Staff asks Council and Planning Board to consider revising BVCP land‑use map and to study city physical composition and height limits

City planning staff asked the City Council and Planning Board on May 22 to confirm whether the project team should study two related topics for the 2025 BVCP update: (1) revisions to how the BVCP future land‑use map is structured and presented, and (2) options to reconsider the city’s physical composition—specifically use of Area 2/Area 3 planning reserve lands and targeted analysis of the city’s height limit and other development‑intensity levers.

Staff explained the current BVCP future land‑use map uses a fine‑grained, parcel‑level approach in many locations and contains 26 distinct land‑use designations; staff asked whether a more generalized, flexible map (fewer categories, fuzzier boundaries or node‑focused geometry) could better guide future decisions and reduce confusion for applicants and the public. Staff described planned analysis tools: GIS “digital twin” modeling to estimate housing yield, greenhouse‑gas and water impacts for alternative map scenarios; case studies of other cities; and application of the city’s racial equity instrument to identify differential impacts.

On the city’s physical composition, staff said they will consider whether Area 2 (lands outside the city but eligible for annexation) or the Area‑3 planning reserve could be used more intentionally to meet valley‑wide needs and whether that analysis should examine infrastructure and service implications. Staff reminded the joint meeting that the planning‑reserve process contains a multi‑step review: a community‑needs analysis (step 2) and then, if warranted, a subcommunity/service‑area plan (step 3). Staff said the step‑2 needs analysis will proceed as part of the comp‑plan work regardless of other choices.

Staff also proposed studying the vertical dimension of the city—whether there are narrowly targeted circumstances or locations where adjustments to the city’s 55‑foot charter height limit could lead to additional housing or public benefit. Staff emphasized they were not recommending an immediate policy change; any charter change would require a public vote. Several council and planning board members raised concerns about changing the height limit. Members argued that taller buildings tend to deliver higher‑cost housing and that changing the limit would be politically sensitive; other members suggested targeted design and rooftop‑use exceptions (for example: rooftop green space, controlled rooftop amenities or design‑sensitive massing) rather than broad wholesale changes. Staff said if council and the planning board direct further study, staff will analyze a range of scenarios and present estimates of likely housing yield, infrastructure needs and equity implications.

Staff noted a practical timeline detail: the public change‑request application window for land‑use or plan changes will open in August, and staff will collect and publish those requests and bring them back to the boards in January for the next phase of consideration. The May 22 meeting produced direction to study the map and physical composition topics further rather than any immediate regulatory action.