Ruling Keeps City Out of Compliance as Affordable Housing Projects Remain Stalled

PORT TOWNSEND, WA — A Thurston County Superior Court judge on Friday denied the City of Port Townsend's request to stay, or pause, the state Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB) decision. The decision has left the City out of compliance with the Growth Management Act and thrown affordable housing projects into limbo as a February 15 deadline approaches.

The ruling, issued November 6 by Judge Anne Egeler following a perplexing hearing in Olympia, is the latest update in the legal fight initiated by Affordable Hometown Port Townsend (AHPT) and the four residents who successfully challenged the City's 2025 Comprehensive Plan update. 

The decision at issue

The GMHB issued its Final Decision and Order (FDO) on August 19, 2026. The board found the City's adoption of the Comp Plan noncompliant with the Growth Management Act largely on public participation grounds, targeting a last-minute “six-plex amendment” in R-II zoning. R-II consists mostly of single-family housing, where apartments have historically not been allowed. 

The City had asked the court to stay the FDO pending its petition for review (appeal), arguing that permitting uncertainty, delayed housing projects and potential loss of grant funding constituted irreparable harm. The City also argued the board's invalidity order was vague and swept in more than the board's own findings.

The court's ruling

The City’s request relied on a lower standard under RCW 34.05.550(2), which requires only a showing of “debatable issues” on its appeal. The City argued that the FDO invalidation was based on public process and therefore was procedural, requiring only the lower standard. Attorney Clara Park, representing the City, told the court, “We only need to show debatable issues under subsection two.” 

Judge Egeler instead applied a higher standard under RCW 34.05.550(3), as requested in AHPT's response, which governs stays where agency action is based on public health, safety and welfare. Under that higher standard, the court found the City had not shown a likelihood of success on the higher standard’s merits. While the court acknowledged “debatable issues” are presented, it said, “It has not shown that it is likely to prevail. It is debatable—I am not holding either that the city is unlikely to prevail.”

The court also found the City had not demonstrated concrete irreparable injury. On grant funding, the court characterized the City's claims as “speculative.”

During the hearing, Judge Egeler pressed the City's counsel on whether already-awarded funds could be pulled back, reflecting language used in AHPT’s response filings. Attorney Park said no, and repeated that two pending grants are under review for revocation, as explained in the declaration previously filed with the court by Interim City Manager Steve King. 

The court also faulted the City for offering what it called an “astounding” cost figure without breaking down which expenses were new compliance costs versus work already in the City's work plan. 

The City sought to address the cost concerns. In a timely response declaration filed November 4, Planning and Community Development Director Emma Bolin broke down the $1.15 million estimate of completing all of the GHMB’s remanded work. Bolin attributed $873,600 to staff time, covering tasks ranging from re-drafting the Capital Facilities and Transportation elements to re-engaging with BIPOC (Black, Indigenous and People of Color) groups that participated in the 2025 plan process and responding to expected public records requests from AHPT. The remaining $300,000 was for consultant work. 

The judge decided not to consider Bolin’s timely response filing. In her ruling, Egeler said the response filing gave “the responding party no ability to rebut that, or the court any ability to analyze that in a meaningful way.” 

On the board's invalidity order, the court rejected the City's vagueness argument, noting the City could have sought clarification from the GMHB—an avenue the board offered only if the four homeowners, AHPT and the City negotiated agreed terms. The City argued it had engaged with AHPT multiple times and never reached an agreement. While the court acknowledged the City’s legal right to appeal and seek a stay, it decided that choice did not excuse it from meeting the higher stay standard the court applied. 

The City's voluntary moratorium on the sixplex amendment was deemed insufficient to support a stay request, as it could allow other density increases (fourplexes) to proceed, and the court questioned its ability to enforce a promise by a political body that could “change its mind.” The court found that a stay could harm the lowest-income individuals by a potential “expenditure of funds that then are lost . . . for community resources to deal with displacement, if it's going to occur.” 

Bolin confirmed in filings that no multiplex permit applications have been filed since the City adopted the plan nearly a year ago. 

Real-world fallout continues

The denial means the uncertainty cataloged in earlier filings and active, ongoing displacement of residents persists. Two local affordable housing providers have halted building plans because the GMHB's FDO blocked all increased unit density and related housing elements not only in residential zone R-II, but in R-III and R-IV as well. AHPT characterized this as “inadmissible hearsay.”

Habitat for Humanity has paused its planned 11-unit Carter Commons project at 10th and Hancock streets, and warned the organization “may cease planning, and that means building in Port Townsend for a period of time.” 

Olympic Community Action Programs (OlyCAP) has halted predevelopment work on replacing the aging eight-unit Haines Street Cottages with at least 32 permanently affordable multifamily units, which would require, at minimum, four units per lot. 

City analysis suggests the ruling could prevent up to 184 affordable housing units on City-owned surplus property. Permit applicants and code enforcement cases also lack clear answers on which rules apply.

Interim City Manager King warned in the stay request filings that two pending sewer-related grant applications, totaling more than $2.3 million, had previously been short-listed — but are now “under review for possible revocation.” 

What's next

The court moved the trial-setting conference date up from January 8 to December 11. It also urged counsel to confer on dates to get the appeal heard promptly, potentially by spring. The City and respondents have been directed to submit a written order aligned with the oral ruling.

Absent a stay, the City will remain out of compliance until the judicial review hearing, which will likely take place after the GMHB February 15 deadline. 

Within hours of the hearing, AHPT sent a press release highlighting the denied stay request and said it hopes the City will “work with us to remove any perceived obstacles affordable housing providers may be facing.” Previous negotiation attempts can be viewed here and here. 

Why we are covering this story

Housing density will directly impact residents in Port Townsend and Jefferson County for generations. The housing shortage is contributing to the closure of local businesses, as employers face chronic staff shortages and families leave the area. Explaining the nuances to the community matters, as they may otherwise be misinformed about this legal process. 

How we are covering this story

By attending City meetings, community meetings and court hearings related to the GMA appeal since November 2025, and reviewing public records and submitted documents at cityofpt.us.