The city of Bend will soon get into the nitty-gritty of planning where exactly to expand its urban growth boundary.

This Tuesday, city staff, consultants and volunteer technical advisers will gather to go over three expansion scenarios before a summer of in-depth research and modeling. The three scenarios are based on work the volunteers completed in April, when small teams discussed and debated how to draft maps of an expanded Bend. After the meeting Tuesday, the scenarios will be passed on for final approval to a steering committee composed of the Bend City Council, two planning commissioners and Deschutes County Commissioner Tony DeBone.

Where the boundary is moved matters because parcels brought inside the line could become shopping centers, new subdivisions or industrial parks. The state, however, heavily restricts development beyond the line. In order for the state to approve an expansion, the city must prove it has a need for new land and the expansion will make the most of the city’s available infrastructure without harming agricultural areas.

A request in 2010 to expand the boundary to accommodate projected growth through 2028 was rejected, in large part because the city was asking for land the state said it didn’t need. This time around, the city has redoubled its efforts on infill development and, as a result, is planning for a smaller expansion to accommodate the same amount of projected growth.

Brian Rankin, a city planner in charge of the boundary process, said he was surprised by the similarity of the three different scenarios, which were based on the results of the workshop.

“The geographies are not radically different, though there are different emphases on how land is used,” Rankin said.

All three scenarios suggest growing in every direction and focus on eight distinct areas, including the triangle of land formed by U.S Highways 97 and 20 at the city’s northern end, the area west of NorthWest Crossing and a pocket on the city’s southwest corner.

The consensus, Rankin suggested, was a result of how the workshop functioned. Instead of volunteers with similar interests teaming up, such as those in the environmental community or a table of developers, each group had a mix of people.

“I expected more birds of a feather to find each other, but that’s not what happened, and we didn’t try to make it go either way,” Rankin said. “I like to think the similarity reflects a degree of wisdom, common sense and compromise.”

What’s different among the proposals is which land is dedicated to housing, economic activities or a mixture of the two. The impacts of these differences, Rankin said, will be studied this summer by the consultants. For example, will having a lot of new homes on the city’s east side overwhelm the traffic or sewer system? If you add a new shopping center to the east, could it cut down on traffic?

“We also have to look at how people and places within the current UGB will be impacted,” Rankin said. “My experience is there are often things that become trade-offs, and we have to look for the best mix.”

The scenarios will be tested over the summer, and Rankin said the city hopes to decide on a preferred scenario by October. The whole process is intended to be finished and ready for the state in 2016.

On Tuesday, however, Rankin anticipates property owners may lobby to have their properties considered for inclusion, something Rankin said can help “in case we missed anything.”

“We don’t have a huge amount of land need to go around, and there’s definitely a speculative value to being brought into the city,” Rankin said. “We want to make sure the door is open, as this process isn’t closed to anyone.”

— Reporter: 541-633-2160, tleeds@bendbulletin.com