County to enter mediation with PLA



As you may recall, on May 7, 2015 the County sent a letter to PLA stating that PLA’s timber harvesting last year and this spring in the MPR-SFT and MPR-OSR zones within the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort (MPR) was in violation of applicable land use restrictions and proposed certain remedial measures. PLA responded by letter on May 19, arguing that the timber harvesting was not illegal and initiating the dispute resolution process set forth in the May 2000 Development Agreement between the County and PLA’s predecessor-in-interest (Pope). After certain negotiations between the County and PLA did not resolve the dispute, the County decided to retain the services of Patrick Schneider, a prominent land use attorney in Seattle, to advise the County on various legal issues.

Mr. Schneider advised the County of his opinions on those issues in late August. Last Tuesday, September 8, the county commissioners voted unanimously to proceed to the next step in the dispute resolution process, namely, mediation.  On Monday of this week, September 14, the commissioners voted unanimously to hire Mr. Schneider to represent the county in the mediation with PLA.  As we understand it, the timing for selection of a mediator and scheduling of the mediation sessions has not yet been determined.

We regard the County’s decisions to proceed to mediation with PLA and to hire Mr. Schneider for that purpose as positive developments for the County and for the Port Ludlow community. We will endeavor to keep you advised of further developments as that information becomes available.

Ad Hoc Committees on Timber Harvesting – Chairs

                 *Bill Dean (PLVC)   *Dave Jurca (SBCA)*     *Dave McDearmid (LMC)*

0473A four year old re 23

Timber Harvesting Documents Available



Port Ludlow Village Council has placed a number of valuable documents on their website presenting extensive research into both the history and legalities of the Timber Harvesting Issue.

After you read through this material, prepared by the Ad Hoc Timber Harvesting Committees, you’ll have a much better understanding of various aspects of this issue.

We encourage you to take the time to examine these documents.

Go to to check out the selection of items to choose on the main menu.

eBlast #3: July 20, 2015

This is the third eBlast detailing information relative to the harvesting of trees in the MPR. This presentation was made by Bill Dean to the Jefferson County Commissioners on July 20. It is hoped this will provide additional background and perspective on this important subject.

At the August 6th PLVC meeting representatives from the County and PLA will be available to listen to your questions and provide updated information on the issue.

Summary: Washington State’s intent for an MPR allows for urban zoning in a rural environment to utilize the natural beauty of the area and provide economic benefits for everyone.

Since 1989, Pope and PLA have demonstrated strong intent to have trees within the MPR remain as an aesthetic enhancement for the community. Now, after 25 years of recorded documents reaffirming that position, PLA has decided to perform tree harvesting.

My name is Bill Dean and I live in Port Ludlow.

Two weeks ago Washington State’s intent for the MPR legislation was outlined for you by Dave McDearmid. Briefly, an MPR allows for urban zoning in a rural environment to utilize the natural beauty of the area and provide economic benefits for everyone.

What has been the intent of the Port Ludlow developers?  Let’s take a three minute walk over the last 25 years:

In 1989 – Pope recorded covenants on all of the South Bay area of Port Ludlow that said, in part, “No removal of trees shall take place without approval of the Architectural Control Committee [of SBCA] and that all maintenance of landscaping shall be done to enhance the existing character of South Bay.”

In 1996 – seven years later, Pope recorded covenants on Woodridge Village which required that all vegetation remain in its natural condition.

In 2000 – Four years later, and after exacting legislation of the MPR, the county and Pope signed the development agreement in which “Open Space shall be nmaintained in perpetuity and serve to enhance the aesthetic quality of the MPR.”

In 2003, three years later – the new developer, PLA, recorded covenants on Olympic Terrace Village which specifies “common areas shall remain in natural condition.”

In 2007, four years after that – PLA recorded covenants for Olympic Terrace II Village which maintained the same theme that common areas shall remain in natural condition.

The developer of Port Ludlow, either Pope or PLA, have continuously demonstrated a strong intent to have the trees within the MPR remain an aesthetic enhancement for the community.

Now, in 2015,  after 25 years of saying otherwise, that same developer is now saying that all along that was not their intent and that they planned to harvest trees since it was a long standing right. This is just inconsistent with what they recorded time and time again. And it is just wrong. We ask that you Commissioners look at this history to support stopping this activity.

Thank you

eBlast #3 – June 20, 2015