Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Wenatchee staff: plan must provide capacity for 8,200 new residents and $1B in affordable housing investment
Summary
City staff told the Wenatchee City Council the comprehensive-plan periodic update forecasts about 8,200 new residents and roughly 4,500 new dwelling units inside the urban growth boundary by 2046, and that meeting affordable-housing needs for lowest-income households will require major policy changes and roughly $1 billion in investment.
Community development staff told the Wenatchee City Council that the city's 20-year comprehensive-plan update projects roughly 8,200 new residents and about 4,500 new dwelling units inside the urban growth boundary through 2046. "So it's about a 20% increase of where we are today, into to 2046," staff said.
The presentation used the state's "Housing for All" analytical tool to divide projected housing needs by income bands. Staff said the city currently shows a surplus of units for households at 80–120% of area median income (AMI) and for emergency housing beds, but deficits elsewhere. "We're planning for about 3,340 housing units for individuals and households in our community that will earn less than 80% of the area median income," staff said.
To illustrate the scale, staff extrapolated costs at a construction rate of about $300,000 per dwelling unit and said that sum amounts to "over $1,000,000,000" to meet the identified lower‑income housing need during the plan horizon. Council members repeatedly pressed the ratio of jobs to residents in the forecast; staff said demographic shifts (fewer school‑age children, more single‑occupant households and young professionals) drive part of the projection and that larger development projects coming online will raise unit counts in the short term.
Why it matters: The forecast drives the plan's recommended zoning, infrastructure investments and developer requirements. Staff framed the update as a statutory periodic review under the state's Growth Management Act and said it must show adequate land capacity without expanding the urban growth boundary.
What staff proposed: As possible policy tools to close gaps, staff presented several options for council feedback, including expanding fee exemptions for deeply affordable projects (for example, waiving building permit review fees for projects that commit to very low AMI targets), using surplus city land for affordable-housing RFPs, adjusting density limits in residential-high zones, and testing minimum density floors on large undeveloped parcels.
Council reaction: Several councilors expressed concern about removing maximum density caps entirely, citing parking spillover and neighborhood character. One councilor said increasing — rather than eliminating — the cap might be a more pragmatic compromise. Staff warned that taller, higher‑density buildings can trigger different and more costly construction types under the building code, which affects feasibility.
Next steps: Staff will publish draft elements and a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) in May, hold an open house, and return to council with detailed alternatives this summer and fall for formal direction.
