> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.jeffcobeacon.com/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # The Fight Over Process, Density and Port Townsend’s Future Continues - URL: https://www.jeffcobeacon.com/the-fight-over-process-density-and-port-townsends-future-continues/ - Published: 2026-09-16T02:02:12.000Z - Updated: 2026-09-16T15:21:07.000Z - Description: As PT City Council sets course to comply with the GMHB decision, community members voice concerns for public process. - Author: Rachael Nutting - Tags: local-news, Port Townsend City Council, Comprehensive Plan, Comp Plan, AHPT, GMHB, R-II zoning, vacancy, Housing affordability, Housing Shortage, Rachael Nutting PORT TOWNSEND, WA — The legal challenge to Port Townsend’s Comprehensive Plan has highlighted deep divisions over how—and for whom—the city should grow. At the center of the dispute is Affordable Hometown Port Townsend (AHPT). AHPT, [a non-profit formed by four homeowners to file a legal challenge to residential zoning changes](https://www.jeffcobeacon.com/petition-threatens-to-stall-port-townsends-housing-progress-though-plan-remains-in-effect-for-now/) in the city’s comprehensive plan, successfully argued that the city violated its own rules around public process. But critics contend the group is using procedural technicalities to block much-needed housing, and that its name obscures a more parochial agenda. In response to the Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB) ruling on AHPT’s legal challenge to the City’s comprehensive plan, at its August 24, 2026 meeting the City Council voted for three things: to put a moratorium on permit applications for 6-plexes, [to petition for judicial review of the (GMHB) decision](https://cityofpt.us/sites/default/files/fileattachments/administration/page/23168/august%5F29%5Fcity%5Fpetition%5Ffor%5Fjudicial%5Freview%5Ffinal%5Ffiled.pdf?ref=jeffcobeacon.com) and to [request a stay](https://cityofpt.us/sites/default/files/fileattachments/administration/page/23168/august%5F31%5Fcity%5Fmotion%5Ffor%5Fstay.pdf?ref=jeffcobeacon.com) to preserve eligibility of state grant funding. AHPT’s attorney, Bryan Telegin, sent a [letter](https://cityofpt.us/sites/default/files/fileattachments/administration/page/23168/2026%5F08%5F26%5Fltr%5Ftelegin%5Flaw%5Fto%5Fcity%5Fof%5Fport%5Ftownsend%5Fre%5Fgmhb%5Fno%5F26%5F2%5F0017.pdf?ref=jeffcobeacon.com) on August 24 asking the City not to appeal the GMHB decision, though it acknowledged that the decision threatened the City's access to state grant funding. Telegin’s letter said, “We would even agree to a stay—and join the City in requesting a stay from the GMHB—if the City would (a) agree to a moratorium more in line with the GMHB’s decision and (b) commit to engaging in settlement discussions with respect to my Client’s claims (the specifics of both to be determined later).” The implications of Telegin’s letter, sent by AHPT to both the press and public platforms, alarmed many residents. AHPT’s demand for a “moratorium more in line with the GMHB’s decision,” a decision which invalidated ***all*** density increases in R-II zoning, seemed to oppose the 4-plex density increase that had gone through the full public planning process. AHPT’s request for closed-door settlement discussions also raised public concerns about AHPT attempting to bypass an open public process going forward. **What the City said** City Attorney Austin Watkins, in an[ August 31 response letter](https://cityofpt.us/sites/default/files/fileattachments/administration/page/23168/august%5F31%5Fcity%5Fletter%5Fto%5Ftelegin%5Flaw%5Frev1.pdf?ref=jeffcobeacon.com) to AHPT’s attorney, argued that the GMHB had overstepped its authority by invalidating zoning changes beyond the 6-plex “late amendment” itself. “Put simply, it is the City’s position that the Board exceeded its statutory authority in invalidating any portion of Ordinance 3361, other than the 6-plex amendment,” Watkins wrote. He noted the City had previously offered twice to negotiate with AHPT—on March 12 and April 10, 2026—and had received no response. Watkins also noted the city had already enacted a one-year moratorium on 5- and 6-plex applications, which he said should address the board’s concerns. He also noted that the GMHB “cannot issue a stay of the FDO (Final Decision Order) without a judicial appeal of the FDO.” While AHPT has repeatedly made public statements claiming the city could request a stay without going to court, GMHB’s rules in [WAC 242-03-860](https://app.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=242-03-860&ref=jeffcobeacon.com) require that “An appeal is pending in court” as the first of four conditions that ***all*** must be true to request a stay. At the September 8 council meeting, Mayor Amy Howard framed the city’s Petition for Judicial Review of the GHMB decisions as a request for clarity from a judge, rather than an act of hostility. “Other cities are waiting on the results of our appeal,” Howard said. “It’s not just for Port Townsend; it is for the state. And so, asking a court to clarify the answers is the avenue that is available to the city. It sounds litigious and angry, but it is actually just asking the court for help.” **Divided community voices** The September 8 City Council meeting laid bare a community sharply divided over how the City should respond to the GMHB ruling. Public testimony that evening highlighted competing visions for Port Townsend’s future, with speakers offering starkly different perspectives on density, affordability and the path forward. A group of marine volunteers joined the meeting after preparing for the Wooden Boat Festival down the street from City Hall. After following the GMHB debates on social media, they decided to testify about their personal housing difficulties before the council. Rowan Deluna, a marine volunteer who arrived at the city meeting from a Wooden Boat Festival training, offered her perspective. “I had the unfortunate experience of being a person who was left without housing. I was a single mother. I had children in high school. I was living in a tent. I have a college degree. I had a job that required a college degree. I worked full time. I could not find affordable housing until someone helped me out.” Deluna urged the council to move forward with the appeal. USCG veteran Elijah Johnston, who grew up in Port Townsend but can no longer afford to live here, directly addressed the council’s appeal decision. “I absolutely support you as you go forward in your appeal to the growth management board,” Johnston said. “I wish you could be steadfast despite the threats of the geriatric NIMBYs who stand against you.” Johnston continued: “I advocate that the process going forward should be public and transparent, and that the public should be able to weigh in on it.” Teacher Emily Gohn, who described being born and raised in Port Townsend, invoked Maslow’s hierarchy of needs to reframe the debate. “A lot of the loudest voices in this conversation are operating between yellow, green and blue,” Gohn said, referring to the higher levels of the hierarchy—esteem and self actualization rather than basic needs like food and shelter. In contrast, Gohn noted that “We have children in our community that are growing up in cars. We have small business people who are having to close their doors. We have first responders who are sleeping on couches and having to commute an hour to get here to help us. And those needs have to take priority.” Cameron Jones, co-director of Well Organized Jefferson County, said, “AHPT and other petitioners absolutely do not represent the full range of community perspectives,” referencing extensive community outreach work Well Organized had conducted with historically marginalized groups. “I’m asking that these discussions not determine the direction, density, expanded moratorium or other substantive changes to the Comprehensive Plan before the broader public is involved.” OlyCAP Housing Project Manager Peggy Webster submitted a public comment regarding OlyCAP’s Haines Street property, and how the GMHB decision has stalled those affordable housing efforts. “We have 8 units of emergency housing on Haines Street. They were built in 1941 and are zoned R2, or 8 units for every 40,000 sq. ft. Our vision is demolition and new construction of permanent housing units—the Comprehensive Plan proposal of 32 or 48 units per 40,000 Sq. Ft. makes the project financially feasible. Funding can be sought for this size of a project.” Webster further explained that OlyCAP had been “ . . . about to embark on pre-development tasks and had started conversations with a development partner. Those activities have stopped given the uncertainty over zoning. We urge a quick resolution that allows increased density to make a project like this feasible.” The testimony was not all in support of the city’s approach. Multiple AHPT supporters urged the council to drop the appeal and negotiate with AHPT. Mary McCurdy, one of the individual petitioners in the AHPT challenge, told the council about her conversations with the state Department of Commerce. “In December 2025, I called Commerce about questions I had about the massive density upzone,” McCurdy said. “Commerce told me to look at the low-income banding in Port Townsend’s comp plan because of a ruling by the Growth Management Hearings Board in a Mercer Island case.” She continued, “I spoke with a person who has served the city for many years, who said the only way it will be resolved is if the issue were elevated to the Growth Management Hearings Board.” John Watts, president of AHPT and the former city attorney, pushed back against what he described as a “my way or the highway” approach. “I do not use social media, but others have sent me postings,” Watts said. “Here’s one referring to Affordable Hometown Port Townsend: ‘I do think their very mission is rotten to the core.’” He added that name-calling was not effective leadership, and that “AHPT remains willing to discuss a practical path forward.” Council member David Faber acknowledged he had made “intemperate” comments on social media but stood by the substance of his concerns. “I was angry. I’m still angry. I’m still processing the growth board’s decision,” Faber said. “The more we keep on saying ‘no, we’re not going to do it that way, no, we’re not going to do it that way’, the more explosive the reaction is going to be.” Faber cited the loss of 50% of the city’s rental housing stock in the last decade. “We need to substantially reverse course. We need to really focus on what is going to deliver for the people in this community that we need to live here.” Councilmember Libby Wennstrom read aloud from an email she had received that she found deeply offensive: “‘How much are people who can afford to live here expected to sacrifice, so that others who can’t afford to live here and refuse to move to a place they can afford get to live in Port Townsend?’” Wennstrom paused, then continued: “When I’m talking to people who were born here, who grew up here, whose grandparents were born here, being told that they should move if they can’t afford to live here . . . think about what your words mean to somebody who is your physical therapist or your nurse or your kid’s teacher.” **The City’s plan to address the GMHB ruling** The September 8 City Council Meeting clarified the City’s structured approach to the Growth Management Hearings Board ruling, [outlining a two-track strategy while making clear that the appeal would proceed](https://cityofpt.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view%5Fid=4&clip%5Fid=3909&meta%5Fid=260680&ref=jeffcobeacon.com). The council authorized Interim Manager Steve King to have a narrow discussion with AHPT, limiting negotiations to the specific, immediate goal of jointly seeking a stay with the GMHB. Councilmember Wennstrom clarified during discussion that the motion was a “specific authorization” and “not a broad ‘we’re going to go into a settlement discussion behind closed doors’”. The purpose, she said, was “so that we are able to continue to apply for state grant funding.” King echoed this interpretation, telling the council: “The direction I got was to find common ground, and I understand that the number one purpose is to ensure that this is a public engagement process for the whole community and not any special groups, but simply to find common ground.” ![Interim City Manager Steve King and AHPT President John Watts outside of the Port Townsend Rec Center.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/c6/a2/c6a241c6-69f5-450c-9fd7-6b170730e448/content/images/2026/09/data-src-image-d7c7333e-6731-4f50-a34a-3cfbeecafab3.jpeg) **Interim City Manager Steve King and AHPT President John Watts met outside of the Port Townsend Rec Center on September 10, two days after City Council authorized King to discuss with Watts. Photo taken from the Pride sidewalk painting by Rachael Nutting* **AHPT’s response and joint stay** Despite asking the City to meet to discuss a joint stay, on September 10, [AHPT filed a response](https://cityofpt.us/sites/default/files/fileattachments/administration/page/23168/2026%5F09%5F10%5Fpetitioners%5Fresponse%5Fto%5Fmotion%5Ffor%5Fstay.pdf?ref=jeffcobeacon.com) to the City’s August 31 stay request to the GMHB—a request that reflects community fears about AHPTs motives. The response outlined conditions AHPT wants attached to any stay, demanding that the City adopt a "global compliance plan" including housing, transportation, capital facilities, racial disparities and displacement—not just the procedural issue involving the 6-plex amendment that the GMHB identified. AHPT also wants status reports every two weeks, to be notified of any permits applied for 4-plexes and reserves the right to file motions to dissolve the stay if AHPT believes the City is not making adequate progress. This means that AHPT would be able to remove the City’s [access to grant funding](https://www.jeffcobeacon.com/how-pending-legal-matters-could-reshape-port-townsends-street-funding/), i.e. infrastructure funds for road maintenance, until the City finishes the rework process to be compliant with the GMA. The same day AHPT filed its response, AHPT president John Watts met with Interim City Manager Steve King, and the next day both parties [filed a joint motion](https://cityofpt.us/sites/default/files/fileattachments/administration/page/23168/joint%5Fmotion%5Fto%5Fdefer%5Fruling%5Fon%5Fmotion%5Ffor%5Fstay.pdf?ref=jeffcobeacon.com) by asking the Growth Management Hearings Board to defer ruling on the City's stay request until September 30. This joint motion suggests the two sides are now negotiating those conditions. At this time, the city has not agreed to AHPTs conditions and the joint motion noted that “if the Parties fail to file a proposed joint stay or other status report on or before September 30, 2026, \[the GMHB should\] proceed with ruling on the City’s motion.” The City's petition for judicial review in Thurston County Superior Court remains pending and has not been withdrawn. The full scope of the public participation process and the resolutions to the comprehensive plan housing, transportation and capital facilities elements remain to be determined in the coming months. City Council can be contacted at citycouncil@cityofpt.us Public comments can be submitted [here](https://publiccomment.fillout.com/cityofpt?ref=jeffcobeacon.com). --- ***Why we are covering this story:*** Housing density directly impacts residents in Port Townsend and Jefferson County for generations. Lack of housing is contributing to many local businesses closing, as employers are facing chronic staff shortages and families leaving the area. ***How we are covering this story:*** By attending both city and community meetings related to the GMA appeal and reviewing public records and submitted documents.