Group rejects Port Townsend’s counteroffer on comprehensive plan

Published 4:30 pm Monday, May 11, 2026

PORT TOWNSEND — Affordable Hometown Port Townsend has rejected the city of Port Townsend’s settlement counteroffer, which, if accepted, could have ended an appeal of the city’s recently passed comprehensive plan.

“If the City cannot agree to a moratorium on the massive 2025 upzone in R-II while the (Growth Management Act mandated) issues are being resolved and the impacts of such an upzone are being adequately addressed through an enhanced public process that considers needed changes to the Comp Plan, we do not see any basis to negotiate further,” Affordable Hometown Port Townsend’s letter said. “Once permits are approved for larger structures without affordability requirements, affordable housing stock will be diminished, and residents will be displaced by teardowns and rising property taxes from skyrocketing land value due to density driven investments.”

“City staff is reviewing AHPT’s response and counteroffer and will recommend an executive session with City Council on May 18, 2026 to review the response and counteroffer with Council,” wrote Shelly Leavens, the city’s communications and marketing director.

Sent Monday, Affordable Hometown Port Townsend’s (AHPT) counteroffer would see the group stay an appeal if the city agrees to put a moratorium on increased density allowed in R-II zones by the comp plan, along with other requirements.

Beyond the pause on development, AHPT requested that the city remove six specific provisions from the code adopted in December. Those include reinstating 10-foot side yard setbacks, reducing maximum lot coverage for multifamily units from 65 percent to 50 percent, and replacing the maximum number of dwelling units per structure — currently no limit — with a maximum of six units per structure.

The group also proposed that neighbors receive formal notice and an opportunity to comment on the infrastructure impacts of new five- and six-unit projects before permits are issued.

AHPT filed an appeal of the 2025 comprehensive plan update in February before it sent a settlement offer. After AHPT sent an initial settlement offer in March, the city sent a letter rejecting it in April. The counteroffer included a rejection of a request for a moratorium.

“The Port Townsend Municipal Code has allowed sixplexes since 2023 by permitting conversions of existing homes into fourplexes with two attached Accessory Dwelling Units,” the city’s rejection letter said. “Enacting a moratorium would reverse these longstanding, appeal-protected allowances. It would also prevent previously nonconforming structures from becoming compliant, undermining housing goals and fire, life and safety improvements.”

AHPT specified what it would like to see happen during a moratorium, were the city to agree to the letter’s terms. Under the group’s proposal, the city would commit to conducting a new land capacity analysis and a housing element study that would categorize housing targets by income bands rather than housing types.

“Crucially, Comp Plan amendments, as passed, failed to provide housing targets by income band, as mandated by the Growth Management Act,” AHPT’s letter said.

The city’s April counteroffer included a willingness to potentially perform revisions to the its land capacity analysis, which could include revised income banding, as well as potentially performing studies on inclusionary zoning and landlord tenant protections.

AHPT’s proposal seeks to have the city use the moratorium to assess the racially disparate impacts of past and future housing policies. Finally, the group would like the moratorium to allow for an infrastructure assessment to ensure public facilities like water, sewer and roads can support increased density without decreasing the level of service for current residents.

“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,” Public Works Director Steve King said in April. “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.

“AHPT is fully aware of our local housing crisis,” AHPT’s letter said. “We are not against increased density so long as it is part of meeting (Growth Management Act) required affordable housing targets, and so long as it is in done in a thoughtful manner that actually provides for more affordability, and addresses impacts from density increases.”

________

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