.6 27.47 19.9 26.5 See attached maps N NII 11 Appendix -3 APN 994 220 043 UGA-C 1.64 X APN 901 034 002 GC 1.41 X NII 11 Appendix -4 February 7, 2020 8 Zone 1 Acres Imapr, Follo�t APN 901 142 006 NC 2.51 X APN 901111 005 UGA-LI 3.55 X (Transitional zoning RR 1:10) APN 901 142 022 NC 2.03 X APN 901111 019 UGA-LI 6.45 X (transitional zoning RR 1:10 & RR 1:5) APN 001 212 031 LI/C 0.8 X APNs 948 602 505, LI/C 2.33 X 401,402 APNs 948 601 901, U/C 1.87 X 902, 903, 904 APNs 001 333 006, NC 4.94 X 007, 008, 041,039 APN 978 900 140 NC 1.2 X APN 994 220 043 UGA-C 1.64 X APN 901 034 002 GC 1.41 X NII 11 Appendix -4 JEFfEReQN GQUNSY fStlitltlQR ''"'-+� P\Att—P vpHT TdWS')SfN04ffYLAWSS - 1� ' _ I _ _ 4y~q ) ry •� t[f� an r� g 4w J. 4 J U' ,�, •'� poR TUwree±rd ®ay " Leg- pod ice•. �, oma. aa✓ apR oge .l V-11 L � 10 Ai N DAL£CRE TRACTS 74 i Ll COUNTY AS; omm, a Farfan's List of 12 Other Commercial or Industrial Parcels: 1. APN 001 282 031 Zoned: General Commercial (GC) 11 -acre parcel Quimper public water supply Access: Parkridge Drive (county road) Owner: Eagle Eye Inc. Vacant land Kala Point No Shooting Area 2.. APN 001 213 023 Zoned: General Commercial (GC) 8.45 -acre parcel Quimper public water supply Access: SR 19 (existing) Owner: Amerco Real Estate Co. Current U -Haul Business Kala Point No Shooting Area 3. APN 901 114 012 Zoned: Neighborhood Commercial (NC) 5.52 -acre parcel Quimper public water supply Access: Chimacum Road (county road) Owner: Gladys Durgan Currently mini -storages 4. APN 901 142 006 Zoned: Neighborhood Commercial (NC) 2.51 -acre parcel Quimper public water supply Access: Chimacum Road (county road) Owner: AAMC Property Investment Currently mini -storages 5. APN 901 111005 Zoned: UGA-LI (Transitional zoning RR 1:10) 3.55 -acre parcel Quimper public water supply Access: Chimacum Road (county road) Owner: Craig Durgan Currently mini -storages w/MRLO overlay 6. APN 901 142 022 Zoned: Neighborhood Commercial (NC) 2.03 -acre parcel Quimper public water supply Access: Chimacum Road (county road) Owner: Patrick Smith Trustee Vacant land 7. APN 901 111019 Zoned: Light Industrial (UGA-LI) (transitional zoning RR 1:10 & RR 1:5) 5.45 -acre parcel Quimper public water supply Access: Chimacum Road (county road) Owner: Craig Durgan Living Trust Vacant land 8. APN 001 212 031 Zoned: Light Industrial/Commercial (LI/C) 0.80 -acre parcel City of Port Townsend public water supply Access: Tahlequah Lane (county road) Owner: Joe Daubenberger Currently mini -storages 9. APNs 948 602 505, 402, 402 Zoned: Light Industrial/Commercial (LI/C) 2.33 -acre parcel (combined) City of Port Townsend public water supply Access: Otto Street (county road) Owner: Glen Cove Storage LLC & Doug Bramhall Currently outdoor storage and mini -storages 10. AM 948 601901, 902, 903, 904 Zoned: Light Industrial/Commercial (LI/C) 1.87 -acre parcel (combined) City of Port Townsend public water supply Access: Otto Street (county road) Owner: Michael Kitchen Currently mini -storages 11. APNs 001 333 006, 047, 008, 041, 039 Zoned: Neighborhood Commercial (NC} 4.94 -acre parcel (combined) South Hastings LUD #3 public water supply Access: South Discovery Road (county road) Owner: Prospect Holding LLC Currently mini -storages 12. APN 978 900140 Zoned: Neighborhood Commercial (NC) 1.20 -acre parcel Olympus Beach Tracts public water supply ,Access: Oak Bay Road (county road) Owner: Deborah Galippo & Kim Cote Vacant land Other Possibilities to Investigate: APN 994 220 043 Zoned: UGA-Commercial (UGA-C) 1.64 -acre parcel Quimper public water supply Access: SR19 (state road) Owner: Davis Hughes LLC Currently "Twisters" gymnastics APN 901434 002 Zoned: General Commercial (GC) 1.41 -acre parcel Quimper public water supply Access: SR 19 (state road) Owner: Rhody Bell LLC Outbuildings 1- AP N 01-282-031 ri?sxo ■ —�-- IEEE I I IN 0 - m7. � -� d�AP N N 3 1,,rue Jr Y�.4npy. JG ..: .� .. :'. �.�.f.=.RST �:fC3 T.F£',Fl(jS . ._ d, rnsn - .Iy aliGnr!BJM1I! VMtl rr a,.. iJJL'J JI K� Awes* 9alaar a'AS i5' ba pr W*'J on. is —houi U', / r1J'oF awe"-dor 3JY 89r1iCUdAr ty Pled l cd. c g up JP938 mr v+a-+n svw 1,/4 cw��orr' I .a na.p SEC—Li TW -$Ohl aoi�Cy.GZf ._�� ,I _ISbIB ocis6aoPs � = r' S OU i:17 6P?ai erq ,x^01 ij .. v 40 +. i ik rI j�5 s11fi1-. 29xf";.% Rpi2.'i1621 6Q121iinara, ✓ '. -00t]F2L9 qq f � i yM i 1 LC129 i05r + y * '. �19932...c ��IIrJ'I SS e �40�i5§3n79 J" 0125 iPe� alr 1: PMn2 o cr, -; :� n; • I . ,,, - 1w., sfra r, �+rrd �,.9azwysfsr 6k. 4wLO. 4+IR91. wr 2 - APN 001-213-023 WAP SCM QWN UNDER 111[ NORFH AMERV M FOR y E CR"DR.... oN ML` CD MAv OC A REDUCER OR C.LARGED OUXREFER PlFA9E t0 ME Su F @EtRw. ]qik i7! rcR anawFc. ww• rase r _ wp _ 1p.rm� 7. . yep W na +aa39F ooE5 Not M Mi mr Arl WArI� never, �csc x1 e�-um��Rm ywxy.Ar, xxrtt[s �wrv��li rso r�r.w n vmY,.1w na .erne �«cal+nraxl arilcl. +arm. m Asecssax ra. ua mR mysr �1nmQ vN rfAx 3 - APN 901-114-012 w'ASa5" 6eaia. wiLhwL Mtuspd r pl e, PrP+bsa®d or �mgled, imJudY aeto m. I.dad laeeX mrmwt m th— perS—. r. IwrlYAdty, nr 2Yrxxr.7 or 31W O&MOAV DWO040 4 - APN 901-142-006 A'. s'. T - data are provided on an "AS -IS' basis, w@hout mrrardy of any type, expressed or impied, imludin� but not Nmited to any warranty w to their performar— meroharAabifty, - fine sfa any nertiraAer ouoase. JJ ,. 901-142-006 Chimacum NC Zane w�•�` l r t = t Dale: Zrjag2D syyf ry,t±{t�. iRa„2e,5 d SE 1/4 a'j CNIWACULI Ra. SEG 11 BAY STTWP29N ' . _ ° RGE 1 W aNaYswa<, t �` 0=0 IT e e T pw� aREN SPALi j,N/a+ YANCNESTEP 5i. xYmrw wr 1 4 sqa, EASE a as oa tia 9a,„,�3a Lor 3 EAS & O3 ,n,a m Lar z (rAK p4y y 1 / Iw I `L SV9J EASE Lor 2 iy-- m• 1 I 901,4024 1 %W EAS,=, 03 s e SUBMV k J EASE h 05 � la'r ,014 m { to '1 I 4y ~ ane ��v ' II 5Y 9L 15 9Olndozs. SUL F.V. 05 32 a LaU'T'q�u Si:uE: ' } y Lar , (rax as) • i0 Su& EASE 1'-200• m yy yY iS. MW 05 W/ EASE 4 f 5 1143 . +Ra I F, l Y 1 --1 r}� O OPEN SPALE 'y 15 y'� 4” I G san,war 9101 os W/ EASE SE 5E 5 TAX 5p f ! \ \ I qQ0 e • � �W e� u¢ (2.4t m. in O.5 } 20,15 m, / � \ \ \ C E,a $RACE _—_ F77 •M.-wry ,3 £� RGE 1w Hw K IF 9011+1003 / � NWNE{L51K3,46,4],5$, 1 (EHEC Sri NE NIX) (LS T%>10) �' I—rhe _•. ._ ±� ]9.1Q 90,i4o *8, suet to 1 � p M 62 I �. a;.os ccxyERvanoN , _ - - a� z 9.p5 1 1 � E����O '1a S 1f � • — 1 � .J (•� 9a,i 41025 1 - n�. - CiF' oa • F.pY p -op II 14 E�R I I AWL 901141005 1093 a 1 y SCALE: N r 1"-2W F 1 R ©9 9G114,00a ` SW NE oIma L9 P1N LWNG N ROAD $ u IS PINw n 2.4p, 611 R} �^ 32p, yll ti 1 M•mr r tlMc c) T. remoras I2Mr .� ._..... Ann+ — Nyam w t/t9Jn RT• JEFFERSON COUNTY ASSESSOR �-- , . 'AS -IS" basis, with -t yvmrerty of any type.. expressed or impled. mdu6lnf but not invited to arty --ty 3s to their performance, emhardability, ar ft—fa — oarticcear oumose s.9uNm x4Er- m 5 - APN 901-111-005 A—C ill rl �i� r.l. l ly i a1�6 hese data are prove a an°ns-is°basis,wunool n 901-111005; UGA-LI (Transitional Zoning RR 1:10) wa a sy oTnanY type t !. exp � rimplied, including but rot limited to any warranty a5 to theype r1or—ce merchantability, orfitness for 1:4,514 Date: 2l3f2T0 any bartiodar DMOSe. ......w.�,.:...,. a.+.d..,,.,��.. r.,,...n o..,..n n.... pmt »eaw i 'a 711 _ r.a r, Dia, a -Lim,° f !� II si/e xsl¢ onca fid solIAY e a N9n1E E � CO IOU. Ot9LPG5 a aJMLI hxq_ �5 _ I rw.wm zas x. �xw;� na.n sm,l,arn sl�/z Nc M ar ao no ,Al NE 1/4 SEC 11 TWP29N RGE 1 W /r^4,y aroi sn Ti r, ix rnw cmwq� .rxu SCALE: 1'200' E Is[ eraA.v� r o r. emno =. �,r vexex F — iHeM ry O� Owxtii� a JEFFERSON OOUNIY ASSESSOR -"AS-IS" basis,.01n l ,,afranty of any type. expressed or implied, includin[ but not limited to aey warranty as to theta performance, merchantability, or fitness for "IV oarli-al nlnnn5e. 6 - APN 901-142-022 I �. „QFFf�i swr LtlNNFY A$:�SSdP yvanv v+'AS-Wh...widF, t na,ey ofa,yr>jpe erP��edU I [D ary In jhprF d+1 m1 Pm%gtl I� any venanry 4e 0 Nrtc P ff.anFa - mcdm�eAifty. crr Pireap Fa .x oexlicWv ogrrapr, I 7 - APN 901-111-019 an"AS IS bass xv thout arty of any type, expressed or rmphed, inGutlinO but -1 limited to arty vrarranh as 1. they perbrmarxx, merchantabi6iy, ar ldressfa LlA514 aav particular auroase. PPR 1� 901-111-019 Chimacum-W, ,-7nne (varanr) r7 g II t i^ Date:21320?0 A%.r� �ti"iia' JEFFERSON COUNTY ASSESSOR PARCELMAP TM1e Assessor aace nol w erry way Buemice ¢urary dTe acreage eM pamM bounaaaes tlepitletl on mese maps. Parcel alae antl IeceHen Is Dessa on ldormalion areHeble, M1rclutlhp dmftlea wrp palaescript'�ere.�ial pM1dap.pM.rephe. end veaeea povmmartek V.Tcm lhla Nbmmllon ie meewclen, paraa� eeana.'y lae.nana ere.ean,.we, Per®I maga ere apaaleA heyw foe I 1 Aleaa¢ 1". wlln lM aseo-saar IH @teal reelalon. Jelhrson � w rwQTM �`� wee rase 8 - APN 001-212-031 I - a ! 1 us�rs�x� �.` JM45 1 N f — RF5 @� EY au c eSES r. rtus'- JSCSAeroUHl¢ICrY ni d�: er>rumrntonty 'e sc��tirrilr NP P Vuestffi s In^ GSe a9a are provi don an"AS•IS basis. without 001-212-031 - Glen Cove LI/C --rdy of any type expressed orlmplled.ioafad'ng �! rot Ilm tetl fn "y rranty em 5heir perfi /✓-r 1 pt-,.+. �n �narad, ity nrrass lw i:2,25I Date: 2132020 � g5 z�w=eRlu �1 rent v +�8 k� 12 1 Sa M'. 4 4y� I I I ] g s 00121mOs iiwo r - 11 rw.0 �enxcEl2A soo ¢ ��. 11 W , 10 5. SFG, LLC BINDING SITE—PLAN sErc« RonL — # zfisssxml xrss rax l3 k 14 r IS 1fi rw chew u smwlla�w{zHsisac w n � ��a r � j amx+x0ix #ILS`_ ��I r�xe nul�,auAn _ __. i � i rolaamx 5 S • ".'A'C �^ 3 - I rxma —T-2, _ i596 eh a sxm swim T �"mi r ! mrZIMIO g0u2tf01B 06121RM9 TAX Xi A% r p aei ;s sm�a� j s.o' sai ¢ OOITI]WS 1 II SW Nw tis xm' Oi II Sx]�m JEFFERSON COUNTY ASSESSOR NW 1/4 SEC 21 TWP 30N RCE 1 W S S � SClJ.E dl'M. os IElin" epn. w- Nlq� R r.m w,s�a ups. q.�w� .w .a�w �s T6 mvr uav ff e emlem ort wiwm T'TTT I l7 i T'—f nv'w •u ruu ' awn .., uvw awa 0012120 9 - APN 948-602-505 JEFFERSON OO UNTY ASSESSOR PARCEL MAP I .n arry..oy p�rme. e and grcel lan`wna.z: nao Qaen� Irxx avn.. .na iarun a ea�d nn amare�laok, �maw:s. re�d.d wwr..y., xua a..=nvlare..an.l anomdnmu, ana.aM1oas Eae.maome uk.nn Ina �m.�amn �a �eakckm, pawl eamm� la�um�, an.ma,ared. tracellmps a..h.huplpdd dequendE_ a aleck um .euuarfirNe Mlesl nva m. JeHeeson I t.�� LTM �� u,no�, sw Aasesao `�� �='� � QSawY �� GQR1163 SEC 19 10 - APN 948-601-9019 9029 903 & 904 JEFFERSON COUNTY ASSMOR PARCELMAP I M�sccv� iN aq enb�'aartel Parcel s'be dl kbssatl an e�ramwwr, lase �+,a��awdaa ya lea.l os «� wf.rc�rea imo,ma�w,ain.Nnomi petrel aeumsry braoons arexmmnxa. vPa�a..a as a oe� mra Jam77 ` i- -� PNPB y4ib Addlfar.- •-J yvt: I� JCHa nen ��� sw x 0 OP•t aauaiea °,.mow:o ACE fw ] 948601202 748601203`11 `J4@641101 I .� DG8 .0€"601 i�,W •;: - -- ITT 9 Zia. g 3 ©D Bso 3 '1 40.860110.7 II rtd86b1009 + 4 6L G — - ___ WFre4e ch4 Sl��__. I-�p ��2MIEk�SJ F ��- -51 601702 1 948601701 f +40.@602501 rre "•� +ld r: law �I 1 _i 486026D2. 946603107 2 946603102 a 948663201 04°ti 0x209 q - 3102 e f 16c V3 :il t - t ax0'�;15�;Kknk-atim .'�49H960330.8 rvtin u- stB�56 305 r 11 - APN 001-333-006, 0079 0089 0399 041 L RR 5 J RR -5 RR -5 RR -1 r RR -5 ,��ad cede v� t n, "1 rr„ 01r,, CN�'A, II'liL�mniun LY arl--Gou" A.pl W"l,4 ear, data are provided on an••AS-13"baaia ifhout 01)1-333-006, 007, 008, 041, 039 - Four Corners Neighborhood Commercial warranty ofany type, /. peesaed or implied • mduding but not limited to any warranty _ as to their performance, merchantability, or fk... for 14,514 Da e. 2132020 y1711 ,ti`T anv oarticuiar aurocse, -- 12 - APN 978-900-140 RR -5 In.a oats are provided on an "AE -IS" basis, Without Aerranty ofany type, ,pre4W or implied, iWAIng b,i not limited to any arr®nty I t thele performance, -chant.bifity, ar floes. ire 7:2,257 my osrtimlar orsoose. RR,5 'r-.", unty VIA AA DNR. b.— Erre ❑gl IGlcee,. •3p ty. 3 Cr4 Gr'All, :.A—GRI D 614, and Ne Cls deer Comm y i C ty NA.. 978-900-140 Oak Bay NC Zone { 2� c �m..�,.e,..o..,.....,., .,....,, .. «....,...,. e.. ........,.,�e_,.,..,:--.,.�m. Date: 2132020 S'd'r�e,`t� ��a �°��� �.RTM �. �s February 7, 2020 A.A. APPENDIX D: SITE ANALYSIS INHOLDING FOREST (IF) PARCELS Site analyses diagrams and maps appear following this cover sheet for the below properties. Due to file compression, all pages are 8.5x1 1 and not necessarily to scale. APN 801-074-004 IF APN 721 191 002 IF APN 801 311 003 IF APN 901 133 006 IF cres Diagram I� - 19.41 Yes 20 Yes 29.56 Yes VII 11 Appendix -5 802124001 802123005 802121004 8 0 213 ?0-o 802131001 001071002 601071007 801073003- aoll al Doi 8 01082001 171002 801172002 RR -20 W-40 I nest Gala are prdVlded On an 'AS -IS" basis, without. mrrarny of any type, expressed orimpfied. including but riot limited to ary warranty as to their performance, merchantabi5ty, or 11rless for 1:18,056 anv oarticllar oumose- CF410 i-' f '� r4, faaxoxa'tsps �'� dt�►xidu,tj. r RR -20 ' JCffW so -n Caunty WA, WA DNR, S a u r m Esri. 6gnafGlobs, iiEa Eye. Farthstar Geographies, CNESA it bus DS, DSD A. USOS AemOR ID IGN. anti rte GIS LN el Canim u n ily. .lelarsan County. WA.. PrO-WeSL Asso,iatas Inc Inholding Purest Lands APN 801-074-004 N d Date -1 12 912 0 20 yrM6 Q Wr %.�( a.ca work .»r »aiiN rAxow �s MS CW, Wx 6C a RCAUCLO ON EM.cAfiFA ervRpprOnpy acAsc Atr[e io alE sulF KEOII tt�M .,qki Y9 wat wwrn ¢x5p a Yw...4ic xe w EpB rK OR . ou1w0 ow, rms ONW. x + Wo b M EHL D REeRoSucaox. ro orc scar @Ew,M. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I(uM, K •.ua 9�NnbR �Aylaat. ttf, �I[~aip �wrr gvavw •a m e ] $EC 1 sa s TWP 28N GOVT LOT 1 �' RGE l w 5o,otrAor I 6p,0T,O0S �+E RvwO RE d wkrl - a. li5.ea a MLO) (CEM ------------ eAi R>,Ao2 GOVT r LOT 2WV E2 NN AQ00 a 50,g1,0A2 LOTS 9 I NE {LS tmo MEA MM} W,07M0 E2 kA 34.05 a K 1�1 yi 2�l � I GOV'TOT i 3 5653 0 x,0]1001 NE SM N* m RE SE 1001 ` ` 4 w.Ao a w.W a. wue a. SCALE: 1 y OOV`T � h ao-lo3,a, H, rr sE s� 60,0]f.5* � LOT 4 1 w.aa a �'£w . 60rOT1001 1 SE 6E ]r9C a Mal �j eororww MOtV4m+ •0..A0 y n,w a 9E SN ZQW1 SW Y �] n C NH. sN� REwLL%J5 GOV,i } 4 } V { FARBOtI 1 1 LAKE LOT Ga,�` 2 � l e0na,0o, r ` 10 LArc� RWO ® i L Ax RCMP sI ASE suss a Vol SCALE: 5 LOT l 1Yy GOu T yjy A {may 1 ORwI. y y NENS�IS fNM M JEFFERSON COUNTY ASSESSOR — Qpi 021; d . I L`ti_ % CcrYr�rn is i # Qi ,4 Lo `I l l l l l IZa&I C-F�' 100 a -N/C isrra RR -20 RR -5 EM IF -21)A", I nese data are provided on an "AS -IS" basis, without warranty of any type, expressed or implied, including but riot limited to any warranty as to their performance, merchantability, or fitness for 1:9,028 anv oarticular ouroose. 40 RF -d0 CF -8O RR -5 I RR -5 CF -80 RR -5 eff�r a s icily WA.. WA DNR, Sources Esri, DigitaIGI obe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geoyr ,,+� - _ .3, A USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the G IS User Commun@y. Jefferson Cou - �issociates, Inc. IF (APN 721 191 001)��'<,.� w4 x.•. 'IP Date: 113112020 f s/1f N tO man c rnl � r. iM1�1�i,APfnr sri Iola fidri ci vvra,¢ ry rn. n, i... r. a�li_y nrnrornr fno� aM ani aharart loan row r 0 i N r 721192005 i , 0 721192015 721142013 721192407 }. y - � Y7 90 jr 86 91 721191002 721192008 721192012 — 85 92 8.4 93 c " 942300051 83 N r 82 95 Jr 721192011 IV 81 96 — _ 721191001 80 97 79 98 54 55 78 99 942300052 53 56 942300037 77 jp0 n' -- - 76 942300049 tot O 721/194004 - St 942300035-- �75 0S c� r 5S 942300038 tU2 2 m cD 50 44 5. 942300039 rG 9423 00040 74 17 �t — - - - e�� &M 72111991001 `Ir 721191001 ti io r � v �v r 4r 721194002 r r C4 P, ti N';22 NW (l5NW) Sf NW NW & 8 8 nW SW W (LESS LENW EW WKE Rp ue )2119 1002 e N1f2 SW NE iEes a i.m a + s SN ° LESS SE OF ROAD SW '2'1(LESS NW SW NWJ VINO W OF THORN—E RD 16.60 0. iae a. u SV orwxi rltiiE — e. 14 111 � ]U ilr v ik yt w S.pP� >V >9 JEFFERSON COUNTY ASSE 121191001 NEifa (LESS W/2 SW) 0. - JEFFERSON COUNTY ASSESSOR NE 1/4 SEC 19 TWP 27N RGE 1E SCALE: 1"=200 too' 7P L,7 11f 4JD -,4vc,--s 'Od --- CD 1 Ll 11) 1 I'l IpjF I, VO L , l r o e-0 4,V NY Cf ky7( /Owq, CF -80 RF=46 RR -10 I nese aata are proviaed on an "AS -IS" basis, without warranty of any type. expressed or implied, including but not limited to any warranty as to their performance, merchantability, or fitness for 1:9,028 anv particular purpose. FFAG RF -40 CF -80 Jefferson County WA.. WA DNR, Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Comm unity, Jefferson County, WA., Pro -West & Associates, Inc. RR -20 IF (APN 801 311 003) Date: 1/31/2020 I nese oara are prowoea on an "RS -IS" basis, without warranty of any type, expressed or implied, including but not limited to arty warranty as to their performance, merchantability, or fitness for 1:4,514 anv particular ouroose. IF (APN 801 311 003) Date: 1/31/2020 TAM 80 13 12 001 802361001 - A -j. 8 013 11 00 2 M 802364000 801313001 a01311002 801311005 Se,13 11003 801313002 8013 14JO02 801311001 im F 801314001 MAP SCALE GIVEN UNDER THE NORTH ARROW IS FORTHE ORIGINAL DRAWING ONLY. THIS COPY MAY BE A REDUCED OR ENLARGED REPRODUCTION. PLEASE REFER TO THE SCALE BELOW. ORIONAL MAP SCALE 1 THEASSESSdt GOES NOT IN ANY WAY GUARANTEE THE ACCURACY Of M ACREAGE AND PARCEL — WA -DEPICTED ON MESE MAPS PARCEL SOT AND LOCATION *a D ON NFORMATION A,.—.IN—O RECED SURVEYS. LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS AERIAL PxOTOfR % AND VARIOUS OOVERN4EN1 SOURCES *— M.S (NEON TTM i5 IN%MDENi, PARCEL BOUNDARY UXAEONS ARE ESTMATTO PARCEL 4AP9 ARE UPDATED FREESENTLY. PLEASE IX "MME COUNTY ASSESSOR FOR TWE LATEST RENSWI. .Ef:ER50N COUNTY ASSESSOR Il P.o. aox ,uo PIX+T TOWN3EN0, LEA 98368 -WINARr WAP, oRAMV USK THE EnEOREnCAL PfpA FCT SECTION mWENS.1 LITTLE PERFpt4ED N ME MAPPINE DFMS SECDOISE SEC 31 2$ 30 (SW 1/4 30 -28N -1W) FWP 2 8 N 36 31 (SE 1/4 30 -28N -1W) RGE 1 W 31 35 J K QQ GO801312001 VT LOT 1,2(S/BP EASE) 801311 D02 / NE NW(S/BP EASE) NW NE ao.00 o. SE NW 40 oo a Bol3l ool / GOVT Lor 7 40.00 a. 801311001 ` Q / / E1/2 NEE 80 o0 7. 801311002 801311005 801311003 SE NW W1/2 SW NE E1/2 SW NE 40.00 a. 20.130 q. SUBJ/EASE 2D 00 0, GOVT LDT 2 40.00 0. vo III / 1 o2 SCALE: NE SW em 1=400' WI WITH EASEMENTS 40.00 a. I NW SE SE WITH AND SUBJ TO EASEMENTS 801314001 / 801313001 I 40.00 0. NE SE aDAO a n GOVT 3 I LOT 40.00 . I 3 I II LESS 801313001 'sm'Qz3 ;n ,Dm DL GOVT LOT 3& 4 801314003 I I x eo1s,DD13 & SW SE I I S�ry�a TD EASE am m EASE / / SUBJ TOO EASE 40.00 ¢ e01313001 40.00 D. ( DRWN. LOT 4 I 801314004 5(13/92 DRP 'GOVT 40.00 a. (STA I S1/2 SE SE I 20.00 a REVISIONS TE FOREST BOARD) I 36 31 I Tlm/9z BB 1 6 (NW 1/4 6 -2)N -1W) I 3t 51113/.3 PP (NE t/4 6 -2]N -1W) 6 5 ,/14/.6 ME 12AITE WE VVOS PP JEFFERSON COUNTY ASSESSOR 8013100 rc w; Qk A/ .J �f 901242016 901244001 901242013 mv y i ON I r ,,' i , 'a,, v&: :Ji�*, "po 901242015 9211820,05 9 21193 00 1 901133010 901 3003 901131001 901133002 0 1133;07 -90113 901135008 500.9 901135006 9 1 Q500 T- 901135004 --9,0.1135005 3006 9011~5003 901133005 901135002 9011350 01 901242017 901242011 901242002 �f 901242016 901244001 901242013 mv y i ON I r ,,' i , 'a,, v&: :Ji�*, "po 901242015 9211820,05 9 21193 00 1 N V A Q AL -20 nese data are provlged on an "AS -IS" basis, without Narranty of any type, expressed or implied, including out not limited to any warranty as to their performance, merchantability, or fitness for 1;9,028 anv oarticular ouroose. RRA 0 RF -40 Jefferson County WA, WA DNR, Source: Esri. Dig italGlo be, Geo Eye, Ear thstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community, Jefferson County, WA_. Pro -West & Associates, Inc. IF (APN 901 133 006) Date: 1/31/2020 �s'rfrNc;�<, ,.. e., � ,...r � �ih Gori n=fv r��ro 1FrJ+i ai+"P,..-, r., r.,.�r..n ��ri �1 �.�„o.n, rnca �,•.V an„ �,cro�� lo�n,�o� c 0 Pr¢ t�vce-s w= 66� yzwt4-\r/ F` r � � ¥, --- 1135 - C�---� c 0 Pr¢ t�vce-s w= 66� yzwt4-\r/ February 7, 2020 4.5. APPENDIX E: BERK FOREST PARCEL AVAILABILITY ANALYSIS owl 111 11 Appendix -6 — _ — _ — — _ \ ,01 / / l Pacific Ocean West County i� _ Queets I uilcene Chimacum ILd 19 XLP,o_rt104 �dlow / / / / I 0 /0 1 2 3 Miles 7 County Boundary State Park City Boundary Q Group A/B Water Systems4 ! UGA Boundary Qualifying IF -20 Properties :111 BERK Federal Land Am Map Date: February 2020 I Port — ,Townsend \� I v � I I / I / I Ir Irondale- I Port Hadlock 1 4 20UGA l i 116 I I r I 101 -himacum I Li 1 1 m fil I a EFI EP e I I I 104 Port Ludlow I LJ / / ❑ r% / / Quilcene Q / 0 / fl / 101 � 1 � I v \ Bri' nnon i Ej2fls 4 ' -------------------- rl 0 1 2 3 m Miles County Boundary State Park City Boundary Q Group A/B Water Systems UGA Boundary Qualifying CF -80 Properties :SII BERK Federal Land Map Date: February 2020 T \\ N Port — ,Townsend \\ I v � I I / I / I Ir Irondale- I Port Hadlock I 4 20 UGA I i 116 I r I Chimacum I I � I ° ❑CP I ❑ \ I 19 I I cl I a �E3 °Po rt ❑ I ° I I o q 104 Ludlow I ❑ IL�J" Q \ I \ ❑ , EEIIaD E / Quilcene / Q / 0 / a � 101 ❑ / F-1 / e � I v Brinnon cl 4 -------------------- / 0 1 2 3 m Miles I — County Boundary State Park 7oCity Boundary Group A/B Water Systems UGA Boundary Qualifying RF -40 Properties s ti :SII BERK Federal Land Map Date: February 2020 -------------- I � I / I / I I l I \ I I I � I 1 I I West County 1� — Queets ° 'OMIles I I I I I I I I I I -- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — L / uilcene 0 1 2 3 m Miles l — County Boundary � State Park 10 - 20 y GK City Boundary Water Wells per Sq. Mi. 20-35 _ UGA Boundary D <5 35 - 50 all BERK Federal Land 5 - 10 50+ Map Date: February 2020 r� �r� �� N I Port ,Townsendp V. Irondale- ' I Port Hadlock 41 0 ..- 20 � JUGA 116 I t-' � 1 101 � 1 Chima�cum 1 1 19 / 1 104 Port I 1 \ Ludlow:, \ 1 / / / / / L / uilcene 0 1 2 3 m Miles l — County Boundary � State Park 10 - 20 y GK City Boundary Water Wells per Sq. Mi. 20-35 _ UGA Boundary D <5 35 - 50 all BERK Federal Land 5 - 10 50+ Map Date: February 2020 Summary Analysis Tables County Road Access*, At Least 2 Acres Critical Areas, Water Supply Status RdCounty 1 Row Labels Parcel Count Sum of Acres IF -20 - Inholding Forest 8 116.1 Tier 1 - Group A/B Water System 21 1,190.9 Tier 2 - Water Supply to be Confirmed 8 116.1 RF -40 - Rural Forest 52 2,084.5 Tier 1 - Group A/B Water System 2 79.7 Tier 2 - Water Supply to be Confirmed 50 2,004.8 CF -80 - Commercial Forest 72 5,858.5 Tier 1 - Group A/B Water System 6 196.0 Tier 2 - Water Supply to be Confirmed 66 5,662.5 Grand Total 132 8,059.1 `At least have County access. May also have federal, state, or private access. Those with County Access and no State or Federal Access RdState Rd Fed Rd Private RdCounty Row Labels Parcel Count Sum of Acres IF -20 - Inholding Forest 4 55.6 Tier 1 - Group A/B Water System Tier 2 - Water Supply to be Confirmed 4 55.6 RF -40 - Rural Forest 14 533.7 Tier 1 - Group A/B Water System 0 Rd Fed Tier 2 - Water Supply to be Confirmed 14 533.7 CF -80 - Commercial Forest 21 1,190.9 Tier 1 - Group A/B Water System 2 38.2 Tier 2 - Water Supply to be Confirmed 19 1,152.7 Grand Total S14 1,780.2 Tht, a with only private road access RdState 0 Rd Fed 0 Rd Private 1 RdCounty 0 Row Labels Parcel Count Sum of Acres IF -20 - Inholding Forest 5 110.5 Tier 1 - Group A/B Water System Rd Private 0 Tier 2 - Water Supply to be Confirmed 5 110.5 RF -40 - Rural Forest 10 488.1 Tier 1 - Group A/B Water System Tier 2 - Water Supply to be Confirmed 10 488.1 CF -80 - Commercial Forest 15 1,282.9 Tier 1 - Group A/B Water System Tier 2 - Water Supply to be Confirmed 15 1,282.9_ Grand Total 30 1,881.5 None only have access to State Roads RdState 1 Rd Fed 0 Rd Private 0 RdCounty 0 Row Labels Grand Total No: a only have access to Federal Roads Parcel Count Sum of Acres RdState 0 Rd Fed 1 Rd Private 0 RdCounty 0 Row Labels Grand Total Parcel Count Sum of Acres BERK Consulting, Inc. Forest Parcel Analysis Parcels with County Road and Minimum 2 Acres No nCUiirdl Area Sorted by Water Availability PIN STRING 821331001 821331002 821331004 821331005 821332001 821332003 412194006 502084004 502212001 601112002 601113001 601152004 601214002 60121400] 601223001 601224001 601281005 602301003 613281001 613281002 ]01142002 ]01203001 ]02014001 ]02022003 ]02023001 ]02031003 ]02112002 ]02121001 ]02123001 ]13013004 ]211]1002 801012001 801012022 801061003 801091010 801092001 801104003 801104005 80 4007 801104008 801104009 801104011 801152003 801291002 801332004 801332006 801333001 802141004 802221003 802223008 802251001 821061002 821061005 901093001 901151001 901152001 901153002 901153003 901193002 901193004 901212005 901313006 90 131300] 901313008 902121002 902232002 902251001 902253003 902253004 902262003 902263002 921292001 601101003 601101004 601153006 ]21191002 801104004 801114001 901302004 Lantl_Use 'uo 8800 8800- Designated Forest Land 8800 8800 - Designated Forest Land 9500 9500 -Open Space Timber(T) 8800 8800 - Designated Forest Land 8800 8800 -Designated Forest Land 8800 8800- Designated F o rest Land 8800 8800 - Designated Forest Land 8800 8800 -Designated Forest Land 8800 8800- Designated Forest Land 8800 8800 -Designated Fo rest Land 8800 8800 -Designated Forest Land 8800 8800 -Designated Forest Land 8800 8800 -Designated Forest Land 8800 8800 -Designated Forest Land 8800 8800- Designated Forest Land 8800 8800- Designated Forest Land 8800 8800 - Designated Fo rest Land 8300 8300 -Open Space Agricultural (A) 8800 8800- Designate d Forest Land 8800 8800 - Designated Fo rest Land 8800 8800 -Designated Forest Land 8800 8800- Designated Forest Land 8800 8800- Designated Forest Land 8800 8800 -Designated Forest Land 8800 8800 -Designated Forest Land 88008800 -Designated Forest Land 8800 8800 -Designated Forest Land 8800 8800 -Designated Forest Land 8800 8800- Designated Forest Land 8800 8800- Designated Forest Land 8800 8800- Designated Fo rest Land 8300 8300 -Open Space Agricultural (A) 8800 8800- Designate d Forest Land 8800 8800 - Designated Forest Land 8800 8800- Designated Forest Land 8300 8300-OpenSpace Agricultural (A) 1100 1100 -Residential -Single Unit 83008300 -Open Space Agricultural (A) 8800 8800 - Designated Fo rest Land 8800 8800 -Designate d Forest Land 8800 8800- Designated Forest Land 8800 8800- Designated Forest Land 8800 8800- Designated Forest Land 8800 8800 -Designated Forest Land 8800 8800- Designated Forest Land 1100 1100 -Residential -Single Unit 8800 8800- Designated Fo rest Land 8800 8800- Designate d Forest Land 8800 8800 - Designated Fo rest Land 8800 8800- Designate d Forest Land 8800 8800- Designated Forest Land 8800 8800 -Designated Forest Land 8800 8800 0 -Designated Forest Land 8300 8300 0 -Open Space Agricultural (A) 8800 8800 -Designated Forest Land 8800 8800- Designated Forest Land 8800 8800- Designated Forest Land 8800 8800- Designated Fo rest Land 8800 8800 - Designated Fo rest Land 8800 8800 - Designated Fo rest Land 8300 8300 -Open Space Agricultural (A) 8800 8800- Designate d Forest Land 8800 8800- Designated Forest Land 8800 8800 -Designated Forest Land 8800 8800 0 -Designated Forest Land 8800 8800 -Designated Forest Land 8800 8800 -Designated Forest Land 88008800 -Designated Forest Land 8800 8800 -Designated Forest Land 9400 9400- OpenSpace Open Space (0) 8800 8800- Designated Forest Land 8800 8800- Designated Fo rest Land 8800 8800- Designated Forest Land 9800 9800 -Garages, Outbuildings, Other Imps 91009100- Vacant Land 8800 8800- Designated Forest Land 9800 9800 -Garages, Outbuildings, Other Imps 8800 8800- Designated Forest Land 9100 9100- Vacant Land February 1, 2020 BERK Consulting, Inc Forest Parcel Screen CRITICAL SQFT_CA SOFT TOTAL Acres PERC_CA ZONECLASS ZONEDESC RdCounty RdState RdFetl RdPn-t. NonCnt_A. Tier OPG PROPERTIES LLC VES 1,24650539 25462]2.08 5845 049 CFO CF�0- Commercial Forest 1 0 0 1 2984 1 SCOTT W GOFFMAN VES ]39,12491 1,155,366.01 2652 0.64 CF O AF�0-Commercial Forest 1 0 0 0 956 1 DANIELIT MULLINS VES 2]4,]6203 50839438 11.W 054 CF -8O CF -80- Commercial Forest 1 0 0 0 536 1 SCOTTWGOFFMAN VES 560,86982 8943]052 2053 0.63 CF -80 CF-80-Co...Zal Forest 1 0 0 1 ].66 1 JACKSON E COFFMAN TRUSTEE VES 1,008,]4991 1,]21,199.1] 3951 059 CF -80 CF -80- Commercial Fo rest 1 1 0 1 1636 1 JERRY A TAYLOR VES 1,285,]42]0 1,]1225695 3931 0.]5 CF -80 CF-,O-Co...Zal Forest 1 1 0 1 9.]9 1 J L CG LLC YES 1,408,19446 4,695209.]9 10].]9 030 CF -80 CF -80 -Commercial Forest 1 0 0 0 ]546 2 APPLE GAUER YES 3,44524904 3,536,10]92 81.18 OW CF -80 CF-,O-Co...Zal Forest 1 0 0 1 2.09 2 HAMA HAMA COMPANY YES 3,921,08363 5,221,82306 119.88 0.]5 CF -80 CF -80 -Commercial Forest 1 0 1 1 29.86 2 JAM ES VEEDER YES 2,959,19]01 51]3,11511 118.]6 05] CF -80 CF -80 -Co mmeraal Forest 1 0 0 1 50.82 2 JAMES VEE ER YES 355,11]]3 3,468,8]935 ]9.63 0.10 CF -80 CF-80-Commeraal Forest 1 0 0 1 ]148 2 DABOB ASSOCIATES LLC YES 3,]942410] ],213,]8139 165.61 053 CF -80 CF -80 -Co mmeraal Forest 1 0 0 1 ]850 2 MICHAELEANDERSON YES 60],6]301 1,]5]21243 4034 035 CF -80 CF-80-Commeraal Forest 1 0 0 1 2639 2 KATHRYN B WALTON YES 132435]23 1,]63,088.12 404] 0.]5 CFO CF�0-Commercial Forest 1 0 0 0 10 0] 2 KRIS ANN MONTGOMERY YES 38],03149 5,04],640.]9 115.88 0.08 CF -8O CF -80- Co mmercial Fo rest 1 0 0 1 10699 2 THORNDVKE LLC VES 3,38],636 ]4 3,984,44552 91 4] 0.85 CFO CF�0-Commercial Forest 1 0 0 1 13 ]0 2 DABOB MEADOWS VES 2,640,]22]9 3,4]2,03892 ]9.]1 0.]6 CF -80 CF�0- Commercial Forest 1 0 0 1 1908 2 MYRTLE COREY YES 413936023 4,5]232125 1604 97 091 CF -80 CF-,O-Co...Zal Forest 1 0 0 0 994 2 BARBARA LBELTON VES 1,]59,]5698 2,938,133.06 6]45 0.60 CF -80 CF�0- Commercial Forest 1 0 1 0 2].05 2 JON ROBERT ANDERSON YES 1,48459004 3,455,48623 ]933 043 CF -80 CF-80-Co...Zal Forest 1 0 1 0 4525 2 PEN AIR LLC YES 5993 ]9 4280,01]92 9826 0.00 CF -80 CF -80- Commercial Forest 1 0 0 1 98.12 2 ROBERT L& PAMELA A SIMPSON YES 3181,]0066 5,990,]630] 053 CF -80 CF -80- Commercial Forest 1 0 0 1 6449 2 HAMAHAMA COMPANY YES 3,0182]045 6,919,89906 5387 853 158.86 044 CF -80 CF -80- Commercial Forest 1 0 0 1 8957 2 RIVER R IDGE EUTERPE ISES LLC YES 1,]86,82046 3,48],15230 80.05 051 CF -80 CF-80-Commeraal Forest 1 0 0 1 39.03 2 DANIEL BORUNDA YES 2,449,04334 3,59520080 8253 0.68 CF -80 CF-80-Commeraal Forest 1 0 0 1 2631 2 ALIT AK SOUTHWEST LLC YES 1923,]8641 3,908,61929 89.]3 049 CF -80 CF -80 -Co mmeraal Forest 1 0 0 1 45 57 2 ANN&SCOTT SPLETSTOESER YES 339436409 3,54628308 8141 096 CF -80 CF-80-Commeraal Forest 1 0 0 1 349 2 WALLACE J BOMAN TRUSTEE YES 3,0983]246 3,493,6]853 8020 089 CF -8O CF -80- Commercial Forest 1 0 0 1 907 2 JAMESWKREUTER YES 1,993,05495 6905,0649] 15852 029 CF -8O CF -80 -Commercial Forest 1 0 1 1 112]6 2 BRISADAL REAL ESTATE INC VES 1,0]265059 55859483] 12824 0.19 CFO CF�0-Commercial Forest 1 0 0 1 10301 2 1687 THORNDYKE ROAD LLC YES 1,50455500 334]238.]1 ]6.84 045 CF -8O CF -80 -Commercial Forest 1 0 0 1 4230 2 GERALD L BISHOP YES 2,95598534 4,252,08].84 9].61 0.]0 CF -80 CF-,O-Co...Zal Forest 1 0 0 0 2975 2 GERALD LBISHOP VES 384,80013 541,14124 1242 0.]1 CF -80 CF�0- Commercial Forest 1 0 0 0 359 2 ROBERTGRICHARDSON YES 26],00045 3,4]851920 ]9.86 0.08 CF -80 CF-,O-Co...Zal Forest 1 0 0 1 ]3.]3 2 KYLE BROWN YES 3,690,49694 3,958,803.09 90.88 093 CF -80 CF -80- Commercial Forest 1 0 0 0 6.16 2 ROBERT STORY YES 3,]660] 44595558 1024 0.01 CF -80 CF -80 -Commercial Forest 1 0 0 0 10.15 2 JAMES CARSTENSEN YES 30]21]09 662,89]2] 1522 046 CF -80 CF -80 -Commercial Forest 1 0 0 0 8.1] 2 WILLIAM J DENNING YES 110,13399 134532140 30.88 0.08 CF -80 CF -80- Commercial Forest 1 0 0 1 2836 2 SHARON KHUNTINGFORD VES 2924552 1,12599621 25.85 0.03 CF -80 CF�0- Commercial Forest 1 0 0 1 25.18 2 KATHLEEN VLADEFF - 1,335,6]355 30.66 - CF -80 CF-80-Co...Zal Forest 1 0 0 0 30.66 2 ROBERT D CARSTENSEN YES 15220815 1331,02842 3056 0.11 CF -8O CF -80 -Commercial Forest 1 0 0 0 2]06 2 SHARON K HUNTINGFORD - 421,188.09 9.6] - CF -80 CF-,O-Co...Zal Forest 1 0 0 0 96] 2 JOHN WNISBET VES 1,0]930306 3,466,]5].]8 79 031 CFO CF�0- Commercial Forest 1 1 0 0 5481 2 LEOPOLDFREEMAN FORESTS LLC YES 2,956,8058] 5,16420252 559 11855 05] CF -8O CF-,O-Co...Zal Forest 1 0 0 0 50 67 2 NOR T HWEST WATERSHED INSTITUTE YES 2,8]5,83048 3141524.1] ]2.12 092 CF -8O CF -80 -Commercial Forest 1 0 0 1 610 2 PHILIP STRNARD YES 92,]4562 2]1,28293 623 034 CF -80 CF -80- Commercial Forest 1 0 0 1 4.10 2 JAMES E YEAKEL YES 2,891,89021 4,8]8,]119] 112.00 059 CF -80 CF -80 -Commercial Forest 1 0 0 1 45.61 2 PANDAITL SHELLEY TRUSTEE YES 6,509,60131 9,36625640 215.02 0.]0 CF -80 CF -80- Commercial Forest 1 0 1 1 6558 2 HELEN MARION SMITH VES 240238199 3,4]9245.69 ]9.8] 0.69 CF -80 CF�0-Commercial Forest 1 0 0 0 24.]2 2 JAMES WORTHINGTON VES 3,422,63321 3,594,4]]01 8252 095 CF -80 CF�0-Commercial Forest 1 0 0 0 394 2 KAWAMOTO FARMS LLC YES 3,36332139 5,]9959391 133.14 058 CF -80 CF -80- Commercial Forest 1 0 1 0 5593 2 DONNA PALL YES 577 28 2,018,80441 4635 029 CF -80 CF -80- Commercial Forest 1 0 0 0 33.08 2 JAMES N WORTHINGTON YES 951,]353] 1,69286551 38.86 056 CF -80 CF-80-Commeraal Forest 1 0 0 0 1].01 2 KAZUKO P HOKAMA YES 1,01493933 3,422,49]25 78 567 030 CF -80 CF-80-Commeraal Forest 1 0 0 1 55 27 2 CHULJIAN PROPERTIES LLC YES 1,8295]050 3,645,04016 83.68 050 CF -8O CF -80- Commercial Forest 1 0 0 1 4108 2 RO BERTLOUINN YES 2,665,61649 3921,4053] 90.02 0.68 CF -8O CF-,O-Co...Zal Forest 1 0 0 1 2883 2 MIC HAELWMADSEN VES 1,]60,05444 3,485323.12 80.01 050 CFO CF�0- Commercial Forest 1 0 0 1 3901 2 TAYLOR FAMILYTRUST YES 1,]90,]]520 3,600,48446 82.66 050 CF -8O CF-80-Co...Zal Forest 1 0 0 1 4155 2 ONAHAMA LLC YES 884,6]005 1,]83594.10 4095 050 CF -80 CF -80 -Commercial Forest 1 1 0 0 20.64 2 ROBERT W M ITCHELL YES 40650043 1,614 92].]1 3].0] 025 CF -80 CF -80- Commercial Forest 1 1 0 0 2].]4 2 AMMETER FAMILY LTD PARTNERSHIP YES 4186,0]]19 6,902,49482 15846 0.61 CF -80 CF -80- Commercial Forest 1 0 0 1 6236 2 KENNETH BROOKS SR FAMILY LLC - 1,694,48891 3890 - CF -80 CF -80- Commercial Forest 1 0 0 1 3890 2 MATTHEW C MAHAN IRREVOCABLE TRUST - 1,]34,680]0 39.82 - CF -80 CF -80 -Commercial Fo rest 1 0 0 1 39.82 2 TERRI ZICK VES ]13,64316 1,]32,6]689 39.]8 041 CF -80 CF�0-Commercial Forest 1 0 0 1 2339 2 BRODERS FAM ILY LIM ITED PTNRSHP YES 9,]9124359 21,52599]93 494.1] 045 CF -80 CF-80-Commeraal Forest 1 0 1 0 26939 2 KATHERINE L SCHOCK YES 396955522 5,244,69839 12040 0.]6 CF -80 CF-80-Commeraal Forest 1 0 0 1 29 27 2 MARKWEST IN YES 3,31193226 3,6055090] 82.]] 092 CF -80 CF -80 C` ---Forest 1 0 1 1 6.]4 2 JONATHAN R GREELEY&RUTH E THOMPSON YES 99218624 1,]64,03094 4050 056 CF -80 CF -80 -Co mmeraal Forest 1 0 1 0 1].]2 2 ROSSDJR &DENISE HOLLOWAY VES 92],42104 1,565,44108 3594 059 CFO CF�0- Commercial Forest 1 0 1 0 1405 2 GREGORY ARESECK YES 1,20293449 2,613596.62 60.00 046 CF -8O CF-80-Co...Zal Forest 1 0 0 0 3238 2 TIMOTHY J HOUCK YES 1,811,49989 3,666,85626 84.18 049 CF -8O CF -80 -Commercial Forest 1 0 0 0 4259 2 OLELEWO ODLANDSLLC YES 218592353 4,003,192.16 9190 055 CF -8O CF -80- Commercial Forest 1 0 0 0 41]2 2 RONALD P MC DERMOTT YES 13690456 884,66838 2031 0.15 IF -20 IF-20-Inho lding Forest 1 0 0 1 1] 1] 2 STEVEN P BARNOWE-MEYER YES 62,02]25 80914124 1858 0.08 IF -20 IF-20-Inhol di n9 Forest 1 0 0 1 17 185 2 DABOBASSOCIATESLLC YES 4,65891 4395]].0] 10.09 0.01 IF -20 IF -20- Inholdi ng Forest 1 0 0 0 998 2 WORTHINGTON WOODLANDS LLC YES 231,815]3 84554925 1941 OW IF -20 IF-20-Inho)din Forest 1 0 0 1 1409 2 HE It TMORGAN YES 2],8244] 349,412.83 8.02 0.08 IF -20 IF -20 -In holding Forest 1 0 0 0 ]38 2 WALLACE HSM ITH YES 4]6,481]] 1,401,106.16 32.16 034 IF -20 IF -20- Inholdina Forest 1 0 0 0 2123 2 MARIA A ARCED - 232,42449 534 - IF -20 IF-20-Inholding Forest 1 0 0 0 534 2 BERK Consulting, Inc Forest Parcel Screen Parcels with Could Road and Minimum 2 Acres No nCUiirdl Area Sorted by Water Availability February 1, 2020 PIN STRING L.bd Use 'uo CRITICAL SQFT_CA SOFT TOTAL Acres PERC_CA ZONECLASS ZONEDESC RdCounty RdState RdF.d RdPn-t. N.bCnt_A. Tier 902253008 91009100 -Vacant Land ROSS JR& DENISE HOLLOWAY VES 624082 94,]4].18 2.18 0.0] IF -20 IF-20-InholdNg Forest 1 0 1 0 203 2 601342031 88008800- Designated Forest Land DAVIDEMADLETRSTE YES 111438621 1,]2 8341.64 39.68 0.64 RF�O RF�0-Rural Forest 1 0 0 1 1409 1 601343028 88008800- Designate d Forest Land JANE RHARTWELL YES 40],]1122 1,]44,399.11 40.05 023 RF�0 PF�0-Rural Forest 1 0 0 1 3069 1 001333012 88008800- Designated Forest Land MAJESTIC ACRES LLC YES 1,00430354 1,]146811.6] 3941 058 PFIO RF'O-Rural Forest 1 1 0 1 1636 2 5021]1001 88008800 -Designated Forest Land ELITE MINING INC YES 1,08820]34 1,69532920 3892 0.64 RF 40 PF�0-Rural Forest 1 0 0 1 1394 2 601023015 88008800 -Designated Forest Land GARY IT NTZ YES 486,60964 1,643,11].04 37972 030 PF -40 RF40-Rural Forest 1 0 0 1 2655 2 601034001 88008800- Designated Forest Land ALA NL MONTGOMERY TRTE YES 1,502,80429 1,]08,]2535 3923 0.88 PF -40 PFP0-Rural Forest 1 0 0 1 4.]3 2 601102004 88008800- Designated Forest Land WILLIAM W MONTGOMERY III YES 2,049,80290 2,49],03035 5]32 0.82 RF -40 RF�0-Rural Forest 1 0 0 1 10 27 2 601104002 88008800- Designate d Forest Land ROBERT AKAPP VES 92]668 1,]21,01200 3951 0.01 RF -40 RF40-Rural Forest 1 0 0 1 3930 2 601153009 11011101 -Residential -MH W/Land PATRICIAL&BRIAN SHUGHES - 3]256215 855 - PF -40 PF40-Rural Forest 1 0 0 1 855 2 601153011 88008800 -Designated Forest Land MICHELLE WILLIFORD VES 61],86651 1,]4],89548 40.13 035 RF -40 RF�0-Rural Forest 1 0 0 1 2594 2 601161005 88008800- Designate d Forest Land JAMES IT WISHAAR YES 130999899 1,]36,83556 39.8] 0.]5 PF -40 PF40-Rural Forest 1 0 0 1 9.80 2 601211002 88008800- Designated Forest Land STEPHEN A MILLER VES 1120,]2199 1,]45,8]904 40.08 0.64 RF�O RF�0-Rural Forest 1 0 0 1 1435 2 601284001 88008800- Desi gnat. d Forest Land M ICHAEL T GALLAGHER YES 119 24978 1,]43,66882 40.03 0.0] PF40 RF40-Rural Forest 1 0 0 1 3]29 2 601342006 8800 8800_signated Forest Land ROBERT H JACOBSON TRSTEE - 1,624,6]29] 3] 30 - PF40 PF�0-Rural Forest 1 0 0 0 3]30 2 602292004 88008800- Desi anted Forest Land HAZEL SUNDAY YES 11]4,]4604 1290,40146 29.62 091 RF40 RF40-Rural Forest 1 0 0 0 266 2 602292016 8800signated Forest Land FAY CBECK YES 121,0]828 365,653.68 839 033 RF40 PF�0-Rural Forest 1 0 0 0 561 2 6120]2001 88008800- Desi gnat. d Fo rest Land JOHN R CLUBINE YES 46256036 1546,11].]] 3549 030 PF -40 PF40-Rural Forest 1 0 0 0 2488 2 6132]1001 88008800- Designate d Forest Land KATHLEENH SMITH TRUSTEE VES 983,]3340 1,48423043 34.0] 0.66 RF�O RF�0-Rural Forest 1 0 1 0 1149 2 ]01062001 88008800- Designate d Fo rest Land DOUGLASJREEVES YES 1,01294591 1,]34582448 39.85 058 PF -40 RF40-Rural Forest 1 0 0 1 16.60 2 ]01063001 8800signated Forest Land HAMA HAMA COMPANY YES 13039591] 1,55024]02 3559 0.84 PF -40 PF�0-Rural Forest 1 0 0 0 5.65 2 ]010]2002 88008800- Desi gnat. d Forest Land WORTHINGTON WOODLANDS LLC YES 135330810 1,48021085 3398 091 RF�O RF�0-Rural Forest 1 0 0 0 291 2 ]010]3004 83008300- Op en Space Agricultural (A) ORVILLE &BARBARA FISK REV LIV TRST VES 1,61 1,992,84431 45.]5 093 RF -40 PF�0-Rural Forest 1 0 0 0 3.04 2 ]01292001 88008800- Designated Forest Land SHAM PLACEY YES 65163 1,614,651]] 1,]18,84161 3946 094 PF -40 RF40-Rural Forest 1 0 0 1 239 2 ]02022001 88008800- Designated Forest Land DAN R MILLER TRUSTEE YES 848,15958 1,]]251253 40.69 048 RF -40 PF�0-Rural Forest 1 0 0 1 2122 2 ]02104003 88008800- Designated Forest Land BE NTDBIERBAUM YES 1,443,60189 1,]63,]0045 4049 0.82 PF -40 RF40-Rural Forest 1 0 0 1 ]35 2 702 113001 88008800 -Designated Forest Land DONALD D & ELIZABETH M BIDINGER YES 2,050,]3]81 2,5439]588 5840 0.81 RF -40 PF440-Rural Forest 1 0 1 1 1132 2 ]13021003 88008800- Desi gnat. d Forest Land BR ISADAL REAL ESTATE INC YES 250,18344 1,]]224665 4069 014 PF40 RF�0-Rural Forest 1 0 0 1 3494 2 ]13021011 11001100 -Residential -Single Unit MITCHELLWREICK YES 31458883 463369.16 10.64 068 RF40 PF�0-Rural Forest 1 0 1 0 342 2 801022006 8800 8800 -Designated Forest Land THOMAS CHESTER & KAREN WOLFE YES 224,]0624 1,]]4,885.03 40.]5 0.13 RF�O RF�0-Rural Forest 1 0 0 1 3559 2 801034003 98009800 -Garages, Outbuildings, Otherlmps KIMBERLY YES 20551821 1,]8]203.60 41.03 0.11 RF40 PF�0-Rural Forest 1 0 0 0 3631 2 801044003 88008800- Designated Forest Land GARY ITJOHNSON YES 15],8]668 433,583.65 995 036 PF -40 RF40-Rural Forest 1 0 0 1 633 2 801044005 88008800- Designate d Fo rest Land JOHNWNISBET VES 55898431 2284,065.81 5243 024 PF -40 PF40-Rural Forest 1 0 0 1 39.60 2 801102001 88008800 -Designated Forest Land PETER WHANKE VES ]]]5 5]36 1,]6629025 4055 044 RF�O RF�0-Rural Forest 1 0 0 1 22.]0 2 801124005 83008300- Open Space Agncultural(A) DAVIDCPORTER YES 1,668,83815 2,]02,]2643 62.05 0.62 PF -40 PFP0-Rural Forest 1 1 0 1 23.]3 2 801131001 83008300- Open Space AgnculNral (W SHIPLEY I PORTER TRUSTEE YES 1,441,88810 1,558,166.60 35.]] 093 PF -40 RFP0-Rural Forest 1 1 0 1 2.6] 2 801294002 88008800 -Designate d Forest Land NORTHWEST WATERSHED INSTITUTE YES 803,00410 1,660,43642 38.12 048 PF -40 PFP0-Rural Forest 1 0 0 0 19.68 2 801321016 8800 8800 -Designated Forest Land NORTHWEST WATERSHED INSTITUTE VES ]36,65595 1,]49951 ]8 40.1] 042 RF�O RF�0-Rural Forest 1 0 0 1 2326 2 802141005 83008300-O pen Space Agncultural(A) J ZACHAR Y WA LAN D YES 2,]19,82556 3,026,]9106 6949 090 PF -40 RF40-Rural Forest 1 0 1 0 ].OS 2 802152003 8Designate d Forest Land HELEN MAR ION SMITH YES 1560389]] 1,]55,14286 4029 0.89 PF -40 PFP0-Rural Forest 1 0 0 0 44] 2 802153002 88008800 -Designate d Forest Land HE LENMAR ION SMITH YES 192553368 213351421 4898 090 RF -40 RF�0-Rural Forest 1 0 0 0 4.]] 2 802154003 88008800 -Designated Forest Land HELEN MARION SMITH VES 1,11],61]89 1,]8839408 41.06 0.62 RF�O RF�0-Rural Forest 1 0 0 0 1540 2 802241008 88008800- Designated Forest Land VINCENTFAMILYTRUST VES 1239,49645 1,]4223224 40.00 0]1 PF40 PF�0-Rural Forest 1 0 1 0 1154 2 802244010 88008800- Desi gnat ed Forest Land ROBERT WEIR VES 490,03402 1558392.]] 35.]8 031 PFO PF40-Rural Forest 1 0 1 0 2453 2 802341000 88008800- Designated Forest Land KELLYWASILCHEN YES 1,91]32139 231094296 53.05 0.83 RF40 PF�0-Rural Forest 1 0 0 1 904 2 821062014 88008800- Desi gnat ed Forest Land PAT ICIAL HANNAN TRUSTEE YES ]30,86922 848132.]3 194] 0.86 PF40 PF40-Rural Forest 1 1 0 1 269 2 821323001 88008800 -Designated Forest Land EVALMILLER YES 2164,63911 3250,69029 ]4.63 0.6] PF40 RF40-Rural Forest 1 1 0 1 2493 2 901222002 88008800- Designate d Forest Land BOB PETERS TRUSTEE YES 19],83091 1,62858456 3]39 0.12 PF -40 PFP0-Rural Forest 1 0 0 1 32.85 2 901223001 88008800- Designated Forest Land TRILLIUM(ALAND TRUST) YES 664,61185 1,8]2,618.63 4299 035 RF -40 PFP0-Rural Forest 1 0 0 1 27873 2 902221001 88008800- Designated Fo rest Land KAT ERINELSCHOCK YES 245,0661] 1,]03506.14 39.11 0.14 RF -40 RF�0-Rural Forest 1 0 0 1 3348 2 902233004 11001100 -Residential -Single Unit THOMAS&NAOMI HORNER VES 405,66325 2413,]8154 5541 0.1] RF�O RF�0-Rural Forest 1 0 0 0 46.10 2 902262002 8800 8800 -Designated Forest Land TRACEY CAPEN & KATHARINE LEE YES 2654231 1,859,814 70 42.]0 0.01 PF -40 PFP0-Rural Forest 1 0 0 0 42.09 2 921192004 88008800- Designated Forest Land WILLIAM DRAY YES 1,05859860 2285,6]660 524] 046 PF -40 PF40-Rural Forest 1 0 0 1 28.1] 2 BERK Consulting, Inc. Forest Parcel Screen