At a meeting Thursday afternoon, the body in charge of Bend’s urban growth boundary expansion resisted clustering new industrial sites and urged the city’s consultants and advisers to avoid any delays.

The process is overseen by a steering committee composed of the Bend City Council, two planning commissioners and Deschutes County Commissioner Tony DeBone. The expansion of the boundary, beyond which the state restricts development, is intended to accommodate the city’s growth through 2028.

At Thursday’s meeting, the steering committee considered for approval the work of an appointed advisory committee, which has been developing three different growth scenarios that map out where and how the city should grow.

Over the summer, consultants hired by the city will test how these scenarios impact traffic, sewers and drinking water, among other factors. A final growth scenario will be settled on based on that information.

At a meeting on Wednesday, the advisory committee had supported moving all large industrial areas to the city-owned Juniper Ridge property in northeast Bend.

The thinking behind the move was that large industrial sites are hard to sell and develop, and no single property owner should be burdened with such a designation.

Because of the difficulty of finding a developer, such a designation is considered less profitable than a residential or commercial designation.

“Moving all these large lot industrial sites to Juniper Ridge is a bad idea; it’s like putting all our eggs in one basket,” said Mayor Jim Clinton. “And what kind of basket is it? It’s a pile of rocks.”

Councilor Victor Chudowsky agreed, saying, “I don’t think the city should be the sole owner of these large parcels.” He added that spreading them out will possibly make them more attractive, as buyers may want options about where to place a business.

In the end, the steering committee voted to model the placement of industrial properties at a number of sites across the city, instead of grouping them all at Juniper Ridge.

The steering committee also approved the modeling of land not included in any of the three scenarios, a move the advisers had requested but which may add more time and costs to the process.

The supplemental land is intended to give the advisers flexibility if there are major problems with one scenario.

To explain the rationale behind this move, Senior Planner Brian Rankin noted that the modeling may reveal a scenario that pushes a sewer line beyond where it can operate. Having more land to work with could allow one property to be swapped for another in order to relieve the sewer line. However, he also noted having more information may require more time to digest.

Rankin said each additional month would cost between $80,000 and $100,000, based on expenses to date. The advisers stated they hope to be able to work within the current time frame and not add an additional month, but Rankin said more time may be needed if the results are complex.

“The results from the analysis could be straightforward and clear, in which case this would go relatively smoothly,” he said. “Or it could be a lot more info that isn’t all that helpful in making a tough decision.”

The steering committee voted to include the supplemental lands in the modeling, but cautioned the group to work efficiently, with Chudowsky saying, “Extending by two or three months is frightening.”

A proposal by a single adviser to create a model of growth only on the city’s east side was also struck down, with Councilor Doug Knight saying he wanted to fight the misunderstanding that wildfire risk only exists to the west of the city.

Councilor Casey Roats agreed, saying the decision to vote down the proposal will help to fight the perception that “we just dump things on the east side.”

The results of the modeling are scheduled to be finalized by the fall.

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