Scott Bongiukian of MAKERS and colleagues updated the Kennewick City Council on the periodic comprehensive-plan update Tuesday, saying the project is about halfway complete and that a land-capacity analysis shows overall capacity for population and commercial/industrial growth but a notable shortfall in housing affordable to lower-income households.

"There’s plenty of overall capacity in Kennewick, particularly for low to moderate density housing. However, there is a deficit in the capacity for higher density housing that typically serves lower income households," Scott Bongiukian said, presenting the analysis that the consultant team prepared with city staff.

The consultant team described the land-capacity analysis as a parcel-level technical tool used to compare a 20-year growth target to the actual capacity of land within city limits. Jesse Hartman of the Burke team said the team has done parcel-level analysis and is assembling maps to show where capacity exists and where rezones or density changes would be required to add more units.

Consultants and staff told council members the analysis finds a deficit of about 1,800 units affordable to households earning less than 80% of area median income (AMI). Jesse Hartman also posted figures in the meeting chat indicating the U.S. Census 2023 AMI for Kennewick was about $73,000 and that 80% of that figure is roughly $58,000; later in the presentation the consultants referenced HUD median family income figures nearer to $105,000 for a four-person household in the 2024–25 period. Staff and consultants emphasized those different numbers come from different data sources (ACS vs. HUD) and household-size assumptions.

Council members pressed for geographic detail and implementation options. Hartman said the capacity work is parcel-based and that maps identifying which parcels count as vacant or underdeveloped are being drafted; the team uses standards such as improvement-to-land-value ratios to identify likely redevelopment parcels. The consultants said strategies to address the affordability deficit include rezone actions, higher density limits, and incentives to encourage middle housing and accessory dwelling units (ADUs).

On ADUs and middle housing assumptions, Scott Bongiukian and Jesse Hartman said the team accounted for ADUs at an assumed capture rate of 4% (the consultants said they used 4% in their calculations) and for middle housing by assuming roughly 10% uptake of additional units where allowed, producing an estimated additional capacity of just over 500 affordable middle-housing units and roughly 280 ADUs under the modeling assumptions. Council members questioned whether those uptake assumptions reflect local practice; consultants said the estimates are informed by state guidance and professional judgment and acknowledged uncertainty.

Councilors also examined affordability thresholds and housing costs. At one point in the presentation, a consultant summarized that single-family median prices last summer were about $430,000 and that household incomes near the HUD median-family-income figure would be required to afford such homes under conventional financing assumptions. Council members noted financing for ADUs, developer interest in vertical mixed-use projects, and the need for more targeted outreach to lower-income and younger residents—the team reported the online visioning survey collected about 800 entries and skewed toward higher incomes and older age groups.

Consultants presented highlights from stakeholder interviews and the public visioning survey, noting widespread support for park and riverfront access, more shade and sidewalks, improved walking and biking connections, and concerns about public safety, health-care access and cost of living. The team said it will continue housing analyses, work with the housing task force, and deliver a first draft plan in late winter/early spring with a public workshop to follow.

Council members gave informal feedback on three draft vision-statement alternatives the consultants presented; the council did not take a formal vote but suggested the vision should be forward-looking and reflect the city as a family-friendly place with improved downtown and infrastructure. Staff said the draft materials will return to council for further discussion during the drafting phase.

The presentation closed with staff and consultants planning to provide parcel maps, additional outreach to underrepresented groups and continued technical work on housing actions and the implementing development regulations.