Port Townsend City Council rejects offer to settle an appeal

Published 1:30 am Wednesday, April 8, 2026

PORT TOWNSEND — The Port Townsend City Council has rejected an offer to settle an appeal on the comprehensive plan update and instead authorized city staff to draft a counteroffer to Affordable Hometown Port Townsend.

The vote to reject the settlement proposal came Monday night after Affordable Hometown Port Townsend filed an appeal of the plan on Feb. 20. The settlement was proposed last month.

“Many of the different elements in the settlement offer would set us back with two to three years of process and stop us from getting material action on affordable housing in this community,” council member David Faber said.

The counteroffer would seek to meet the petitioners by potentially pursuing a new land capacity analysis with revised income banding, potentially pursuing an inclusionary zoning study to identify funding for affordable units, and potentially pursuing a landlord-tenant protection study to address displacement.

Moving forward with a settlement agreement would allow for parts of the process required to go before the council to retain public comment. If the hearing goes before the state Growth Management Hearing Board (GMHB), the public may watch the proceedings but will not have a chance to comment.

“We filed this petition because the public showed overwhelming support for affordable housing measures and gentrification protections in the Port Townsend comprehensive plan, but the city council chose to pass a plan lacking meaningful measures and protections,” Affordable Hometown Port Townsend’s (AHPT) settlement proposal said.

The plan fails to demonstrate how its simple supply-side housing development approach will work, or has worked elsewhere, to bring affordable housing to those most in need, the AHPT letter said.

The letter, which was addressed to Mayor Amy Howard, included an offer to stay the appeal if the city agreed to implement a policy requiring new sixplexes to require that one unit be affordable, with affordability requirements increasing for developments with more than six units. The proposal requested that the city restore daylight plane height protections to prevent oversized buildings, and establish formal anti-harassment and eviction protections for tenants.

It also demanded a six-month moratorium on zoning changes adopted in December and an environmental impact statement.

The city stated in a news release Tuesday that it would not agree to the moratorium and the new environmental impact statement.

The appeal filed in February asserted that the city’s comprehensive plan violates and fails to meet the state Growth Management Act (GMA) by failing to show adequate land capacity and financial planning for low-income housing. The plan lacks specific measures to ensure that increased density includes increased affordable housing, the appeal said.

The plan lacks an anti-displacement policy, protecting the community from the effects of gentrification, the appeal added.

Claims found in the appeal also included that the plan lacks sufficient planning around the increased infrastructure needs that would be present with increased population density and that the process of the comprehensive plan update lacked sufficient public engagement.

In a news conference Tuesday, city staff addressed some core concerns around infrastructure and transportation outlined in the appeal.

“On the infrastructure side, it’s a good question that they raise,” Public Works Director Steve King said. “In staff’s opinion, there’s not a need to shift the city’s current infrastructure planning, because we are still planning for the same number of people and growth. The density provision allowance that was made in the comp plan actually helps us achieve efficient infrastructure.”

The system is distributed quite well as it is, King said.

“That’s why we need the infill so badly,” he added.

The city’s historical pattern of sprawl has been a challenge for infrastructure, as laying and maintaining utilities over longer distances is more costly.

The city is continuously updating its infrastructure plans, King said, whether that’s with water, stormwater or sewer plans.

“Streets are almost annually,” he said.

King said city arterial streets have seen decreased traffic since 2005, while state Highway 20 has seen increased traffic.

“That’s an anti-GMA outcome,” he said. “By encouraging density, infill and affordable housing, we actually reconcile some of the transportation infrastructure problems which are putting pressure on the state highway system, and, of course, the negative effects of greenhouse gasses.”

While the city maintained a full schedule of public outreach starting in 2023 and persisting through 2025, including meetings and outreach events focused on density and infill, many who spoke in opposition to the plan late last year seemed to be taken off guard.

The city provided a news release in February, following the submission of the appeal, noting that, unless the conclusion to do otherwise was given by the GMHB, it would continue to operate under the newly adopted plan.

In Tuesday’s update, the city maintained that the comprehensive plan and implementing development regulations remain in effect during this process.

________

Reporter Elijah Sussman can be reached by email at elijah.sussman@peninsuladailynews.com.